Catholic Democrats

This Is Part of What We're Up Against

2009-11-16T13:18:00.002-05:00

From the NYT: Drug Makers Raising Prices Before Reform

Even as drug makers promise to support Washington’s health care overhaul by shaving $8 billion a year off the nation’s drug costs after the legislation takes effect, the industry has been raising its prices at the fastest rate in years.

In the last year, the industry has raised the wholesale prices of brand-name prescription drugs by about 9 percent, according to industry analysts. That will add more than $10 billion to the nation’s drug bill, which is on track to exceed $300 billion this year. By at least one analysis, it is the highest annual rate of inflation for drug prices since 1992.

So the trick seems to be this: promise $80 billion in cuts over 10 years, then raise prices before the legislation takes effect. That way the whole first year "savings" is really just getting us back to where we started. A retailer I used to work for had a similar practice. They'd raise prices right before a sale so that the "sale" prices we'd mark with colorful stickers were the regular prices of just a few days before.

It's weasely with consumer goods -- and borderline immoral for pharmaceuticals.

Yes, companies are allowed to make profits. But considering that the Consumer Price Index has decreaed by 1.3% in the past year AND similar drug price increases were seen just before Medicare added drug benefits a few years ago, I'd say it's highly likely we're dealing with weasels here.

The Church's All or Nothing Stance Against Healthcare Reform

2009-11-12T08:00:00.003-05:00

My interest was piqued this past Sunday when the lector at mass pointed out that we should pay special attention to the insert in this week's bulletin about healthcare from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). In years past I've liked these guys because they've compiled some very helpful statistics about Congressional voting records on issues of social justice that are so important to the Church (and me), but I was a bit weary about this insert given the Church's recent inaction during the current healthcare debate.

Specifically, I wondered how many paragraphs it would take for them to mention abortion. As it turns out, the answer was zero -- they mentioned it in the title!

The Church places great importance on the availability of healthcare to all, regardless of their citizenship* or ability to pay. For these reasons they should be a champion of the reform efforts underway. Even if they don't want to become bogged down by the details and support any specific plan, I would think this would be a prime opportunity for the USCCB -- and the Church as a whole -- to make their social justice teachings widely known and promote the reform movement's work towards providing universal (or near-universal) healthcare.

Instead, the Church has been a huge disappointment, choosing not to help the reform process along but threatening to derail it.

Rather than seizing this opportunity to educate the public on its long-time beliefs on this issue, the USCCB -- and the Church as a whole -- has chosen to follow months of silence (really -- where was the Church back in August when townhall meetings were on the news every night and people were making up stories about "death panels?") by tying the healthcare debate to the anti-abortion movement. While I personally take more of a pro-choice stance, I cannot fault the Church for its consistent stance calling for the protection of all life. However, it disappoints me to no end that the Church would be willing to give up tremendous progress towards helping millions of people based on its position on an issue that is only circumstantially related to healthcare reform.

There is already a Federal law on the books that prevents Federal funds to be used to provide abortions, but the thinking here is that people who would receive Federal subsidies to purchase private health insurance could buy it from private insurers who cover abortion as a medical procedure. Again, I have no problem with the Church's opposition to that in theory, but it really angers me that they'd throw away all the gains in the reform bills simply because somebody could possibly use their subsidy to have an abortion.

Sure, argue against that possibility, but don't block the passage of the entire bill based on a theoretical situation. Is the bill perfect? No -- far from it. But as White House staffers are fond of saying these days, don't let perfect be the enemy of the possible. And why pick this issue now? Federal funds currently go -- directly and indirectly -- towards other issues that the Church is against. For instance, this past Tuesday night a prisoner was executed for his crime, using taxpayer money to pay for the act. Did the Church actively oppose the last Virginia spending bill that authorized funding for prisons? Did they threaten to derail the entire state budget process to end taxpayer support for a practice that violates its clear and consistent stance of protecting all life? (And did they do the same in Congress, which likely provides some indirect funding to Virginia's penal system?)

As it turns out, an amendment was added to the House bill that mandates the creation of identical healthcare policies -- without coverage for abortions -- to be offered to consumers using Federal subsidies to buy private insurance. While many pro-choicers are lamenting that amendment, I find it an acceptable, if not complicated, way to solve this problem. But why couldn't the Church have supported the main goals of the bill while working towards passing this amendment?

Instead, in this Sunday's flier and elsewhere the USCCB actively opposed the House bill and any other healthcare reform measure that didn't have specific protections against abortion funding. (Clearly the flier was printed before the vote on Saturday, because it gave no mention to the amendment.) Again, while I respect the desire to protect life, I strongly believe that they did more harm than good by taking this position.

If healthcare reform fails, millions will remain uninsured and vulnerable -- and abortion will still be legal. Why not at least take a big step forward in solving one of those problems?

*A second Church criticism of the House bill was it's exclusion of illegal aliens from being covered. Again the USCCB's stance was to oppose the entire bill rather than lobbying for this part to be changed. This at least keeps the Church from appearing partisan. While some Democrats are against the abortion funding amendment, covering illegals is an unpopular issue on both sides of the aisle.

Thank You

2009-11-11T14:42:00.003-05:00

Image from the U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs

Debunking Health Care Scare Tactics

2009-11-11T13:29:00.002-05:00

Ruth Marcus has a solid column in today's Washington Post where she lists some of the outright lies and misinformation presented by opponents of the health care reform legislation that passed last week in the House. It's bad enough that this BS is out there, but the fact that these outrageous comments were made during the House debate on the bill is disrespectful to the members of the House and the institution itself.

Health scare tactics

She ends with this:

Are the Republican arguments against the bill so weak that they have to resort to these misrepresentations and distortions?

Allow me to answer: Yes. Yes they are.

Politicizing the Bible

2009-10-07T12:00:00.001-04:00

Sadly this doesn't seem to be a joke. The website Conservapedia (tag line: "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia") has taken upon itself to start a project to revise the Bible to remove what it describes as "liberal bias." Their Conservative Bible Project starts out:

Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.

Personally I wasn't aware that Biblical scholars were operating with any political bias when translating Greek to English. Silly me thought they were more concerned with things like accuracy and providing historical context. But I guess now I've been enlightened to the previously secret scandal that most modern Bible translations were made by people wearing Yes We Can! buttons.

So what is Conservapedia's goal? They want a "modern" translation that meets 10 guidelines:

1. Framework against Liberal Bias
2. Not Emasculated
3. Not Dumbed Down
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms
5. Combat Harmful Addiction
6. Accept the Logic of Hell
7. Express Free Market Parables
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples
10. Prefer Conciseness of Liberal Wordiness

Now let me state that I'm not against revising translations from time-to-time. Language can be modernized, scholars can update translations based on new findings, better understanding of historical context can lead to new thinking, etc (in fact, Catholic books of worship were revised a few years ago to reflect some minor translation differences in the Sunday readings from the previous editions). But liberal bias? "Powerful Conservative Terms?" Free market parables? Liberal "wordiness?" Please.

They are actually complaining that the use of the word "comrade" comes from "defective translations" and should be replaced with "volunteer." Personally I thought a synonym for comrade was "friend," but I guess the fact that those leftist pinko Commies used it makes it a bad word.

Also according to Conservapedia, the story of the adulteress (John 8: 1-11) contains the "liberal message" of not judging someone else's conduct when you yourself are not perfect. Personally I'm not familiar with the history of that passage, and if biblical scholars judge it to not be authentic, then I won't argue with its removal from John. But to claim that its inclusion by Liberals undermines the rule of Mosaic law calling for the "God-ordained government" to impose the death penalty is going more than a bit too far.

It seems to me that the Bible's messages don't fit within some people's narrow world view, and rather than re-examining their own values they'd rather change the Bible to better reflect those (sorely misguided) beliefs. It wouldn't surprise me if their finished "Conservative Bible" made Jesus a lot tougher on crime, less likely to turn the other cheek, and a lot more like a vengeful Old Testament God.

Maybe when these guys are finished they can take a look at that pesky U.S. Constitution, too. There are some amendments in particular that were inserted by Liberals (whose idea was it to let women vote, anyway?), and the whole thing is just too wordy.

Government Ownership

2009-06-16T13:22:00.003-04:00

A pie chart shown recently on Real Time with Bill Maher. Kind of speaks for itself.

Bruce Schneier on the NY Terrorist Arrests

2009-05-22T12:00:00.000-04:00

Bruce, a well-known security expert, has some excellent points about the recent arrest of four men for plotting to blow up synagogues:

One: There was little danger of an actual terrorist attack...

Two, they were caught by traditional investigation and intelligence. Not airport security. Not warrantless eavesdropping. But old fashioned investigation and intelligence. This is what works...

Three, they were idiots...

Four, an "informant" helped this group a lot.

The big picture: law enforcement did its job (and should be congratulated), so don't let anyone try to convince you that our personal freedoms must be sacrificed to keep us safe. And don't live in fear. I'd recommend reading Bruce's entire entry for more detail and context.

Good Article on Reaction to the Obama Notre Dame Speech

2009-05-15T09:53:00.002-04:00

This article shows that, despite the noise made by some, most people -- Notre Dame students, Catholics, and Americans at large -- don't have a problem with Obama giving the commencement address at Notre Dame.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/14/politics/main5014711.shtml

The media's habit of taking provocative stories and running with them often gives a disproportionate amount of coverage to groups, no matter how small, that make the most noise. It appears that this is another one of those cases. While there is opposition among many in the church to Obama's stance on abortion rights, many of those same people also feel that his efforts to reduce the number of abortions (rather than outlawing the procedure), along with his work to decrease poverty and end the wars, is more in line with Church teaching than those who take a hard line against abortion while ignoring other areas of social justice.

Sex Scandals and Torture: A Case of Misplaced Moral and Legal Outrage

2009-04-23T16:03:00.004-04:00

So let me get this straight: when Clinton had inappropriate sex in the White House, people (and by "people" I mean Beltway journalists along with Republicans of all stripes) were willing to spend tens of millions of tax dollars to investigate (I believe Ken Starr spent in the ballpark of $75 million on his investigation). No laws were broken, but it was relentlessly covered in the media and the impeachment hearings were broadcast live.

And yet the Bush administration broke the law by authorizing torture on enemy combatants, and now many of the same people who wanted Clinton thrown out of office are saying we need to let this go. "No need to bring up the past. Let's look forward in the name of post-partisanship." Never mind that, effective or not, torture was -- and is -- a felony in this country.

I'm not giving Clinton a free pass. His actions were deplorable. But not felonies. And you couldn't pick up a paper or turn on a TV without hearing the latest about it.

Of course the torture stuff is all over print and broadcast media these days, but for some reason the Beltway press is playing it as Obama's problem. Never mind that guy who had the job before him who actually approved the illegal interrogation techniques.

I'm not going to argue the effectiveness of torture. Many people say that it worked, but I've seen more evidence that the most useful information was gleaned from subjects before they were waterboarded. Still, let's ignore this and go back to my original point: torture is a felony, and we're just supposed to shrug our shoulders and let it pass?

I don't think the grunts who administered the waterboardings should be prosecuted; they were just following orders. I think the people who approved the use of those techniques should be, however. Their twisted logic justified techniques that, once shown the light of day, are not standing up to the rule of law, and those people should be held accountable no matter what their prior status or title was.

Why are so many people -- especially the Press -- suggesting that high-level government officials aren't subject to the same laws as everyone else? For more on this topic, see Glenn Greenwald.

Where is the moral outrage? I'm pissed that the previous administration authorized this barbaric treatment of prisoners, and I'm pissed that it looks like they'll be allowed to get away with breaking the law without facing any consequences. How can this be less worthy of investigation and prosecution than a president having an extramarital affair? Between this and the free pass on the illegal wiretapping, I just don't know what to say anymore.

George Lakoff on The Obama Code

2009-02-24T16:31:00.002-05:00

Another great post on FiveThirtyEight.com, this time by guest columnist George Lakoff, a professor of linguistics and cognitive science at UC-Berkeley.

Lakoff talks about several issues closely related to this blog that Obama is expected to discuss during tonight's address:

Values over Programs -- the need to separate what government programs accomplish over the programs themselves
Empathy-based policy -- governing by acting in everyone's best interests, not just your own (or your Party's)
Biconceptualism -- finding common ground with traditional opponents and working together on those shared values
Protection and empowerment -- does government "work" to keep us safe and provide opportunity for all
Morality and Economics -- i.e. budgets are "moral documents"
Systemic Causation and Systemic Risk -- consequences, and risk, are not always directly related to actions, but instead are tied to a complex system, be that economic or environmental
Contested Concepts and Patriotic Language -- "freedom" meant something different when George W. Bush described it while at the same time authorizing domestic wiretapping programs; Obama will try to restore the common meaning

It's a long essay, and clearly Lakoff is coming at this as an Obama supporter, but his points are very interesting and worth a read. I firmly believe that many of the values Obama is trying to convey are truly American values. Partisan politics have poisoned both sides into taking harsh stands opposing (or supporting) policies based on political rather than moral grounds. If minds are kept open and partisanship set aside, we can do great things.

Note in this case I don't think bipartisanship simply means compromising and making concessions to the other side. Certainly that's a part of it, but I think both sides need to dig themselves out of their right vs. left posturing and look at all of our struggles and opportunities from a different perspective that allows them to take a new stock of the situation.

A Rising Tide that Lifted All Boats

2009-02-17T17:20:00.001-05:00

The chart below is from an entry on www.fivethirtyeight.com called The Clinton Economic Record and Rising Tides. In that post, Nate Silver breaks down the effects of White House economic policies from Nixon/Ford through Bush 43.

A quick glance shows the obvious:

Nixon/Ford policies were favorable to the rich, and oddly favorable to the very poor at the same time (an anomoly Silver suggests may be more to the delayed effect of LBJ's "Great Society" programs)
The Carter years were economically tough, but there may have been some upper-income benefits from the period's high inflation
Reagan/Bush showed improvements for everyone, but their policies steering wealth towards upper income levels were extremely successful -- for the wealthy, of course
During Clinton, a rising tide lifted all boats
Bush 43's policies were not successful for ANYONE, and they were simply DISASTROUS for the lowest income levels

Silver provides excellent analysis to these trends, and I don't want to steal any more of his thunder, so read his article for its even-handed breakdown of what was successful, not successful, and what kinds of policies can help everyone going forward.

Rick Warren? Really?

2008-12-18T11:46:00.002-05:00

I have to say that I'm disappointed with Obama's choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration in January. Granted, my disappointment would have been more like shock had he gone totally off the deep end and chosen someone like James Dobson, but I have to wonder if this choice was made for personal religious reasons or for political reasons. Not knowing Obama's thoughts, I'll have to speculate it was political (Democratic majority in Congress or not, he still has to play nice with Conservatives to get things done), but perhaps Obama's religious beliefs are more conservative than I originally thought.

In his defense Warren has taken on some issues that are outside of the mainstream evangelical agenda, such as eliminating poverty and human rights abuses, but on many other issues he sticks pretty close to the conservative side. So who would I have chosen? Well, if it were me I'd pick my parish priest, but if I were in Obama's shoes I believe a better choice would be Jim Wallis.

People who know me know I'm a big fan of Wallis. Although I'd never consider myself an evangelical Christian, I think he's done an outstanding job of giving evangelical Christians a moderate, rational voice. He's the first nationally known minister I've really cared to listen to, frankly, and he has sensible ideas about faith, politics, and the meeting of the two. His message is far more inclusive than Warren, and I think he'd do a lot more than Warren to bring everyone together at a time when we need a common sense of community the most.

If you don't already know Rev. Wallis, he's one of the founders of Sojourners, whose mission is "to articulate the biblical call to social justice, inspiring hope, and building a movement to transform individuals, communities, the church, and the world." You can read about him and his organization at www.sojo.net.

Here We Go Again, with a Twist

2008-11-14T00:00:00.000-05:00

In a letter to parishioners, a Roman Catholic priest in South Carolina instructed anyone who voted for Obama to refrain from receiving Communion until they have done penance for their vote, "lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

Um, yeah.

This is the first time I've come across parishioners receiving this treatment (usually it's just politicians themselves), and this is the first time I've seen this after an election. I guess this priest hasn't read the rather long "Faithful Citizenship" document released by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. It clearly states that Catholics can vote for whomever they choose, regardless of their candidate's stand on abortion -- if they have come to conclude, after praying and forming their social conscience, that they believe their candidate has other strengths that match their values better than the opponent. The only catch is that Catholics can't vote for a candidate precisely because of his or her views on abortion.

We've talked about this in previous posts, and of course we'll discuss it in future posts as well (including some discussion about Catholics, election exit polls, and how Catholics voted). For now, with 54% of Catholics voting for Obama, it looks like this South Carolina priest might have a significantly shorter Communion line this weekend, unless his confession hours are booked solid before mass.

More at Huffington Post.

Happiness

2008-11-05T12:40:00.002-05:00

Seven Key Themes of Catholic Social Teaching: Wrapping it All Up

2008-11-03T22:00:00.002-05:00

We've covered a lot of ground in the past week, examining the seven themes of Catholic social teaching and grading the presidential candidates based on their support for those themes:

Senator Obama has come out on top, in my rankings, with a score of 6-1 over Senator McCain. While McCain scores favorably in the "right to life" categories, Obama shows greater strength in his support for social, economic, and justice issues.

Each of the seven themes incorporates more than one issue, however, and I feel it's important to wrap up this series with a brief look at each of the issues that have been raised over the course of this series. Examining how the candidates rank on these issues will provide a more rounded view of their support for these social teachings - McCain will come out better on some of the social and economic issues while Obama will come out better on some of the right to life issues.

The complexity of this undertaking has reinforced my belief that voting a single issue is short-sighted and dangerous. Too many of these issue are inter-related, as can be seen simply in how the Church presents them. Even the right to life topic goes beyond abortion, also including unjust wars, racism, and poverty. Ignoring one area for the sake of another may simply prove to complicate both issues as well as make the problems more difficult to solve.

Although I'm sure many will disagree with my assessment of one or both of these candidates based on several specific issues, I hope I have at least made my point that these are complex topics that require complex thinking and solutions. While many choose to only see the black and white, the details (and ultimately solutions that will prove to be both workable and agreeable by the majority) are in the many shades of gray in between.

Since I've written a pretty fair amount about most of these issues throughout this series, I'm not going to dedicate a lot of space to justifying my picks here. These are the underlying criteria I used in grading the seven main themes, and my justifications can be found in my earlier posts. Throughout this process I've tried to see these issues as the Church would see them. Undoubtedly my own bias has come out in a number of them, despite my attempts to minimize that, but remember: I'm a layperson trying to make sense of the world using the tools the Church has provided. While theologians may score this list differently than I did, my results were the basis of actively developing my social conscience through study of the issues as well as prayer -- exactly what the Church requests of all members before making voting decisions.

The grading will be simple: Obama, McCain, or No Difference (ND). Of course even where the candidates share similar views, there are often fairly large differences in how they intend on tackling those issues, but in this case "ND" simply means that their end goals are compatible regardless of their paths to those goals, and ultimately that's what I'm judging here - the compatibility of those goals with Church teaching.

Environment/Climate Change: Obama
Energy Policy: Obama
Pursue justice: Obama (no mention on McCain website)
Eliminate Racism: Obama (no mention on McCain website)
End Human Trafficking: ND (no mention on either website)
Protect Human Rights: Obama (no mention on McCain website)
Seek Peace: Obama (no mention on McCain website)
Avoid the Use of Force Except as a Necessary Last Resort: Obama (no mention on McCain website)
Work at Fair, Living Wages: Obama (no mention on McCain website)
Legal Status for Immigrant Workers: ND
Participation in Unions: Obama (no mention on McCain website)
Education: ND
Civil Rights: Obama (no mention on McCain website)
Support People with Disabilities: Obama (no mention on McCain website)
Overcome Poverty: Obama (no mention on McCain website)
Prevent Domestic Violence: Obama (no mention on McCain website)
Protect Children: Obama
Right to Religious Freedom: ND (no mention on either website)
Right to Access Food: ND (not enough information on either website)
Healthcare: Obama
Housing: Obama
Marriage = 1 Man and 1 Woman: ND
Economic Policies to Support Families: Obama
Social Policies to Support Families: Obama
Abortion: McCain
Promoting Adoption: McCain (no mention on Obama website)
Euthanasia: ND (not enough information on either website)
Human Cloning: ND
Destruction of Human Embryos for Stem Cell Research: McCain
Oppose Torture: ND
Oppose Unjust wars: Obama (no mention on McCain website)
Oppose the Death Penalty: Obama
Prevent Genocide and Attacks Against Noncombatants: ND

Scorecard (out of 33 categories):
Obama: 20
McCain: 3
No Difference: 10

It still seems pretty harsh for McCain, but the fact that he goes from 1 out of 7 in the overall results to 13 out of 32 in the detailed results is statistically a big jump. Even if you weigh the right to life issues more than the other categories (as the Church does), however, it's still tough to argue that McCain's policies are in line with the Church's overall themes of social teaching. As you saw, there were a great number of issues that McCain simply has not discussed, whether on his website, in interviews, or on the stump.

It is for these reasons that I strongly support Barack Obama for president. He is far from a perfect candidate, and I reject the messianic status placed upon him by some, but he is a transformational figure at a time when just such a leader is needed, and I think his policies will protect and uplift the vulnerable while improving the lives of us all.

Thanks for reading. I hope you have enjoyed this series, and I sincerely hope, even if you don't agree with my results, that you have learned more about the issues (either directly through this series or through further research on your own spurred by these posts) as well as your faith.

Seven Key Themes of Catholic Social Teaching: The Right to Life and the Dignity of the Human Person

2008-11-03T11:00:00.003-05:00

This post is the seventh in a continuing examination of both presidential candidates based on the seven basic Catholic themes of social teaching. If you're new here, be sure to read the earlier posts in this series to see where I'm coming from:

The Right to Life and the Dignity of the Human Person
...Direct attacks on innocent persons are never morally acceptable, at any stage or in any condition. In our society, human life is under direct attack from abortion. Other direct threats to the sanctity of human life include euthanasia, human cloning, and destruction of human embryos for research.

Catholic teaching about the dignity of life calls us to oppose torture, unjust war, and the use of the death penalty; to prevent genocide and attacks against noncombatants; to oppose racism; and to overcome poverty and suffering.

Let's be honest here. This theme includes more than just abortion, but most people are going to gravitate right to that one. Members of the Church and pro-life proponents from all faiths tend to single out abortion and shrug off the death penalty, unjust war, genocide, and poverty. Euthanasia and stem cell research get a bit more attention from the pro-life crowd, but the big ticket is abortion.

I don't mean to minimize the importance of ending abortion. I am certainly against the taking of any human life, and I believe that the moment of conception is the beginning of a unique biological event that cannot be described as simple cell division. The church is correct to protect the unborn, but I'm not convinced they are going about it in the right way. It pains me that Obama isn't a pro-life candidate, although as I will explain I don't think that means he should support the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Before I go into why, let me backtrack and point out that we've covered the candidates' stances on all of the issues brought up in this social justice theme, so I'm not going to rehash them in detail here. If I scored this category by all of it's parts (abortion, the death penalty, unjust war, etc), it would be a split decision - and just might tilt in Obama's favor. But because most people, right or wrong, look at this as a single issue theme, I'm going to focus on that one issue. And as far as the Church's teaching goes, McCain is the candidate that best follows that teaching.

Note, however, that I'm going to end this series with one more post that cuts the issues out of each of the seven themes (since most themes incorporate multiple issues) and provides a comprehensive "report card" for both candidates. Scoring by the seven themes results, in my opinion, in a 6-1 Obama "victory" in supporting Catholic social teaching. The comprehensive report card won't change that result, but it will give McCain more credit than is obvious in the 6-1 score, while also boosting Obama's credibility in these "right to life" areas thanks to his support for human rights, his programs to end poverty, and his concrete opposition to unjust wars and racism.

Why No One Should be a Single Issue Voter

We were greeted after mass today by a fairly detailed - and fairly inaccurate - description of the candidates' views on abortion left on our windshields. It pains me that, time and time again on issue after issue, people (and sometimes the candidates themselves) feel the need to spread inaccurate information and sometimes lies about certain issues. Their views are so different from each other in so many areas, what's wrong with simply stating the facts? In the case of abortion, it's simple: McCain favors the repeal of Roe v. Wade, Obama does not. Is that not clear enough? Why is there a need to make Obama out to be a baby killer? But that's how strongly so many people feel about this. It has become the issue of all issues, despite the fact that a vote for the candidate who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade is also a vote against so many other issues (poverty, healthcare, to name two) that play directly into this discussion as well.

My wife wrote a post called Bumper Sticker Religion back in May of 2005 where she described her frustration at seeing a bumper sticker on a bulletin board at church that read "You can't be Catholic AND Pro-Abortion." She explained how that is wrong on several levels (no one is "pro abortion"), but it's most relevant here simply because being Catholic does not mean one has to join the pro-life ministry. Catholics hold a wide range of beliefs, and attempts to paint us all as pro-life is simplistic and naive. In the article New York Times Makes Up Fairy Tale About Politics of Abortion, the site Campaign for America's Future reported on how the Times showed some shoddy journalistic practices by selecting an unrepresentative sample of Catholics that painted an inaccurate picture of our voting habits. It's not saying that Catholics aren't pro-life, but it does show that reporters can't automatically assume that we'll all vote for a pro-choice candidate strictly on that issue.

It also shows that, in polls from the last presidential election, 72% of Catholics opposed the idea of the Church denying communion to politicians who did not oppose abortion. As it turns out, those Catholics aren't sinners for thinking that. In the article Theologian says one-issue bishops violate their own teaching, the National Catholic Reporter reported on remarks by noted theologian Fr. Richard McBrien who said "Bishops who make a case for one-issue politics or openly oppose a political candidate are in violation of the guidelines set out repeatedly in their own documents on political responsibility." McBrien quoted Catholic teaching that states:

Catholic voters and their bishops must not forget the distinction between moral principles and their application in the political order. It is possible to agree on an important moral principle and yet disagree, in good conscience, on the way that principle is applied in the political order.

Furthermore, last Fall the USCCB issued an election statement that read, in part:

The consistent ethic of life provides a moral framework for principled Catholic engagement in political life and, rightly understood, neither treats all issues as morally equivalent nor reduces Catholic teaching to one or two issues... Catholic voters should use the framework of Catholic teaching to examine candidates' positions on issues affecting human life and dignity as well as issues of justice and peace ...

So there you have it. You can agree on an issue while disagreeing on the best way to approach that issue. And while you're doing that, remember not to "reduce Catholic teaching to one or two issues." There's more out there than just abortion, and it turns out many of those issues all affect each other.

Why Not Oppose Roe v. Wade?

The Church, Senator McCain, and Senator Obama all want to end abortion. The Church wants to counsel pregnant women against it. The Church and McCain both want it to be illegal. Obama wants to educate people so they can avoid unwanted pregnancies while working to eliminate the social and economic conditions that lead to unwanted pregnancies, sub-standard prenatal care, and children living in poverty.

The Church's position on counseling (and encouraging adoption) is good. And it should be noted that the Church also has some ministries that help new mothers in difficult situations. But it is irresponsible to make abortion illegal without a) striving to minimize unwanted pregnancies, b) expanding the social and economic networks that support pregnant women, and c) expanding the social and economic networks that support new families (especially single mothers). Of course it is unlikely that the Church will change its stance on birth control, but it can continue to play a large part in providing those important support networks. But if abortion were made illegal, it (and other crisis pregnancy centers) would need an increase in resources to provide those services at a greater level than they do today.

There would be much celebrating in pro-life circles if Roe v. Wade was ever overturned, but the hangover would be intense when the realization hit that the problem of unwanted pregnancies would not simply go away with the ruling. And that's my biggest problem with McCain's stance on the issue. He has no extra provision for funding - federal, state, or part of any faith-based initiative - for any programs to support these troubled women if abortion is once again made illegal. So while his plan would send the issue back to individual states (eventually making the procedure illegal in many states), it wouldn't do anything to help stop the underlying cause of the procedure or support troubled women who are likely candidates for the procedure. McCain has stated the need for local organizations to deal with this problem, but those organizations are already struggling and can't possibly be asked to do much more without some sort of additional funding and/or assistance.

Overturning Roe v. Wade is problematic enough. In The Conservative Christian Case for Supporting Obama, Rob J makes a strong case that Christians can and should support Obama for all of his beliefs, and that his stance on abortion isn't incompatible with Christian teaching. In his rebuttal to the comments readers posted in reply to this article, he also points out that Roe v. Wade is pretty much stare decisis law. Stare decisis is the legal principle under which judges are obligated to follow the precedents established in prior decisions. That makes Roe v. Wade difficult for courts to even consider (the Supreme Court actually declined to hear a case that would have reviewed it in 2006), let alone overturn. Would appointing more conservative judges to the court change that? Maybe, or maybe not. It's been the promise of every Republican president starting with Reagan, but it hasn't worked out so far. Shouldn't the resources spent fighting this ruling be spent on more constructive programs for reducing abortion?

And if McCain were to appoint another conservative judge or two to the Supreme Court, what other damage could be done to our legal system? Would torture be more acceptable? How about illegal wiretapping by the NSA? In my opinion the advantage of overturning Roe v. Wade, however unlikely that may be, is largely outweighed by the threat to many of our democratic rights and civil liberties that the current administration has already played fast and loose with.

Bringing it All Back Around

Ending abortion is a common goal shared by most people. The differences in opinion are in how to end it: make it illegal or work to eliminate the conditions that lead to unwanted pregnancies.

Despite the assertions of many laypeople, it is not a sin for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate. In fact, Catholics should examine a number of issues from the entire framework of Catholic teaching when deciding which candidate to support.
Overturning Roe v. Wade, as unlikely as that may be, would not stop unwanted pregnancies. Instead it would strain the resources of the existing counseling and support services.
McCain's platform has the stated goal of overturning Roe v. Wade, but no support for the social, economic, or educational policies to help reduce or eliminate the underlying problems that lead to abortion
Obama, while not being strictly pro-life, advocates policies that reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and support programs that would help pregnant women - including the reform and expansion of the mis-managed Faith-based Initiatives project started by President Bush.

In the end, I'm still giving this one to McCain based simply on the fact that his goals directly match the Church's on the issue of abortion. The goal of ending abortion is undoubtedly good, but I feel that everyone would be better served to recognize this common goal and strive to find creative ways to achieve it instead of this "all or nothing" partisan game we've been playing for the last 30+ years. Abortion should be safe, legal... and rare.

Scorecard:
Obama: 6
McCain: 1

Next up: A comprehensive look at all of the issues wrapped into these seven key themes of Catholic social teaching - including a detailed scorecard of the candidates.

Seven Key Themes of Catholic Social Teaching: Call to Family, Community, and Participation

2008-10-31T00:26:00.005-04:00

This post is the sixth in a continuing examination of both presidential candidates based on the seven basic Catholic themes of social teaching. If you're new here, be sure to read the earlier posts in this series to see where I'm coming from:

Call to Family, Community, and Participation
The family, based on marriage between a man and a woman, is the fundamental unit of society... Supporting families should be a priority for economic and social policies.

I'm dealing with these seven themes in reverse order of how they are generally presented in Church literature. That means that this sixth topic is the second most important theme of Catholic social teaching, which frankly I find incredible. Is defining marriage as between a man and a woman really more important than eliminating poverty, stopping unjust wars, or caring for the poor? Even the last post, Rights and Responsibilities, talks about food and shelter, education and employment, healthcare and housing. You're telling me that heterosexual marriage is more important than that?

Don't get me wrong. Families are important to society -- any society. But is defining what a family looks like more important than feeding and protecting that family? I don't buy it. But because we've come this far already, I'll dive in anyway.

McCain

McCain lists family issues in the "Economy" and "Human Dignity & Life" sections of his website. The subsection under his economic page is called "Immediate Relief for American Families" and discusses gas and food prices, his mortgage buyout plan, and expanding the lender-of-last resort options for student higher education loans to keep the credit crunch from affecting people's ability to receive loans for school.

His plan to lower gas prices is almost comical: "telling oil producing countries and oil speculators that our dependence on foreign oil will come to an end - and the impact will be lower prices at the pump." I can imagine how that will go:

US: Hi, um, OPEC? We aren't going to be dependent on you anymore.

OPEC: Sure, whatever. You buy more oil from Canada than us anyway, but that's fine.

US: No, really. We're going to stop buying so much oil from you, so you'll have to lower prices.

OPEC: Right. You see, the thing is, China and India will more than make up for any consumption you stop, so the market will keep prices where we think they should be. And if prices go down, you'll just drive more again anyway. And guess what happens to prices when consumption goes back up?

US: Oh yeah? Well, we'll screw up the global economy so the price of oil tanks on its own then. How you like them apples?

OPEC: Nuts. I guess we'll have to cut production to drive market prices back up.

US: Crap. Drill, baby. Drill!

Maybe it wouldn't be quite like that, but it's amazing to me to think that simply telling people that we'll cut back on foreign oil would affect global prices. And once again the McCain camp is being delusional in thinking that we have enough domestic capacity to really cut out foreign suppliers. (See my post, Where's the Oil, in the September archives.)

He then goes on to say that his policies (he's not clear on which ones specifically) will cause the value of the dollar to rise, increasing our purchasing power for oil. But wait a minute -- didn't you just say we weren't going to be dependent upon foreign oil any more? So then it wouldn't matter what the price of international oil was, right? Do I need to do another hypothetical conversation? Because I will. It was kind of fun.

McCain's other brilliant plan - that I can't believe is even still on his website - is a summer gas tax holiday. Never mind even his own economists said it was a bad idea. And never mind summer is gone.

He then discusses repealing a tax on imported sugar-based ethanol to increase competition and lower pump prices. Great. We'll stop buying oil from OPEC and instead buy ethanol from Brazil! Granted I'd probably rather send our money to Brazil (and sugar-based ethanol is generally a lot better than corn-based ethanol), but I thought we weren't going to be dependent on foreigners for our energy needs anymore.

Lastly, the only nod to food prices is to kill corn-based ethanol subsidies, which actually might help lower food prices (and help the Brazilians sell us their sugar-based ethanol).

Anyway, this is a bizarre part of his website, and frankly while I don't think the Church would object to any of this, I don't think they'd go out of their way to endorse it, either.

I discussed McCain's mortgage plan in an earlier post, so I won't go into it again here. To recap, it's a revival of a New Deal plan FDR implemented during the Great Depression. Socialism, baby! (Sorry. It's late.)

Now we move on to what I really think the church means when it discusses supporting families: gay marriage. McCain starts out his "Protecting Marriage" section with a discussion about how he will nominate judges who won't legislate from the bench. (That's code for "they won't legislate in ways we don't like, but it's fine if they legislate conservative values.") But his point is clear: if you are a gay couple and you want to get married, there had better be a state statute allowing it, because we won't let judges decide that gay marriage is an implied right.

He then goes on to say, and I wish I were kidding, that "the family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society." Really? Western Civilization? Those heathens and infidels in the Middle and Far East can just suck it. They know nothing about marriage, or civil society for that matter. Never mind that they were the cultures preserving human knowledge in the middle ages while Western society was dumping their chamber pots in the street, fighting with each other, and letting millions die because of a lack of basic sanitation principles that had been practiced since before the Romans were in control. But I digress.

He goes on to say that marriage between one man and one woman (what, is he implying there's a bunch of polygamists in this country?) is the only "definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation." I happen to know a bit about fatherhood and the importance of male role models in children's lives, and I won't argue his main point here. But I will argue that there are more viable options than just "one man and one woman." Nevertheless, this is a stance that the Church approves of, so he earns a point here.

Obama

Obama's plan to strengthen families focuses on practical plans from several areas: cutting taxes, creating living wages, expanding workplace flexibility and the FMLA, reforming education, providing healthcare, protecting home ownership, protecting at-risk families, and creating secure retirement options.

In a nutshell, here's what his plan does (from his website):

Barack Obama will provide a "Making Work Pay" tax cut for America's working families: Obama and Biden will restore fairness to the tax code and 95 percent of workers the tax relief they need. They will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family.
Strengthen fatherhood and families: Obama and Biden will work to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, fund support services for fathers and their families, and support domestic violence prevention efforts.
Restore Work-Family Balance: Obama and Biden will double funding for after-school programs, expand the Family Medical Leave Act, provide low-income families with a refundable tax credit to help with their child-care expenses, and encourage flexible work schedules.

I've discussed or linked to discussions on most of these topics in previous posts, so I won't rehash those areas here. Special notice should be given to his plans to "strengthen families" by supporting fathers, cracking down on deadbeat dads, and supporting domestic violence prevention efforts. Furthermore, he would also expand programs that provide home visits by trained nurses to low-income expectant and new mothers and their families to help with pre- and postnatal care and support. I think the Church would be pleased with all of those plans.

Obama does not specifically mention on his website that marriage needs to be defined in any particular terms. Why limit or exclude when there are so many opportunities to build families up? Fear not, traditionalists: Obama and Biden have both said they do not support gay marriage. But I suspect you won't easily ram any legislation down their throats that curtails anyone's rights.

In the end, McCain's policies play to his conservative base while offering few real social benefits. Obama takes the opposite approach and, rather than limiting himself, proposes practical plans to lift all families up. Since neither candidate ultimately supports gay marriage, this category goes to Obama for offering so many other family-strengthening ideas.

Scorecard:
Obama: 6
McCain: 0

I should point out here that, since my system is awarding points all or nothing for each category (kind of like the winner-take-all Electoral College system in most states), it's not looking too good for McCain. That certainly doesn't mean that McCain's candidacy is devoid of any qualities the Church would find redeeming. If I were awarding points for all of the issues within each theme, he'd be better off. But since the election itself is winner-take-all, I'm going to stick with this scoring system. Quite frankly, however, even if I did award points by issue and not by theme, Obama would still be comfortably ahead in my book.

Next up: The Right to Life and the Dignity of the Human Person

Seven Key Themes of Catholic Social Teaching: Rights and Responsibilities

2008-10-30T12:00:00.002-04:00

This post is the fifth in a continuing examination of both presidential candidates based on the seven basic Catholic themes of social teaching. If you're new here, be sure to read the earlier posts in this series to see where I'm coming from:

Rights and Responsibilities
Every human being has a right to life, the fundamental right that makes all other rights possible. Each of us has a right to religious freedom, which enables us to live and act in accord with our God-given dignity, as well as a right to access to those things required for human decency - food and shelter, education and employment, healthcare and housing.

I sense that I'll be rehashing some of the topics I've discussed in previous posts, but there are a few new items to cover, or maybe look at from a different angle, I suppose.

McCain

We discussed his views on the right to life (incorporating abortion and stem cell research but not euthanasia since I couldn't find his position on that) in the last post, and we'll go into that topic again in more detail in a future post (only one more to go before we get there, for those of you waiting). To recap: thumbs up from the Church for his views on abortion, and maybe a sideways thumb for stem cell research since he's not against it but would specifically prohibit using human embryos for research.

Still, I'm uncomfortable with his main goal simply being the overturning of Roe v. Wade. First of all, I'm not sure it will happen. Second, if it does happen, what next? McCain has no plans for bolstering support for pregnant women and babies (religious and non-profits are already struggling to provide that support now). And his economic and healthcare policies would make life even harder for the poor, who already have a disproportionate number of abortions. Opinionstreams.com put it much better than I can in the excellent piece The Conservative Christian Case for Supporting Obama. Not that I call myself a "conservative" in most circles, but Rob J really nailed this.

Food and shelter? Well, I didn't find much on either of the candidate's sites. The only thing I came across on McCain's site was a blurb about rolling back corn-based ethanol mandates that have contributed to a rise in food prices. (I'm pretty sure he bowed to the corn gods a bit in a recent speech in Iowa, however, so we'll have to wait and see what he does if he's president.)

Housing is the last topic in this section, so I'll group shelter in with that later in this post. In the meantime, the previous post discussed McCain's education policy. Recap: most likely a thumbs up from the Church. Personally I liked his pre-K plans, was unsure of his elementary plans, and felt his higher education plans could go further. Nothing that wouldn't gain the Church's approval, though.

We talked about employment in the post Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers. I was unimpressed with his lack of any real discussion about strengthening our workforce, creating jobs, or creating a living wage. I think the Church would also find McCain lacking in this area.

Healthcare is probably the biggest topic in this section. I did a post back in August (that can now be found in the August archives) called "Healthcare's Partisan Divide" that references a non-partisan report comparing the health plans proposed by McCain and Obama. I'd still recommend that you check that out. The Washington Post recently did a series called "How They Would Change Health Care." Read the McCain version for a look at the part of his plan for providing high-risk coverage. Finally, there's a detailed, well-researched post at opinionstreams.com about both candidate's plans.

I don't think I could offer any more analysis than those links could give you, so I'll wrap up this part by saying some reports I've read predict the McCain plan would cause many businesses to drop their coverage, forcing workers to go out on the open market for individual policies. Those tend to be more expensive than group coverage, so the $5000 tax credit McCain is offering may not be enough to offset insurance costs. And in a few years, as healthcare costs rise faster than inflation, the tax credit won't keep up and more people will find themselves spending more on insurance - or uninsured. I'm honestly not sure how the Church would weigh in here, although in general I think they'd be strongly opposed to any plan that would result in millions of people losing coverage or having to pay more than they already do to maintain coverage.

For housing, McCain's proposal has gotten a lot of press: buy up bad mortgages and allow homeowners to renegotiate to more reasonable terms that better reflect the current value of their homes. It's close to a policy from FDR's New Deal and would arguably be more fair than only bailing out the banks that speculated on sub-prime mortgages. But I can't help but think it was a belief in deregulation like McCain has held throughout his career that got us into this mess to begin with. (And isn't using taxpayer money to buy bad mortgages a form of wealth distribution?) In any case, the Church would probably approve of helping people out.

Obama

Again, a previous post discussed Obama's views on abortion and stem cell research (like McCain, I could find no information on his thoughts about euthanasia). Recap: Obama is pro-choice and would definitely get a thumbs down from the Church on his support for Roe vs. Wade and family planning. However, I believe his policy of promoting age-appropriate sex education, as well as his economic and healthcare plans, would raise awareness as well as standards of living, reducing abortions in the process. Again, The Conservative Christian Case for Supporting Obama at opinionstreams.com covers this (and other issues) better than I possibly could.

I couldn't find anything about food on Obama's site at all. The closest I got was his section on Rural areas that discusses his plans to help family farms. Establishing country of origin labeling and encouraging organic and local agriculture are probably the two issues that most Americans will be affected by directly (or at least most visibly).

On education, a previous post went into a fair amount of detail. In short, I liked all of his plans -- they were spelled out a bit better than McCain's (with the possible exception of pre-K), and I can't see the Church not giving them a thumbs up.

We talked about employment in the post Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers. Obama discusses employment as part of his economic plan, his energy and environmental plan, his plan for Americans with disabilities, his plans on fighting poverty, and his urban plans. He's strongly on the side of the workers, which would please the Church.

There's lots of misinformation about Obama's healthcare plan requiring coverage (not true -- that was Clinton's proposed plan during the primaries), penalizing businesses for not providing covereage (true -- for large business, but not for small businesses) or creating a huge government bureaucracy (it would actually let most people keep their existing coverage and then use existing government programs to help people who have fallen through the cracks). My main question at this point is can we afford it with everything else going on? Still, it's goals are noble and something the Church would certainly agree with.

For lots more detail about both candidates' healthcare plans, here are some links. First, to an earlier post I wrote (that can now be found in the August archives) called "Healthcare's Partisan Divide" that references a non-partisan report comparing the health plans proposed by McCain and Obama (it's the same link I provided in the McCain section above). Next, a Washington Post article showing how Obama's plan emulates the plan used in Massachusetts (except for the madates). Finally, an excellent article (also referenced above) on opinionstreams.com.

Obama's policies towards providing affordable housing go much further than McCain's, starting with a universal mortgage credit for homeowners who don't itemize their returns. This would help lower income homeowners take advantage of a tax credit that currently can only be realized by people who have enough deductions to make it worthwhile to itemize them on their tax returns. He also proposes some regulations that mandates that clear and understandable information be given to homebuyers so they know in real terms what the true cost of home ownership will be before they buy, as well as rules to curtail abusive mortgage lending practices.

Obama also supports creating an Affordable Housing Trust Fund to encourage the development of affordable housing in mixed income areas, and fully funding the Community Development Block Grant program to creating housing (and jobs) for low- and moderate-income people.

To recap, the topic of rights and responsibilities touches upon the following subjects:

the right to life
the right to religious freedom
the right to access to those things required for human decency: food and shelter, education and employment, healthcare and housing

We didn't discuss religious freedom, although there are certainly undertones that Governor Palin's beliefs may surface in executive decision-making were she to end up in the White House. However, I think it's clear to say that with McCain and Obama, there would be little or no restrictions placed on people's religious freedom.

The other issues are a mixed bag from the Church's (and my own) perspective. While I think it's short-sighted to only target Roe v. Wade in the efforts to end abortion, McCain's efforts are certainly on the Church's side there. He's probably somewhat safe with the Church on stem cell research, while euthanasia is too tough to call without more information.

Both candidate's education plans would probably meet with Church approval, with Obama's possibly getting an extra nod for his college tax credit proposal.

Food issues aren't really spelled out on either candidate's site, so I won't try to guess here.

Employment, healthcare and housing are all strongly in Obama's favor. McCain would likely win some points with his mortgage buyout proposal, but in the end Obama's consistent policies favoring workers and low/middle income Americans would largely please the Church. I'm giving these category to Obama, as well as the entire topic.

Scorecard:
Obama: 5
McCain: 0

Next up: Call to Family, Community, and Participation

Seven Key Themes of Catholic Social Teaching: Option for the Poor and Vulnerable

2008-10-29T12:00:00.003-04:00

This post is the fourth in a continuing examination of both presidential candidates based on the seven basic Catholic themes of social teaching. If you're new here, be sure to read the earlier posts in this series to see where I'm coming from:

Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
While the common good embraces all, those who are in greatest need deserve preferential concern.

To me, this topic covers the following areas: education, civil rights, disabilities, poverty, abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, preventing domestic violence, and protecting children.

Education may seem like a stretch to be included since it's technically not "protecting" but "preparing" our kids, but even though it does not involve protecting them from immediate harm, I think in a long-term view it very much protects them by helping them live up to their potential (or, in other words, it protects them from becoming losers). I should also note that I'm not a big fan of the "protect the children" cry. Not because I'm a heathen -- I am a parent, after all -- but because there's so much political smoke blown at us for "the children" that I think much of it is a waste of time and effort. But I'll see what these guys have to say about that topic since children are vulnerable, after all.

McCain

On education, McCain continually uses the word "choice" in discussing parents options. He never says "vouchers," which he was big on in 2000, but I'm left wondering if that's what he means this time around, too. Or does he just mean parents get to choose among public schools in their local system? Aside from choice, his plans for early childhood include better coordinating early education programs and creating Head Start "Centers of Excellence" that will expand their reach by serving more children and sharing their techniques with other schools.

For primary schools, McCain's plans talk about moving beyond No Child Left Behind and supporting better teacher training and retention, providing tutoring programs to under performing schools, expanding online programs, and "giving parents greater choice," whatever he means by that.

Higher education is more sparse, but he talks about simplifying financial aid and tax benefits, improving lending programs, and eliminating earmarks that pull funding away from university R&D. (Way to tie your pet project in with other programs!)

Personally, I'm intrigued by his early learning ideas, need more info about his primary school plans, and am less than impressed with his higher education ideas.

There are no pages on McCain's site dealing with civil rights, disabilities, poverty, euthanasia, or domestic violence, but he does have a section called "Human Dignity & Life" that covers abortion, stem cell research, and protecting children. (With all the publicity about Governor Palin's child with Down's Syndrome, I find it interesting that there's nothing on the McCain website about their plans for disabled or special needs children.)

Many Catholics will flock to McCain because of his goal of overturning Roe v. Wade. He wants "constitutional balance" restored (an important-sounding phrase that, drawing from my Constitutional Law classes from college, I think really doesn't mean squat in this case) by returning the abortion decision to the states. Then he wants faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations (does he mean community organizers?) to help end abortion at the state level. Promoting adoption becomes the next step for dealing with crisis pregnancies.

My fear is that he wants to clear Roe v. Wade off the books, let the states outlaw abortion on their own, and then leave it to the pro-life organizations to take care of the rest. Unfortunately those pro-life organizations have a mixed record for caring for pregnant women and perhaps a worse record for helping new mothers. At the least I'd like to see a promise of federal help; I'm sure many of these organizations can't do more simply because of limited resources (even my local archdiocese has greatly reduced funding to it's center for pregnancy and adoption services in recent years).

Moving on the stem cell research, McCain probably loses some Catholics based on his support of stem cell research, although his plan opposes creating embryos for research, calls for bans on "fetal farming" or using any human cells created for such use, and supports funding for research that doesn't involve human embryos. Probably not enough to pull in die-hards, but he seems to be trying to walk a fine line between not offending pro-lifers but not being as restrictive with research as the Bush administration has.

Finally, we discussed his plan to protect the children from online porn and predators in an earlier post. To quote that earlier post:

He talks about filters on public computers and a national registry for people convicted of sex crimes against children. I'm not a fan of internet filters, but if a national registry could be handled better than the TSA "no fly list," it's not a bad idea.

Obama

The Obama education plans starts with his "Zero to Five Plan," supporting parents and infants with early education programs to prepare kids for kindergarten and helping states move to voluntary, universal pre-school. He also proposes increasing Head Start funding and, in a practical departure from education-only plans, help in providing child care to working families.

There's a good bit of detail on primary schools to improving on No Child Left Behind (he, like McCain, believes that teaching to a test and comparing kids to national averages isn't the best way to go), expanding funding for charter schools, prioritizing math and science education, providing intervention strategies for addressing dropouts, and expanding after school programs to help working families. He throws in a good bit about recruiting, training, and rewarding teachers as well.

On the surface his higher ed plan and McCain's plan look fairly similar in their goals to make the financial aid process simpler, although Obama ups the stakes by adding a plan for a universal and refundable tax credit of $4000 to be used for college in exchange for 100 hours of community service.

As I mentioned, McCain has no sections on civil rights, disabilities, or poverty, while Obama has extensive plans for all three areas. Obama, like McCain, doesn't seem to mention euthanasia on his site.

Not to sell his Civil Rights section short (it's fairly extensive if you read the PDF), but rather than re-analyze the plan I'll simply quote an earlier post:

It discusses enforcement of civil rights laws, employment discrimination (minorities and women), expanding hate crime statuses, deceptive voting, racial profiling, reducing crime recidivism, and more.

Obama also has a good bit of information on helping Americans with disabilities by expanding laws that protect their rights, loosening the restrictions placed on the term "disabled" that the courts have used to water down the Americans with Disabilities Act, and helping increase the employment rate for workers with disabilities. (This all seems to make sense with the sheer number of disabled soldiers returning from Iraq.) There's more detail in a PDF, and there's a separate PDF dealing specifically with his plan for Autism Spectrum Disorders.

His plans to combat poverty are extensive, including programs to raise the minimum wage and tie it to inflation, create a "green jobs corp" for disadvantaged youth, promote responsible fatherhood, fund programs to create affordable housing, establish "promise neighborhoods" to expand social services in disadvantaged areas, and expand the earned income tax credit for low-income families.

Going against the Church's position, Obama supports Roe v. Wade and would oppose measures to overturn it. He has been consistent in his support for the right to choose, however his positions have been embellished and outright misrepresented by opponents. His efforts to reduce abortion are really based on his support for preventing unintended pregnancies through "comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods."

On stem cell research, Obama co-sponsored a bill to allow research on human embryonic stems cells derived from donated embryos. The embryos cannot have been created for the purpose of research, but must have been created for fertility treatment. Currently many of these embryos are kept frozen and then destroyed after a certain amount of time has passed, so in a sense this idea means not creating life only to waste it. However, this does not sit well with the Catholic Church, which does not agree with using human embryonic stem cells in any way. (It goes without saying that the Church does not approve of the fertility treatments that lead to the creation of these "extra" embryos in the first place, although I don't know what it thinks we should do about the existing frozen embryos.)

Obama's plans for protecting children are wide-ranging, including providing healthcare for every child, protecting children from lead poisoning, expanding paid sick days, reducing domestic violence, preventing child abuse and neglect, and registering sex offenders with a national database. I don't see any "protect the children" scare tactics like internet filters that block legitimate websites at libraries (how many kids surf porn on public computers, anyway?) or laws against online predators that duplicate state and national laws already on the books.

Obama also supports expanded funding for domestic violence prevention programs, he co-sponsored the Violence Against Women Act, and has been active in humanitarian efforts to protect victims of gender violence in Darfur.

To recap, this area covers a number of topics:

education
civil rights
disabilities
poverty
abortion
stem cell research
euthanasia
preventing domestic violence
protecting children

Trying to read this through the Church's eyes, I think Obama would come out ahead on civil rights, disabilities, poverty, preventing domestic violence, and protecting children. His plans in all of those areas are extensive, and McCain doesn't even touch on them, except for two ideas in the protecting children category (one of which, the national database for sex offenders, is shared by both candidates).

McCain would come out favorably on the issues of abortion and possibly stem cell research -- although since McCain still does support stem cell research, the Church may think he's still on the wrong side of the line. The candidates would probably both earn approval for their education plans, even though they go about things differently (personally I'd give the nod to Obama, but the church might like it if McCain is indeed referring to vouchers). It's impossible to tell from their websites where they stand on euthanasia, but I can at least note that the Republican platform is against euthanasia while Democrats feel it is an individual decision. Still, there's not enough info for me to rate either candidate on this one.

Abortion is the hot-button topic that will get people going, and I'll have more on that in a later post (while it is strongly implied here, it crops up again two more times in coming themes). The church will argue that it deserves extra weight in these discussions, so I'll take that into account.

To that end, as I've stated, excepting abortion and stem cell research, Obama's plans seem to fall more in line with Catholic social teaching. I've identified nine issues, and I feel Obama is more in line with the Church on five of them. Both candidates would rate favorably on one of the issues, McCain would get the nod on two issues, and I don't have enough information to rate one issue.

I'm willing to give extra to McCain for his stances on abortion and stem cell research, but the fact that he doesn't even mention civil rights, disabilities, poverty, or domestic violence (I could not a single word about any of them on his website) brings him back down in my book. I know many people will disagree and place the protection of life above all else, but I can't let a single issue, no matter how important, push everything else aside. If Roe v. Wade is overturned but nothing is done about the conditions many of those children are born into, we haven't fully "won" anything.

Scorecard:
Obama: 4
McCain: 0

Next up: Rights and Responsibilities

Seven Key Themes of Catholic Social Teaching: Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers

2008-10-28T09:00:00.002-04:00

This post is the third in a continuing examination of both presidential candidates based on the seven basic Catholic themes of social teaching. If you're new here, be sure to read the earlier posts in this series to see where I'm coming from:

Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers
Economic justice...calls for decent work at fair, living wages, opportunities for legal status for immigrant workers, and the opportunity for all people to work together for the common good through their work, ownership, enterprise, investment, participation in unions, and other forms of economic activity.

McCain
The last section of McCain's 14-page economic plan contains two paragraphs about "Competitive American Workers." In those two paragraphs McCain talks about giving students access to "any school of demonstrated excellence" and "expanding the ability of parents to choose among schools for their children." That sounds like school voucher talk to me, which in my mind doesn't really have much to do with the rights of workers.

The section continues discussing overhauling unemployment insurance to allow it to meet workers' needs for paying bills and attending new training, which sounds encouraging. Finally, it talks about how he will "strengthen community colleges and technical training" and give displaced workers "more choices to find their way back to productive and prosperous lives." It's all pretty vague to me, with a bit more detail on unemployment insurance than anything else, but it's totally lacking specifics. I would like to know more about his unemployment insurance plans.

In a section on workplace flexibility, McCain discusses forming a "National Commission on Workplace Flexibility and Choice" to "modernize" labor laws to allow more flexible scheduling arrangements, help home-based workers and telecommuters, make "portable" healthcare (does that simply mean private insurance instead of employer-sponsored?), choice in retirement plans, and job-training assistance.

With regards to immigration, McCain focuses on securing the border between the U.S. and Mexico before legalizing aliens (a break -- some say nod to conservatives -- from the plan he had championed for years before abandoning his own immigration bill in the Senate). McCain's plan for non-agriculture jobs calls for creating a market-based system for low-skilled workers that changes with market demand. It allows workers to "enter the U.S. in an orderly fashion" and "return to their home countries after their temporary period in the U.S." while allowing for visa renewals. It would also offer limited green cards to those workers wishing to stay. Agricultural workers don't appear to get anything other than a "non-bureaucratic" program set by the market, whatever that means.

No use of the word "union" that I could find, and no mention of minimum or fair wages anywhere.

Obama
The Obama website talks about strengthening the ability of workers to organize unions free of harassment, protecting striking workers from being fired, and raising the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011 and indexing it to inflation.

On "work/family balance," Obama proposes expanding the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to include smaller businesses and including circumstances such as elder care, domestic violence, and even leave for parents to participate in their children's academic activities. His plan would expand flexible work arrangements by educating businesses about flex schedule benefits and make the federal government a model in adopting flexible schedules. Obama's plan would also expand the child and dependent care tax credit and double federal funding for after school programs that help working parents.

Obama's immigration policy is frankly a bit sparse. He discusses improving our immigration system by encouraging illegal workers to become citizens by paying a fine, learning English, and going "to the back of the line" to become citizens. (I'm not sure what that means, but I think it means the back of the existing queue of people waiting for citizenship.) His plan also talks about cracking down on employers who hire illegals to discourage incentives for entering the country illegally.

Obama also has extensive sections on poverty, rural, and urban issues (although "extensive" maybe isn't the best word to describe the section on rural issues). There's too much interesting stuff to go into here, but there's a wide range of proposals on topics such as promoting responsible fatherhood, establishing "promise neighborhoods" in high crime and poverty areas, creating a "green job corp," enhancing workforce training, supporting "innovation clusters," and of course raising the minimum wage.

Overall, both candidates provide a good amount of support for workplace flexibility programs. Obama takes that a bit further with his plans for expanding the FMLA and after school program funding. Both candidates also offer a nod to workforce training, although neither goes into too much detail there.

Whether you like his ideas or not, McCain has more information on his website about immigration. Even though he switched course in the past year, McCain arguably still has more experience in this matter due to the location of his home state. I'm not sold that we need to police the border more closely, let alone militarize it. I'm also a little nervous that his "market-based" ideas are merely codes for letting the market work itself out without regulation, or maybe letting industry lobbyists set visa levels. It may not be all bad, but some clarification would be nice. McCain's comment on changing unemployment insurance also sounds interesting, but I wish it would have earned more space than part of the last paragraph in a 14-page section.

While he doesn't go into enough detail on immigration issues on his website, Obama goes a lot farther than McCain in hitting the goals of creating living wages, participation in unions, and creating programs to spur innovation and small business creation, and I think overall he does a better job than McCain at meeting the goals of protecting the dignity of work and the rights of workers.

Scorecard:
Obama: 3
McCain: 0

Next up: Option for the Poor and Vulnerable

Seven Key Themes of Catholic Social Teaching: Solidarity

2008-10-24T12:24:00.007-04:00

This post is a continuation of my examination of both presidential candidates based on the seven basic Catholic themes of social teaching. If you're new here, be sure to read the first post in this series to see where I'm coming from.

Solidarity
...pursue justice, eliminate racism, end human trafficking, protect human rights, seek peace, and avoid the use of force except as a necessary last resort.

This is a tough one to score. Once again, I wish I had the 2004 USCCB report to see what kind of votes were included in this category. It's not like there's a link called "Solidarity" on the Issues sections of the campaign websites for me to check. Oh well. Here goes.

McCain
Let's see... The McCain website has a section on "Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life." I think I know where that's going, but maybe there's something in there.

Crap. Starts out with Roe v. Wade. I'll talk about that in a later post. Protecting children -- maybe that fits. He talks about filters on public computers and a national registry for people convicted of sex crimes against children. I'm not a fan of internet filters, but if a national registry could be handled better than the TSA "no fly list," it's not a bad idea.

Then the site goes into "There is no greater nobility than to sacrifice for a great cause and no cause greater than protection of human dignity." Thanks for the specifics. And did you know he was a POW?

McCain's section on crime has a lot about federal funding and support for local agencies, which is fine. It rehashes the "protecting our children" theme, but I'm not sure why judicial activism is here. Then it spends a lot of time talking about illegal immigrants who commit crimes.

In the National Security section, the headline is "A Strong Military in a Dangerous World." Then the first sentence starts out "In a dangerous world..." Gee, thanks for reminding me it's a dangerous world. I had forgotten. Now that I'm scared, will you protect me?

Further down, "to impinge on the rights of our own citizens or restrict the freedoms for which our nation stands would be to give terrorists the victory they seek." Great, but nothing about toning down the Patriot Act or the executive orders that allow domestic wiretapping. Furthermore, McCain has gone to great lengths to mock Obama's call for diplomacy with our enemies, and he has been silent when asked about consensus-building with our allies before the use of force. While he hasn't shown that he'd use force unnecessarily, McCain does seem more willing to go that route before diplomatic options are exhausted.

So, other than some spots on defense, there's not much to go on here. These are topics that McCain just doesn't talk much about (or at least they aren't on his website and I haven't heard him mention them).

Obama
Oh look: there's a "Civil Rights" section! It discusses enforcement of civil rights laws, employment discrimination (minorities and women), expanding hate crime statuses, deceptive voting, racial profiling, reducing crime recidivism, and more. And a PDF with more detail.

In his "Defense" section, Obama talks about creating a "Civilian Assistance Corps" consisting of doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, and others to help in times of need at home and abroad. He also talks about humanitarian activities to build allies.

Obama's position on opening a dialog with our enemies is also widely known now. Not unconditionally, as McCain has been painting it, but with proper lower-level preparations and talks being held first. Most military experts, including active generals and the current Secretary of Defense, agree with the idea that diplomacy must always be an option before war.

Finally, in his "Women" section, he discusses fighting gender violence abroad, which mainly seems to mean Dafur.

Overall, as I stated originally, this is a tough category to pin down. The rambling nature of this post was meant to show how difficult it was to find information on justice, racism, human trafficking (never even found that one), human rights, peace, and force as a last resort. These are not "sexy" topics, and frankly bringing some of them up (force as a last resort in particular) can be exploited as a weakness by an opponent. It should be noted that, in their second debate, both candidates were open to the idea of using our military for moral reasons -- to step into a situation where we may not have direct national interests at stake. Obama gave a few examples of when this would be important, but McCain did not offer any specifics.

Overall the Obama site clearly had more relevant information directly relating to some of the topics (especially civil rights and peace), so I have to score this one for him.

Scorecard:
Obama: 2
McCain: 0

Next up: Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers

Seven Key Themes of Catholic Social Teaching: Caring for God's Creation

2008-10-23T09:00:00.007-04:00

This blog is called "Catholic Democrats," even though I've been focusing almost entirely on the political side of things lately, so I decided I needed to bring the "Catholic" part back into the mix before election day. What better way to do that than to examine both candidates based on the seven basic Catholic themes of social teaching? Using the tools provided by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on their Faithful Citizenship website, over the next week or so I'm going to briefly examine each of the seven themes and rate each of the candidates based on the policy statements on their campaign websites. The themes are:

Back in 2004 the USCCB issued a "report card" based analysis of voting records of members of the Senate that I found to be very enlightening. Essentially it showed that the Republicans scored highly in the areas relating to abortion and stem cell research while the Democrats scored highly in every other category. In the end the lowest-scoring Democrat still had a significantly better score than the highest-scoring Republican when scores from all categories were added together. (Bet you didn't hear much about that report with all the news about Kerry being denied Communion for his views on abortion, did you?)

I wish the USCCB would have revised that report this year. It would have been especially helpful since both candidates are Senators, but alas, they did not. In fact, I can't even find a copy of the previous report on their website, even though they still have other documents from 2006 and earlier. I'll let you draw your own conclusions about that...

I could use prior voting records to make my own analysis for this series, but given that McCain has changed his stance on several key issues since campaigning began, and Obama is running a more centrist campaign than his voting record would indicate, I figured I should use what they say they want to do rather than what they've done. Plus, I have a day job and don't have time to pull Senate voting records from the past two years. I know it's not perfect. Feel free to disagree with this rationale on your own blog.

At the end of the week I'll crown a victor, although really my point isn't only to name a winner but to also get people thinking about issues, where their guy stands, and where that fits into what I consider to be (mostly) reasonable, rational, and justifiable Church teachings.

The first topic is:

Caring for God's Creation
...be careful stewards of God's creation and to ensure a safe and hospitable environment for vulnerable human beings now and in the future.

McCain's environmental/climate change plans on his campaign website are rather shallow. Some of the points are even repeats from his energy plan page. Obama has an extensive environmental plan that goes into quite a bit of detail. (Did you know Obama includes plans for superfund cleanup sites and protecting children from lead poisoning in addition to climate change, clean air, and clean water plans, among other things?)

Both have decent energy plans outlined on their websites, but Obama's offers a more detailed PDF in addition to the highlights on the site. That aside, both candidates offer similar plans for fuel efficiency standards, alternative energy research, reducing greenhouse gas emissions to pre-1990, greenhouse gas cap and trade system, increasing the efficiency of the government itself, encouraging alternate fuel vehicles, etc.

(Yes, I recognize there are differences, some of which are significant, but I don't have the time or space here to explain how Obama's greenhouse gas reduction plan would reduce emissions to 80% below 1990 levels compared to McCain's 60%. Or how they differ on flex-fuel and plug-in hybrid vehicles. Or any number of other differences that are too specific to go into here. I'm just going to hit what I see as the high points in this series.)

Personally I like Obama's plan better. However, you can argue the details until you're blue in the face. Bottom line is that both environmental and energy plans are better than the last 8 years. So are there any differences worth highlighting? Yes. Besides the environmental differences I mentioned above, there are energy policy differences in two big areas: oil exploration and nuclear power.

Obama has stated that he would be for limited offshore oil exploration if proposed as part of a comprehensive energy policy, while McCain is running around yelling "Drill, baby, drill!" and "Drill here, drill now." As I've written in an earlier post, I think that's a mistake. I believe we'd be better served by using our limited financial resources to advance new energy sources instead of plugging it into temporary, polluting sources. That's a win for energy and environmental policy at the same time.

McCain also intends to build 45 nuclear power plants by 2030, but he doesn't explain how we could do that when we haven't built a new plant in 30 years - and many of the engineering and construction requirements for the new plants can't be handled domestically. Three larger concerns, however, are securing the nuclear fuel, disposing of the spent nuclear fuel, and the fact that nuclear power has never been cost effective - our existing plants were often way over budget and highly subsidized by local, state, and federal governments. Obama's plan does not rule out nuclear, but it states that plans for the security and disposal of the nuclear fuel must be greatly improved from where we stand today before undertaking any new development.

Go to the campaign websites. Read their plans. Make up your own mind. But I give this one to Obama. His plan better shares the values of the Church.

Scorecard:
Obama: 1
McCain: 0

Next up: Solidarity

Socialism and You

2008-10-22T12:48:00.005-04:00

My my, we've heard a lot of people using (or yelling) the word "socialist" lately. It didn't really start with our friend Joe the (unlicensed non-union) Plumber (who owes back taxes, makes around 40k a year, and has no immediate plans or ability to buy a business). Since Mr. Plumber has been in the news, however, the use of some form of the word "socialism" has increased dramatically. But do the people using that word really know what it means? Just for kicks, let's go to our old friend Wikipedia.

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society... Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

Okay, so in a nutshell, capitalism creates inequity, and the way to make things more fair is to have government (or co-ops, it should be noted) control industries and ensure the fair distribution of stuff (goods, wealth, etc). (I doubt if many people would argue that capitalism leads to inequity, although many would argue that the have-nots aren't unfairly treated but simply don't work hard enough.) And that word "egalitarian" sounds scary, too. Do they want us to live and work in a pinko commie commune? Well, no. Again, from Wikipedia:

"Egalitarianism is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals, and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights."

Well that actually doesn't sound so scary, even in a capitalist society. In fact, it almost sounds like Catholic teaching on social justice. (Foreshadowing alert: look for posts on just that topic in the coming days.) I think Thomas Jefferson even used some of that in the Declaration of Independence ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...").

So on what basis do McCain supporters (and McCain/Palin themselves) make this "socialist" charge? Mainly from Obama's tax plan and from Obama's own remarks to Joe the Plumber about how everyone benefits when we "spread the wealth around." (Note to Sen. Obama: You really didn't have a better response than that? You know full well that your plan doesn't really have any Robin Hood characteristics, but you didn't have a better response ready?)

Let's look at Obama's tax plan. We should all know by now that it does not raise, but cuts taxes on any individual, family, or business making under $250,000 a year. That includes not hiding hikes in income tax, payroll tax, capital gains, investments, and pretty much any other means you might have to make it up to $250k. As far as Americans go, depending on where you get your stats, about 90-95% of us make less than $250k, and that means we'll get some kind of tax cut (or our taxes will be about the same if we make right around $250k). Nothing socialist yet.

So what about the 5-10% of Americans who make more than $250k? Well, their taxes will go up. But as I explained to my 7-year-old, it won't hurt them as much. If you have $10 and I tax you at 20%, you have $8 left. If you have $20 and I tax you at 30%, sure you paid more in taxes, but you still have $14 left. This is called progressive taxation, and despite rich people's distaste of it, it has been part of our country's tax policy for generations. It's a sensible notion that if you make more, you should contribute more. John McCain himself even used to believe in it. Here's what he said when he voted AGAINST Bush's 2001 tax cuts:

I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans.

As an aside, Salon has a great tongue-in-cheek article about how Bob the Banker's taxes would increase under the Obama plan. Bob makes $280,000 a year (about as much as Joe said his future plumbing business would make), and under Obama his tax rate would rise from its current rate of 33% to only 35%, resulting in increased yearly taxes of $257. Hardly worth a call to arms. Sure, if you make more you will be taxed more, but since that's always been the case, I don't see why it's a hot button issue this year.

Anyway, back to socialism. With a progressive tax code by itself, I still don't see socialism at all. So what are you going to DO with the money you get when you raise taxes on the rich? Well, much of that will go to running government. I know many people don't like government programs, but it is important to have a military, adequate transportation infrastructure, homeland security, social security, Medicaid/Medicare, etc. (Obviously those social services aren't universally popular, but I don't think they are going anywhere.) That money can't all come from the Chinese buying Treasury securities, so we have to get the rest from taxing our citizens.

Another big chunk of those tax increases on the wealthy will go towards... paying for the tax cuts for the middle class and working poor. The theory here is that wealth doesn't trickle down, but it is created from the bottom up. This, some will argue, is socialism. Especially since some people who don't earn enough to file income taxes may end up receiving government checks. True, our Wikipedia definition above does mention a society "in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly," but there is great disagreement among socialist theories on how to achieve that equality. Actively redistributing wealth is one means, but making the system more fair and letting the redistribution happen on its own is another. So do tax cuts for the working poor equal forced redistribution of wealth? That argument falls flat on a number of levels.

First of all, those people who work but do not earn enough to pay income tax do still pay 7.65% in payroll taxes, so in a very real sense they will be taxpayers receiving a tax cut, not a handout. People who don't work do not file taxes, and therefore they will not receive anything.

Second, McCain's own healthcare plan includes a similar refundable tax credit to all working individuals and families. That means that checks will be mailed to every working individual and family, even if they didn't earn enough to file income taxes for that year. For some the amount of their check will exceed the amount they pay for healthcare. Not for everyone mind you (and certainly not for many in another year or two when healthcare costs rise faster than inflation), but the net effect will be payments from the government to individuals and families. McCain properly calls this a refundable tax credit for his own plan while using the scary - and inaccurate - term "government handout" to describe Obama's version of the refundable credit.

To recap so far, socialism is not defined, strictly speaking, as simply redistributing wealth. Even if you think it is, McCain's policies are just as guilty of doing that as Obama's.

So do we have any pure socialism going on here anywhere? Well, yes we do. That $700 billion bailout/rescue package is one big slice of socialism, as the government is using that money to buy equity in financial institutions. Even before that bill passed the feds bought stakes in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG. All this under a Republican administration, supported by a vote from one Senator McCain. I'm not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, but it happened, and McCain went right along with Senator Obama in supporting it. McCain has even proposed buying up mortgages with taxpayer money and renegotiating the terms (a provision that is already accounted for in the rescue package, BTW), repeating an FDR program from the New Deal. What would it be called if the Federal government became the nation's largest mortgage lender? Why that might also be called socialism!

So in the end it appears that:

a) McCain and his supporters don't truly understand the definition of socialism
2) They misrepresent Obama's plans and claim they are socialist while proposing different ways to do exactly the same things in their own policies
III) McCain himself voted for arguably the biggest socialist legislation in the nation's history and shortly thereafter proposed yet another mortgage buyout that itself smells kind of socialist

I guess, as with many other McCain tactics, he's pretty comfortable spreading lies and FUD about his opponent. In this case, however, he's also campaigning against his own policies. How presidential.

Here's another way to look at it: not spreading the wealth, but raising the floor.

Random Political Musings

2008-10-15T11:11:00.006-04:00

I've stayed away from being overtly political in my last few posts, instead discussing issues. I figured that as the race turned ugly, I'd be better served to stay above the fray. If you didn't see my earlier posts on science and social justice issues, take a few minutes to read them. I'll wait here.

Are you back now? Good. I couldn't resist throwing out a few political topics on the day of the last debate, so I'll just ramble a bit to get them out there.

First, ACORN. Lots of mud flying about Obama's relationship to ACORN, voter registration fraud, their "quasi criminal" status, etc. And of course a lot of that is pure FUD. First, Obama's relationship has been distorted, even though (as with William Ayers) it's been a matter of public record for some time. His law firm represented a group (which included ACORN as well as a little organization known as the U.S. Department of Justice) in their attempt to enforce a voting rights law, and an ACORN-related group did some set up for the Obama campaign at events here in Indiana. (As far as I've read, that set-up didn't even include voter registration drives.) So, in my mind at least, while the organization does lean Democrat because of its charter, it's not an Obama surrogate.

As far as voter registration goes, there have been some huge mistakes. "Let's hire prisoners to register voters in Nevada. What could go wrong?" Um, yeah. So they register the Dallas Cowboys. Matt Drudge made a big deal about "Mickey Mouse" being on a voter registration form in Florida. Clearly there are problems. But do you know what? ACORN has been addressing those problems.

When a voter registration card is submitted, it is ILLEGAL for the submitting organization to pass judgement on it. They do not have the right to say if it is valid or not. If they had that right, they could dismiss forms for any number of reasons, political or otherwise, and there would be no accountability. It is not their place to say if Tony Romo (QB for the Cowboys) lives in Nevada or Mickey Mouse lives in Orlando. In fact, there are 32 people listed in the white pages in this country with the name "Mickey Mouse" -- 2 of them in Florida. So throwing out a card with a funny name may disqualify a real voter. When ACORN has discovered problems, they have fired the people involved (charges are pending against them for breaking election laws) and flagged the suspect forms for review by local election boards. Sure, it's a burden to leave the locals with so much work to do before election day, and ACORN's local offices should have vetted their workers more, but when problems were found, they acted properly.

Now here's the thing: fake voter registrations don't hurt anyone in the election. Why? Because unless Mickey Mouse shows up to vote in person (with ID), it's just his name on a voter list. It's a pain in the ass to process and investigate these bad forms, but a fraudulent voter registration form itself cannot vote. There is no danger of an election being thrown to one side or the other because of thousands of fake registrations. I think the most attention should be paid to voter intimidation and removal, which can have real effects on the people who turn out to vote on election day.

Update 10/20: Slate has an excellent article on why voter registration fraud is merely a smokescreen by the Right to attempt to undermine voter confidence in the electoral system when in fact voter fraud itself is almost nonexistent. Along with voter ID requirements, faulty databases removing registered voters from the rolls, and threatening to arrest people at polls with outstanding parking tickets, some Republicans are now also resorting to threatening early voters in North Carolina. Huh? Since when is following a state law that allows early voting "cheating?"

Speaking of voting, I voted early today in my home state of Indiana. To anyone voting anywhere, this word of advice: keep the t-shirts, buttons, hats, and other campaign swag at home. There were signs all over the courthouse saying that NO campaign material can be displayed while voting, and they would not allow anyone to vote if they had anything visible on them promoting a candidate. So avoid the hassle of being sent home or back to your car to ditch the t-shirt and wear a Colts jersey or something instead.

I've been shocked by the racism and violent outbursts at McCain/Palin rallies in the past week or so, and I've been disappointed that McCain's efforts to tone them down have been so slow and so weak (and I still haven't seen Palin scold anyone). There's not much I can say that hasn't already been said, so I'll just point to this excellent op-ed piece by Frank Rich instead.

After PBS announced a documentary critical of the Iraq war earlier this year, the Bush administration threatened to cut public funding for PBS in half for 2009, by 56% in 2010, and eliminate funding in 2011. The threat seems to have been heard, because now PBS is holding off broadcasting a documentary on torture until after Bush has left office. I can only hope this kind of crap stops on January 21, 2009. I'm amazed it's been allowed to go on this long.

Finally, The Daily Show was the only place to call McCain's "new" stump speech, unveiled this past Monday, for what it is: not new at all, but a rehashed version of his convention speech. On Tuesday night they brilliantly juxtaposed his "new" speech with the convention speech, showing many sections were the same, word-for-word. Now, maybe that's not a bad strategy for McCain since that was the last time he rose in the polls, but it's been bothering me that his campaign announces yet another strategy and newspapers all over the country tout it as his "comeback," often parroting the exact talking points he wanted them to quote. So I leave you with Jon Stewart:

Twenty Questions: Social Justice Quiz 2008

2008-10-13T22:46:00.001-04:00

From the website The Zoo, Twenty Questions: Social Justice Quiz 2008

This may make you squirm. It asks questions you may not know (or want to know) the answers to. It starts off with these:

Q. How many deaths are there worldwide each year due to acts of terrorism?

A: More than 22,000 last year. 1/2 were Muslim.

Q: How many deaths are the worldwide each day due to poverty and malnutrition?

A: About 25,000 every DAY.

More explanation to the answers at the site. You'll also find questions about CEO compensation, in how many cities in the US full-time minimum wage workers can afford rent and utilities, what percentage of the homeless are children, and how many people have died trying to cross the border between Mexico and Arizona.

Not always easy answers, but important to know.

Science Debate 2008: 14 Questions

2008-10-06T18:00:00.000-04:00

Now that the presidential race has officially become ugly, here's some policy information that can hopefully bring some of us back down to what really matters.

To those of you interested in science and technology, here's a political spin: 14 questions about "science and the future of America." It's a long read and there's a lot of stumping on both sides, but the page has a helpful layout that places both candidates' answers next to each other for each question.

There's simply too much material to quote extensively, but here are two worthy of comment:

Nuclear power is a proven, domestic, zero-emission source of energy and it is time to recommit to advancing our use of nuclear energy. -- John McCain

Is nuclear power really proven? It generates electricity, yes, but proven? So far there are no nuclear power plants in the U.S. that haven't been heavily subsidized. The cost per megawatt, when cost overruns and subsidies are calculated, makes nuclear power anything but "proven." Zero-emission? That's a common misconception. They are low-emission, but not zero. Of course they are vastly better in this regard than coal or natural gas plants, but there is some pollution from nuclear plants. And what about those nasty spent fuel rods that no one wants in their backyard? That's a pollution problem.

Next, Obama calls for a national CTO.

...Establish the nation's first Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies and services for the 21st century. The CTO will lead an interagency effort on best-in-class technologies, sharing of best practices, and safeguarding of our networks. -- Barack Obama

This is a terrific idea for helping government efficiency and security that could ultimately lead to many good things, but man would that be a tough job. Still, high marks for recommending it. Lots more of this type of stuff, in much greater detail, at the link above.

Who Decides the Winner?

2008-10-03T10:25:00.008-04:00

Most of the post-debate headlines mention Palin by name, and the accompanying articles say that she did much better than expected. I won't disagree with that, although she rarely left her talking points, and, more importantly, decided not to answer certain questions at all. Instead she returned to familiar rehearsed lines that highlighted her perceived strengths. (I could guess in a few instances when her notes ran out because she suddenly became awkward and her speech was more halted, although we never saw anything near the disaster of the Kouric interviews.) The moderator did not press her on any of these missed questions, so perhaps the McCain camp "working the refs" pre-debate paid off.

Palin's expectations were so low all she had to do was not accidentally endorse Obama to be considered a success. Republicans seemed to love her "folksiness," punctuated with "gonna," "bless their little hearts" (referring to oil company executives!), and "you betcha." It's interesting to note that the Republican spin doctors loved this because it brought her "closer to middle America," even though they don't speak like this themselves on camera. I think they really have no idea how "middle America" sounds and were pleased because that's how they think we all talk. Dagnabbit that's not true!

Anyway, I'm struck by the media reporting after both debates so far. According to most media outlets, the both debates were "ties." Interestingly, Palin "won by default" according to some reporters since she was able to not make a fool of herself, but last week Obama was not awarded a similar victory by default even though he stayed toe-to-toe with McCain on what was supposedly McCain's strongest area. Perhaps more interestingly is how the media decided that the debates were draws at all when their own polling showed the American public thought Obama won the first debate and Biden won the VP debate. Here's an example as pointed out by Media Matters.

The majority of people polled did feel that Palin performed better than they expected, but those same people overwhelmingly still said Biden won, according to CBS and CNN polls. Several national polls showed that the public felt Obama won the first debate, too. So does the media know better than us, and that's why their experts are calling them both draws? Shouldn't the headlines at least be "Palin Does Better than Expected, Biden Still Judged Winner"?

Update 10/3: Most of the articles I've read understate Palin's verbal slip-ups in the debate, but in some places she clearly had problems. While she didn't come anywhere near the trip-ups she had in the Couric interviews, she had (and has had all along) trouble formulating sentences on complex topics that haven't been written down for her and rehearsed.

So far I most closely agree with Politico's recap of the debate. It mentions some of those slip-ups and doesn't pretend that Palin "won" by simply not shooting herself in the foot.

The Truth Hurts

2008-09-29T12:41:00.007-04:00

At the same time McCain was incorrectly blasting Obama for having ties to two Freddie-Fannie executives (the truth: neither have worked for Freddie-Fannie lately, and neither currently work for Obama -- one has actually never worked for Obama), word comes out about the McCain campaign ties to those same institutions. It suddenly becomes clear why he lashed out at Obama: because the truth inside his own campaign was too damning to be fully exposed.

Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, owns the lobbying firm Davis Manafort which received $15,000 a month from Freddie-Fannie from 2005 THROUGH LAST MONTH . Also, as president of an advocacy group created by Freddie-Fannie, Davis received $30,000 to $35,000 a month from 2000 to the end of 2005.

That's $2 million from 2000 through 2005 and another $500,000 from 2005 through August of 2008.

Details here, here, here, and here.

This is probably old news to you because this was all over the media when it broke last Monday and Tuesday, right? Or not. Even though it's directly related the financial meltdown and the McCain campaign's handling of that issue, it was effectively buried by sexier leads and the incessant repeating that McCain had "suspended" his campaign. But we all know how that turned out.

Edit 10/3: The Washington Post is reporting that Freddie Mac hired a lobbyist specifically because of his ties to McCain.

"Senator McCain was talking about limiting executive compensation, and Buse was retained to nip that in the bud," said a former lobbyist who insisted on anonymity because of continuing relationships with the companies.

Yikes. That doesn't look good. But how did it all work out?

...Buse's effort was viewed as "hugely successful," a former Freddie Mac lobbyist said. "The statements didn't go away completely, but in terms of Senator McCain doing anything about it, it just never materialized. As far as I know, Buse was the only person working that issue for Fannie or Freddie, so he got a lot of credit internally for the results."

Okay then. So now we know what he did when he lobbied. So what does he do now?

Buse returned to McCain's office this year as chief of staff.

'Nuff said.

Former McCain Supporters Pile On the Complaints

2008-09-29T09:00:00.000-04:00

Didn't have a chance to blog these earlier, but they are too interesting to let slip through the cracks.

First, Richard Cohen, (former) McCain supporter and Washington Post Op-Ed columnist, scolds the Senator bigtime for "becoming the sort of politician he once despised."

Two quotes worth pulling:

Following his loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 South Carolina primary, John McCain did something extraordinary: He confessed to lying about how he felt about the Confederate battle flag, which he actually abhorred. "I broke my promise to always tell the truth," McCain said. Now he has broken that promise so completely that the John McCain of old is unrecognizable. He has become the sort of politician he once despised.

There's a lot of great stuff in the middle, but he ends with this zinger:

And so McCain lied about his lying and maybe thinks that if he wins the election, he can -- as he did in South Carolina -- renounce who he was and what he did and resume his old persona. It won't work. Karl Marx got one thing right -- what he said about history repeating itself. Once is tragedy, a second time is farce. John McCain is both.

Next comes a piece from Wick Allison, owner of D Magazine and former publisher of William F. Buckley, Jr's National Review. Allison starts off "Barack Obama strikes a chord with me like no political figure since Ronald Reagan." He then goes into a well-reasoned explanation of Conservatism and why he believes in it.

Some good pull quotes:

The Bush tax cuts -— a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war -— led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his "conservative" credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask.

Then:

Nobody can read Obama's books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

And his big finish:

As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.

Don't let my pull quotes discourage you from reading either of these articles. They definitely provide food for Conservative thought.

Not Suspended In Any Way, Shape, or Form

2008-09-26T10:44:00.002-04:00

Was McCain's campaign "suspended" as he claimed on Wednesday and the news media faithfully reported (and are still reporting today)? I suppose it was, assuming you don't count things like

his staff and advisers appearing on all three networks and cable news
McCain himself on a cable news show
his ads are still being broadcast
campaign offices are open across the country
phone banks are still operating
literature distribution still occurring
donations still being accepted

On top of everything else, McCain brought a campaign aide to the White House for yesterday's bailout meeting. (Obama brought one of his Senate staffers.) Can you say "Political stunt?"

Which Way is Up?

2008-09-24T23:33:00.010-04:00

Early last week, we heard John McCain say that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." Then the stock market went south as the bank crisis worsened.

By mid-week he was striking a populist tone, demanding justice for American workers.

Late in the week and early this week, McCain changed tunes again, warning of a deepening crisis.

Now that the bailout plan is being discussed, according to McCain it is imperative that is be passed quickly or our economy faces certain doom. Both he and Palin have said in interviews that if the bailout is not passed quickly, we could find ourselves in a major Depression -- and we'll start feeling the effects as soon as Monday.

So which is it: is the economy sound, or are we all doomed?

I'm willing to give people some credit for changing their tunes after they get more information. Forming a new opinion when your knowledge and understanding of a situation expands is not a bad thing by any means. But spinning so far from one side to the other -- and throwing in the sky is falling doom and gloom story -- makes me think he's trying to work the American public (who have started to lose confidence in his ability to manage the economy).

Update 9/25: Turns out that as recently as Tuesday McCain had not yet read the Paulson plan! All 3 pages of it. Sigh.

So is the suspension of his campaign putting "country first" or merely a political stunt? I'd say more of the latter, as he hasn't felt the need to vote on anything since April. Both he and Obama are off most of the major committees so they can campaign, so there's little they could do in Washington other than pose for dramatic photos of them at tables with their sleeves rolled up. Jumping into the fray at this point might just mess things up. Personally I think he formulated this plan after Obama called him this morning to discuss issuing a joint statement about the crisis. McCain just took it one irrational step further than that to try to control the message.

Update 9/25: What exactly does "suspension" mean, anyway? McCain's campaign advisers are still making the talk show rounds today criticizing Obama. That doesn't seem like a suspension at all to me. If I went to a local McCain campaign office, would it be closed? Can I donate on their website? (Turns out I can!) So I guess "suspension" just means "an excuse for me to hold a press conference and act all presidential-like."

Here's something else to consider. McCain's announcement today mentioned that he was suspending his campaign and returning to Washington to help pass the bailout. That included canceling his appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman. He called Dave personally to say he wouldn't make it because he would be on his way back to Washington.

But wait! It turns out he didn't head back to Washington. Not only did he stay in New York, but he did an interview in the CBS building with Katie Couric! He is also scheduled to speak at an event in NYC tomorrow. Needless to say, Dave Letterman was not pleased.

You know what? I'm not pleased, either. If you say the crisis is urgent and you need to be in Washington, then go to Washington! You can do the Couric interview via satellite -- or skip it until things have calmed down. But if you make a big deal out of everything as part of a political stunt, then by all means you can take all the time you need in New York. You wouldn't want to beat the camera crews back to Washington.

Edit 9/25: On a semi-related note, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson claims that he "welcomes" oversight of the bailout plan, but if he's really open to that, why does the plan itself contain this language?

Decisions by the Secretary [of the Treasury] pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Holy constitutionality, Batman! More and more it's looking like this administration is trying to shove this down our throats before we know what happened. I can't believe I'm going to quote Wolf Blitzer, but this says it all:

[Bush] faces an uphill battle to convince the American people he knows what he's doing.

Where's the Oil?

2008-09-24T12:00:00.001-04:00

All the talk lately has been on the Wall Street bailout, but I'd like to step back to another important topic: America's energy policy. NPR's Day to Day recently interviewed Robert Kaufmann, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University. He points out that the best bet for finding oil in the U.S. is most likely in the Gulf of Mexico, but it's probably not worth the effort to get it. As he points out, the most "wildly optimistic" assessment for drilling now puts oil flowing from off-shore drilling no sooner than 5 years from now, and that is for a relatively small amount of oil. Even in ANWR, where oil companies are already operating in the neighborhood, it could take 10 years to get oil to market.

Oil companies currently have the rights to drill in millions of acres of Federal land (and some areas off-shore), and yet they are not. Why? Because when their own dollars are at stake, they aren't as eager to put their theories of how much oil is out there to the test. They are more than happy to be given the rights, however, in case they can get a rock-solid estimate -- or more likely government subsidies for exploration and drilling.

If off-shore drilling rights are granted, pay close attention to the contracts that are awarded. You might find incentives such as tax breaks for the oil companies, or even the government directly picking up the tab for bringing the oil to market. What you won't find will be profit sharing once that oil starts flowing, though. Even Alaska's Governor Palin has had a difficult time getting oil companies to build a natural gas pipeline in her state -- largely because they don't want to spend the money on the infrastructure. Alaska now has a plan in the works, but instead of working with the oil companies, a Canadian firm is planning on building the pipeline -- with millions of dollars for planning, environmental impact assessments, and other expenses being chipped in by the state.

So what will "drill here drill now" get us? We will spend our finite resources looking for an extremely small percentage of our energy needs that won't make it to market for at least 5 years (more likely between 5 and 10 years), AND it very likely might cost the taxpayers money to get the projects off the ground. In the meantime we'll be that much farther behind in R&D into alternative energy sources. As Kaufman noted:

The question for this country is... how will we insure that we have energy over the next 20 years? To do that we have a finite amount of capital that we can invest in the energy industry. It's highly unlikely that investing that money in off-shore oil and gas drilling will insure that we have sufficient supplies of energy 10 and 20 years from now. We've tried that experiment in the past -- despite all those wells drilled, domestic oil and gas production continued to decline. So in hindsight, that money was not effectively spent.

Who Said It?

2008-09-23T09:42:00.002-04:00

I didn't decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president. . . . In truth, I'd had the ambition for a long time.

Those words are by...

John McCain in his 2002 memoir Worth Fighting For. Or, more accurately, they are from John McCain's co-author (as I understand it, I'd actually call him the lead author) Mark Salter. Maybe McCain felt comfortable publishing those words in 2002 because he didn't think he'd have another presidential campaign in him after he was Roved by the Bush campaign in 2000.

Or maybe he felt comfortable publishing those words because he could take political cover since those words weren't written by him. As Salter explained to the Washington Post, "It's his voice, but I'm going inside his head to speak some psychological truth about him. I'm drawing a conclusion based on my observation of him. I always show him: 'This is what I've written. This is what I think about you. Is this fair?' "

Still, Salter admits that McCain approved what he wrote, so disavowing that now might be tricky. No trickier than explaining how "I'm John McCain, and I approved this message" is played at the end of his lie-filled ads against Obama, though. Oh, wait -- he doesn't explain that. He says they're all true. (More on that in a future blog.)

McCain Still Touting Benefits of Deregulation

2008-09-22T12:32:00.007-04:00

This gem of a quote is courtesy of John McCain himself courtesy of a ~~stump speech~~ article he wrote for a publication called Contingencies (which I had not heard of before).

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

[The emphasis added is mine.] To be fair, he is referring to opening up insurance markets nationwide, similar to opening up the banking industry so you can bank anywhere you choose regardless of in which state your bank is located. However, that deregulation didn't lead to more individuals choosing a checking account from a "national" bank as much as it resulted in larger banks crossing state lines to purchase regional or local banks. (Has your bank changed names recently?) Do we want/need that in the insurance industry, too?

The Obama campaign rightfully pounced on the quote in Florida, with Obama saying "So let me get this straight -- he wants to run health care like they've been running Wall Street." McCain senior economics adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin fired back, "If Barack Obama thinks that today's financial troubles were caused by policies which allowed Americans to use an ATM anywhere in this country, then it is better that he continue to be silent about solutions to the crisis on Wall Street."

Holtz-Eakin is oversimplifying the issue. While having a bank account with a nationwide bank like Chase or Citibank does allow me to use my ATM nationwide, I was already able to do this thanks to ATM networks set up long before banking deregulation. Is he suggesting that McCain invented national ATM banking? </snark>

Jumping back to the broader picture of McCain's health plan, I don't see how allowing individuals to buy their own insurance anywhere in the country will suddenly lead to lower premiums. Yes, Blue Cross of Vermont would now be able to sell policies to someone who previously used United Healthcare in Kentucky, but the net effect will be the watering down of consumer power. The best rates for healthcare are generally received by larger groups -- a big company can negotiate better rates than a small business or an individual. This is simple economics, but it hasn't led to many individuals or small businesses banding together for greater purchasing power even in the current regionally-limited market. How will empowering millions of Americans to act individually substantially reduce rates? If I can pull an example from a different type of insurance, my car insurance hasn't dropped significantly even though I can choose from several companies that compete nationwide.

Yes, I could stick with my employer's plan if I wanted, but McCain's plan simply wouldn't help millions of Americans who currently don't have an employer-sponsored health plan today.

Web-based Email is Not Secure

2008-09-19T11:00:00.001-04:00

I told myself I wasn't going to write any more about Sarah Palin. I think there's enough out about her now that most people either don't think she's qualified for her current position (let alone VP) or have decided they like her no matter what anyone else says. But since I live and work in the IT world, I couldn't let this lie.

I'm sure you saw reports about Palin's use of a Yahoo email account and the subsequent hacking of that account by a group calling itself "anonymous." It should be pointed out that anonymous is not from the Obama campaign, as I've seen suggested by some McCain supporters. Anonymous is a loosely organized hacking group that is currently working to expose and discredit Scientologists in a self-declared e-war against the Church of Scientology. They've done some similar hacking stunts before, and somehow they seem to think Palin is a closet Scientologist. Weird, I know. No matter who they are, they broke the law and should be punished if caught.

Anyway, more to the point is the horribly naive, dangerous, and underhanded decision by Palin to use a web-based email account to conduct public business. First, web-based email is not secure. If you use it, assume that the contents of your email could be viewed by anyone. This is not a system on which to share budgets, staff decisions, or policy proposals. Her government email account will (or at least should) have some safeguards to make the contents of her email more private and secure.

I know this point won't gain traction in the mainstream news because most people probably don't think about email security. To the general public, email is a utility that doesn't require much thought, and a government official using Yahoo mail isn't a big deal. But trust me; it is. You don't want someone in the White House discussing items of national security on an open email account.

Second, there are legal requirements for the retention of government documents. Those requirements are known and understood by the Alaskan IT department, and their email servers are backed up regularly. Yahoo will keep records of emails for a time, I'm sure, but they are not legally bound to keep archival copies of anything. They probably clean out their servers pretty regularly, in fact. Without backups, there is a serious lack of accountability.

Finally, it seems clear from some of the intercepted emails that Palin knew exactly what she was doing by using a Yahoo account. Okay, she obviously didn't know how stupid it was from a security standpoint, but she purposefully used the account to avoid accountability. She knew these emails wouldn't be saved (on her end, at least), and she also knew it was unlikely they could be subpoenaed if she were ever under investigation. These are not actions by a "reformer;" they are the actions of someone with something to hide.

So, in what I hope will be one of my last (if not the last) posts on Sarah Palin, I ask this: Do you want a person a heartbeat away from the Presidency who a) is ignorant/stupid enough to potentially spread sensitive government information over insecure networks, and b) used those insecure networks specifically to hide her activities from regulators? This is a rhetorical question, but maybe it shouldn't be.

Update 9/22: It looks like an article I read linking this to the hacker group "anonymous" was incorrect. Maybe it was an innocent mistake since the hacker of the Palin email account called himself anonymous, but I apologize for re-posting incorrect information. Turns out the hacker in question was a student at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, whose sloppy gloating resulted in his arrest.

People are quick to point out that he is the son of a Democratic member of the Tennessee State Legislature, so this will give conspiracy theorists ammunition to tie this to the Obama campaign again. I saw fooey on that. While the motivation may very well have been political (assuming he's even a Democrat like his dad), it's a stretch to think anyone from the Obama campaign would go this route if they wanted some dirt.

My initial impression still stands: it's dangerous and deceitful for Palin to have maintained this account if it was used for any state business.

Dilbert Survey of Economists

2008-09-17T10:33:00.006-04:00

Scott Adams, the creator of the popular comic strip Dilbert, commissioned a survey of over 500 economists to give people more information about how both candidates fare on economic issues. While it hardly offers a clear "winner," it did offer some interesting conclusions. (The full press release can be found at http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/dilbert_survey_of_economists/.)

Highlights:

Overall, 59% of the economists say Obama would be best for the economy long term, with 31% picking McCain, and 8% saying there would be no difference.
When asked to rank the most important economic issues, the top 10 were: education, health care, international trade, energy, encouraging technology/innovation, wars and homeland security, mortgage/housing crisis, social security, environmental policy, and reducing the deficit.
Overall, the economists in the survey favor Obama on 9 of the top 13 issues, McCain on 1 (international trade), and feel that there will be no difference on 2. (On the issue of the mortgage/housing crisis, Obama and "no difference" both came in at 41%, with McCain scoring only 18%.)

48% of the economists surveyed were Democrats, 27% Independents, and only 17% Republicans. This gives many people pause about the objectivity of the results. However, as Adams puts it in a follow up blog:

Economists crossed party lines on the questions of International Trade, Environmental Policy, Immigration, Reducing Waste in Government, and Reducing the Deficit. I didn't include a question about a gas tax holiday, because the idea has already expired, but economists crossed party lines on that issue too. That suggests a degree of objectivity on an issue level. The crossover issues, plus the rankings, are important no matter who gets elected. That will tell you if your president has the right priorities.

Overall, with the uncertain bias of party affiliation, there can be no absolute "winner" from this survey. We'll simply never know how much party loyalty played into the results. But as Adams mentions, we can still learn a few things about the candidates and the importance of these issues (even if we simply determine that, as a result of reading this survey, economics should be valued more or less in our evaluation of the candidates).

Scott Adams has a bit of additional commentary in an opinion piece he wrote for CNN.com, and a blog post he wrote today offers even more helpful insight. I know it's a lot of extra reading, but it goes pretty quickly (Adams is a good writer) and that last link in particular offers a lot of food for thought.

More Scare Tactics and Misrepresentation

2008-09-11T10:00:00.004-04:00

In yet another attempt to frighten voters away from Obama by distorting reality, the McCain camp released an incorrect ad claiming that Obama favors "comprehensive sex education" for Kindergarten students. They also falsely claim a sex-ed bill (which wasn't sponsored by Obama and didn't actually pass) was his "one accomplishment" in education while in the Illinois legislature.

No need for me to go into details of the smear ad, as they are very well-covered in the New York Times and on FactCheck.org (which, BTW, is one of several new additions to our list of links in the right column).

The ad also cites criticism of Obama by Education Week, but it failed to note that the same issue also said some positive things about Obama. Oh yeah -- the ad also left out that Education Week "complained that McCain offered 'a laundry list of fairly vague answers' on how to improve schools and did not make education a priority. 'McCain is a campaign-finance, foreign-relations, anti-abortion, tax-cut candidate,' the magazine said. 'Education is not his thing.'" (Quote from the NYT article linked above.)

Once again, without any real plans of his own, McCain is still resorting to making stuff up to attempt to scare voters away from Obama. This pathetic "campaigning" would be almost funny if it wasn't likely to work -- more people will probably see those false attack ads than the NYT or FactCheck.org articles discrediting them.

Only Republicans Can Talk About Lipstick

2008-09-10T10:48:00.004-04:00

This has me seething. So many parts of this campaign have left me feeling this way, but this is just petty BS. Has anyone in the McCain campaign ever listened to themselves? I mean, really taken a step back to listen to the words coming out of their mouths?

Here's Barack Obama in a speech yesterday:

"John McCain says he's about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is, 'Watch out George Bush -- except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics -- we're really going to shake things up in Washington.' That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing."

Some colorful analogies. The "lipstick on a pig" one in particular has been around for many years and is useful in many situations.

As CNN reports, "Within minutes, the McCain campaign announced a conference call focused on the remark, which they said was a deliberate reference to Palin's line: 'You know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.' McCain spokesman Brian Rogers told CNN the campaign saw a 'big difference' between the two references: 'McCain was referring to a policy proposal. Obama was referring to [Alaska] Gov. Sarah Palin. It's obviously disrespectful and offensive... Who has been talking about lipstick lately? It was obvious. The crowd went crazy because of it." [emphasis mine]

"Who has been talking about lipstick lately?" Really? So Sarah Palin makes a funny and all of a sudden no one else is supposed to use an analogy that's been around for years? Or even talk about lipstick?

More to the point, Obama wasn't talking about Palin! Anyone with a grade school education can figure out that he was comparing McCain's policies to the proverbial pig. Senator McCain and Governor Palin weren't even mentioned in that part of the speech! (And if, as McCain spokesman Brian Rogers claims, Palin is the pig in that analogy, I guess that makes McCain the stinky fish. But no one's complaining about that, even though it would be just as big of an insult.)

CNN goes on to actually do a bit of journalism and points out occasions when John McCain himself has used the same analogy (once last year in reference to Hillary Clinton's healthcare proposal) and other times when McCain supporters have used it (one even made it the title of his book). Mike Huckabee is even taking Obama's side.

Let me second the Obama campaign in calling the McCain camp dishonorable.

"The McCain campaign's attack tonight is a pathetic attempt to play the gender card about the use of a common analogy -- the same analogy that Sen. McCain himself used about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care plan just last year. This phony lecture on gender sensitivity is the height of cynicism and lays bare the increasingly dishonorable campaign John McCain has chosen to run."

Still, McCain intends to run with this. His campaign has already made a web ad out of it.

"If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things." -- Barack Obama

Edit 9/10: Obama's response this morning was good overall, although I think he probably shouldn't have criticized the media quite so much. Sure, this was "catnip" to them, but it's really the McCain camp that should be scolded.

When Change Means More of the Same

2008-09-05T11:35:00.003-04:00

So the Republican convention wrapped up last night after 4 days (3, really, thanks to Gustav), and it was comprised mainly of attacks on Democrats; lies about Democrats' accomplishments, ability, plans, and devotion to country; and tons of vague stump speech rhetoric. The non-keynote speeches at conventions are generally designed to fire up the crowd (rally the troops might be more appropriate for the RNC), but the keynotes and big name speakers are supposed to shape and define the platform. I saw none of that this week.

It's okay to criticize what you feel are inadequacies of your opponents, but the speeches by Giuliani and Romney in particular were over the top. And after you criticize you should point out how you'll do better, but I saw none of that. I can see why Gov Palin lashed out in her speech to fight back at the horrible treatment she had been getting from some of the press and far left bloggers, but I was disappointed, to put it mildly, that her attacks were baseless and, in many cases, completely false. And still utterly devoid of any policy substance.

I had hoped the crowning of McCain last night would provide some direction, but the best it offered was a toning down of the anti-Obama rhetoric of the previous nights. Its main theme floored me: change. Change? Really? Which Party has held the White House for the past 7+ years? Which Party has had control of both houses of Congress from 1994 to 2007? (Even today Democrats only have a slim lead in the House and the Senate is split 49/49.) So for McCain to run as an agent of change simply astounds me. If those guys are so unhappy with how the country has been run, how can they possibly pin it on the Democrats? Seems to me they should be switching sides if they want to see what real change is!

McCain's voting record has matched Bush's policies 90% of the time, so in this case change simply means a different suit behind the desk in the Oval Office. And I suppose they really didn't need to spell out their policy positions since we already know they'll pretty much be the same policies we've seen over the past 8 years.

Now that the conventions are over, I'll soon start posting things I like and dislike about the candidates and their VP picks. I bet I'll have some more Republican lies to clear up along the way, too. (I've already saved up a list from the RNC that I'll address when I have a bit more time.) At least football is here so I can be distracted from this nonsense for a little while each week.

Offending Community Organizers Everywhere

2008-09-04T10:33:00.005-04:00

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

That was meant to be a jab at Obama, of course, but I took it more as a jab at community organizers in general.

Governor Palin: I know community organizers. I've worked with community organizers. You are no community organizer.

Take your political shots at Obama; he's fair game if you want to go there. But don't insult the people that selflessly and tirelessly give of themselves to make other people's lives better. Helping people find new jobs. Helping people find something to eat. Helping people find a place to sleep at night. Helping people understand complicated legal forms and applications. Helping people stand up for themselves when their neighborhoods are faced with threats from much bigger foes. Helping people regain their dignity and keep their humanity.

I take great offense at your line of attack, and I hope you'll change your strategy going forward (after you apologize to community organizers, that is).

Edit (9/5): I heard a terrific quote: "Jesus was a community organizer." There's actually more to it, but I'm not going to repost the mean part.

Also interesting to note that the theme of the convention was "Country First- Service, Reform, Prosperity, Peace." Monday's theme was "Serving a Cause Greater Than Self," and Tuesday's was simply "Service."

Photo copyright 2008 Republican National Committee

McCain Camp: "This election is not about issues"

2008-09-03T22:00:00.001-04:00

"[McCain campaign manager Rick] Davis also told The Post that the race will be decided more on personalities and perceptions than issues. 'This election is not about issues,' he said. 'This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.'

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe responded with a sharp statement: 'We appreciate Senator McCain's campaign manager finally admitting that his campaign is not in fact about the issues the American people care about, which is exactly the kind of cynical old politics people are ready to change.'"

Of course I'm not so naive as to think most elections (lately, at least) haven't been decided by the same ultimately unimportant criteria, but the dreamer in me sure would like to see an election where substance and a candidate's stance on the issues wins out over how he looks on camera or how likable he is.

Admitting that a presidential election is about how people feel about the candidates is admitting that you want people to vote based on superficial qualities. Is Davis simply playing to his candidate's strengths (white guys aren't very threatening), or is it an implied admission that he knows if people really dug deep his candidate wouldn't stand a chance?

(Excerpt from The Washington Post's 9/3 coverage of the RNC.)

Is the Press Falling into a McCain Trap?

2008-09-03T16:05:00.004-04:00

The McCain camp surely expected some controversy with an unexpected VP pick. And I would imagine they also expected to be able to turn some of those attacks against the press and generate sympathy for their candidates. The Republicans are masters at going on the attack and then playing the victim, and this is not all that different.

Granted they probably didn't expect the ferocity of some of the accusations and allegations, and their cry of "Foul!" now is more than likely genuine. But they are also getting what they wanted: a chance to claim they are victims of a "liberal media" and a chance to blame the Obama campaign for planting many of the allegations.

Here's how I see it. Palin's personal life -- that is, her personal life that doesn't overlap with her public life (that includes her kids) -- should be off limits. Some of the questions about the paternity of Trig are downright mean, as are the accusations against her oldest son Track. That said, a candidate's children shouldn't be used for political gain, either, so when the Republican Party asks people to leave the Palin's kids alone, they can't then turn around and advertise that Trig was born even though Sarah knew he had Downs Syndrome (What, does she want a cookie for delivering her child? Most Americans would not consider an abortion in that case, and her decision does not make her special.). And enough already about Track heading to Iraq. We get it; so is Beau Biden (who simply said while introducing his father that he "would not be around" in November instead of announcing that he would be in Iraq during the election).

To a certain extent, the press is doing their job by asking the questions. As Howard Kurtz's article The War Against the Press points out, it was uncomfortable for the press to ask questions about Eliot Spitzer's solicitation of prostitutes, but in the end it turned out to be for the public good. Had the allegations been false and the press gone public (as appears to be the case with the Palin stories), it would have been a gross misuse of their power.

Two more words to the McCain camp: First, stop crying foul at simply being asked the questions. Absolutely complain when lies are printed, but if a reporter calls to verify a rumor, that's a chance to clear things up, not smear the reporter. And second, don't confuse left-wing bloggers with the Obama campaign -- or the press, for that matter. Anyone can have a blog, but that doesn't mean they speak for everyone who is a member of their party. (You guys have had Rush Limbaugh and other working this angle on the radio for years, so you can't be too surprised that the Left has their own versions now.)

And two words to the press. First, back off. Not from asking the questions, but from printing unsubstantiated allegations. It does no good to print that Sarah Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party if it's not true, and it takes away from the fact that she actually did speak at one of their conventions. And it's mean.

Second, by toning down the allegations, you'll actually be doing everyone a favor. The less you appear to be smearing a candidate, the less her Party can complain and get their base riled up. You're playing into the RNC's hand, and it won't be good for you in the long run, or the Democrats in the short run.

Edit (9/4): Shortly after I posted this I wanted to add more support for Gov. Palin in that not only have her children been part of the attacks, but her gender has been attacked as well. The same type of insanity that dogged Hilary Clinton reared it's head with Gov. Palin. I was especially offended at the implication that she was being a bad mother to her children by running for office. Barack Obama has two young daughters, and running for office obviously keeps him away from them more than if he had a local 9-5 job. But that doesn't make him a bad father. Just because Palin is a woman does not mean she has to accept a different professional fate. I sincerely hope this kind of nonsense is not around when my daughter is choosing her professional path in life.

2nd Edit (9/4): Well, Gov. Palin did it. She boasted about her son going to Iraq (she even pointed out his departure date is 9/11). Then she went on to mention that her nephew was also serving, and worked the crowd for cheap applause for saluting all servicemen and women. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not against service. Palin's family members, and all people serving our country, should be honored and appreciated for their service and sacrifice. But I resent them being used for political gain. Are we supposed to think she's a better candidate because her family is in the Army? That has no material effect on her ability to serve as Vice President. In fact, from the candidate who admitted she "hadn't thought much" about the war in Iraq, perhaps she should do a little homework before bragging that her son is going.

"I will cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95% of all working families."

2008-08-30T23:16:00.003-04:00

I'd like to highlight several points from Obama's acceptance speech that were lost during the media's scramble to cover McCain's VP pick. I don't want to repeat points he's made before, but instead talk about some of the really big statements he made.

"John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time... I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change."

Okay, maybe he's said this before, but it's poignant for the economy, the war, immigration, and pretty much anything else.

"For over two decades, he's [McCain, duh] subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy -- give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else."

McCain believes in "trickle down economics," which has been widely discredited over the past 25 years.

The market "should reward drive and innovation and generate growth."

A Democrat talking about how the market is good? How did no one mention this?

And then he got specific (at least as specific as he could really get in a speech like this).

"I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95% of all working families."

The parts about tax breaks and cutting taxes for small business is important, but let me mention that last part again, because it went largely unrepeated: his plan cuts taxes for "95% of all working families." About 90% of the families in the U.S. make less than $100,000 a year, and his plan only affects people who make more than $250,000 a year. As shown in previous posts (see "Two Articles Worth Your Time and Brain Power" below or check this link), McCain's tax plan is almost non-existent for middle and lower-class families.

"...in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East."

Rather than throw money away drilling domestically for a small percentage of our oil needs, we should funnel more money into alternative energy plans to completely move away from oil. I don't read this as being completely off of oil in 10 years (I don't think anyone seriously thinks in 10 years no one will have cars with internal combustion engines), but the idea of pushing ourselves and making a "man on the moon" type of commitment to developing commercially viable alternatives is the perfect way to work towards true energy independence while creating a new industry. And, with commercially viable renewable energy sources, we could export our technology to the rest of the world and do something about worldwide pollution and our international trade deficits as well.

"I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability.

And we will keep our promise to every young American -- if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education."

Because we'll never make all these technological advances until we have more science and engineering graduates. And programs like Americorps will be funded again to harness the power of our youth to make our country a better place.

"If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most."

Here's probably the second most important part of his plan (IMO), after renewable energy. Obama's plan doesn't create more government -- it expands our existing forms of healthcare (combined public/private), but admittedly this is probably the riskiest and hardest sell. See my post "Healthcare's Partisan Divide" below for more healthcare info.

"I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime - by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less..."

This is important -- because I've been skeptical of his "we'll use the money we save in Iraq to fund my new programs" plan so far. But if he's really willing to go through the tax code and truly look closely at the budget, we'll be in better shape.

"Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility -- that's the essence of America's promise."

Hello? This is what the Republican party used to be built on, until, say, Nixon.

"I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights... We need a President who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past."

'Nuff said about our current situation. Let me add that the two biggest wars this country has been involved in (WWII and the Civil War) were successfully led by Commanders-in-Chief with no prior military experience.

"...don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."

Did you catch the wording there? "Uphold" the Second Amendment. That's an important distinction from how previous Democrats have looked at this issue.

McCain's decision to announce his VP pick was well-timed to pull our ADHD media away from Obama's amazingly powerful speech. But before we debate the wisdom of picking Governor Palin as his running mate, let's not lose sight of Obama's historic speech -- historic because of its timing as well as its content.

Healthcare's Partisan Divide

2008-08-26T17:27:00.004-04:00

Terri Gross did a terrific interview on her show Fresh Air with political scientist Jonathan Oberlander in which he compares McCain and Obama's proposed health plans. Dr. Oberlander recently published The Partisan Divide — The McCain and Obama Plans for U.S. Health Care Reform in the New England Journal of Medicine. I haven't read the article yet, but the interview was very interesting. You can listen to the interview online as well as read an abstract at NPR.org

Dr. Oberlander doesn't seem too fond of McCain's plans, pointing out that the tax credits they offer will do little to offset the cost of moving from employer-based to private insurance. (Tax credit for families: $5000. Average price of private insurance for families: $13,000.) He also notes that many employers don't seem to like it, either.

He's tough on the Obama plan for putting too much responsibility in the hands of the government, and especially for counting on money to fund the plan that realistically won't be available. (One of my biggest gripes about several of Obama's plans are that he says the rollback of Bush's tax cuts for those making more than $250k will pay for the new plans. It's as if he's assuming the repealing the tax cuts would result in a bottomless pit of cash, which just isn't the case. He needs to more clearly specify how the tax revenues will be divided.)

[I feel better about this since Obama's acceptance speech. See my post immediately above.]

The reality for both plans is that if the next president's party doesn't have a majority in Congress, they will either end up being very watered down or, much like the reforms proposed in the early 90s (or Social Security reforms proposed pretty much any time), they'll die a very public and very painful death.

Put on your headphones and spend 33 minutes educating yourself on the difficulties facing both plans.

Two Articles Worth Your Time and Brain Power

2008-08-21T10:54:00.001-04:00

I killed a lunch hour reading this, but it was highly worthwhile:

How Obama Reconciles Dueling Views on Economy

I'd love to see a similar piece on McCain. I wonder if that's in the works? This one does a good job of explaining not only what Obama believes (based on the reporter piecing it together himself, not just from posted campaign policy and platform statements), but where his beliefs stand on the traditional Conservative/Liberal measuring stick, how those beliefs compare to McCain in some areas, where they fit in historical context, and how he came to hold them.

Another interesting, although less-detailed, article from the LA Times that compares the McCain and Obama tax plans:

McCain and Obama tax plans diverge on wealth

Be sure to click on the "Who gains, who loses" image at the top for an interesting comparison of potential tax changes broken down by income brackets. It uses numbers also referenced by the NYT article above that include not only income tax rates, but also dividends, capital gains, and, probably most significantly, payroll taxes.

I'd probably take too long if I editorialized these articles, so I'll leave you to make your own judgments.

Quote of the Year

2008-08-21T10:53:00.001-04:00

So-called "global warming" is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don't let them get away with it!
--Chip Giller, www.grist.org

While VIPs Fly in Style, Grunts are Electrocuted in Iraq

2008-07-18T10:24:00.002-04:00

Another gem this morning, this time from The New York Times.

Shoddy electrical work at bases in Iraq is causing fires, injuries, and deaths.

"During just one six-month period — August 2006 through January 2007 — at least 283 electrical fires destroyed or damaged American military facilities in Iraq"

Is it not enough that bad guys want to kill our troops on an almost daily basis? Now our soldiers have to worry about dying in the shower from electrocution or in a fire caused by faulty wiring? Who handles construction and maintenance for our bases?

Oh yeah, our good friend KBR. That's the nice company that's already in trouble for "overbilling, providing unsafe water to soldiers and failing to protect female employees who were sexually assaulted." Looks like they still have a lot of Halliburton in them. Can a company be charged with treason?

Air Force Spends Terroism Funds to Create "Comfort Capsules" for Flying VIPs

2008-07-18T10:16:00.004-04:00

From The Washington Post

We will not rest until Osama Bin Laden is brought to justice. Oooh, well, maybe I'll rest just for a while on this sumptuous swiveling leather seat. And maybe I'll take a nap in this bed that will not compress more than 50% when I lie down. Ahhhh. Osama who? Oh, he can hide in his cave a while longer. I'm going to take a nap.

Guantanamo Interrogations Unknowingly Inspired by Chinese

2008-07-02T12:42:00.000-04:00

Special military trainers came to Guantanamo Bay in December of 2002 to teach interrogation techniques. As it turned out, the techniques they were teaching were taken from a study of how Chinese Communists interrogated Americans during the Korean War, often resulting in false confessions.

The 1957 Air Force study, "Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions From Air Force Prisoners of War," was originally used to train U.S. servicemen on ways to resist their interrogators if captured. In 2002, the 50s-era SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) program was adopted by the C.I.A. and the military in what the New York Times calls "a remarkable case of historical amnesia." The modern day officials "appear to have been unaware that it [SERE] had been created as a result of concern about false confessions by American prisoners."

Brilliant.

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, remarked "What makes this document doubly stunning is that these were techniques to get false confessions. People say we need intelligence, and we do. But we don't need false intelligence."

Apparently the only change made to a key slide in the Guantanamo training program from the origianl 1957 report was to change the name. It was originally called "Communist Coercive Methods for Eliciting Individual Compliance."

I'm sure the source of these torture methods won't bother people who already believe that torturing terror suspects is okay in the course of protecting the homeland. But I personally don't like to think that a modern military program was inspired by Communists from 50 years ago. And if they resulted in so many false confessions out of Americans, how can we be certain the results won't be the same today with suspected terrorists?

The original NYT article can be found here.

Hypocrisy: Thy Name is McCain

2008-06-23T10:22:00.005-04:00

Last week Senator Obama opted out of public financing for his general election campaign, the first presidential candidate to do so in over 30 years. This decision was counter to a response he made last year in a questionnaire where he said if nominated he would negotiate with his opponent to create a fair, publicly-financed campaign. His decision to back away from that stance was controversial and opened him up to criticism of being a "typical politician," saying one thing and doing another; not keeping his promises, etc.

In defending Obama, let me just say that he's not, as many Conservatives implied, "going back on his promise" to accept public funding. There was never a promise or commitment made; just statements in favor of public financing. That said, I'm sure he expected that Republicans would pounce all over this, and even though a promise hasn't been broken, it is a dramatic change of direction.

Will this controversy pass? Likely for now it will, but it's sure to be brought back once campaigning begins and debates are held after the party conventions. Is this announcement worth some air time and column inches? Certainly. But what's noticeable to me is the hypocrisy of McCain and the press' refusal to cover it. (Note that I said "noticeable," not "surprising.")

McCain, of course, was quick to criticize Obama's decision, and he used some harsh words in his statements calling Obama's trustworthiness into question. "This election is about a lot of things but it's also about trust. It's also about whether you can take people's word... [T]his is a big deal, a big deal. He has completely reversed himself and gone back, not on his word to me, but the commitment he made to the American people." However, Senator McCain is himself involved in a more serious campaign financing issue -- one that includes breaking the law and going back on a legally binding commitment.

Early in the Republican Primary, Senator McCain's campaign was adrift, and many were counting him out. Money wasn't coming in, so he committed to using public financing for his Primary bid. He did not simply say he favored this in an interview; he signed on the dotted line. Senator McCain even went so far as to use his commitment to public financing as collateral on a loan he took out to fund his campaign.

A few months later, after his campaign brought itself back to life and it became clear he was to be the presumptive Republican nominee, McCain decided that he no longer wished to be constrained by the limits of public financing and declared that he was self-financing. Federal Election Commission chairman David Mason sent McCain a letter saying that he cannot simply opt out of the public financing system without FEC approval -- approval which he has not been granted. McCain's response to that letter was... to not respond.

To date, McCain has continued to raise and spend money in excess of the legal limits placed upon him by his commitment to receive public funding, and he is breaking the law every day he continues to do so. In addition, since McCain surely understands the legality of his earlier decision to accept public funding, his willful disregard for that agreement puts him in serious legal jeopardy. The Washington Post stated, "Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison."

How many articles have you read about Obama's decision to forgo public financing? And how many mentioned McCain's own public financing woes? I'm willing to bet none of them. But rather than turn this post into a criticism of the press (which they deserve), I'd like to keep the focus on McCain's flip-flopping -- and law breaking.

If Senator McCain is willing to knowingly break the law to achieve his fundraising goals, his values and ethics should be called into question. Unlike Obama, who went back on stated plans but broke no promises (or laws), McCain's judgment here is seriously questionable.

To borrow some of McCain's own words, this election is about a lot of things, but it's also about trust and about whether or not you can take people's word. This is a big deal. Senator McCain has completely reversed himself and gone back on the commitment he made to the Federal Election Commission as well as the American people.

Hagee Apologizes to Catholics

2008-05-15T16:52:00.002-04:00

In an obvious bid to end a potentially controversial endorsement before the mainstream press even notices, Rev Hagee sent an apology to the Catholic League for statements he made equating the Catholic church to whores. Bill Donohue accepted the apology.

Where to start... Well, first, I'm doubting he would have apologized if this had not been an election year. It's not like he said these things last week. His inflammatory statements go back several years. Why has he not "seen the light" before now?

And since when is Bill Donohue the one to apologize to if you offend Catholics? How about the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, or, um, what's his name... Oh yeah: THE POPE? Donohue represents a fringe group of Catholics who'd like to tell us all what we should and should not believe, watch, or read. He has no official role in the Church, and he's certainly not the only Catholic offended by Hagee's statements.

Clearly it's all politics. Now Donohue can recommend that Catholics can vote for McCain with a clear conscience, and McCain likely gets out of a jam.

Do you think Obama would get off so easy if Rev Wright suddenly apologized? Somehow I don't think so.

American Journalism At Its Finest

2008-05-15T16:39:00.003-04:00

The front page of Tuesday's USA today had a very provocative headline:

"Dems Say Let the Contest Continue"

This was immediately followed by the sub-head:

"But more say Clinton should quit, poll shows"

Stephen Colbert had some amusing comments about the contradictory statements. Unfortunately I can't find the article on the USA Today website (or else it has been changed). If I try to be optimistic, I can assume that the headline was based specifically on the West Virginia primary results, while the sub-head was based on a nationwide poll.

But with the quality of journalism (or lack thereof) in the country today, I have to assume the reporter and editors simply chose a headline that they felt would sell more papers rather than accurately represent the findings stated in the article.

Obama Not Really Having Trouble Getting White Votes

2008-05-14T15:10:00.003-04:00

Despite the media's (and the Clinton Campaign's) insistence, Obama is not having trouble getting the votes of white people. Sure it sounds good to look at predominantly white states like West Virginia and extrapolate that Clinton won there easily because whites were hesitant to vote for him, but it's not the whole story.

West Virginia clearly is predominantly white, but it's also relatively small compared to other primary states (approx 330,000 total votes cast in the Democratic primary). Furthermore, it's residents are generally older and less educated that other primary states. So really all the victory proves for Clinton is that she has an advantage in older, less educated white votes -- not all white votes.

Let's look at the total popular vote as reported by RealClearPolitics:

Obama: 16,104,613
Clinton: 15,511,003

(Those numbers do not include states that have not released official popular vote totals. When estimates from those states are included, Obama gains 300k+ and Clinton gains 200k+.)

So Obama has a lead of just under 600,000 votes. But more to the point, he has the votes of 16 million people. Considering whites are still a majority in this country, it's safe to say that a fair number of their votes are included in that total figure. Of course no one will be able to break those down by race, but I think it's safe to say that Obama is doing just fine with white Americans.

Any attempt by Clinton to make us believe otherwise is a shameful use of the race card that frankly I did not expect and does the Party much more harm than good. If she continues this disgraceful course, she risks getting voters to believe that nonsense and possibly give up on the Obama campaign as un-winnable before the general election even gets going. And I won't even go into the potential racial effects of further driving a wedge in between blacks and whites in this country.

Racial and Party Double Standards in Play Today

2008-05-06T10:04:00.002-04:00

No need for me to add comment or context; this is a really good op-ed piece from the New York Times. I don't know this particular columnist, but he's pretty much on the mark with this one:

The All-White Elephant in the Room

Read, think, digest. Then go vote.

McCain Accepts Endorsement from Anti-Catholic Bigot

2008-03-04T10:34:00.003-05:00

There's a lot more to be said about this, but for time reasons I'll simply post a copy of my letter to The Criterion. We'll see if it's published or ignored.

"I am concerned about the lack of general media coverage of an event that should concern all Catholics. Texas televangelist John Hagee, who has repeatedly made anti-Catholic comments, last week endorsed John McCain's presidential bid. What has Hagee said? Here's just a sampling:

-He has described the Catholic Church as 'the whore of Babylon' and 'the great whore.'
-He called the Church a 'false cult system' and 'the apostate church.'
-And he has suggested that the Catholic Church helped shape Hitler's anti-Semitism.

McCain, rather than distance himself from someone who has made such offensive comments, held a press conference with Hagee announcing the endorsement. During the new conference he said he was 'proud' of Hagee's spiritual leadership of his congregation. He continued, 'I don't have to agree with everyone who endorses my candidacy. They are supporting my candidacy. I am not endorsing some of their positions.'

In my opinion, that's the wrong attitude, and Catholics everywhere should be wary of McCain's willingness to overlook such dangerous and hateful viewpoints in exchange for votes. We should let McCain know that he's made a bad decision - a decision that could cost him Catholic votes in November."

Just So We're Clear...

2007-02-12T12:00:00.000-05:00

Catholic League president Bill Donohue does not speak for me. He does not speak for the majority of Catholics. And when I see him quoted in the New York Times or on some news program as a guest analyst, it makes me ill to think that people might see him and think that's what Catholics (and Catholicism) is all about.

Why don't I like him? Because he is a bigot and a bully. He insults people who don't think like him, and believes that anything said against the church is anti-Catholic. Heaven forbid some criticism might be from people who love the Church and want to make it better. Let's see some of his choice quotes:

"People don't trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 2/9/06]
"The gay community has yet to apologize to straight people for all the damage that they have done." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 4/11/05]
"We've already won. Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. ... Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 12/8/04]
"Well, look, there are people in Hollywood, not all of them, but there are some people who are nothing more than harlots. They will do anything for the buck. They wouldn't care. If you asked them to sodomize their own mother in a movie, they would do so, and they would do it with a smile on their face." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 2/9/06]

Maybe he's a reasonable guy if you keep him off of Scarborough Country? Doubtful. He can be rude and hurtful all on his own:

Addressing former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) in a press release, Donohue asked: "[W]hy didn't you just smack the clergyman in the face? After all, most 15-year-old teenage boys wouldn't allow themselves to be molested. So why did you?" [10/4/06]

And what's his fascination with anal sex? I'll leave that to psychoanalysts, but for now let me say it's just creepy how often that topic comes up.

So the next time he spouts something in the media, call a real Catholic and ask them what they think instead of believing one word from this guy's mouth.

Thanks to Media Matters for providing an easy list of quotes. If you want to find more, a quick web search can turn up some other crazy things he's said.

In Case You Missed It...

2006-03-22T11:03:00.000-05:00

It's pretty much agreed that Democrats aren't very good at publicizing their talking points (okay, let's just say they're terrible at it). Take www.housedemocrats.gov for instance. Here is a website that lists not only complaints about the Bush administration's policies, but also new policies and strategies for doing things differently. But how many times have you heard lately by the media that the Democrats have no plans for what they'd do if they were the majority Party?

Here's another one of those publicity problems. Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT) led a group of House Democrats in composing and releasing a Catholic Statement of Principles a few weeks ago. Signed by 55 House Democrats, it explains how their faith influences them as lawmakers and how the Church's teachings and moral leadership influence their work as legislators. Did you hear about it on February 28 when it was released? Neither did I. In fact, I came across it accidentally while searching for something entirely unrelated.

It's a fairly brief document, and I'd recommend you give it a read. It doesn't go into too much detail, but it does a good job of explaining where they stand on important social issues (including abortion) and how they balance their lives as Catholics and their duties as legislators to ensure this country remains free and fair to people of all faiths.

Before the last Presidential election, much was made of a document circulated by some Catholic laypeople "explaining" how Catholic legislators were not following several "key" tenants of the Catholic faith, and therefore couldn't be voted for without being in direct conflict with the church yourself (i.e. you'd be sinning if you voted for Kerry). This received a fair amount of publicity despite the fact that it was not created or endorsed by the Church itself. Oh, and it also turned out to be pretty much untrue as far as what it listed as key tenants of the Catholic faith, but that didn't stop it from being passed out at some churches (including one I go to occasionally in Hamilton County) before the election.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops put together their own voter's guide that was much more fair and instructed people on how to use their faith to come to their own decision in the voting booth. It wasn't nearly as sexy and did not receive any media attention (although credit goes to my church for making them available to all parishioners).

The USCCB also put together a "report card" of Catholic Senators' voting records based on how they measured up with the Church's teachings. It was shocking in that the LOWEST scoring Democrat on the list still scored higher than the HIGHEST scoring Republican. The only category the Democrats didn't match up with the Church was abortion, while it turns out that was pretty much the only category that the Republicans DID match up with. I agree that abortion is a big issue, but the fact that Catholic Republicans were ignoring Catholic teachings on EVERY OTHER ISSUE tells me a lot about who should be refused communion at mass on Sunday. Again, no mention was made of this by the media, and the Democrats either didn't know about it themselves or were typically incompetent in getting the word out.

Bringing this back around to the House Democrats Catholic Statement of Principles, they do a good job (in their brief statement) of explaining where they stand on abortion, acknowledging that they face complex issues that aren't simply black or white. I bet if the USCCB examined their voting records, they'd do about as well in measuring up to Catholic teachings as the Senate Democrats did in 2004.

But if the Democratic Party's publicity machine stays broken, you'd never hear about it.

Pope Benedict XVI Makes Daring Prediction

2006-03-09T16:10:00.000-05:00

When given a 2GB iPod Nano as a gift while visiting Vatican Radio, Pope Benedict reportedly replied, "Computer technology is the future."

Glad to see he's been paying attention.

Another Thing About Poverty

2005-11-18T17:25:00.000-05:00

There's a story in this week's Newsweek about a riff between the Pope and the official papal tailor. I guess the Pope likes his old tailor instead of the one that's been making Pope suits since the 18th century (that's quite a long-term deal they have there).

It kills me how much the Pope must be spending on clothing to have a tailor whip him up special outfits for different occasions. It kills me more that he was photographed wearing Prada loafers at a recent event.

I'm not saying he's as out of touch as the Republicans who voted for the $50 million spending cuts, but he's certainly off in that direction.

Congress Should be Ashamed

2005-11-18T17:17:00.000-05:00

The House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill that cuts $50 million from the budget in the name of deficit relief. A fine and worth goal, except that the money is coming out of programs that help the poor such as Food Stamps, Medicare, the school lunch program, and student loan funding, among others. It is a disgrace that this could take place, especially after the visibility of impoverished Americans was made so obvious after hurricane Katrina.

It made me especially mad that originally there was a measure included that would cut Food Stamps and school lunches from the same families. Thankfully that was removed (now only food stamps will be cut from those families), so at least some children will be able to get at least one hot meal a day during the week, but the fact it was in there at all offends me to my core.

Another thing that offends me is the pork bill that was signed into law a few months ago. Not one Congressman stepped up and offered to give up their pet programs in the name of budget relief. One Congressman (I think he was from Nebraska) literally threw a tantrum on the House floor about the issue. Shame on everyone who voted for this bill.

Finally, in another week or so they will vote to extend some of Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy (capital gains, etc). The net result will wipe out any gains the deficit would receive from this spending cut and in fact add more to the deficit. So this "reverse Robin Hood" bill makes it perfectly clear where the priorities of the Republican Party lie. (Not a single Democrat voted for this bill.) Screw the poor and pass me another turkey leg I guess.

Vatican Comes Out Against Intelligent Design

2005-11-18T17:13:00.000-05:00

In another encouraging statement, the Vatican's chief astronomer (the Vatican has a chief astronomer?) said that Intelligent Design isn't science and has no place in science classes. He pretty much said it was wrong to consider it along side the Theory of evolution and noted it would be appropriate for it to be discussed in a religion or cultural history class.

Go Vatican!

First Torture, Now Chemical Weapons: Which Country is Run by Criminals?

2005-11-17T10:41:00.000-05:00

Allegations of torture in Iraq are growing with the recent discovery of an Iraqi Interior Ministry facility that had been mistreating prisoners. Some reports show, however, that the basement prison is just the tip of the torture iceberg in Iraq, however, and there are many more places like it run by the Iraqi government.

Not great news for an American government that's still dodging claims of secret CIA torture prisons and allegations that torture of Iraqi prisoners was more widespread than just Abu Ghraib. Makes me wonder how President Bush can stand up and say flat out that we don't torture when it's going on in prisons all over the world that are run by us or run by the new Iraqi government right under our noses.

At the same time Bush is saying we don't torture, Cheney is lobbying Congress to exempt the CIA prisons that don't exist from a new no-torture amendment that Senator John McCain is trying attach to a defense bill. Taking it one step further, Bush threatened to veto any defense bill that includes the anti-torture amendment.

There's only one explanation here: Bush is lying. Torture is happening because it is condoned at the very top of our government, and suddenly we don't look much better than the evil dictator we went into Iraq to remove.

It gets more damning. White phosphorus, a chemical that ignites when exposed to oxygen, was used in munitions in the 2004 offensive in Fallujah. Initially the Pentagon denied reports that it was used for anything other than smokescreens and flares, but they recently backtracked and admitted using it as an incendiary weapon against insurgents.

White phosphorus burns anything it contacts and is very hard to extinguish. It is especially difficult to remove from exposed skin, and if there is enough of the substance it will continue to burn flesh down to the bone. The use of white phosphorus as a toxic or caustic agent would make it illegal under an international chemical weapons convention, but the U.S. government is merely claiming that they did not use it against civilians. That's nice, but how could such a weapon be used against any person when it's illegal? And where's the widespread media coverage? This story broke yesterday and until today I had only read about it on the BBC.

Between widespread torture and prisoner abuse and the use of chemical weapons in battle, it really makes me wonder which country is being led by an evil dictator. Oh yeah, that's right -- our evil dictator was elected. Twice.

Finally - A Reasonable Statement by the Vatican

2005-11-04T09:36:00.000-05:00

After enduring months of idiotic statements and press releases by the Vatican (Harry Potter books are evil, intelligent design has merit, seminaries must report homosexual activity, etc, etc), finally I've heard something that doesn't make me wish I was Episcopalian. Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, has been working on a project to end prejudice between science and religion. The fact that such a project exists is encouraging enough, but he issued a statement urging the faithful to listen to what modern science has to offer and warning that ignoring scientific reason could turn religion into fundamentalism.

It gets better.

Referring to the church's 17th century denunciation of Galileo (you might recall he took the blasphemous view that the Earth rotated around the sun, which was contrary to the church's view that the Earth was the center of the universe), Poupard said "The permanent lesson that the Galileo case represents pushes us to keep alive the dialogue between the various disciplines, and in particular between theology and the natural sciences, if we want to prevent similar episodes from repeating themselves in the future... The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity."

When asked specifically about the intelligent design debate going on in the U.S., Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, director of the Vatican project Science, Theology and Ontological Quest, reaffirmed Pope John Paul II's 1996 statement that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Monsignor Basti said "A hypothesis asks whether something is true or false. (Evolution) is more than a hypothesis because there is proof."

Cardinal Poupard, giving official Church voice to a belief that I think many scientists share, said that what was important was that "the universe wasn't made by itself, but has a creator." But, "It's important for the faithful to know how science views things to understand better."

I can't tell you how good it makes me feel that, even though conservative voices are many in the Church right now, there are still a number of people who can be reasonable, logical, and rational -- while speaking officially for the Church.

Got the Sniffles? Call the Pentagon

2005-10-05T10:57:00.000-05:00

President Bush has asked Congress for permission to use the military to enforce quarantines in case of a flu pandemic. The Pentagon apparently is a bit skeptical, but the President believes it is important for him to be able to maintain law and order in case large areas need to be sealed off.

While the objective of preventing the spread of a dangerous virus like the Asian bird flu (should it mutate to become transmittable from person-to-person) is reasonable, the act of declaring martial law is too Orwellian. Instead of planning for a possible pandemic by ensuring enough dosages of antiviral medicines such as Tamiflu are available, preparing our nation's first responders and medical community with funding and training, and encouraging the development of infrastructure for quickly producing flu vaccines, the President simply wants to bring in people with guns to make sure the flu doesn't spread.

Sounds a lot like the Katrina response to me: do too little to prepare beforehand and send in troops to treat victims as if they were insurgents after tragedy strikes. Think they'd bring in troops to keep lawmakers in Washington if the flu should strike Capitol Hill, or will the Army only be used if there is an outbreak in an area where there is a large minority population?

Okay, maybe I'm not being fair with that last statement, but I'm not exactly confident after watching the Katrina fiasco and then seeing Republican "leaders" suggest cutting $25 billion from the CDC's budget to pay for reconstruction. At least someone has a bit of sense in Washington. The Senate recently tacked $3.9 billion for flu preparation onto a Pentagon appropriations bill. Maybe that means some people realized what a ridiculous idea it was to propose cutting spending to the CDC. Now let's just hope that money goes to making some real preparations and not to fund pork projects or line the pockets of Conservative cronies.

Let's Do the Katrina Math

2005-09-16T13:34:00.000-05:00

This isn't a religious issue, just one that I have to get off my chest.

Since 1995, "the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA [Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project], spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside."

Source: Editor and Publisher

As we all know, these projects were not funded and the levees and pumps were allowed to deteriorate.

"As New Orleans City Business noted earlier this year, the Corps' construction budget for the district has gone from $147 million in fiscal 2001 to $82 million in fiscal 2005. Scores of projects, from efforts to build levees, canals and pumping stations to bridge improvements -- all of which deal with flood mitigation -- are incomplete. (The administration's fiscal 2006 budget proposal cut construction funding for the district even further, to $56 million.)"

Source: GovExec.com

(That story mentions former OMB director and current Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels and explains his involvement in the cuts in funding to the Army Corps of Engineers.)

So what do we know? $250 million in improvements remained to be done to the levees and pumps, but the Army Corps of Engineers' budget for New Orleans was cut by $65 million between 2001 and 2005 (with a further $26 million cut scheduled for 2006).

The estimated cost of post-Katrina reconstruction, according to the President, could be more than $200 billion (that's Billion with a 'B').

I'm not a math wiz, but I think $250,000,000 is a lot less money than $250,000,000,000. Thanks for your forward-looking budgets, Messrs Bush and Daniels.

Furthermore, President Bush has said the government would pick up most of the tab for reconstruction. I'm not one to say that New Orleans shouldn't be rebuilt. I hope they do it. I just hope they do it wisely and don't just put up houses in the same places that were flooded by Katrina. But to be told that the budget deficit will be further increased by these expenditures and some programs may have to be scaled back is unacceptable.

Personally, I think government officials are secretly relieved that they have Katrina to use as a scapegoat for not hitting their deficit-reduction goals (which they probably wouldn't have made anyway). And if they get to take down a few entitlement programs along the way, well then three cheers for natural disasters.

Of course gutting entitlement programs and/or privatizing Social Security would do more to perpetuate the kind of poverty we've seen in the wake of Katrina than simply staying the course. It's time for new solutions to these problems, but in the meantime pulling the rug out from under the lower class won't do any good. Neither will ramming conservative agenda items at the Gulf Coast by eliminating the current prevailing wage law, waiving small/minority business contracting bid requirements, and providing school vouchers to displaced students.

But those are discussions for future blogs. In the meantime let me restate my point that the Bush administration's short-sightedness has cost the taxpayers of this country $249,750,000,000!

Did he just compare Roberts to? No... Really?

2005-08-01T13:38:00.000-05:00

"It's a little bit like biblical Pharisees, you know, who basically are always trying to undermine Jesus Christ.... You know, it goes on the same way. If they can catch him in something, they can then criticize and the outside groups will go berserk."

- Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), on Fox News, describing the nature of potential Democratic opposition to Supreme Court nominee Judge John G. Roberts Jr.

Source: The Washington Post

Thanks to Sojourners for catching that quote. I hadn't heard it before. On the surface it's just political mumbling using Biblical terminology to keep the conservative Christian base on the warpath. ("Oh, we're Christians and despite the fact that we live in a country founded on Christian values and can openly practice our faith, people are persecuting us at every turn. Boo-hoo-hoo!")

On a different -- and more frightening -- level, it kind of sounds like Senator Hatch is comparing John Roberts to Jesus. Or maybe he's just fed up with Democrats in general and he's comparing George W. Bush to Jesus. Either way, it's yet another pathetic attempt to intermix religious and political discussions to stir the pot.

This is Why I'll Never be in Politics

2005-07-11T16:41:00.000-05:00

I was having lunch with some friends recently, one of whom is gay, and we were discussing the recent episode of 30 Days where a straight Christian man moved in with a gay man in San Francisco's Castro district for 30 days. At the beginning of the show, the straight man said he wasn't so sure if he believed homosexuality was anything but a choice. The Bible says that God made man in His form, and homosexuality just doesn't fit in that mold, he reasoned.

Ridiculous, I thought. If God made us all in his image, how does that explain for all of the diversity among people? Some are black, some are white; some are tall, some are short; some are allergic to peanuts/lactose/wheat; some are resistant to certain diseases/cancers; some are left-handed, some are right-handed; some are kind, some are cruel; some are relentlessly upbeat, some are depressed; and some have physical or mental differences that lead many to label them as deviating from our standard of "perfect." All of this shows me that, while God may have used his image as a blueprint, he allowed a certain amount of variation to come into his design. And I grew up being told that God loved everyone equally, no matter who they were or what they looked like.

If only I had been as eloquent at lunch. To my horror, the first thing that came out of my mouth was something like "If God made us all in his image, how does that explain genetic differences like Down's Syndrome... Is he going to say that they are 'mistakes' because they weren't made in God's image? Or is he implying that they somehow chose to have that condition?"

Brilliant. I could see the face of my gay friend straining to think through my logic. I'd like to believe she knew I was trying to take her side, but I don't think it was lost on her that I had just compared her sexual orientation with mental and physical retardation. My point was — and is — that people are different, and many of these physical and mental differences were not chosen. What would make someone think that any of those differences makes people less desirable in God's eyes? Or less like His image?

However, comparing homosexuality to a genetic abnormality like Down's Syndrome wasn't really where I wanted to take that line of reasoning. While most of us would argue that people affected by Down's Syndrome are every bit as worthy of God's love as the rest of us, clearly those are two separate issues that are beyond comparison. I certainly don't believe that homosexuals are handicapped in any way (except, maybe in the finding a mate category ).

So you see why I won't be running for office anytime soon. I can take a stand in defending a group of people AND manage to insult that same group all in one conversation. This is why I think I'll stick to blogging. Maybe I'll stop with the analogies, too.

More Words of Wisdom

2005-07-11T15:37:00.000-05:00

I was shopping at Target yesterday and I read the following on the back of a man's t-shirt:
"The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war." It's hard work to maintain the peace, as any mother of multiple children can tell you. Heck, it's hard work for me to maintain peace in myself.

Another bumper sticker idea I saw somewhere recently that's a little tongue in cheek but still valid: "Two Reasons to Keep the Separation of Church and State: Islamic Fundamentalists and Evangelical Christians." Dangerous to make that equation, I think, but the point remains the same: if you give an inch, you allow for the foot to eventually be taken as well.

A good editorial from the NY Times

2005-07-08T12:50:00.000-05:00

The bombings in London have left me shaking my head again over the sad state of affairs -- and how the war in Iraq distracted us from a very important mission of capturing Osama and negating Al Qaeda before they struck again. Too late. They have. All along I have said I would be supporting our administration if they were spending all this time, money, and lives on fighting the real enemy. (Apparently, the administration knows that many of us out here feel that way, so they constantly try and tie the 9/11 attacks to Iraq, even though other branches of our own government--and the CIA-- have said otherwise. But I digress...)

But, today a friend forwarded me this editorial from the NYTimes, which I like because it gives the Islamic community its fair share of responsibility for helping stem the flow of radical Islamic fundamentalism. I'm sharing it here with you. Pass it on as you see fit.

NY Times
July 8, 2005
If It's a Muslim Problem, It Needs a Muslim Solution
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Yesterday's bombings in downtown London are profoundly disturbing. In part,that is because a bombing in our mother country and closest ally, England,is almost like a bombing in our own country. In part, it's because oneassault may have involved a suicide bomber, bringing this terrible jihadistweapon into the heart of a major Western capital. That would be deeplytroubling because open societies depend on trust - on trusting that theperson sitting next to you on the bus or subway is not wearing dynamite.
The attacks are also deeply disturbing because when jihadist bombers taketheir madness into the heart of our open societies, our societies are neveragain quite as open. Indeed, we all just lost a little freedom yesterday.
But maybe the most important aspect of the London bombings is this: When jihadist-style bombings happen in Riyadh, that is a Muslim-Muslim problem.That is a police problem for Saudi Arabia. But when Al-Qaeda-like bombingscome to the London Underground, that becomes a civilizational problem. Every Muslim living in a Western society suddenly becomes a suspect, becomes a potential walking bomb. And when that happens, it means Western countries are going to be tempted to crack down even harder on their own Muslim populations.
That, too, is deeply troubling. The more Western societies - particularly the big European societies, which have much larger Muslim populations than America - look on their own Muslims with suspicion, the more internal tensions this creates, and the more alienated their already alienated Muslim youth become. This is exactly what Osama bin Laden dreamed of with 9/11: to create a great gulf between the Muslim world and the globalizing West.
So this is a critical moment. We must do all we can to limit the civilizational fallout from this bombing. But this is not going to be easy.Why? Because unlike after 9/11, there is no obvious, easy target toretaliate against for bombings like those in London. There are no obviousterrorist headquarters and training camps in Afghanistan that we can hit with cruise missiles. The Al Qaeda threat has metastasized and become franchised. It is no longer vertical, something that we can punch in the face. It is now horizontal, flat and widely distributed, operating through the Internet and tiny cells.
Because there is no obvious target to retaliate against, and because there are not enough police to police every opening in an open society, either the Muslim world begins to really restrain, inhibit and denounce its own extremists - if it turns out that they are behind the London bombings - orthe West is going to do it for them. And the West will do it in a rough, crude way - by simply shutting them out, denying them visas and making every Muslim in its midst guilty until proven innocent.
And because I think that would be a disaster, it is essential that the Muslim world wake up to the fact that it has a jihadist death cult in its midst. If it does not fight that death cult, that cancer, within its own body politic, it is going to infect Muslim-Western relations everywhere. Only the Muslim world can root out that death cult. It takes a village.
What do I mean? I mean that the greatest restraint on human behavior is never a policeman or a border guard. The greatest restraint on human behavior is what a culture and a religion deem shameful. It is what the village and its religious and political elders say is wrong or not allowed. Many people said Palestinian suicide bombing was the spontaneous reaction of frustrated Palestinian youth. But when Palestinians decided that it was in their interest to have a cease-fire with Israel, those bombings stopped cold. The village said enough was enough.
The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks. When Salman Rushdie wrote a controversial novel involving theprophet Muhammad, he was sentenced to death by the leader of Iran. To this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden.
Some Muslim leaders have taken up this challenge. This past week in Jordan, King Abdullah II hosted an impressive conference in Amman for moderateMuslim thinkers and clerics who want to take back their faith from those who have tried to hijack it. But this has to go further and wider.
The double-decker buses of London and the subways of Paris, as well as the covered markets of Riyadh, Bali and Cairo, will never be secure as long ast he Muslim village and elders do not take on, delegitimize, condemn and isolate the extremists in their midst.
_______________end of NYTimes editorial__________________

Indeed, it would be a disaster if we were to disallow any more Muslims into the country -- in my mind it would be a disaster if we were to shut out any one group. America is what she is because of a grand variety of ingredients. I had a professor in college who hated the melting pot metaphor because melting something so drastically changes its core; instead, Dr. Burnim preferred the American Stew metaphor -- where each ingredient and spice brings it's own special flavor and enhances the whole. The Muslim community has good things to offer America; just as the Germans, the Irish, the Africans, the Catholics, the Christians, the Jews have offered us in the past 200 years. Let's not forget that.

At Least We're Not as Bad as

2005-06-30T22:43:00.000-05:00

There's been a lot of talk about America's treatment of prisoners lately. Amnesty International compares our prisons to gulags, Senator Durbin says if we didn't know they were American jails, we'd think we were looking at pictures of Nazi camps, and specific allegations of prisoner mistreatment at Guantanomo Bay have been released. Then Republicans shoot back and say Amnesty International is unimportant and thus not worth commenting on; Sen. Durbin should be ashamed of comparing U.S. soldiers to Nazis; and in an "amusing because it's so ridiculous" moment, Republicans try to show how well prisoners at Guantanomo Bay are treated by not only listing sample menus but also by showing us fully cooked meals representative of what the prisoners receive!

Where to start... Okay, first of all, let's look at the Republican's responses. Insulting Amnesty International and saying they weren't credible is interesting. Interesting because Amnesty International estimates on human rights abuses were used by the same administration a few years ago as justification for the war. Want some more hypocricy? Sen. Santorum criticized Sen. Durbin for his Nazi comments, apparently forgetting that he compared the Democratic Party to Hitler not too long ago himself (and never bothered to apologize). And come on, people. Do you really think how well you feed your prisoners gives us any indication of how well you treat them? Sure if we were totally mean we could give them maggot-infested bread and dirty water. But we do seem to feed them well. I'm sure they appreciate that when they are forced to urinate on themselves and stay in painful positions for hours at a time and are refused medical treatment after being beaten. And let's not forget that the allegations of Koran abuse turned out to be true in a few cases (that we know of).

It should bother us all that FBI reports show that very little actionable and useful intelligence has been gathered from Guantanomo Bay or any of the other prison camps we're operating now, despite the questionable interrogation techniques used on the prisoners. That tells me that the techniques aren't working to save American lives by providing information, but they very likely may be endangering American lives by enraging more and more Muslims around the world as these stories of mistreatment get out. Right now militant Muslims are a minority (albeit a vocal and visible one) within that faith, but if we continue disrespecting their religion and mistreating Muslim prisoners, the moderates may soon come to hate us as well. Then we'll all be in a lot of trouble.

And let me set one thing straight, lest I be accused of excusing the Nazi remarks by Durbin. Comparing the actions of our soldiers (or political parties...) to Hitler, Stalin, et al, is grossly unfair. In fact, it lessens the effect of the atrocities committed by those maniacs. If we are to teach people that the Holocaust was truly horrific, we can't compare the torture, cruel treatment, and deaths of several dozen (or who knows -- maybe hundreds) of prisoners to
millions of deaths in WWII concentration camps. As bad as we're treating people, it's not as bad as Hitler treated people.

However, can we live in a world where the best we can say is "at least we're not as bad as Hitler?" That sets the bar pretty low in my book.

So What is it? WMDs? Terroism? Or Just Incompetence?

2005-06-29T13:27:00.000-05:00

Since we first sent our soldiers to Iraq a little more than two years ago, the American public has been subject to several explanations for the war. First, of course, it was Saddam's possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. He had chemical and nerve agents capable of being deployed within 45 minutes, and he was close to getting the Bomb. We had to act to protect ourselves! We were in imminent danger!

What's that? No WMDs? His weapons program was in shambles? Neglected since the first Gulf War? Oh, well... Ummm... I know: Saddam WANTED to continue his weapons program, and he would have done it if it weren't for us.

Not buying that? Well, Saddam was an evil dictator who murdered thousands of his own people and terrorized his neighbors. We were knights in shining armor riding in on our white horses to protect innocent Iraqis and save the world. Iraq, and the world, are better off without him.

The thing is, while I don't disagree with that last part, if that's why we went in there, why didn't we go into Rwanda and stop the Genocide there? Or what about Sudan? If we're going to be the world's police department, why not go to places where more people are in immediate danger without our help? And let's not forget Cuba. Castro's been on our naughty list for over forty years, and if we were truly interested in ridding the world of dictators, we could wipe out his government in a weekend and even schedule a Miami Sound Machine concert for downtown Havana on Monday.

Okay, so say we're not police per se, but we are spreaders of freedom and democracy. Well, as far as the Middle East is concerned, Iraqis had more personal freedom than many other countries. Granted, they still had the dictator thing going against them, but their society was open and women were generally afforded most rights given to men. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, UAE, Yemen and Qatar, to name but a few, all have worse records on allowing personal freedoms, and several of those countries also have serious human rights issues. Don't misinterpret me and think I believed the status quo in Iraq was fine, but did we need to go to war to change it?

Moving on to the next rationale, wouldn't a democratically elected government in the Middle East be a shining example for it's neighbors? It would promote stability in the region that would spread to other countries with oppressed citizens. But as dramatic and brave as the January elections in Iraq were, the insurgents don't consider the current Iraqi legitimate. They believe they are all American stooges, corrupted by our power and influence. While it seemed clear the CPA under Paul Bremer tried to call the shots in favor of Americans and American businesses, the currently elected government is arguably acting independently. However, they won't be seen as such while we're still over there pointing guns at everyone.

The real problem is that starting a democracy is hard work, and most people care more about personal safety and their own economic well-being than having direct representation in parliament. Since the insurgency is wrecking any sense of security for many Iraqis and keeping their economy in the dumps, they are having a tougher time living now than before the war. Last I heard, electricity levels were still only marginally better than they were right after the war, and many people (especially in areas of Baghdad and Fallujah) don't even have running water. If things stay bad, they'll listen to anyone who can stand up and tell them he can keep them safe and give them a job -- people are willing to give up all sorts of personal freedoms simply to feel safer (see: The Patriot Act).

And will having a democracy in the Middle East really cause freedom to spread to neighboring countries? Well, Iran just elected a religious hard-liner, despite many statements assuring us the general population was pro-West and pro-reform. Turns out they'd rather have jobs and regular meals than anything else for the time being. Lebanon is on the right track, but having just re-elected a pro-Syrian speaker for their parliament, it doesn't look like they're quite ready to get out from under Syria's thumb anytime soon. (Fingers crossed, though.)

I guess President Bush saw that the American people weren't buying his latest rationale for the war, however, so now he says we're in Iraq because it's the front line against terrorism. That's funny. There were very few links between Saddam's regime and global terrorism (certainly no operational links between Iraq and Al Qaeda) -- until we got there. Two years ago the front line against terrorism was in Afghanistan in the fight against the remaining Taliban and the search for Bin Laden. Now we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq instead of in the U.S., eh? Don't ya think we'd be fighting them more effectively in Afghanistan if you hadn't lured them into Iraq? (And why haven't we heard much about the hunt for Bin Laden lately? Porter Goss seems to have a pretty good idea where he's hiding, but I guess he's more interested in answering Time magazine's questions about organic gardening than actually catching Osama. But I digress...)

According to a recent CIA report, terrorists are getting hands-on training in planning car bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, and urban warfare in Iraq. Granted the suicide bombers aren't much of a threat after they've blown themselves up, but the people who are planning the attacks are learning -- learning far more effectively than they would be training against dummies in the hills of Afghanistan. We are killing and capturing some of them, for sure, but the ones who get away have a level of on-the-job training in terrorism they wouldn't have been able to achieve two years ago. And who would you rather have trying to sneak into our country: a terrorist cell trained in theoretical missions trying to implement a plan that looks good on paper, or a group of battle-hardened veterans executing a plan they developed and perfected in Baghdad, Najaf, Mosul, and Fallujah?

So let's recap our reasons for going to war:

WMDs
Save Iraqis from an evil dictator
Spreading freedom and democracy in the Middle East
Fighting global terrorism

Those are compelling reasons when considered together. As I've tried to explain in this blog, though, 1 and 4 are just plain wrong, and 2 and 3 are at best iffy. But what really ticks me off is that these all weren't presented to us at the beginning. We started with one reason, then when that wasn't good enough anymore we moved to another. Kind of like a kid caught in a lie trying to think up an excuse that might get him out of trouble, our government just keeps adding to the list of ~~reasons~~ excuses we're over there.

More than being upset because of the lying and poor planning, though, I think we should all be worried that this administration will become frustrated when victory continues to alludes them. The last thing we need is for them to lose focus in Iraq like they did with Bin Laden.

Judge Bars Parents from Exposing Their Son to Their Pagan Beliefs

2005-05-26T11:48:00.000-05:00

File this in the "Huh?" category. A Marion County judge ruled in a couple's divorce decree that they could not teach their pagan beliefs to their son. Both parents practice Wicca, a pagan religion that emphasizes balance in nature and the connectedness of everything on Earth.

Now, I can see how during divorce proceedings parents of different faiths might fight over which religion a child is raised in, but how can a judge put a provision like this into the divorce decree against both parents' objections? Apparently a confidential report by the Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau, which advises the courts on custody and visitation rights, said there was "a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones' [the parents] lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school." (They send their son to a Catholic school.) I guess the judge took that report seriously and the result is soon to be resolved in a court battle.

So, I guess teaching your children about respect for nature, the Earth, and all living creatures is bad, and it would contradict the Christian teachings that a Catholic school provides. Makes sense. I don't think Jesus ever specifically said to be nice to birds and flowers and take care of the Earth, so I can see how a 9-year-old could get confused.

Anyway, how can a judge take it upon himself to make a decision like this, especially against the wishes of both parents? Talk about judicial activism. Hopefully there's very little room for interpretation, and another court will strike this down as unconstitutional right away. If not, I'll have some serious doubt about the court system in Indiana.

However, it does raise an interesting point. Right now the First Amendment protects our religious beliefs (that's why this provision shouldn't stand up in court). In a worst-case scenario an out-of-control judge could issue rulings like this when the parents are of a faith that particular judge doesn't believe in — say, a Protestant judge telling a family they can't raise their son as a Buddhist — but I kind of see that as unlikely (maybe I shouldn't be so confident, given recent happenings in the judicial system). However, what if the parents were Satanists or some other tiny, yet freaky religion or cult? A judge would arguably be doing society a favor by keeping us free from another nut job, so why not let him?

In the end it's an easy decision for me. It's not a judge's place to make decisions like that, even if the parents are totally freaky and worship turnips. In the end, that's one of the freedoms our society is made to protect — even if it makes the rest of us a little shaky to think that there are people out there like that. So I hope I don't have to follow this with another blog in a few months showing my outrage that another court allowed this horrible provision to stand. While personally I'm more in line with the Catholic beliefs taught at the child's parochial school, it's not my place to tell his parents they would be "confusing" him or hurting society by teaching him Wicca at home.

Hey Massachusetts — How's That Same-Sex Marriage Thing Working Out?

2005-05-19T21:57:00.000-05:00

On May 17, 2004, same-sex couples became legally able to marry in Massachusetts. What's life been like in New England since then? Here are some statistics from Newsweek's May 23, 2005 issue:

Number of same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts from May 17, 2004 until February, 2005: 6,142

Number of male couples: 2,170

Number of female couples: 3,972

Number of heterosexual marriages in Massachusetts during that time: 30,872

Okay, so the first thing we've learned is that there have been a good number of same-sex marriages in the first year. Just under 20%, actually, which is quite a bit higher than the high-end of estimates I've seen of the gay population in the U.S. This might imply that gays are more committed in relationships than heterosexuals, or it might just be a high number because being able to marry was (and is) still fairly new in Mass.

Public support in Massachusetts for marriage equality in April, 2005: 56%

Public support one year ago: 35%

Whoa — you mean to tell me that as gay marriages have occurred, people seem to be lightening up about them? You think maybe it's because same-sex marriage isn't the beginning of the end like so many people claim?

Percentage of Massachusetts voters who believe gay marriage has had a positive or no impact on the quality of life in Massachusetts: 84%

Holy cow! Now you're telling me that not only do people realize it's not that bad of an idea, but 84% believe that it's either been good for the state or had no effect at all. Oh man, don't show these statistics to G.W. Bush.

But then we're brought back to the other 49 states.

Public support across the nation for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman: 53%

Number of states that have amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage since 2004: 14

So, there's lots of work to be done on the rest of the nation. I can't help but feel a tad bit optimistic that the numbers turned around so much in Mass over the past year, though. Granted that state skews pretty far to the left, but they do have a Republican governor now.

Even if same-sex marriages aren't allowed in any other states, if we can at least stop current efforts to flat-out ban it — and roll back laws and amendments in states that currently ban it — it's a step in the right direction. After all, even if the Founding Fathers wouldn't approve of gay marriage themselves, I think they would have recognized the inherent danger in removing or restricting any citizen's rights.

What's in a Name?

2005-05-19T10:21:00.000-05:00

Once we had a new Pope (and the crime sprees and rioting of directionless Catholics subsided), several of my non-Catholic friends began asking why this German dude went with Benedict XVI. Why do any Pope's take new names? What's wrong with "Pope Ratzinger?" Well, I had no idea either, so I asked my priest (who's really a monsignor, so I'm confident he knows his stuff).

The basic answer is that Popes consider their election as a new beginning, a new chapter of their lives. It's not unheard of for people take new names as they begin new journeys, especially spiritual (although the only other high-profile recent example of this I can think of would be Prince/the Artist Formerly Known as Prince/Wait -- Now I'm Prince Again). This practice in fact goes all the way back to the Apostles when Simon became known as Peter. (Although, if I remember correctly, Jesus told him that he was to be known as Peter — it wasn't Simon's decision. Then Jesus went on to call him Simon Peter sometimes, further confusing the issue. Correct me if I'm wrong here.) If you were confirmed into your faith, think back to the ceremony. Were you asked to pick a confirmation name? It's not all that uncommon for Christians or even other religions to do this.

Anyway, you have a new beginning. So how do Popes pick their new name? Well, there's nothing stopping them from picking a unique name (personally, I can't wait for Pope Steve), but they often choose the name of a previous Pope to honor him and/or his legacy. In fact, Pope John Paul II took his name to honor Pope John Paul I, who died after only 33 days in the papacy. JPI was the first double-named Pope, taking his names from the previous pontiffs, Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI. (Thanks, Wikipedia!)

Pope Benedict XVI probably took that name to honor the peaceful legacy of Benedict XV, and perhaps he also hoped to soften his hard-line conservative image by choosing the name of a more moderate Pope.

So there you have it.

Oh the Irony

2005-05-18T16:13:00.000-05:00

A friend sent me this this morning, and I thought it was worth sharing, considering Button's recent post.

The Associated Press had this yesterday about the Newsweek fiasco:

"It's puzzling that while Newsweek now acknowledges that they got the facts wrong, they refused to retract the story," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. "I think there's a certain journalistic standard that should be met and in this instance it was not...The report has had serious consequences. People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged."

The irony of this White House "outrage" in light of all the lies about Iraq the Bush administration has fed America is really incredible. A reader sent me a good response to this latest Bush administration rhetoric:

"It's puzzling that while the White House now acknowledged that they haven't found WMD or a link between Al Queda and Iraq, they have refused to retract their claims. I think there's a certain standard of governing that should be met and in this instance has not. The claims the administration used to send this nation to war has had serious consequences. People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged."

Newsweek-Bashing is Simply a Convenient Distraction

2005-05-17T14:47:00.000-05:00

First of all, let me say that Newsweek's reporters used poor judgment when they posted the story alleging that government interrogators were disrespectful of the Koran in GB, Cuba. They didn't corroborate an anonymous source's story, and they should be criticized for their laziness. All media outlets should know better, and hopefully the flack Newsweek is taking will keep some other newsrooms in line.

Second, let me say that, in my personal opinion, Muslims are overreacting. So they (allegedly) put a copy of the Koran in a toilet. Disrespectful? Absolutely. Worth rioting over? Not quite. What was (allegedly) put in the toilet was a book. Pages with words on them bound together. Of course what was on those pages is considered sacred to Muslims, but unless the copy that was (allegedly) put into a toilet was penned by Muhammad himself, it's just a book. I will not argue that the act itself is disrespectful at best, but I simply cannot believe that a book is worth rioting and people dying over. Take my Bible. Throw it in the trash, burn it... Whatever. I'll go out and get a new Bible. I know what's in it, and you can't destroy that. Sure I'll be offended if you put my Bible in the toilet, but again, it's just a book. What's in the book is what matters, and unless it's a special edition or the very last copy on Earth, I'll get over it. I agree that Muslims can and should be upset and lodge complaints about the (alleged) treatment of their holy book, and I'm disappointed that our government (allegedly) acted this way. But is it worth people dying over? Not quite. Just my opinion, and not necessarily that of anyone else on this blog.

Now to the point of this post. You probably noticed that I put "allegedly" in parenthesis above. Normally if someone was accused of a crime, I wouldn't hesitate using that word until the trial was completed. So why am I holding back a little here? Because with all the headlines this Newsweek story has created, no one is actually saying that the Koran desecration never happened. The Pentagon, State Department, and White House are all admonishing Newsweek for their shoddy journalism, but no one has ever said "We never did that." The closest I've seen is "That behavior wasn't covered in the Pentagon report the Newsweek source was citing." In fact, the Pentagon says it's still investigating the allegations. Of course I think there's little chance that anything will be determined now. Too many people have made a big deal of acting indignant and offended, so I doubt the truth will ever come out.

Show me one source that has any government official flat out denying that the events ever happened. I'm serious. Link to a source in the Comments section below. All I'm reading is "Newsweek is bad. Newsweek is sloppy. How could they print this?" I'd much rather be reading "Newsweek is sloppy -- we'd never do such a thing." All of the White House's efforts are going into their Newsweek smear campaign and not into the (alleged) incident. And I've only read one article that bothered to point out that this was not the first time the soldiers in Cuba have been accused of such actions.

I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything more than a smoke screen from this administration. It goes right along with their daily abuse of power.

Words of Wisdom

2005-05-13T22:08:00.000-05:00

Today's Words of Wisdom entry comes from none other than the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, in the foreword to Sharing God's Planet: A Christian Vision for a Sustainable Future.
"The Christian reason for regarding ecology as a matter of justice is that God's self-sharing love is what animates every object and structure and situation in the world. We are not consumers of what God has made; we are in communion with it."

Bumper Sticker Religion

2005-05-13T21:58:00.000-05:00

During the last election, the onslaught of bumper stickers was amusing. The lines got a little blurred, and I was a lot less amused, when I found a bumper sticker hanging in the “Pro-life” section of our church’s hallway bulletin board. The bumper sticker I refer to is the “You can’t be Catholic AND Pro-Abortion,” which no doubt you’ve seen on the bumpers of several vehicles around you. (Just today I saw it in the Target parking lot.)

I take issue with that bumper sticker on many levels. Without getting too far into it, I think it’s worthy to note the separation of church and state issue is defendable by all means, and I could argue that the political bumper sticker didn’t really belong on the bulletin board in the first place. However, during the last election I was hungry for our own parish leaders to step up and speak more forthrightly about how each leader fell into the church’s teachings, so I have to say in all honesty, the fact that the bumper sticker was political isn’t want bothered me.

What does bother me? Where do I begin? First and perhaps most obviously, I don’t think anyone out there is running around chanting “Kill the fetus! Kill the fetus!” That is about the only “pro-abortion” sentiment I can imagine, and well, I can’t imagine it. My point is, I don’t think people are ever pro-abortion. But that’s just semantics. The bigger point is the bumper sticker was antagonistic, and I don’t think antagonism belongs in a church hallway.

On a higher, more important level, I don’t like the bumper sticker because it implies that if I voted for a “pro-choice” candidate then I was less Catholic than my Republican counterparts. And that would be wrong.

That implication of course had a lot of support, unfortunately, from our new Pope, who as a cardinal authored the comments that it was okay for priests to deny communion to pro-choice candidates. I lost a lot of hope for the Catholic faith, the same faith in which I find so much powerful good, when I heard that. Hearing that in the last election a larger percentage of Catholics voted Republican than ever before worried me. Here we had the chance to put a rosary-praying man into the Oval Office. Imagine the power of the rosary in that room! Just imagine. Instead, we allowed ourselves to be put into an over-simplified category of “anti-abortion,” and co-opted by the more effective marketing of the Republican Party controlled by Christian fundamentalists, many of whom look down upon Catholicism.

Here’s the thing. I, too, am anti-abortion. I too, believe that a fetus is indeed a life; a life that God created. My greater goal is to lessen the number of abortions. In that way, I am very much pro-life. And I truly believe that the Democratic platform not only makes abortion more rare, but also more fully encompasses a pro-life stance. (For a very reasoned, well-said article from Tikkun magazine on the subject of “Pro Life Democrats” please take some time to follow this link: Pro-life Democrats: We’re here. We’re sincere. Get used to it.) Recent research indicates that the number of abortions under officially pro-choice president Clinton decreased by 17.4 percent. The abortion rate has INCREASED 14.6 percent under our current officially pro-life President. Tim Russert pointed out in a “Meet the Press” episode several weeks ago that the abortion rate in “Red States” is actually higher than in “Blue States.”

If I were supporting antagonism in the church hallway, I would have made a bumper sticker that said, “You can’t be Catholic and Pro-WAR” and hung it up. (I didn’t notice any priests denying communion to politicians who voted for the war, which Pope John Paul II spoke strongly against.) Instead, I mentioned it to the right people and the offending bumper sticker was removed.

So, my friends, my fear is that by buying into the antagonistic slogan-brandishing politics of pro-life versus pro-choice, we lost a beautiful opportunity to enrich the heritage of the Catholic tradition of social justice (one that encompasses both medical care and health insurance for the masses, as well as quality education for everyone, two things we Catholics can claim as causes we have contributed much to society for) and support a Catholic into office. Food for thought.

Ignorant People with Positions of Power

2005-05-11T12:35:00.000-05:00

"Positions of Power" may be a little strong, so let me explain.

My wife's clock radio tuning was bumped from the lame easy-listening radio station that used to wake her to a lame country station that now wakes her. What can I say -- she likes country music, so she's not that motivated to change it back. And am I really going to be controlling enough to change her clock radio? Besides, it gets me out of bed if for no other reason than to avoid hearing any more "hit country" than I have to. (If I had a music blog I'd explain how I don't inherently hate country music -- just most of what people are calling country music these days. But that's too far off topic for this blog...)

Anyway, we awoke this morning to the DJ talking about the recent news that United Airlines parent company, UAL Corp, was allowed to drop four pension plans. Potentially bad news for the thousands of retired UAL workers who depend on those pensions to live, but the DJ decided to go off on a completely ignorant rant explaining that's why we should have private Social Security accounts. After all, he reasoned: if we had private Social Security accounts, the money would be ours and no one could decide to take it away.

Okay, genius. Here's where you're misguided. First of all, what was taken away were pensions from a private company. This has nothing to do with Social Security. UAL is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and they are trying to trim down liabilities on their balance sheet to keep the company alive. I'm not going to comment on whether their decision is wise. It certainly seems like a horrible thing to do -- back out of commitments you made to people whose hard work built you -- but hey, the current employees will certainly be better off having a job to go to tomorrow. Anyway, these were pension accounts, not Social Security. And guess what? The accounts are being transferred to a government body, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp, where they will be paid (albeit at probably a lower level).

So, no one has lost their Social Security by this action. And, if every one of these employees had private Social Security accounts, THIS STILL WOULD HAVE HAPPENED! How can you go on a Rush Limbaugh-ish rant about how important private accounts are when the case you're using as an example isn't even related to Social Security? That's not an apples to apples comparison. In fact, it's not even an apples to oranges comparison. It's more like an apples to monkeys comparison.

When I have more time I may add an entry to this blog explaining why I do indeed think that private Social Security accounts aren't needed at this time. (Short answer: they do absolutely nothing to help the financial solvency of the Social Security program, and they introduce unnecessary risk into a program that's supposed to be a safety net, not a retirement program.) But that's not my beef with this DJ. My beef is that he used his position (at the controls of a radio station) to spread his beliefs -- when they were misguided and irrelevant to the topic he started out discussing.

So there. I feel a little better now. But I do feel more explanation of my beliefs about Social Security will be warranted in the near future.

Hello World

2005-05-11T11:45:00.000-05:00

Nothing too fancy to start. This blog was my wife's idea, and I think it will be a good forum for us both to get some stuff off our chests. We're both squarely in the category labeled by some as "Moderate," but we'd prefer to call ourselves "Progressives." What's the difference? Well, to some extent I think Moderates are happy with the status quo and are looking to preserve it, while Progressives are interested in embracing change and moving forward -- with sensible policies and decisions that will benefit society as a whole. Feel free to disagree with my brief description of Moderates; it's just my own way of sorting through labels, and I'm open to alternate definitions. I certainly don't want to look like I'm criticizing Moderates in any way. On the contrary; I think we need more of them (as well as more Progressives).

Anyway, my wife and I are Progressive Catholics. We deeply love our faith, but we're both concerned that conservative forces are acting on it in ways that will be bad for Catholicism as well as the world (or at least the U.S.). Of course there are many conservative forces acting on the USA these days, and we're plenty concerned about them as well. We'll use this blog as sort of a sounding board to let people know what we think is wrong, how we'd like to fix it, and show the world that there are voices of reason out there, even though many times they are drowned out by extremists on both sides of the political spectrum.

So, we hope you like the blog, and we welcome your comments. Just one request: try to play nice. While we may make it clear when we don't like someone, our goal is to never stoop to personal attacks or threats. Our whole point is that we respect other people's opinions. Many times these opinions, even if we don't agree with them 100%, will shape our own, and we encourage well-reasoned rebuttals.

Thanks for reading.