Monthly Archives: November 2010
TAC is undergoing an upgrade, and I’m proud to announce this upgrade also includes an expansion. TAC has launched a facebook page and a twitter page! Look up “The American Catholic” on facebook and @TheAmCatholic (full name “TheAmericanCatholic” on twitter to follow us!
Now, why are we doing this? It occurred to us that people desperately want to know what our contributors have for breakfast. This allows me to tell you that I had Pop-Tarts, and that Tito made hash browns out of Idaho potatoes.
Of course I’m joking. The goal is two-fold. First, we’ll do what everyone else does with these platforms, which is link back to the posts, allowing people a different way to get our posts than just an RSS feed. More importantly however, we’d like to see this really supplement the TAC community and discussions.
There are many topics or news items that interest us, but aren’t blogged about because there’s not enough material to write a blog post or enough time to write the post. Micro-blogging allows us an opportunity to share these stories with you and discuss them. We’re hoping these discussions are as fruitful as our comment boxes and will really add to what we’re doing. This isn’t just a one-way street. We’ve noticed that a lot of big name bloggers in the Catholic blogosphere get a lot of help from their readers in that readers will email them with news or post ideas. We think our readership can do the same thing, and as a group blog these platforms are great for allowing you, the reader, to post on our wall or tweet us with things you’d like to see discussed at TAC. This way, TAC can become a more interactive blog and become an even better forum for the discussion of issues in light of Catholic teaching.
So please, if you’re on facebook or twitter, follow us! We’re still figuring things out with, so forgive us if we have some snafus, but we think this will really help improve TAC so thanks in advance for putting up with us.
Hattip to Instapundit. The video is by Don Surber. As noted in my post Full Body Stupidity, the wrath of the public is beginning to be roused by the full body scans or intrusive pat downs that airline passengers are being subjected to. In response the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, or BIG SIS as some people refer to her, tells us that we have nothing to worry about:
As part of our layered approach, we have expedited the deployment of new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) units to help detect concealed metallic and non-metallic threats on passengers. These machines are now in use at airports nationwide, and the vast majority of travelers say they prefer this technology to alternative screening measures.
AIT machines are safe, efficient, and protect passenger privacy. They have been independently evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, who have all affirmed their safety. And the weapons and other dangerous and prohibited items we’ve found during AIT screenings have illustrated their security value time and again.
Rigorous privacy safeguards are also in place to protect the traveling public. All images generated by imaging technology are viewed in a walled-off location not visible to the public. The officer assisting the passenger never sees the image, and the officer viewing the image never interacts with the passenger. The imaging technology that we use cannot store, export, print or transmit images.
If an anomaly is detected during screening with AIT, if an alarm occurs after a passenger goes through a walk-through metal detector, or if a passenger opts out of either of these screening methods, we use pat-downs to help detect hidden and dangerous items like the one we saw in the failed terrorist attack last Christmas Day.
In An Unprecedented Move, Left Leaning Bishop Kicanas, Vice President Of US Bishop’s Conference Passed Over For Right Leaning Archbishop Dolan
It was as stunning, as it was unexpected; by a vote of 128-111 the left leaning Bishop Gerald Kicanas, Vice President of the US Bishop’s Conference was passed over for President of the US Bishops by New York’s Archbishop Timothy Dolan. In the history of the US Bishop’s Conference, a sitting Vice President has never been passed over for another candidate. It had been assumed to be a foregone conclusion that Bishop Kicanas of Tucson, who is a protégé of the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin and his seamless garment theology, would easily win.
A number of factors may have tipped the scales toward the gregarious and well loved new Archbishop of New York. Tim Drake wrote an article about Bishop Kicanas which called into question his role as head of Chicago’s Mundelin Seminary. Some had questioned why the future bishop would allow a man who to be ordained even though many had questions concerning the prospective priest’s background. The priest would later be charged with molestation.
By monetary economist Scott Sumner:
1. The Fed isn’t really trying to create inflation.
The Fed doesn’t directly control inflation; they influence total nominal spending, which is roughly what Keynesians call aggregate demand. Whether higher nominal spending results in higher inflation depends on a number of factors, such as whether the economy has a lot of underutilized resources. But it’s certainly true that for any given increase in NGDP, the Fed would prefer more RGDP growth and less inflation. Even after QE2, the Fed still expects less than 2% inflation for years to come. If the Fed had any marketing sense, they’d be telling the public they are trying to boost recovery by increasing national income, not increasing the cost of living. It would also have the virtue of being true.
2. “But doesn’t economic theory teach us that printing lots of money creates high inflation?”
In general that is true. But there are three important exceptions:
1. If the monetary injections are expected to be temporary, the inflationary effect is far smaller. The Japanese central bank did lots of QE in 2003, but pulled much of the money out in 2006 when deflation ended. It worked in preventing high inflation, indeed it may have worked too well.
2. If interest rates are near zero, the public demands more liquidity. The Fed can supply that liquidity with little impact on the price level.
3. If the Fed pays interest on reserves, then the quantity theory of money (more money means more inflation) doesn’t necessarily hold. They recently started paying interest on reserves, and that’s one reason why the big injections from 2008 didn’t have an inflationary impact. The Fed can adjust the rate as necessary, and indeed in my view a lower IOR would be more effective that QE2. Continue reading
One of the most famous speeches in American history is FDR’s First Inaugural. The most memorable quote from this address occurs early on when he intones, “we have nothing to fear, but fear itself.” It is one of the most oft-quoted bits of political rhetoric. It is also one of the most profoundly silly.
Even if one grants that the line is not to be taken literally, it is wrong. Here is the entire first paragraph of the speech to provide some context.
I AM certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our Nation impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.
For a rundown of why this is an absurd sentiment, see this excellent blogpost by Keith Spillet. Keith delves into some of the philosophical problems with this line, and I largely concur with his assessment. Beyond that, I also find the line to be, somewhat ironically considering the subject matter, demagogic. Though it is ostensibly a call for optimism in the midst of dark economic times, it is a fairly cynical attempt to brush back criticisms of his program. It is a rhetorical device that is employed today, and it is one that I find highly insulting. Continue reading
Recent discussions have raised doubts about the plausibility of a pro-life libertarian position. In this post, I will argue that the only conception of libertarianism I find plausible and coherent necessitates a pro-life position.
First, we must define terms. What does it mean to be pro-life, and what does it mean to be a libertarian? I would submit that as with virtually all political ideologies, there are different factions with different conceptions of what it means to adhere to that ideology. Within libertarianism there are generally recognized “right” and “left” factions, and others who do not find these distinctions useful. There are anarchists and minarchists, individualists and collectivists. And there are plenty in each camp that will declare the others not to be “true libertarians.”
Though some may have a problem with resorting to Wikipedia, I’m going to assume that interested libertarians keep tabs on it, and state – for what little it may be worth – that I find the definitions offered here to be consistent with what libertarian literature I have read on my own:
Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action. Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as “any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power [either "total or merely substantial"] from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals”, whether “voluntary association” takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives. David Boaz writes that, “Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others” and that, “Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property–rights that people have naturally, before governments are created.”
On the face of it, I see nothing here that would contradict the pro-life position, which is simply that unborn human beings are worthy of the same defense mentioned here as born human beings. But one of our contributors has raised the following objection, re-stated in a manner I found a bit more understandable by one of our readers in the comment boxes (no offense to the contributor, who acknowledged this as an accurate representation of his views, intended):
[L]ibertarianism has no way of adjudicating between competing claims of rights–in this case [of abortion], the right to property versus the right to life–so that any adjudication of this issue must rely upon extra-libertarian premises. Perhaps the libertarian would say, “Well, the right to life is more basic than the right to property, so in cases where they conflict, the right to life would have to take priority.” But on what basis would he make this determination? (my emphasis)
This is certainly a worthy objection to raise, but I think it contains a crucial flaw: that “adjudication of this issue must rely upon extra-libertarian premises.” As I will show, there are libertarian premises that actually do provide for this very task, but they are not accepted by all libertarians. I would argue that libertarians who cannot accept these premises are the ones who are not “true” libertarians, in fact. Also problematic is the very notion that it is a right to life and a right to property that are in conflict; as I will argue below, this is not the case.
Many things done by the Obama administration have mystified me since they appeared to be bound to alienate great swaths of the population. However, I have never seen a policy of this administration more likely to create a great public outcry than the current policy of the Transportation Security Administration that all passengers must submit to full body scans or physical pat downs. The full body scan produces a naked image of the traveler.
Many people are offended by this, and hence we have nuns subjected to pat downs. This three year old girl being subjected to a pat down shows the joys that await parents if they do not want to have their small children subjected to a full body scan.
A follow up to Paul’s post here on the attempted banning of the American flag carried by Cody Alicea on his bike to honor his veteran grandfather. Under enormous public pressure the school backed down. Today, Cody Alicea went to school with his flag on his bike, but he didn’t go alone. Hundreds of veterans riding motorcycles with American flags gave him an escort of honor. As an immigrant friend of mine who served in the Marine Corps in World War I was fond of saying, “Some country this America!”.
I’ve written a lengthy follow-up to my last post on Distributism and third ways for interested readers. I thought it would be better to post it on my personal blog due to its length, though we can discuss it here. In this post I defend voluntary pluralism – which I believe is embodied in our liberal democratic republic – against the alternatives of coerced pluralism (Social Democracy), voluntary monism (Christendom), and coerced monism (Totalitarianism). And no, I have absolutely nothing against medieval Christendom. I just don’t think it’s coming back in the way it was once known.
If you think I’m full of it, you can let me know here or on my blog. Your choice.
Last week I mentioned in the comments to this post that I think most political and financial problems are fundamentally technical rather than moral and cultural in nature. Several people took exception to this idea, so I figured I should probably try to elaborate a bit on what I meant.
Start with a historical example. During the 14th century, European society was rent asunder by the Black Death. Between a third and half of people died, and the resulting turmoil caused serious political, economic, and social upheavals. As Wikipedia notes, many governments “instituted measures that prohibited exports of foodstuffs, condemned black market speculators, set price controls on grain and outlawed large-scale fishing,” none of which stopped the spread of the disease. Given the vast amount of suffering, it’s only natural that many people concluded that the causes of the Black Death were fundamentally moral or cultural in nature. Many people argued that human sinfulness, greed, pride, etc., had caused God to turn his back on Western society, whereas others sought to blame the outbreak on a specific group, such as the Jews. Today, of course, most people recognize that the cause of the plague was less a matter of morality than of hygiene. But if you were to tell an average 14th century European that the plague was being caused by fleas from rats, he would likely think you were naively trivializing the issue. Continue reading