Monthly Archives: September 2011
I have long been distressed at the poor level of reporting on wars. Most media people have no military experience and it shows in their news story which read as if a deaf person is trying to describe a symphony. Austin Bay, a retired Army Colonel, Armor, who earned a bronze star in Iraq in 2005, and his analysis of the Libyan War is a welcome oasis in the desert in comparison. I have been playing board war games since the early seventies, and I have long been familiar with Austin Bay, designing war games being one small part of his multifarious career. If you want to keep abreast of military developments around the globe Strategy Page, run by wargaming legend Jim Dunnigan and Colonel Bay, is the place to go.
So I guess that makes it neo-neocon.
The Washington Times reports on a poll released by Rasmussen on the relative popularity and unpopularity of various political labels.
• 38 percent of likely U.S. voters “consider it a positive” when a political candidate is described as “conservative,” 27 percent say it’s a negative.
• 37 percent say “moderate” is a positive label, 13 percent say it’s a negative.
• 32 percent say “tea party” is a positive label.
• 56 percent of Republican voters agree.
• 38 percent of voters overall say the tea party label is a negative.
• 70 percent of Democrats agree.
• 31 percent of voters overall say “progressive” is a positive label, 26 percent say its negative.
• 21 percent say “liberal” is a positive label, 38 percent say it’s a negative.
What jumped out at me is the disparity between how the term “conservative” is received versus the term “tea party.” The positive/negative spread for “conservative” is 38/27, but it’s 32/38 for “tea party.” Now, conservative/tea party fares better than progressive/liberal, and that is probably worth a discussion in and of itself.* But I want to focus on the conservative versus tea party aspect of this poll for a moment. Continue reading
Alex of Christian Economics is a thoughtful guy who adheres to some economic theories (specifically the Modern Money Theory of economics) that I don’t hold with. Thus marking out one of my rare areas of agreement with Paul Krugman.
Alex and I were looking for topics to have a sort of slow-motion blog debate over, and there seems no better place to start than one of the bigger policy proposals which many MMT adherents support: having the government become an Employer of Last Resort. Alex has a substantive post up to day making the case for an employer of last resort program from a Catholic and economic point of view. I’ll be writing and posting reply-post in the next couple days.
A question arose yesterday in a thread, posed by Michael:
I have a real question. Homosexuality, as a sin an abomination, is mentioned in Leviticus. That book, however, also says:
– disrespect of parents should be punishable by death
– sleeping with a woman during her period should make both parties outcasts
– don’t eat pork
– shellfish are an abomination
So my question is, why are some of the verses ignored and others so important?
It is a good question and sometimes confuses Catholics and non-Catholics. The answer to the question is in the very earliest history of the Church. After the ascension of Jesus, the apostles went about the great task of making “disciples of all the nations”, and Christianity began to spread among Jew and Gentile alike. The question quickly arose as to whether Gentile converts would have to be circumcised (the males only of course!) and follow all of the Jewish laws regarding ritual purity. If they were asked to do this, it would mean a complete revolution in their life. They would no longer be able to even eat a meal with their Gentile relatives and friends. Like the Jews, the Christians would be a people set apart, cut off from interacting in the simplest ways with non-Jews for fear of violating the hundreds of laws of the Old Testament regarding ritual purity.