Cross & Eagle Catholic Blogging Award for Most Beautiful Blog

Tuesday, August 16, AD 2011

When it comes to blogging, fortunately or unfortunately, how a blog looks plays an important role in attracting readers.  Yes, substantively written blogs do retain readers, but if you want to shoot fish in a barrel, you need a spiffy looking blog to fill up that barrel full of fish.

There are many well made and creative blogs out there, but striking the balance between color, pics, font, and layout is very tricky.  There are a few out there that do well in this department, though there is one that stands head and shoulders above the rest.

The 2011 Cross & Eagle Award for Most Beautiful Blog is none other than . . .

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Cross & Eagle Catholic Blogging Award for Most Beautiful Blog

The 2011 Cross & Eagle Catholic Blogging Awards

Monday, August 15, AD 2011

I am starting new tradition here at The American Catholic (TAC) and that is the Cross & Eagle Catholic Blogging Awards.  The Cross & Eagle Awards will showcase what I believe to be the best in the Catholic Blogosphere.  Ranging from serious to funny I’ll be posting a different post each day celebrating the best in the Catholic Blogosphere.

To begin tomorrow, Tuesday late-morning, I will announce the first winner in the category of Most Beautiful Blog.  The blog that has a great layout, contrasting colors, cool looking pics, and a lot more.

There are several categories from Best Blogging Name to Most Popular Blog to Biggest Breakout Blog.  The categories are numerous and creative in order to exemplify the rich diversity of the Catholic Blogosphere.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to The 2011 Cross & Eagle Catholic Blogging Awards

GOP Presidential Poll for August

Monday, August 15, AD 2011

The American Catholic (TAC) has been running a periodic poll of the GOP presidential field. So naturally following the Iowa Straw Poll we have this months poll for our TAC readers.  We have included candidates that have declared their candidacy as well as other speculative* candidates. As the primaries arrive the field of candidates should narrow down a bit.

Tim Pawlenty has dropped out, but Rick Perry has “officially” entered the race.  A newcomer to our poll is Representative Thad McCotter of Michigan.  Tim Pawlenty garnered 13 votes in our last TAC poll, we’ll see where Pawlenty’s supporters will go to next.  Rick Santorum won the last TAC poll.

You can view the results of our last poll here.

Update:  My apologies, I have added Michele Bachmann.

* For example even though Chris Christie has denied he is interested in running, he still will be in Iowa for an inexplicable reason. Until then, he will be showing in the poll until we don’t see his name on the actual roll.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to GOP Presidential Poll for August

43 Responses to America’s Spending Open Thread

  • I suspect this brinksmanship will have an eleventh hour resolution.
    But if not, Then what?
    Could this crisis bring down the Obama administration?

    The crisis is certainly having a major effect in financial markets around the world, not the least down-under here on the fringes of civilisation. All our exports are traded in $US, and with the $US weakening, the $NZ is at record high levels against the $US and is causing huge problems for our exporters who are the drivers of our economy, and economic recovery frome the recession – which didn’t impact on us too badly. But our people going on trips overseas, and importers are loving it, but it is having the effect of a rather undesirably large trade deficit.
    What is surprising is that the $NZ is at record strength against the $AUS as well – I think that is because the $AUS is linked so strongly to the $US, but the Aussies hardly felt the recession – their economy is booming.

    So the world is waiting with bated breath. Maybe a collapse and a fresh start may not be a bad thing. But its too complex for me – I am after all, just a simple man. 🙂

  • Could this crisis bring down the Obama administration?

    We do not have a parliamentary administration, so he stays in office for a full term until he dies, resigns, or is deposed by Congress. This last would require a two-thirds majority of the Senate, which his party controls. The 2d option would require a capacity for shame which (one suspects) eludes him. As for the first, no President under the age of 63 has ever died in office of anything but an assassin’s bullet.

  • At this point I’m hoping for no deal. Nobody comes out ahead politically but the Tea Party Republicans will probably suffer the most. We need to remove that tumor.

    On a related matter, I’m hoping that the GOP gets pledge fatigue and follows Jon Huntsman’s lead who said, “I don’t sign pledges — other than the Pledge of Allegiance and a pledge to my wife.”

  • We are a cancer? We didn’t create this mess. It was profligate spending that set the stage. It is hardly accurate or fair to blame that on those elected to trim that spending. That almost all of them are freshmen reps makes your dig particularly idiotic and ill conceived.

    I’m not all that upset. Our government works only when it is divided; when the Executive and Legislative branches tussle. This is good! This is the conversation that We the People should have had BEFORE we threw away 2 trillion dollars. Frankly, it was the unimpeded access o power that created this mess.

    No, RR, I am content to have legislators fighting for their beliefs. This is the government of America, not the Kremlinesque government of Pelosi and I’m lovin it!

  • ROTFLMAO 😆

    The demagogues and their dishonest media henchmen are spinning like tops blaming Republicans for approaching default. They cannot ( dem compromise: “my way or no way”) to agree to the GOP bill for two reasons.

    One, because it doesn’t push out the debt ceiling past the 2012 election. They are vulnerable due to their excessive spending and the deficit. Two, they cannot keep political power if their cash/graft flow is cut; e.g., the FAA is now shut down b/c the GOP cut wasteful Fed grants to airports in NV and in a few other states each equivalent to the AK “bridge to nowhere.”

    The debt ceiling probably will be raised and near term default temporarily avoided. Unless they strong-arm the rating agencies, ratings will be downgraded. Worse, we will see Greecification of the USA due to galactic levels of spending and concomitant insolvency.

    The cartoon says that in a way even a PhD in Social Justice can (but refuses to) comprehend.

    Yesterday, Gallup Poll: Approve Obama 40% (34% of Independents). Disapprove Obama – 50%. Tells me 40% of respondents either believe its the government’s sole function to provide for them, or are, one way or another, living off government largess.

    Of course, for desperate dependents and the ideologues (obama-worshiping imbeciles and idiot congress critters) they keep in power any disagreement is evil and/or pathological.

  • A united Congress with a president from the opposition works well. A divided Congress does not. You usually get pork-filled bills. Now that earmarks aren’t allowed, we just get stalemate.

  • My wife and I had about 20K in credit crd debt at one time. It had built up over the first seven years of marriage.

    A little for furnishing a house, a bit for repairs, some appliances, etc. The kids’ needs made it worse… And always, always a reason why we needed to have such and such now.

    It wasn’t until we ran up against our debt limit that we stopped making excuses.

    I feared we would never get out from under and, worse could not imagine living without access to more credit. What if we needed diapers or medicine and my check was spent? What if an appliance broke or we needed to travel for a wedding or funeral or something? So many excuses…

    But my salary IS enough. Not having access to credit has forced us to be more judicious. It has made us more the people we were meant to be, the careful stewards of those things God, in His infinite mercy, gives us.

    Five years after reaching our credit limit, we have only about 8 thousand of that debt left to pay.

    What is missing from this debate is a sense of the justness of our obligation to pay our debts.

    We borrowed money, some for critical things, some for frivolous. Now, we are saying that our salvation lies not in paying our just debts but in taking out more at whatevee terms we can reach. Like the failing nobles of Enlightenment Europe, we are begging… BEGGING the worl to take our paper in exchange for durable goods and services; knowing full and well that we have no intention of paying ot ourselves and no concern for whether our progeny will pay it or weasle out of it through trickery, theft, or bankruptcy.

    A more dishonorable and shortsighted approach is hard to imagine.

  • I’ve got a question (from someone with almost zero financial knowledge). If we pass a balanced budget amendment, does that mean the government could no longer issue bonds? Until recently these were good conservative investments. Would they disappear? I like the idea of a balanced budget amendment, just worried about the repercussions.

  • 49 states require a balanced budget. They also issue bonds.

  • I dunno. War bonds? There probably would be a feature to fund wars; emergency operations; buildings, highway systems; etc.

    I think states issue bonds to fund long term infrastructure improvements like bridges, roads, schools, tunnels. I believe they must (like you and I when we took out mortgage loans to buy our homes) must have a plan (tolls, incremental revenues, etc.) to repay the bonds with interest.

    Is state and local government debt something about which to worry?

    Nuveen a major mutual fund conglomerate selling shares in state, county, municipal (SCM) tax-free mutual funds (that buy and hold such debt securities) just obtained (shareholder vote) authority to make loans to SCM gov units that can’t pay per terms: (I think) very dangerous because the loans could be less recoverable than the past due bonds.

  • A BBA is useless. Look at Illinois. There are so many ways around it that all it does is make politicians more creative.

  • Washington D.C. …
    This is the central headquarters of the inmates who are running the asylum amock.

  • G-Veg, if you believe in the justness of paying debts, you must necessarily be for raising the debt ceiling. Going forward we need to reduce spending but right now we cannot pay our debts without raising the debt ceiling. It is mathematically impossible.

    The TPR’s rejected a $4 trillion bipartisan deal that lowers tax rates because according to Grover Norquist even broadening the tax base is a tax hike. Now we are guaranteed to get a much worse deal. Reagan is yelling from his grave, “Take the deal, you idiots!” Tell me again why anyone would support the TPR’s?

  • RR, You are going to have to do a better job explaining your position. I’m not getting it.

    It sound like you are saying we have to borrow more to pay our debts now, i.e. more debt is good because it is necessary for debt reduction… Which does not, on its face, make sense.

    I am willing to try to understand. Don’t be afraid to use a few bytes. I’ll give it as fair a hearing as I can.

  • 😀

    We have Detroit, Greece and Illinois to show us the United States in a few years.

    RR: There you go again. But, this rant is refreshing. Usually, you people lecture us on just exactly what God is yelling about in Heaven.

  • RR,
    I do not think you are correct. There is a difference between legal debts and political expectations. We do not need to raise our debt ceiling in order to pay our debts — not even remotely. Basically, the budget is composed of (i) interest and principle payments on debt, (ii) entitlement expenditures, and (iii) discretionary spending (i.e., government services ranging from the military to the Department of Education). Items (i) and (ii) are not legal debts at all, and entitlement cutbacks as well as government employee layoffs or salary reductions would probably actually firm up our credit rating. The reason that S&P is threatening a downgrade has nothing to do with the debt ceiling drama as such. No informed person believes that the US is in danger of defaulting on its bonds if the debt ceiling is not raised. Instead S&P et al are very concerned that the US is running a worsening structural deficit and eventually (i.e., in the long-term) may experience difficulty in repaying bondholders. The GOP is using the ceiling as an opportunity to negotiate exactly the kind of deal that is necessary to reassure S&P et al.

  • Detroit, Greece and Illinois.

    Throw in New Orleans in that mix, they make Baghdad look peaceful.

  • A BBA is useless. Look at Illinois. There are so many ways around it that all it does is make politicians more creative.

    It can be gamed to a degree, but it is not useless. The balance sheet of the states is far better than that of the federal government.

  • Not to nit-pick but wouldn’t we expect the states to be better off since they have abrogated their responsibilities and passed off the costs o the federal government?

  • Not to nit-pick but wouldn’t we expect the states to be better off since they have abrogated their responsibilities and passed off the costs o the federal government?

    Transfers from the federal treasury amount to about 20% of state and local expenditure. I believe they have amounted to 3% or 4% of domestic product for forty years or more, which is to say they were an environmental feature of fiscal policy-making prior to our recent economic unpleasantness. (Enormous federal deficits were not).

    The transfers in question were to fund federal initiatives various Administrations (most notably Lyndon Johnson’s) wished to channel through the states and localities. States and localities certainly lobby to defend such subsidies. I am not sure why you interpret that as having ‘abrogated their responsibilities and passed of the cost…”.

  • The GOP is using the ceiling as an opportunity to negotiate exactly the kind of deal that is necessary to reassure S&P et al.

    Heckuva job, Brownie.

  • My wife and I had about 20K in credit crd debt at one time. It had built up over the first seven years of marriage.

    That’s the problem here. People fancy public finance is equivalent to household finance.

  • Here’s what’ll happen if the debt ceiling is NEVER raised:

    The federal government receives about $200 billion a month in tax revenue. It spends about $330 billion/month. On 8/3, Social Security checks are supposed to go out but there won’t be enough money. Barclays says there’s enough money for this week’s checks and so we have until 8/10. Either way, soon we would need to cut spending by 40%. Non-defense discretionary spending is only 20% of total spending and includes things like the FAA, border patrol, DOJ, and VA. So even if we create domestic anarchy, we still need to cut entitlements and/or defense. Cutting all of defense gets us close. That means not paying troops anymore and contractors would have to donate supplies. Personally, I think it’s immoral not to pay current troops what you already promised them. In the long-run, we would have a truly volunteer army working for donations. Or we can cut all of Medicare+Medicaid or all of Social Security. For something like 20% of the elderly, Social Security is their only source of income. That means, they’ll all have to live off donations alone. Remember we already cut all discretionary spending so there is no welfare. Personally, I want to abolish these entitlement programs and replace them with tax credits but that still requires money.

    If we manage to cut spending by 40%, we still have our existing debt to deal with. We will have enough to pay the interest but not enough to pay the $500 billion/month in principal. The Treasury can reissue debt as it matures but since there’s no way that $200 billion can pay $500 billion, investors will demand higher interest rates for the risk of default. The interest rate will increase indefinitely until there’s not enough to pay the interest itself. At that point, there is no choice but to default. Even if the debt ceiling is eventually raised, if it’s after interest rates have gone up, we will have had to pay more interest in exchange for nothing.

    I’m all for cutting spending and shrinking government but we can’t in the short term without defaulting on our debt. We need to continue borrowing until revenue can pay off the principal. You can’t pay $500 billion with $200 billion!

  • I derailed with fedarlism comment. It is related to the subject at hand because there is much that the federal government does that should be done, if at all, by the states. That is a different battle for another day so I retract the omment.

    As to the theory that public finance and personal finance are insuffiiently similar to carry over principles, I am not convinced.

    You make a bold claim above but you offer insufficient explanation for me to know if I agree or not. I fail to see how life experience is not relevant to the analysis of public policy, for, if it is, then we better get cracking on producing Philosopher Kings to rule us.

    I Have learned to avoid unnecessary debt and nothing I’ve read coninces me hat that life lesson is inapplicable to the present discussion. Without formal economics training, I am relying primarily on the analyses of The Economist, The Philadehia Inquirer, Fox News, The American Caholic, and on-line resources on Keanes and Hayek. If this isn’t enough for me to reasonably analyze the problem, our Republic is doomed.

  • And now it’s all moot. Now let’s criticize the TPR’s for what they did wrong. The deal is $2.1-2.4 trillion in cuts and probably no revenue increases. That’s just depressingly inadequate. The plans that the TPR’s rejected were in the $4 trillion range. $3.5 trillion in spending cuts and $500 billion in revenue increases. The revenue increases would not come from higher tax rates. In fact tax rates would fall and flatten. Instead the revenue would come from eliminating deductions. No rational conservative rejects a deal like that. I’ve read legitimate criticisms of the plan from the right but they were about likelihood of adoption, not the goals themselves.

  • RR, Thank you for presenting as clear a statement as I could have asked for. I’m off to bed but will mull your statement on the ride in on the morrow. Pax, G-veg

  • I will also add that by failing to reach a deal on tax reform, the TPR’s have guaranteed a tax hike next year when the Bush/Obama cuts expire. Completely irrational.

  • What lying liberals call tax reform are tax hikes.

    Sure and you’re not increasing rates. You’re decreasing the amount of our earned money that big government will let us keep.

    Philosophical divide: obama-worshiping geniuses want political power concomitant with big government/social democrat welfare state.

    We the hobbits want prosperity.

    The deficit would resolve itself if 15,000,000 people had private sector jobs (taxes take $$ from the private sector) and the GDP was growing at better than 0.4%.

    But, due to Obama’s job killing politics the US likely is falling back into recession.

  • Sure and you’re not increasing rates. You’re decreasing the amount of our earned money that big government will let us keep.

    The various and sundry deductions and exepmtions are subsidies for particular economic sectors. Economic efficiency is enhanced by excising the subsidies.

    Again, federal tax collections as a proportion of gross domestic product are at a 50-odd year low.

  • entitlement cutbacks as well as government employee layoffs or salary reductions would probably actually firm up our credit rating

    If they don’t kill the economy first. There’s a difference between spending cuts done gradually with deliberation as part of a strategy, and gov’t spending dropping off a cliff overnight because we can’t borrow to pay for all of our discretionary spending. Maybe they need to watch that Douglas Holtz Eakin video again, but the Tea Party doesn’t seem to understand that difference. Sure, we wouldn’t default, and we’d probably pay seniors their SS and Medicare payments to the extent possible. But everything else would dry up instantly – millions of people effectively not paid (read: unemployed) overnight. That’s not sticking to conservative principles, that’s insanity.

  • but the Tea Party doesn’t seem to understand that difference

    That an irate citizen holding up a hand-painted sign misunderstands issues for which he does not have everyday responsibility is to be expected. That a bloc of sixty-odd federal legislators behaves as if basic arithmetic is beyond them, behaves as if competing interests holding institutional trump cards can be blackmailed or ignored, and behaves as if the consequences of bad stewardship are naught if they wish them to be naught is most distressing. The thing is, ordinary political processes have been unable to translate the inchoate resistance to the Democratic Party into constructive efforts at public policy. Is it our institutions, our political culture, or both?

  • With respect, aren’t we being unfair to the Tea Party Republicans?

    A deal was reached. The process was messy and the results are mixed but that is how this is supposed to work. This back and forth, as unpleasant as it is, is proper for a republic.

    I thought a lot about RR’s comments and re-read the thread several times.

    I am out of my element and lack the competence to determine good fiscal policy. I do not understand why principles of thrift and fiscal responsibility that are essential to the my family’s financial health are inapplicable to discussions of fiscal policy. I have followed, as much as I have been able, the competing policy views and see merit in both, though I favor Hayek.

    This realization troubles me for I am not a dumb man and am fairly tuned in to current events. That I am not competent to determine what is good for our country is a problem because my meagre skills and knowledge is representative of a meaningful portion of our citizens. Since our representatives, at all levels, are drawn from just such people, it is likely that many of them also lack the knowledge and skills to discover good policy.

    This is to say that Art Deco and the other persons with expertise in these matters have to lead us by the nose and, meaning no disrespect, I am not one who likes to be led like a pack horse, which is what I’m feeling like right now.

    For all of their expertise, the experts have led us to what seems like an unsustainable debt, an economy that produces almost nothing, and a dollar that the world is trying to discard as a basic currency. Joblessness abounds. Real inflation is on the rise, though hidden through accounting tricks. Our cities are in shambles, our roads and bridges are failing and there is no money to rebuild them, and the largest generation in history is moving into a retirement that will impoverish the generations that come after.

    Forgive me for pointing it out, but the experts don’t seem to have done all that well.

    Despite all of this, we are attacking 40 or so Tea Party Republicans and 10 or so Blue Dog Democrats for insisting that incurring more debt be accompanied by an honest attempt to curb expenses.

    Maybe they are wrong. Maybe they are just as dumb and ignorant as I am – latching onto ideas from their experience like “only buy things for which you have money,” “don’t buy things for which you have no need,” or “the first step to getting out of a hole is to stop digging.”

    But it must be fair to ask what the deal would have looked like if the House GOP leadership, the Senate leaders of both parties, and the White House had been left to their own devices. Do you honestly believe that the establishment that incurred 3 trillion in debt in five years would have hesitated to incur more without making any effort to address the debt itself?

    I may be uncomfortable with the stock index but I’m pretty comfortable with the Constitution.

    The Framers understood full and well that the interests of many parties collide in a political sphere and that divided power and conflict within that sphere preserves the liberty and security of those outside of that sphere. What we saw this last month in Washington was a thing of beauty. It was raw and honest and loud. It was the kind of debate that is supposed to be occurring every single time a complex issue comes up.

    For all of our ignorance, we pushed the establishment to do what it absolutely didn’t want to do – discuss and debate. This month harkens back to what our brothers did in Boston on December 16, 1773 and I am proud to call myself a Tea Party Republican because of it.

  • G-Veg, I am not an expert. However, I can do basic arithmetic.

    It is certainly necessary and proper (barring a banking crisis or a war of national mobilization) that the rate of increase in outstanding public debt be less than the rate of increase in nominal gross domestic product (capital investments in public works being of scant importance at the federal level). The Republican caucus in toto has been implacable in their opposition to any tax increase. Extra-parliamentary TEA partisans (and about 10% of the House Republican caucus) have insisted the debt limit not be raised. The question at hand is thus whether or not you attempt to repair public finances by an abrupt 40% cut in federal expenditure.

    It is a reasonable inference from the experience of the last two years that those who said that fiscal stimulus via public expenditure would prove to be weak tea were correct. However, you are all proposing an abrupt 10% cut in aggregate demand. Even with a weak multiplier, that will result in a severe recession, perhaps half-again as that suffered in 2008-09. Said recession will injure tax collections. Ergo, you will still have a deficit (but no authority to borrow).

    I had a discussion in a forum just like this some days ago where I offered the following:

    1. You cannot welsh on federal debt service;
    2. Benefits to the elderly are properly cut gradually on a cohort-by-cohort basis, because those benefits have been incorporated into their long-range planning and they have a limited capacity to adjust.
    3. These things being the case if you want to get by without a tax increase, you have to cut the share of domestic product allocated to everything else by about two-thirds.

    His response was: go ahead and do it. After a run of caterwauling about the splendors of Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts (not acknowledging that the federal tax take is now a lower share of domestic product than was the case in 1984) and the terrible burden of federal taxes on small business (I think federal excises and payroll taxes claim about 3% of the revenues of unincorporated businesses), he was willing to demobilize two-thirds of the military in the midst of a war and can two-thirds of the customs and border constabulary rather than accept one dime in tax increases. Attitudinizing and foolishness are not worth a pitcher of spit.

  • “Attitudinizing and foolishness are not worth a pitcher of spit.”

    I have to admit, though, it is bleakly humorous: folks who see the Hand of Alinsky everywhere have adopted the “Burn, Baby, Burn!” mindset of Saul’s comrades.

  • Attitudinizing… I had to look that up.

    Hand of Alinsky… I had to look that up too.

    Having looked them up, I confess that I don’t get their relevance to the discussion at hand. I don’t care all that much about some other commenter on some other blog. Unless you are saying that I am like that commenter, in which case, I need a citation to know whether you are correct or not. Of course, you may be saying that only those Tea Party Republicans in Congress are like the commenter that you had the dispute with but, then, while I’m not offended on my own account, I admit that I don’t know whether your analysis holds up without a citation.

    Did the commenter make a complete ass of himself and did you route his arguments again and again? I’m willing to take your word for it that you did but, again, I don’t know why I should care.

    Your comments about the economic impact of a default are mirrored by many others in the mainstream media, in government, and in the blogosphere. I am must accept, at least temporarily, as reasonable what is said by many and which I cannot dispute by experience. It is insane to insist on a position merely because it is in opposition to what the majority holds as true.

    However, I don’t think the Tea Party was as you describe them. The opposition to raising the debt ceiling was on account of there being, at least initially, no effort to deal with the underlying causes of our debt. The President’s Grand Bargain failed because it included 800 billion in new revenue but no specificity as to where that revenue would come from. I truly believe that the President might have gotten that deal if he had been specific since the Blue Dogs would certainly have come over and many of the non-Tea Party GOP Members would have crossed over if specific taxes had been balanced against specific cuts… Only it wasn’t. True to form, the establishment of both parties assumed that they could craft yet another meaningless bill and then work out the details later.

    And that is the point that you haven’t addressed.

    The Tea Party Republicans are only “terrorists” as Biden described them or the idiots and posers that you describe them to be if their purpose WAS to drive the US to a default. But that never was their stated purpose. The question remains… If you believe, as you say you do, that debt reduction is necessary, do you believe that the establishment of the major parties would have crafted a deal to reduce our debt without being pushed to do so by fiscal conservatives? If so, then you can call the Tea Party whatever you wish because you are part of the problem. If not, you are being terribly unfair to precisely the group that made the policy you favor into law.

  • No, it was not you, and I do not expect you to care about the arguments I have with third parties.

    I was merely offering an example of the sort of thinking that forms the matrix within which these Republican members of Congress operate (and appears to reside in the heads of some of them): uninformed about historical tax burdens, uninformed about the coarse distribution of appropriations, and insouciant about the consequences of what they are (implicitly or explicitly) advocating. They have taken their stand and they’re sticking to it. Regrettably, their stand does not derive from even a cursory study of what the government does and does not do. It derives (best I can see) from a lump of resentment about their personal tax payments and a somewhat potted understanding of the economic history of the 1980s. It is not concerned with the relationship between ends and means or even any ends beyond ‘no tax increase’.

  • Attitudinizing… I had to look that up.

    Don’t feel bad, Art has sent me running for the dictionary on more than a few occasions.

  • But, isn’t the “starve the beast” idea a pretty old one? The view that government, particularly the federal government, will never limit its power, size, or consumption voluntarilly, has been floating around for a long time. The wastefullness of TARP and other programs over the last five years has given, at least in my opinion, reasonable men good and sufficient cause to conclude that the government will spend, spend, spend, and spend so long as the credit limit can be raised. Isn’t it a good thing to have a couple dozen representatives in Congress who refuse to feed that bloated hog we call the federal government?

  • “Detroit, Greece and Illinois.

    Throw in New Orleans in that mix, they make Baghdad look peaceful.”

    Well, if Greece-style or Detroit-style or even New Orleans-style rioting/looting breaks out in Springfield, let me know, ’cause I sure haven’t seen it. Our state employees — even the unionized ones — seem to be much better behaved than those in Greece, or even in Wisconsin, because despite recent attempts to rein in their pay raises and benefits (yes, serious attempts to do so have been made, by a Democratic governor, no less) I see no indication of massive civil unrest breaking out in our capital any time soon. At least not until the State Fair Twilight Parade starts 🙂

  • The debate can be analogized to personal finances though there are important differences.

    The federal government cannot stay alive and pay the minimum on its credit card payments so it’s needs to default or borrow even more. In personal finance, the choices are bankruptcy or taking out another credit card. Cutting spending alone is not an option because you can’t cut enough right now to pay creditors. If you can create a budget surplus over time (e.g., because you’re moving into a smaller house next month or getting a raise), it would be wise to take out another credit card to avoid immediate bankruptcy.

    The government has more control over its finances than individuals because it not only controls spending but also revenue. So as long as there’s a chance of a budget surplus in the long run, it makes sense to avoid default now.

  • RR, That makes perfect sense. I think the final product accomplished this. Perhaps what I have been missing is the critique that the Tea Party Republicans won’t consider taxes to increase revenue.

    I understand why tax increases seem important. Honest men can disagree about this point without offense though. In the context of this last month’s debates, the refusal to accept unspecified revenue increases in exchange for an equal amount of unspecified spending cuts, does not seem unreasonable.

    The agreement reached seems to vindicate the position that the original Grand Bargain was not the only possible remedy. Since the Tea Party position is reasonable, it cannot be that we are too far from the mainstream to have a legitimate position at the table.

    I liken it to the position of the Anti-Federalists: though they lost, their contribution was substantial and, but for their dogged insistance on the enshrining of individual and states’ rights in the Constitution, we would be a very different nation. Similarly, the mere presence of uncompromising fiscal conservatives in the debate has already produced a better agreement for digging ourselves out of this hole.

  • G-Veg: I was referring to Art’s third party debate partner, not you. And to more than a few of the comments I’ve seen on conservative websites, courting financial chaos with relish.

  • My wife subscribes to Free Republic. I have mixed feelings about the content. They do a pretty good job of calling commenters on racist, xenophobic, and otherwise anti-social stuff but it is definately a “consumer beware” environment since there is little attribution and the back-and-forth can feed an unhealthy “slash and burn” mentality to politics and economics. If you are thinking of that stuff, I’m with you. But then, it isn’t meant to be taken as representative of any particular political group or body.

    I appreciate those websites as a bastion of free speech as it was meant to be: raw, candid, unvarnished, “pure” in the sense that it gets to the heart of the writers’ feelings and such.

Father John Corapi Open Thread

Friday, July 8, AD 2011

Father John Corapi released a statement on his Black SheepDog blogsite basically denying some, but not all, of the allegations put against him by his order, S.O.L.T.

I won’t get into what who said what or not since this will be an open thread, but I don’t recall Padre Pio resigning from the Capuchins for the restrictions placed on him from the many allegations levied against him at the time.  And if I recall correctly, he was under these restrictions for ten years.  Plus, after they were lifted, there were still restrictions to when and where he could practice.

Yes, we are all not perfect, but Jesus did ask us to be perfect as he is perfect, ie, strive for perfection.

Please adhere to our rules and be civil.  All the contributors on this website have the authority to shut down the comments box.

Continue reading...

38 Responses to Father John Corapi Open Thread

  • Pingback: FRI. EXTRA: FATHER JOHN CORAPI UPDATE | ThePulp.it
  • In his latest video, Fr. Corapi says he’s pretty much done speaking about the controversy/scandal. If I were falsely accused of something, I would not back down from declaring my innocence and the falsity of the charges. But Fr. Corapi’s not doing that — his denial was very reserved and incomplete. I can’t be sure, but it seems to me like he’s deciding not to say anything more on the matter because he doesn’t want to lie (and deny things that are true) or admit to wrongdoing.

  • At best, it’s a battle of who said what.

    As difficult as this may sound, he should of waited for the SOLT investigation to end to prove his innocence. In the end, it’s Gods will.

  • I saw the video – this isn’t the same man wtih whose preaching I fell in love.

    🙁

  • It’s disappointing to see this happen, he was a great speaker. The comments on that thread are seemingly endless. I scrolled through about 50 of them before I realized I scrolled down about 3% of the page 😯

  • I thought that a great many of the comments at “The Black Sheep Dog” blog site were in favor of Fr. Corapi’s return to obedience. He’s not listening.

    One commenter described himself as a cop – retired or not I don’t recall – and said that Fr. Corapi’s abnormal jaw movements were something he had seen before. I am not certain what this means. Whatever the case, the man in the video isn’t the man I saw preaching all these years.

  • The bigger scandal news is of Fr. Corapi’s self-demolition derby. He makes Jim Bakker look like a piker, a raw recruit in the pleasures of the flesh. There’s a sense of having been played by a master con man, one so good that you have to admire the sheer effrontery and skill of his fraud. I was totally fooled, that’s for sure. I thought no one rails against sin as much as the former sinner and so I took him for an Augustine. Someone too enthusiastic as a reaction and in repentance for a former self. Well sometimes the sinner rails against sin too. It makes me wish he was still on the air since I’d like to see how I could so colossally misread him. I’d want to look for clues in his talks.

    Ah but the pleasure of the flesh. They return, ‘eh? He always said he had a terrible past, but it was hard to believe given how he seemed to come through the drugs and everything and still was articulate as hell. Turns out he was on them and still articulate as hell! Reminds me of HK, how she went through years of incredible bodily abuse and here, on the other end, can write rings around me.

    Certainly we’ve all recently got an education in how perceived holiness in others can be pure facade. The scandals in the clergy, to Bud Macfarlane leaving his wife, to the spy Robert Hanssen, to Fr. Corapi, it’s been eye-opening and even breathtaking. It gives me a little bit more insight into just how difficult it must be to be holy – even when given the advantages of the sacraments. Perhaps it’s a replay of St. Paul’s riveting verse in Romans 11: “God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.”

  • Sorry, meant to edit that. It’s a cut and paste from an email to a friend!

  • Oh boy… Paul you are so correct he is not the same guy. And What is up with the look? One of the accusations was that he bought a motorcycle and he is wearing a harley jacket. Sheesh it is sad to watch. Lord help this man receive humility.

  • I think T is right… I have my reasons… but I believed He con us for at least 10 good years if not more… but God was merciful – to us and him and he got caught.

  • Humility is Christianity. Obviously Corapi is not…Christian.

  • What jumps out at me is this startling sentence fragment: “…the process used by the Church is grossly unjust, and, hence, immoral. ”

    Strong language.

    In the words of Shakespeare, “He doth protest too much.”

  • It is very difficult for me to see Father this way. He appears to be a broken man. My heart goes out to him. I am still trying to hope that all of this untrue and somehow Our Lady will intervene and help this poor man. My prayers go out to him. God still loves Father; so do I. Just because one priest (if true) has fallen astray, that does not mean the Church is not where Catholics ought to be. Indeed, remain closer to the Church. On another note, why can’t this go to Pope Benedict? Wouldn’t he set the record straight?

  • “On another note, why can’t this go to Pope Benedict? Wouldn’t he set the record straight?”

    If this goes to the Pope and the Pope does anything publicly about it, then that will only feed Fr. Corapi’s ego – his predicament and hence he himself are so important that this matter went to the Pope. That’s the last thing he needs right now.

  • I’m a convert of 25+ years. I knew who Fr Corapi was but was not particularly a fan of his preaching style. However…

    The nastiness of Catholics in general gets to me on an occasional basis, but it’s been hitting the ceiling the last few weeks. I’ve never heard such a pile of self-righteous rule-mongering craziness in my life as I’ve heard over the John Corapi thing. There are a hell of a lot of Catholics who aren’t Christian–that’s the only conclusion I can come to. Listen: We are all sinners from the get-go; we all hypocrites. So lay off the man. Pray for your own salvation and get with the program. It’s time my fellow Catholics heard that from someone.

  • “rule-mongering craziness”

    Expecting a priest, especially one as prominent in the public eye as Corapi, to not shack up with a prostitute, use illegal drugs or engage in any of the other sins he appears to have been quite fond of, is not “rule-mongering” but rather holding someone to a fairly minimal standard of behavior that should be expected of a priest of Christ. Saint Paul in his epistles was quite willing to call a spade a spade in regard to the bad behavior of the clergy and laity of his day. Somehow in our day the one unforgivable sin in the eyes of many appears to be calling someone who is engaging in wretched behavior to task for it.

  • I never really saw or heard Fr. Corapi on EWTN – so this is the first time. What a difference from the glimpse I had of him once…I kept wondering why he was looking off to the side as he spoke…the whole situation is sad. SOLT should have brought him home a long time ago. Was there no one with the discernment to see that Fr. Corapi was straying? That he needed help? Having a powerful ‘charism/charisma’ is a dangerous thing – one can use it for God’s glory or one’s own – sometimes, it’s a bit of both but hopefully we have others who can challenge us to get back to the center -Christ. Looking at and listening to Fr. Corapi’s talk today made me think that he knows he will not have the following he had before, as a practicing Priest…and now, what excited him before will only lead to emptiness and misery – and that, hopefully, will lead him back to his community and his vocation. And so we have to pray for him and for all Priests ….

  • Donald,

    But all this business about religious orders & expectations and peoples’ private prejudices running rampant, and faulty beliefs about religious life etc is. Catholics have weird and crazy expectations of each other, you know that? It’s warped about 90% of the time. Weird.

    SOLT isn’t a religious order. It’s a little organization of the faithful someplace in Texas.

    I’m always shocked about how many Catholics don’t also seem to be Christian, but I guess I shouldn’t be after 25+ years as a convert. What a mess.

  • T says:

    He always said he had a terrible past, but it was hard to believe given how he seemed to come through the drugs and everything and still was articulate as hell..
    ===============================
    You obviously haven’t heard Fr. Don Calloway’s story. Zowie! Lucky to be alive. Now he would understand!
    __________________________________________________
    midwestlady says:

    I’m always shocked about how many Catholics don’t also seem to be Christian, but I guess I shouldn’t be after 25+ years as a convert. What a mess.
    ===============================
    Yeah, looks like it takes other sinners to bring out the sins of the self anointed elitists!

    Something that is obviously missing here is comprehension of or experience with addicts. You can tell by the total lack of compassion. The guy appears to be (and historically was) an addict. Once an addict, well, you should know the rest. Not surprising since that kind of chemistry and behavior to model was also in his father. Heard of that before o ye lacking of street smarts and knowledge of genetically transferred weaknesses? And guess what else….when habit is involved the complete involvement of the will isn’t.

    I’m shocked that with all the superior knowledge of the rubrics of the Faith that fact hasn’t been mentioned. I guess that might interfere with the jealousy of such a weak person who was still able to get to the main points of the faith better than most today. Yes the Church (all of us) is being purified, using her own – sinners – to awaken the fears and pharisaical type of correctness in the comfortable and obviousy proud!

  • Father needs prayers. A lot of them.

  • To those who decry what they preceive as “judging” Fr. Corapi, please consider:

    http://www.catholicthinker.net/its-un-christian-not-to-judge/

    As that blog points out:

    “In John 7:24, Christ says, ‘Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.'”

    “Paul’s words from 1 Cor 5:9-13: ‘I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you.'”

    That being said, I think we should all pray for Fr. Corapi, and for all our priests and bishops. Maybe this sad affair would not have happened if we prayed more – a whole lot more. But saying it’s un-Christian NOT to judge is to take Matthew 7:1 out of context, ignoring the last part of 7:5:

    “…then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.”

    In my case, however, I don’t think I see all that clearly anyways. This whole affair scared me so much that I have “up’d” my 12 step meeting attendance, because if a man like Fr. Corapi is vulnerable, then what hope do I have? (Speaking rhetorically, of course.)

  • to be honest,,,I think he may have slipped a cog 😥

  • Mr Primavera:

    AA’s 11th Tradition states:

    “Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films.”

    Your divulging your being a part of 12 step program giving your full name certainly goes against this tradition.

  • “but I believed He con us for at least 10 good years if not more… but God was merciful – to us and him and he got caught.”

    what did he con us into? Becoming Catholic? Following the cathecism?

  • Anonymous, is quoting from the Big Book at a blog failure to maintain anonymity at press, radio or films?

    This is not the press. Nor the radio. Nor films.

    Furthermore, I am not and do not promote myself.

  • Tito or Donald, maybe you had been delete my quoting from the Big Book above. There are always going to be some people that will object because of the 11th Tradition (which doesn’t reference blog sites but if written today could be interpreted to mean blog sites). Can’t please all the people all the time. 🙁

  • Paul:

    This is a public forum and the 11th Tradition clearly encompasses this venue.

  • Anonymous, you’re right. I screwed up. I’m sorry. I asked for the offending post to be removed. It isn’t. To other readers, the point is that anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all AA’s Tradtions, ever reminding its members to place principles before personalities. I did not do that.

    However. in the case of a person like John Corapi who used his recovery from cocaine addiction to restore his business success, and who capitalized on his charismatic personality, an exception may be made. From Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, John Corapi alias John Coradi was convicted of driving while intoxicated in November of 1999:

    https://services.saccourt.com/indexsearchnew/CaseNumberList.aspx?SearchValues=CORAPI%2CJOHN%2CANTHONY%2C3634107

    If this is the same John Corapi that we all know about, then he has been fooling us for a very long time indeed.

  • I knew many people in AA in DC back in the ’80’s, because I attended meetings with a friend in the program. Some divulged their full names. It is my understanding that AA does not require that its’ members remain anonymous.

    Instead of venting your anger against Paul Primavera, you should instead be upset about Fr. Corapi’s betrayal of his vows.

  • “One of the accusations was that he bought a motorcycle and he is wearing a harley jacket. ”

    Oh, come now, that’s the very least of it. I really don’t care if a priest wears a harley jacket. Consorting with a prostitute and using drugs – well, that’s a bit different, isn’t it?

    I can’t believe Catholics have lost the ability to discern differences between degrees of sin.

  • I admired Fr Corapi. I am still stunned by the difference between the eloquence of his teaching and its orthodoxy, and the seeming reality of his behavior. He often said something along the lines of “When Satan strikes down the shepherd, the sheep will scatter” Clearly Satan worked through Fr Corapi’s weaknesses and dragged him down. Tragic! Personally, I am deeply saddened. I continue to pray for him, but differently now that certain revelations seem undeniable. I pray the accusations are wrong, but know they probably aren’t. I pray the Blessed Mother brings him back.

  • Well, Paul we all fail at times to put principles before personalities. Thanks be to God you have the humility to own up to it.

    I do agree with the thrust of what you say about Corapi. If he is drinking and using again (and it seems to be the case that he is, given his strange behavior) he will be where he would have been if he had drank and used during all the time he was clean and sober. If this is the case, he will probably be dead within a few years.

  • I think that SOLT shares a lot of the blame for this situation. Given Fr. Corapi’s past, which surely they knew about, he should not have been allowed to live independently, on his own. The temptations out in the world can be quite strong for someone who has had problems with drugs.

    Yet he was encouraged to go out on his own, and preach. Not a good idea, in hindsight, anyway. I think that Fr. Corapi has some resentment toward SOLT and others, which I can understand. Still, it seems that SOLT knows that they were in the wrong to let him be out on his own, but they should admit this outright – that they made a big mistake. If they do this, Fr. Corapi might be more willing to be obedient in the matter.

  • No one said wearing a Harley jacket is a sin. It IS a mistake in a video response to accusations of excessive materialism in the form of a motorcycle. Ugh.

    Question: Is it OK to judge people as judgmental? Or is that judgmental too?

  • I have a hard time blaming SOLT for one man’s sins. I hope the Lord does too.

  • There is a lot of confusion on both sides of the coin. It is tough to make an honest judgment on the merits of the case.

  • Y ou should not judge father corapi because he or anyone other catholic wears a leather jacket -or by their dress period.I liked father corapis sermons -he seemed genuine -as if the holy spirit was in his heart and he was simply reciting back what it had told him.But let us not forget what he himself told us “the enemy (satan) is strong always waiting to find our weak points expose them to take us away from the light of the lord.”Pray for father corapi -God will lead him through the forrest like a lost child back to the road of righteousness.

  • Wow! Did not know about Fr Padre Pio. Thanks for sharing this! 🙂

3 Responses to Star Trek’s Final Mission

2012 TAC GOP Presidential Poll

Monday, June 13, AD 2011

The American Catholic will be running a periodic poll of the GOP presidential field. We have included candidates that have declared their candidacy as well as other speculative* candidates. As the primaries arrive the field of candidates should narrow down a bit.

* For example even though Chris Christie has denied he is interested in running, he still will be in Iowa for an inexplicable reason. Until then, he will be showing in the poll until we don’t see his name on the actual roll.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to 2012 TAC GOP Presidential Poll

  • Pingback: MONDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • The poll is seriously flawed.

    It does not include an button for “ANYBODY but Obama.”

  • Be careful, T. Shaw. Anybody could be Hillary or Pelousy or Andy “I live with my concubine and take Holy Communion from Bishop Hubbard” Cuomo. There are plenty of unacceptable choices and too few acceptable ones.

    While I voted for Chris Christie, I would nevertheless be more than happy to vote for Sarah Palin if only because her winning would send the liberals intto a fit of apoplexy. 😉

  • Wow, I can’t believe Santorum is the top choice at the moment….

  • So the top 5 are people who either probably aren’t running or have no chance of winning the nomination. #6 is undecided. Newt and Buddy got votes? Must be an error.

  • RR,

    Your optimism knows no bounds!

  • I chose Tim Pawlenty for the simple reason that I would prefer the next president be un-flashy, and NOT a “rock star,” media figure, or conservative mirror image of Obama with an equally strong cult of personality. We need someone who will simply do the job and has held a major public office long enough to prove he can do the job (which, for me, rules out Palin and Christie).

    Pawlenty is in somewhat the same position right now as Jimmy Carter was in mid-1975, or Bill Clinton was in the summer of 1991 — a dark horse candidate who emerged from the field after all the early favorites had imploded for various reasons. I know Santorum is especially good on pro-life issues but I just don’t think he can win — he might end up as a running mate to whomever does win, though.

  • Elaine,

    I think that may be one of the things Americans will be looking for. Like Boehner, someone who is not a demagogue nor a narcissist. An American who gets the job done, not someone who promises a socialist paradise.

  • Obama meets all three criteria:

    (1) Demagogue with a teleprompter
    (2) Narcissist
    (3) Promiser of a socialist paradise

    Yet a majority of the American “peepul” voted for him in 2008.

    It’s 1st Samuel chapter 8 all over again.

  • I also support Pawlenty, though I actually prefer him to Santorum outright, not merely because Santorum can’t win (I still don’t understand why social conservatives should trust Santorum now, and I think he’s become far too focused on his very hawkish side). Pawlenty has yet to break out, but among candidates who are in the race and could conceivably win, he seems to me the best candidate out there, and he seems capable of presenting a serious conservative message vs. Obama without appearing angry, which I think will be important (however justified some level of anger may be).

  • It’s interesting that Santorum is doing especially well among us Catholics. Even more surprising is that Ron Paul is attracting more votes than I thought he would.

  • Of course Santorum would do well among ultra-conservative Catholic Republicans. That’s about the only demographic that he does well among.

    Ron Paul does well in any online poll. Paulites sit in their college dorms scanning the internet 24/7 for polls. That wasn’t a joke. That he’s not winning all the online polls suggests that his support has dropped significantly from 2008.

  • RR,

    “ultra-conservative Catholic Republicans”.

    You mean as opposed to the mainstream perverted-sex-adultery-prone-left-wing-america-hating demographic?

  • I agree with the comparison Tito made. It’s going to come down to a division exactly as deep as that.

    See Michael Voris’ latest video, “The End of America”, here:

  • Tito, as opposed to people like Justice Thomas who said he opposes anti-sodomy laws.

  • Justice Thomas is a great man!

    . . .and opposition to anti-sodomy laws isn’t a big issue item.

  • If we became the Christian Constitutional Republic that we were always intendedd to be, then there would be no need for anti-sodomy laws even as there would be no need for anti-adultery laws or anti-fornication laws. But a people which rejects morality is ever in need of more and more laws to regulate its conduct, hence our burgeoning regulatory bureaucracy.

    Last week I went through a two hour on-line virtual training course at the new company where I work. Of course such courses are required by the public masters – er, I mean servants – in our federal nuclear regulatory agency. This course was all about business ethics. Things like “don’t use company computers for browsing pornography sites,” “don’t use your knowledge of the company’s business tactics to manipulate stocks,” and “don’t take favors from officials in return for a contract” that seem so obvious to a moral and ethical person were the subject of the training. Hey, what’s up with that? Don’t parents teach Christian morality any longer? The answer is NO. So now we have all kinds of business ethics training courses.

    Maybe we do need anti-sodomy laws. And anti-adultery laws, and anti-fornication laws. A perverted culture knows no bounds, but I can’t fault Justice Thomas for assuming that we SHOULD be responsible adults, acknowledging that taking another man’s wife to bed or sticking your reproductive organ in another man’s orifice are both abominations against the Lord God which merit the punishment of the eternal fires of hell. But talk like that is bound to get me reviled, criticized and condemned for being intolerant, divisive, unkind and the worst of all crimes, “not nice.” Hell ain’t nice, either.

2 Responses to Don’t Worry, Planned Parenthood Says It’s Not a Baby Yet

Interview On the Radio Today at 5pm Eastern

Wednesday, June 8, AD 2011

I will be interviewed on the radio today at 5pm (Eastern) on the In His Sign Network radio station.  They are a lay Catholic radio apostolate located in Rosemont, PA.  They broadcast daily live from 5 to 6pm (Eastern) WTMR-800 AM and on the Internet at www.inhissign.com.

The interview will be about The American Catholic and the other Catholic websites that I operate as well as my work on the National Catholic Register.

This is my first interview and it is an already humbling experience.  Pray for me that I won’t make a fool of myself!

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Interview On the Radio Today at 5pm Eastern

What is Harvey Milk Day?

Monday, May 23, AD 2011

Save California has released an informational video explaining all of the details conveniently left out by the Kulturkampf Jihadists otherwise known as Liberals/Progressives and ACLU in celebrating high-risk sex by exposing it to innocent five year old children in California’s public schools.

For the Save California website click here.

Hat Tip: Cal Catholic Daily

Continue reading...

44 Responses to What is Harvey Milk Day?

  • Pingback: TUESDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • I heard or read recently that semen neutralizes the environment of the woman’s vagina so that it will be more receptive to the implantation of the new life. I have not taken the time to investigate this phenomena but at first sense this would seem to be true. When males are exposed to this neutralizing effect of semen, is it any wonder that all sorts of maladies would be the end effect?

    God forgives always
    Man forgives sometimes
    Mother Nature never forgives.

  • In America today, children are safer in the care of a homosexual couple than in the womb of their own heterosexual mother.

  • Kurt,

    You have any evidence to back it up outside of your own personal feelings based nothing on except… *feelings*.

  • Tito,

    If you can’t do the math on that in your own head, you have no understanding of the evil of abortion. I’m sorry for that.

  • Kurt,

    When you leave a cryptic comment, expect the type of comment to that response.

    In the meantime, brush up on your charity.

  • In America today, children are safer in the care of a homosexual couple than in the womb of their own heterosexual mother.

    Perfectly irrelevant unless you posit that the alternative in policy to turning children over to homosexuals is to slaughter them.

  • Kurt,
    I suspect that you are probably correct, but honestly one cannot easily know. One cannot simply compare the number of abortions to the number abuses at the hands of same-sex homosexual parents because the number of pregnant women and the number of such parents are not comparable. But it seems intuitively correct to me that what you say is almost certainly true. But I would hope that you would agree that your statement is best understood as an indictment of abortion rather than as a brief for same sex homosexual parenting.

  • Perfectly irrelevant unless you posit that the alternative in policy to turning children over to homosexuals is to slaughter them.

    Given that in my limited and sheltered life, (i don’t get out much other than to go to church and work) I know of two gay couples who took in an otherwise unwanted child headed to being aborted, yes, I so do posit.

    Anyway, more children are harmed in the womb of their heterosexual mother than in the care of a homosexual couple.

  • Kurt,
    I suspect that you are probably correct, but … I would hope that you would agree that your statement is best understood as an indictment of abortion…

    Without a doubt.

  • Given that about 24% of pregnancies nationwide end in abortion, even fighting in the trenches of World War One was safer than being an unborn child in modern America. I’m not sure that the comparison is a hugely useful one.

    That kind of reasoning would convince one that playing Russian Roulette is a good idea.

  • @Kurt

    > “Given that in my limited and sheltered life, (i don’t get out much other than to go to church and work) I know of two gay couples who took in an otherwise unwanted child headed to being aborted, yes, I so do posit.”

    As far as I know, there is a _line_ of adults wanting to adopt children. Just-born babies are specially coveted.

    Abortions are not caused by “lack of adoption”. If you ask “Planned Parenthood”, they explicitly say that killing the baby is better then putting up for adoption. Those feminists simply do not want babies to be born.

    You could allow adoption to homosexuals, alcoholic bachelors, or whoever, and abortion would not go down.

    So why did you make this comparison? This can easily be used for dishonest homosexual propaganda.

  • Ignoring the pseudo-science in the video, if we can teach little kids to honor a genocidal maniac (Columbus), slaveowners, and a radical socialist (Helen Keller), why not Harvey Milk?

    “When males are exposed to this neutralizing effect of semen, is it any wonder that all sorts of maladies would be the end effect?”

    What in the world?

  • > “Ignoring the pseudo-science in the video”

    What “pseudo-science”?

    >”, if we can teach little kids to honor a genocidal maniac (Columbus), slaveowners, and a radical socialist (Helen Keller)”

    Don’t mix completely different things. When people respect slave-owners, they generally forgive them for holding a position that were very entrenched at their times. It may be quite difficult to think outside the cultural box, and we may forgive slave-owners who do (in this regard) what their parents and everyone around them taught them to do. None of this applies to Harvey Milk.

    Second, if you don’t like slave-owners or Helen Keller to be revered in schools, then argue against them; it makes no logical sense to say “because slave-owners are honored, perverts must be honored too”. What kind of logic is that?

    >”, why not Harvey Milk?”

    Besides what I have said above, there is the fact the making _children_ honor a _child predator_ is pretty much unbelievable. What next? Will we make Jews honor Hitler?

  • “Don’t mix completely different things. When people respect slave-owners, they generally forgive them for holding a position that were very entrenched at their times. It may be quite difficult to think outside the cultural box, and we may forgive slave-owners who do (in this regard) what their parents and everyone around them taught them to do. None of this applies to Harvey Milk.”

    I think all of that applies to Harvey Milk.

    “Second, if you don’t like slave-owners or Helen Keller to be revered in schools, then argue against them”

    I think they should all be taught as heroic but flawed figures, Harvey Milk included.

  • It’s sick out there and getting sicker.

  • @RR
    > “I think they should all be taught as heroic but flawed figures, Harvey Milk included.”

    For _children_? Really?

    One thing is for an adult to study academically the non-evil work of a guy who also did evil. For example, last year I studied the work of a logician who was also a Nazi. It was OK, because I am an adult, and also because we were only studying his work – and not _honoring_ the man.

    But

    1) small children
    2) honoring
    3) a child predator

    ? Really? How can this even be considered?

  • Small children honoring a slaveowner? Maybe you leave out the bad parts until they’re a bit older. I think that’s how most are taught and I’m sure that’s how Harvey Milk is taught.

  • RR,
    Referring to Columbus as a genocidal maniac is an unsupportable stupid slur.

  • I think they should all be taught as heroic but flawed figures, Harvey Milk included.

    He was a camera merchant who served a brief term as a municipal councillor in San Francisco. He was a bachelor all his life and never had any children. He is well-known because he made a public point of his sexual perversions and he was regrettably in the wrong place at the wrong time on a November day in 1978. He was none too scrupulous. I respect people who go into business for themselves and are willing to take on the time-consuming mess of municipal budgets, legislation, and constituent service. I cannot see what is heroic about him. My township supervisor compares favorably to Harvey Milk, but the New York state legislature will never insist that a day be devoted to his life and works in the state’s schools.

  • Milk is celebrated by the powers that be in California for only one thing: he was one of the first elected officials in that state who was an open homosexual. This is all about identity politics and the promotion of the homosexual agenda, and to pretend otherwise is as foolish as it is mendacious.

  • I guess teaching Sally Ride is promoting the feminist agenda and teaching Jackie Robinson is promoting the Black Panther agenda?

  • They actually accomplished something RR. All Mr. Milk accomplished was being badly ensnared in a politically correct sin.

  • He was a camera merchant who served a brief term as a municipal councillor in San Francisco. He was a bachelor all his life and never had any children. He is well-known because he made a public point of his sexual perversions and he was regrettably in the wrong place at the wrong time on a November day in 1978.

    Bingo.

  • I guess teaching Sally Ride is promoting the feminist agenda and teaching Jackie Robinson is promoting the Black Panther agenda?

    1. Personally, I do not think that the life and works of either of these individuals merits more than passing mention in the sort of historical survey courses which are offered to elementary and secondary students.

    2. If there is a ‘Sally Ride Day’ or a ‘Jackie Robinson Day’ prescribed by any state legislature, can you tell us which one?

    3. Dr. Ride is an astrophysicist who did two things very few people do: completing the terminal degree in the hardest of hard sciences and traveling in space.

    4. I doubt Stokely Carmichael or H. Rap Brown took, during their years as public figures, more than a passing interest in Jackie Robinson.

    5. Discussion of the life of both can be framed in a way that is politically sectarian and distortive (and thus inadvisable).

  • Let’s also not forget Milk’s unwavering public support for the atheist, communist, bisexual rapist and mass murderer Jim Jones. Quite a hero, that Harvey Milk..

  • Milk was the first openly-gay politician in California. That coupled with the assassination is why we’re talking about him and not your local township supervisor. Milk is historically significant.

  • Another thing. Harvey Milk Day doesn’t mandate the teaching of anything. Teachers could teach or not teach kids about him with or without the day.

  • “Personally, I do not think that the life and works of either of these individuals merits more than passing mention in the sort of historical survey courses which are offered to elementary and secondary students.”

    I agree. Though they can be taught as part of a larger lesson on women’s history or black history. But I doubt opponents of Harvey Milk Day would approve of even a passing mention of him in classrooms.

  • Milk was the first openly-gay politician in California.

    And what people are saying is that this is not an “achievement” which needs to be discussed extensively with elementary school kids.

  • @Kurt

    > “Given that in my limited and sheltered life, (i don’t get out much other than to go to church and work) I know of two gay couples who took in an otherwise unwanted child headed to being aborted, yes, I so do posit.”

    As far as I know, there is a _line_ of adults wanting to adopt children. Just-born babies are specially coveted.

    You could allow adoption to homosexuals, alcoholic bachelors, or whoever, and abortion would not go down.

    So why did you make this comparison? This can easily be used for dishonest homosexual propaganda.

    I noted two particular situations I am aware of and you responsed to my comment. Therefore I can say that you are wrong and your views promote abortion and the destruction of the unborn.

    Without violating anyone’s privacy, I can tell you in both cases it was a matter of the gentlemen personally interacting with the mothers. I think the gentlemen’s actions were heroic. If you want to assert that it is not possible for some gay guys to have been heroic in these circumstances, I’ll continue the discussion. Otherwise, I’ll take your silence as a retraction.

  • @Kurt

    “Given that in my limited and sheltered life, (i don’t get out much other than to go to church and work) I know of two gay couples who took in an otherwise unwanted child headed to being aborted, yes, I so do posit.”

    As far as I know, there is a _line_ of adults wanting to adopt children. Just-born babies are specially coveted.

    You could allow adoption to homosexuals, alcoholic bachelors, or whoever, and abortion would not go down.

    So why did you make this comparison? This can easily be used for dishonest homosexual propaganda.

    I noted two particular situations I am aware of and you responsed to my comment. Therefore I can say that you are wrong and your views promote abortion and the destruction of the unborn.

    Without violating anyone’s privacy, I can tell you in both cases it was a matter of the gentlemen personally interacting with the mothers. I think the gentlemen’s actions were heroic. If you want to assert that it is not possible for some gay guys to have been heroic in these circumstances, I’ll continue the discussion. Otherwise, I’ll take your silence as a retraction.

  • That coupled with the assassination is why we’re talking about him and not your local township supervisor. Milk is historically significant

    No. he. isn’t. Except as a study in aspects of political culture. And he was not assassinated. He happened to be in the hallway when Dan White was on a rampage.

  • But I doubt opponents of Harvey Milk Day would approve of even a passing mention of him in classrooms.

    It’s not like the teachers do not have other things to discuss.

  • Milk wasn’t actually the first openly gay politician in California. In fact, when Milk finally did win elected office, his main opponent was another openly gay man (Richard Stokes) who had been “out” longer than Milk.

  • @Kurt
    > “I noted two particular situations I am aware of and you responsed to my comment. Therefore I can say that you are wrong and your views promote abortion and the destruction of the unborn.”

    What? What is the logic here?

  • @Darwin, is being the first black MLB player an “achievement”? At the very least, the election of Harvey Milk is a significant milestone.

    I also didn’t say anything about “extensive” discussion.

    Reading the California Education Code, there are lots of holidays that most likely go uncelebrated in schools. California Poppy Day? It looks like they designated a day for every minority and picked a representative to put a face on the day. Blacks (Crispus Attucks) , Asians (Fred Korematsu), Hispanics (Cesar Chavez), women (Susan B Anthony), environmentalists (John Muir), and Republicans (Ronald Reagan). Native Americans get a day but no name.

  • “The only evils these people recognize are having to endure hunger, disease, and murder. It is as though man’s greatest good were to have everything good, except himself.” St. Augustine, The City of God

  • “And he was not assassinated. He happened to be in the hallway when Dan White was on a rampage.”

    Are you serious? How widespread is this misinformation? I guess, properly teaching Harvey Milk is even more important than I thought.

  • “… properly teaching Harvey Milk …”?

    Good grief! Really?

  • Given the time limits in history classrooms, “properly teaching” everyone’s trail-blazing icon is a zero-sum game. Whom do we exclude as a result?

  • Pogo: “We have met the enemy. And, he is us!”

  • Are you serious? How widespread is this misinformation?

    White was at city hall to meet with Mayor George Moscone. His encounter with Milk was happenstance.

    There was prior to Milk’s election an explicit homosexual in the Minnesota legislature and one in the Massachusetts legislature.

  • A few minutes after White was admitted to the mayor’s office, the secretary heard the sound of his raised voice and then several dull thuds. White then exited the mayor’s office, reloaded his gun while making sure he was not observed, and ran to the area of the building housing the supervisors’ offices and used his key to enter. There, Supervisor Feinstein called to him, but White said to her, “I have to do something first,” and asked to meet with Supervisor Milk. Promptly, within 15 seconds of entering Milk’s office, White shot Milk once through his mid-section, then twice more into his chest. When Milk fell to the ground, White shot him through the back of the head splattering the office with blood. Then White put the muzzle of his gun against Harvey Milk’s skull and blew out the remainder of his brains. White confessed that he was upset about losing his job and that he had killed Milk because he had thought that Milk had plotted to have him removed. White’s aide testified that she had driven White to City Hall that day, and that White had told her in the car (while he was armed with his concealed weapon and extra bullets, unbeknownst to her) that he was planning to see both Moscone and Milk. In his confession, White claimed he didn’t know why he brought his gun and ten extra bullets to City Hall that day.

    According to Happenstance Theory, it was happenstance that White went to City Hall that day, happenstance that he brought a gun with him plus ten extra bullets, happenstance that Moscone was shot, happenstance that White then reloaded his gun with the extra bullets he happened to have brought with him that day, happenstance that he specifically then asked to see Milk, happenstance that he then promptly shot Milk, not once, but over and over again, happenstance that White confessed that he killed Milk because he had thought Milk had plotted against him, and happenstance that after having shot the two people he reportedly had planned to see that day, he didn’t again reload his gun like he did before requesting to see Milk but instead left for the day. And happenstance that White wrote befote his suicide in 1985 that “I shot [Moscone] five times, then reloaded and went down the hall to do the same thing to Harvey… [Moscone] decided for me.” Happenstance that “If I had won, I probably wouldn’t have bothered with Harvey.” “Down the hall to Harvey’s office. His aide let me in. I shut the door, pulled out the gun, and wiped the smirk off Harvey’s face with five more bullets.”

    According to Happenstance Theory, everything, including every murder, every election, everything, is happenstance, for if the murderer’s life had been different, if George Moscone had said White could have his job back, if a butterfly somewhere over the Amazon had flapped its wings just a little faster, things woulda coulda have happened otherwise. But instead, we had a “Crash Moment”, as Oprah might call it, and now we have Harvey Milk Day. All happenstance.

73 Responses to Bibi & Barry

  • …This is rather depressing– Bibi was cute!

  • You talking about Bibi and Barack or Rahm Emanuel and George W. Bush?

  • Benjamin’s brother, Jonathan, is a legend in Israel. He was the head of Sayeret Maktal (Israel’s Seal Team 6) and the only Israeli commando who died during the raid on Entebbe. Benjamin was also a member of Sayeret.

    Their father, Benzion Netanyahu, was a fierce Zionist and scholar of the Spanish Inquisition, who argued that Jewish efforts to placate the Spaniards were futile from the outset. I don’t think most Americans can understand how the current Prime Minister processes the question of Israel’s survival–it’s hardwired.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17goldberg.html?pagewanted=1

  • “I don’t think most Americans can understand how the current Prime Minister processes the question of Israel’s survival–it’s hardwired.”

    Considering the history of the Jews, especially the recent history of the Jews, I think it is astonishing that the Israelis have been willing to take any steps for peace that involve diminishing their security one iota. If I were a Jew I would suspect that if we were about to be massacred in Israel, the non-Jewish world, with the exception of the US (although under Obama I think that exception might be shaky), would look on with cool indifference, unless they were viewing it with rabid enthusiasm.

  • I completely agree.

    In light of history, the Jews should annex large portions of the West Bank.

    The rest they should divest to Jordan and give Gaza back to Egypt.

    They were invaded and successfully repealed the invading Muslim armies. They have every right to do what they wish with the West Bank and Gaza.

    As for the other point I mentioned, let the remaining land, of whatever is left after Israel fairly stakes their claims decide if they want to be the Lichtenstein of the Muslim world or merge with Jordan and Egypt.

  • RR,

    You mean the Rahm Emmanuel that shot at US Navy ships and killed countless American sailors and the W. Bush that served in the National Guard defending the greatest nation on God’s green earth?

    You need to make a bigger lie, a la Hitler, to even think of getting away with the psuedohistory that you peddle brother.

  • Anachronistic, Tito. Lattes were rare if not unknown in the northeastern United States when B.O. was that age.

  • Art Deco,

    I believe.

    I absolutely couldn’t tell you the difference between 3 day old spoiled chocolate milk and a latte or decaf, or a capuchino.

  • You talking about Bibi and Barack or Rahm Emanuel and George W. Bush?

    Rahm Emanuel served for a couple weeks during the Gulf War as a civilian assistant to the IDF dealing with anti-aircraft defenses.

    George W. Bush served in the National Guard flying fighter jets.

    I’m not clear how Emanuel is supposed to rate as having “fought for the survival of the Jewish State” or Bush gets cast as being like Obama.

    Which is not to say that the comparison of Netanyahu and Obama’s activities in their early 20s is hugely relevant to how good they are as heads of state now — it mostly just serves to underline that Netanyahu is an interesting person while Obama is not particularly.

    Gotta love the pictures, though.

  • “You mean the Rahm Emmanuel that shot at US Navy ships and killed countless American sailors”

    Talk about pseudo-history!

  • The pot calling kettle black.

    It just dawned on you?

    /sarcasm off

  • While I find Bibi an appealing personality, I think he is making a strategic blunder of potentially dire proportions. To quote Jonathan Chait:

    During the first quarter-century of Israel’s existence, the prospect of a massed conventional military invasion constituted the greatest threat to its existence. That’s no longer true. The greatest dangers today are the combination of demographic and political threats posed by the growing relative size of the Arab population west of the Jordan river, terrorism, and the loss of legitimacy posed by a continuing occupation and counter-terrorism policy in the West Bank and Gaza. Those dangers all dwarf the potential that armored columns of Arab armies will cut Israel in half. The tragedy is that huge swaths of the Israeli right and its sympathizers (both Jewish and Gentile) have failed to grasp this, and have placed it in danger of succumbing to the mortal new threat while guarding against the antiquated one.

  • Strategically, they should probably bomb the blank out of the surrounding areas, inform any neighbors that providing weapons to terrorists is an act of war, and generally act in a rather deadly manner to those who live near them.

    Negotiating with those who 1) don’t hold to agreements and 2) aren’t even expected to hold their agreements is a Bad Idea.

    Let’s not hope too hard for them to think strategically, given what the body count would be…. *shudder*

  • Strategically, they should probably bomb the blank out of the surrounding areas, inform any neighbors that providing weapons to terrorists is an act of war, and generally act in a rather deadly manner to those who live near them.

    As strategy this leaves something to be desired.

  • As strategy this leaves something to be desired.

    As does the fool’s bargain with those who will not hold faith, as does falling back to indefensible borders, as does committing mass suicide (directly, since most strategies end up being this….)

    It’s hard to have a really desirable strategy when you’re surrounded by those who think you have no right to exist, let alone be successful.

  • It strikes me that Chait has a point that the 9 mile depth of the old Israeli territory that Netanyahu doesn’t want to go back it is not the danger that it was in the 40s-70s, for the reason that Israel now has such incredible and obvious military superiority over all its direct neighbors that one would imagine that actual states would have the wisdom not to attack and face the choice that either:

    a) The Israeli conventional military would defeat them quickly and spectacularly or else

    b) If things seemed tight, Israel would nuke them.

    That said, for those same reasons, I’m not sure that Israel necessarily needs to make seriously dangerous sacrifices in the interest of “legitimacy” with countries that would tend not to like them anyway. (Turkey and Western Europe seem unlikely to become their fans no matter what, much less their immediate neighbors.)

    This probably means it would make sense for them to pull out of parts but not all of the West Bank and then announce that cross border attacks will be treated as acts of war — but one thing that probably is not in the cards is that the Palestinian leadership announce they are actually happy with any deal that’s ever offered.

  • Being that the West Bank is the high ground and of strategic importance to Israel, I would see their need in taking it back. If I were President Obama, I would stay out of the fray, except to ensure rights for Christians who are native to the area. Unfortunately, our President always makes the wrong moves and ruffles the feathers of the wrong people.

  • Foxfire,

    There’s nothing indefensible about the pre-1967 borders. The idea that Israel would be at risk from an invasion by Jordan if it returned to those borders is a bad joke.

    The Palestinians have long since abandoned the idea that you can defeat Israel by military force. Instead, the new plan is to try and turn Israel into a pariah state akin to Rhodesia or South Africa. The way you counter that threat is by ending the occupation. That was Sharon’s vision (roughly), and if he hadn’t had a stroke he may well have pulled it off.

  • I very much doubt if there is any diplomatic solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinians, the vast majority in any case, have never come to terms with Israel as a permanent reality. They assume that something will occur which will remove Israel from the equation and they only have to wait. Israel is often compared in Palestinian writings to the ephemeral Crusader States of the twelfth and thirteenth century and the Palestinians view time as being on their side.

    The main military threat to Israel is not conventional, although I would note that Israel suddenly has a potentially hostile Egypt now on its southern border. The military threat to Israel comes from a massive terrorist strike involving WMDS probably backed by Iran. I have heard that the Israelis have viewed with increasing alarm the infighting going on within Iran’s leadership fearing that it may presage an attack on them. Things will get very dicey over there before this year is out.

  • BA-
    how about that it involves abandoning tons of their citizens? How about that it involves giving in to terrorists that aren’t going to be happy until they’re gone– and probably not even then? And who on earth limited it to Jordan?

    The military folks that I know are good with this stuff say they’re indefensible to easily foreseeable Arab aggression–even if one ignores whatever the frick happens with the “Palestinians.” (A radio show that is pretty representative of what the folks I trust say would be “Dark Secret Place“– the host of which is no big Israel fan, incidentally, although he’s not hostile.

  • The main military threat to Israel is not conventional, although I would note that Israel suddenly has a potentially hostile Egypt now on its southern border. The military threat to Israel comes from a massive terrorist strike involving WMDS probably backed by Iran.

    The Egyptian army is not a real threat to Israel. Iran is a real threat, but to do that you need U.S. support. The best spin I can put on Bibi’s actions is that he’s written Obama off as an ally and is trying to hurt his chance at reelection in the hopes of having someone more favorably inclined get elected President.

  • I would note the Prime Minister and the Likkud are now saying this was overblown by the media.

    And not to be offering an opinion but just correcting the misstatement that “They were invaded and successfully repealed the invading Muslim armies” I would remind folks that almost all of the uniformed Christians in this conflict were among the invaders.

  • how about that it involves abandoning tons of their citizens?

    What Obama outlined doesn’t involve abandoning any Israeli citizens.

    How about that it involves giving in to terrorists that aren’t going to be happy until they’re gone – and probably not even then?

    It’s not about making the Palestinians happy. It’s about removing their main weapon against you (which I suspect will make them very unhappy).

    And who on earth limited it to Jordan?

    Given where the border is, it’s pretty much geographically limited to Jordan.

    If the idea is that a Jordanian attack would be accompanied by attacks by other Arab states, well, that’s been tried before. In 1967 it took the Israelis six days to rout the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. If there was a repeat today it would probably take about six hours.

  • What Obama outlined doesn’t involve abandoning any Israeli citizens.

    *snort* Yeah, sure, if Israel can talk the Palestinians into trading them.
    “Here, I’ll give you all this land that I have right now– and then we’ll work on trades, how about that? Oh, by the way, will you trade me the west bank where most of our 300,000-ish settlers live?

    It’s not about making the Palestinians happy. It’s about removing their main weapon against you (which I suspect will make them very unhappy).

    How does giving in remove their ability to badmouth Israel? Look at how they removed the last weapon– by destroying the tactic, not by rewarding it.

    Given where the border is, it’s pretty much geographically limited to Jordan.

    And Palestine–wherever that ends up being– and anyone that the Palestinians let march right on in, and Egypt with whoever the Muslim Brotherhood wants to come in, and Syria, and Lebanon.
    That’s before we even start thinking about sea and air power, and assumes that— ha!– terrorism stops.

    If the idea is that a Jordanian attack would be accompanied by attacks by other Arab states, well, that’s been tried before.

    I thought you were upset about fighting the last conflict when the facts on the ground have changed?

    I missed it the first time, but my dark suggestion actually agrees with your statement– the way to win is to end the occupation. There’s two ways to end any occupation, only one of which doesn’t leave Israel with an even bigger border and a reputation for backing down from attacks.

  • The Palestinians have long since abandoned the idea that you can defeat Israel by military force. Instead, the new plan is to try and turn Israel into a pariah state akin to Rhodesia or South Africa. The way you counter that threat is by ending the occupation.

    I get that, and it strikes me as the strongest argument for a unilateral pull-out from most or all of the West Bank. I guess I’m still a little uncertain, though, as to how effective this would be in stopping the attempt to label Israel as a pariah state.

    Admittedly, they haven’t left Gaza entirely alone since pulling out (though their interventions were provoked) but the pull out there has if anything increased the pressure on them from that quarter not reduced it.

    I’m not entirely sure one could be confident that the same would not be the case with the West Bank if they did a unilaterial withdrawal.

    If the idea is that a Jordanian attack would be accompanied by attacks by other Arab states, well, that’s been tried before. In 1967 it took the Israelis six days to rout the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. If there was a repeat today it would probably take about six hours.

    There, I agree. And indeed, if Jordan was willing to actually take back the West Bank, I would imagine that Israel would jump at the chance, as then they’d have the rest of Jordan to also aim force at if the West Bank got out of hand. The thing which makes the West Bank so problematic is that it seems little to willing to immolate itself if Israel is likely to get burned in the process. And it’s so messed up already, it’s not as if threats to blockade or bomb it are really all that efficacious. (Which, at the same time, is why it’s almost impossible for Israel to police when they are in charge.)

  • “The Egyptian army is not a real threat to Israel.”

    It came very, very close to being a major threat in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and without Nixon’s airlift of supplies the Israelis might have faced a very precarious military situation in the Sinai. Now the main problem it presents for Israel is that their military can no longer count on a quiet border with Egypt in a crisis.

  • *snort* Yeah, sure, if Israel can talk the Palestinians into trading them.

    The Palestinians aren’t likely to agree to any peace deal. Since the Palestinians aren’t going to agree to a peace deal, it serves no purpose for Israel to let itself be perceived as the one who won’t agree to a peace deal. In fact it is positively harmful, since it allows the Palestinians and their allies to paint Israel, rather than the Palestinians, as the obstacle.

    How does giving in remove their ability to badmouth Israel?

    The Palestinians can say whatever they want. The question is whether anyone will listen.

    I submit that that people are more likely to feel sympathy for the Palestinians if (1) Israel continues to occupy the West Bank, and (2) Israel is perceived as being unwilling to negotiate a peace deal. It therefore behooves Israel to try to eliminate these sources of Palestinian sympathy if it can do so consistent with its own security (which it can).

    And Palestine–wherever that ends up being– and anyone that the Palestinians let march right on in, and Egypt with whoever the Muslim Brotherhood wants to come in, and Syria, and Lebanon.

    As I said before, if it came down to it, the IDF could rout the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon in about six hours. They really really are not a threat to Israel’s security. Anyone who tells you different is either lying to you or doesn’t know what he is talking about.

  • I think there’s a lot to what BA is saying, but I agree with Don regarding sweeping generalizations about the Arab militaries. In the air–perhaps. But on the ground, the Egyptians and Syrians fought very, very well in 1973, as did Hezbollah back in 2006.

  • “The Egyptian army is not a real threat to Israel.”

    It came very, very close to being a major threat in the 1973 Yom Kippur War

    That was 40 years ago when Egypt had Soviet backing and was, if not at the height of their power, then at least a lot closer to it than they are now.

  • The Palestinians can say whatever they want. The question is whether anyone will listen.

    If it’s a hammer against Israel, they’ll listen. Facts haven’t changed anything thus far, and I doubt they’ll change things in the future.

  • I wouldn’t overestimate Israel’s ability to fend off another multi-nation attack. Yes, on paper it may look like a cake walk even compared to their earlier victories. However, war doesn’t usually play out like it does on paper. It wasn’t five years ago when Israel entered Lebanon and pulled out in a month. I don’t think they even claim that campaign a success.

  • Darwin,

    There is a kind of fatalism among some on the right when it comes to public perceptions of Israel. The view is basically that it doesn’t matter what Israel does, the people who don’t like her won’t like her, while the people who support her will stand by her.

    I don’t think that’s right. You mention Turkey and Western Europe, for example, as countries that aren’t going to like Israel no matter what. Yet Israel either has or has had excellent relations with both Turkey and Western Europe. Certainly there are some people who will oppose Israel no matter what, but there are also lots of people whose attitude towards the Mideast is going to be determined by whether Israel seems like an oppressive colonial power or a country that wants peace and is only defending its right to exist.

    In the long run continued Israeli occupation of the West Bank is untenable. Either it will have to make the area and its inhabitants part of Israel proper (which for demographic reasons would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state) or it must withdraw from them.

  • It wasn’t five years ago when Israel entered Lebanon and pulled out in a month.

    This was for political rather than military reasons. Militarily the IDF could have occupied Lebanon for as long as it wanted.

    I would note that during the early days of the war, western opinion was almost universal in support of Israel, and even the Arab states were publicly muted and privately supporting (belying the claims that people will condemn Israel regardless of what happens). It was only once it became clear that Israel wasn’t going to really commit to destroying Hezbollah but instead was going to use bombing to affect Lebanese opinion that support evaporated.

  • It was only once it became clear that Israel wasn’t going to really commit to destroying Hezbollah but instead was going to use bombing to affect Lebanese opinion that support evaporated.

    Definitely not how I remember it. More like, Israel was actually attacking Hezbollah instead of doing a quick smack after they were invaded and had their soldiers taken captive. While rockets kept firing into their country, too– I CAN remember failing to be surprised that Israel’s bombing got condemned, but the stuff headed their way was just accepted.

  • There is a kind of fatalism among some on the right when it comes to public perceptions of Israel. The view is basically that it doesn’t matter what Israel does, the people who don’t like her won’t like her, while the people who support her will stand by her.

    I don’t think that’s right. You mention Turkey and Western Europe, for example, as countries that aren’t going to like Israel no matter what. Yet Israel either has or has had excellent relations with both Turkey and Western Europe.

    I think there’s a measure of truth to this, I’m just not sure I’d take it as far.

    Yes, Turkey and Western Europe were both fairly positive on Israel for a while, but in Western Europe there’s a three way set of motivators to stay anti-Israel now that they’ve got there:

    – Opposing Israel as a colonialist power helps them feel about their colonialist pasts.
    – Seeing Israel as a wicked or at least ambivalent power helps them feel less guilty about the Holocaust (since it suggests that the Jews are no better than they are and would have done the same thing given the chance.)
    – It fits with a pattern of Antisemitism which is a lot older and more rooted than the more recent period of good feelings toward Israel.

    Given all these (and the fact that Israel’s enemies can sell them oil while Israel can’t) I’m not sure it’s realistic to expect Europe to feel much differently about Israel any time soon, even if Israel takes the high road in every way possible.

    Turkey, on the other hand, has had it’s own massive demographic shift over the last couple generations which may well make it permanently a religiously oriented power rather than a secular one — and one way for it to try to return to being a leader among religiously focused nations in its region is via opposing Israel.

    That said — I’d agree that some sort of unilateral “peace deal” on Israel’s part, which involves “giving back” the parts of the West Bank which Israel can obviously never govern peacefully is the right thing to do. I just think that they’ll get no credit for it except among their traditional supporters and continue to be portrayed as a colonialist power. (Though behind closed doors, I would imagine that most of the Arab governments will continue to be glad to see them make the heavy blows against the local terrorist organizations when necessary.)

  • An interesting take on the differences of cultures.

  • Despite mass media spin and what Israel would like to believe, it is not “a Jewish state.” There are 500,000 Palestinians living in Israel, a quarter of the population, and this is the reason why the Jews are against “the right of return.” In no time, they would become a minority.

  • Of course the Arabs, after the 48 war, chased about a million Jews over the years out of their countries, not infrequently confiscating their property. The vast majority of these refugees made a new home for themselves in Israel. Too bad the Arab world, with a vastly greater land mass and resources, did not make new homes for the refugee Palistinians, instead keeping them in “refugee” camps in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan to this very day, the better to stoke their hatred of Israel and use as pawns in the neverending war against the Jewish State. There are even “refugee” camps in the West Bank and Gaza which is absolutely farcial.

  • Yes, Turkey and Western Europe were both fairly positive on Israel for a while, but in Western Europe there’s a three way set of motivators to stay anti-Israel now that they’ve got there

    I don’t think it’s as bad as that. I can think of a number of current or recent European leaders, Blair, Sarkozy, Aznar, etc. who have been decently pro-Israel, and the overall trend in Europe is towards anti-immigrant parties who tend to be more favorably disposed to Israel. Overall Western Europe tends to be a lot more anti-Israel than the U.S. but then in general the political spectrum tends to be shifted leftward in Europe as compared to the U.S. on pretty much every issue.

  • I think Paul Johnson in his excellent book, “The History of the Jews,” points out there were at least 3 times the Palestinians/Arabs could have had a better deal, their own state, etc. but rejected all attempts, always holding out for more while Israel gave more than it got. Perhaps this long-running conflict will never been solved because Esau got outwitted by Jacob and never forgave him and never will.

  • The Palestinians Joe have had the worst leadership of any population since World War II with the exception of the North Koreans, and that is saying a mouthful. They never miss an opportunity to fail to give a forwarding address to all potential opportunities.

  • I have no sympathy or concern for the Palestinians, who have become progressively more radicalized Islamists. I do have concern and pity for the Arab Christians.

    I have only slight concern for Israel, a secular, liberal country which, while formally secular, continuously advances religious reasons for its existence and permanence, reasons ridiculously embraced by American Evangelicals. It’s ironic to see an aborting, sexually immoral, modern western nation defended as the “sacred homeland of the Jewish people,” as if the Patriarchs and Prophets would supporters of the Israeli state.

    In any event, I don’t see that we have a dog in this fight. Support of Israel has done nothing for our national interests since the fall of Communism (when Israel was a counter-weight in the Middle East). I don’t particularly wish to see Israel fall, but don’t think preventing that is worth one drop of American blood.

  • I agree, Tom, that Israel, armed to the teeth by the U.S. already and possessing nukes, can take care of itself no matter how many fronts it has to fight. The Arabs, far from united in purpose and strategy, are vastly overmatched in weaponry and soldiering skills. It should be noted that Israelis are not monolithic either in their views, with a political and religious spectrum that runs the gamut. Nor is a drop of American blood for Iraq/Libya/Afghanistan worth it.

  • I’m warm to the idea of hitting the Islamists, with whom we ARE at war, whether we want to acknowledge it or not (Libyan intervention would not be related to fighting Islam, so I can’t see our national interest there). Only to that extent do I see Israel as offering us anything of interest: they’ve got an impressive military and intelligence leg up on radical Islam. But I don’t care to see the Holy Land in the hands of a secular Israel any more than I would care to see it in the hands of the Moslems.

  • “But I don’t care to see the Holy Land in the hands of a secular Israel any more than I would care to see it in the hands of the Moslems.”

    They are the only two games in town Tom, and I much prefer the Israelis controling the Holy Land than the adherents of the Religion of Peace.

  • Agreed, Don, but only insofar as for the time being Israel shows more willingness to allow Christian access to the holy places. Whether they would be so accomodating if they didn’t need to curry favor with the West, who knows? You can guess and I can guess, but that’s what they are: guesses.

    That issue aside, I see no compelling national interest at stake for us in picking sides in this fight, at least as far as our blood or treasure is concerned.

  • Tom,

    Since 1948 the Christian population under Israeli control has more than doubled.

    In the West Bank and Gaza, it has dropped from 20% to barely 1%.

    Combined with the fact that even though Israel treats Catholic Holy Sites with contempt, they do allow access and have ruled in the Church’s favor time and again whenever it was confronted with Radical Muslims demanding space near Christian holy sites.

    I’ll take a hedonistic Israel over an anti-Christian/radical Islamist state any day of the year, decade, or century.

  • Sure, if that’s the only choice. But that’s hardly reason to support Israel qua Israel, and certainly not to the extent this country has. let’s not forget Johnathan Pollard– Israel spies on us not for just diplomatic reasons, but for military technology.

    We ought to keep both the Islamists and the Israelis at arm’s length.

  • Comparing Esau to the Palestinians is rather unfair ( to Esau). Some time after he had been cheated of his birthright, Esau went on to become a rich man through his own efforts. The Bible records that he forgave his cowardly brother and continued to maintain good relations with him. A most likeable and unusual man. Anyone who has gone through the trauma of a property division would recognise immediately that Esau was a gem of a man, a man in a million. He received some negative publicity from the Talmudists, who were concerned to present Jacob as a paragon of virtue. But the Bible takes a more relaxed view of these things; who among us knows how he will behave under similar circumstances?

    Had the Palestinians been largely Christian, the dispute between them and the Israelis would have been solved years ago, through mutual forgiveness and a sincere desire to let bygones be bygones. Being Muslims, peace with the Israelis is for them impossible short of the Second Coming. Their model and proximate idea of peace is the hudna – the temporarising ceasefire – that the pervert Mohamed agreed to liberally whenever he did not hold the upper hand militarily. Their ultimate ideal of peace is of course far worse, submission to the dead hand of Islam as befell the Bani Quraytha – Jews who could not hold their own against the grasping hand of the prophet of Islam. For this reason I hold all the peacemongers including sadly some nutcases in the Vatican to be misguided fools or worse.

  • Ivan,

    I agree wholeheartedly.

  • Bibi is a soldier and a mensch. Obama is a crafty community agitator and a cunning demagogue.

    Israeli/Jewish interests are not exactly equivalent to American/Catholic interests. They are closer than terrorists” interests.

    The enemy of my enemy . . .

  • I don’t have my comparative religion text on hand, but isn’t Esau the traditional ancestor of the Arab people?

    (Took a class several years ago…it was pretty good once one accepted that they viewed all religion like mythology, dead and with no real authority to what this or that group believed. Compared to the actively hostile to X and Y group ones, that’s pretty good.)

    Other than that, agreed, Ivan.

  • The Muslims Foxfier regard Abraham’s son Ishmael as being the father of several Arab tribes. He is regarded by them as one of the great prophets and a forefather of Muhammed.

  • “The Muslims Foxfier regard Abraham’s son Ishmael as being the father of several Arab tribes. He is regarded by them as one of the great prophets and a forefather of Muhammed.”

    From Dale Price’s Comprehensive Warehouse of Useless Trivia:

    In Byzantine historical sources, the Arabs are routinely referred to as “Hagarenes” in reference to Ishmael’s mother.

  • Malachi 1:3 (New International Version)

    3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.”

  • Looking at my Catholic edition of the New American Bible, it notes that “hated” should be read as “rejected,” and “loved” as “preferred,” and notes that St. Paul used the passage to point out God can call the Gentiles to Him if He wishes.

  • Hamas rejects Obama’s call for a return to the 67 borders:

    “Speaking to Al-Emirate Al-Youm, Zahar asked “Why won’t we talk about the 1948 borders? Why won’t we discuss the partition plan which was internationally recognized?””

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/24/hamas-rejects-the-1967-borders-too/

    That would be the partition plan which was agreed to by Israel and rejected by the Arabs. As if Hamas would be satisfied with a do-over that would roll back the clock to 1947. Anything less than a Juden Frei Palestine is merely a step in the right direction as far as they are concerned.

  • ALSO; Bibi knows what the year is, although he doesn’t use AD.

    Obama (today signed register 24 May 2008) believes it’s 2008 in Great Britain.

    Can you imagine the media/intellectualistas’ reaction if Sarah Palin or any Republican was so bloody stupid?

    Maybe Bibi didn’t do HIGH school HIGH on WEED, either.

    Hey, let’s bring the federal budget back to the 1967 limits!

  • BA,

    You may be right on that, I’ll admit that I tend heavily towards the more cynical approach.

  • I’m not upto speed on Malachi, but isn’t it a much later book with all the overlay of subsequent history? The Catholic Encyclopedia appear confused; Jacob had cheated his brother and thus he had every reason to be wary. Unless this a cautionary tale of a fool and his money going their seperate ways, I do not see any significance in describing Esau as a ‘greedy’ man, when to a modern ear Jacob is clearly the malefactor. Yes Esau married many wives, but Jacob was no slacker in that department either.

  • That issue aside, I see no compelling national interest at stake for us in picking sides in this fight, at least as far as our blood or treasure is concerned.

    We have never devoted any manpower to the defense of Israel. About 11% of the foreign aid budget is distributed to Israel, or about $3 bn. That would amount to about 2% of Israel’s domestic product.

    they’ve got an impressive military and intelligence leg up on radical Islam

    But apparently, we should not contribute to maintaining it.

    It’s ironic to see an aborting, sexually immoral, modern western nation defended as the “sacred homeland of the Jewish people,”

    Israel has a lot of black hats. That aside, your objection would apply to the defense of any occidental country, including our own. One is reminded of George Kennan’s remark (ca 1980) that he did not care for the expense and risks necessary to defend the porno shops of Washington, D.C.

    I gather that with the death of Joseph Sobran, you think it necessary to take his place.

  • Ivan-
    looks to me like they made a deal. A bad deal, but a deal. Reading the translation in my home Bible, the main similarity is that they both emphasize that Esau cared so little for what-would-be as opposed to what-is that he sold his birthright for immediate gratification. Betting that’s about as big a no-no as you can get in such a culture, kind of like how we’re horrified that folks name their child after a retail product.

  • Art, yep I figured it would not take long for the ad hominems to start once the most modest suggestion is made that support of Israel is not in our national interest.

    You’re absolutely right, though, I don’t think we should be spending a single dime of our money on any of our 1st world allies, but certainly not on Israel, since whether there’s a Jewish state or a Palestinian state, or a mixture of the two in that region is of zero interest to American security.

    As late as yesterday, Netanyahu was calling Israel “the Jewish state.” I don’t think it’s out of bounds to question the duality involved in claiming that Israel is some sort of religious homeland while simultaneously Israel is as aggressively secular as any western nation.

    And what other country could get away with claiming to be a religious state? Would we tolerate Ireland, for instance, referring to itself as “a Catholic state” much less “THE Catholic state?” We criticize Iran and other Islamic states who are conciously and self-identified as religious… why not Israel?

  • Oh, and as for Israel being an ally, I wonder when it became the norm for allies to spy on us?

  • Oh, and as for Israel being an ally, I wonder when it became the norm for allies to spy on us?

    I know we spied on them during the Vietnam era– pretty openly, too.

  • Again, in Israel, Bibi could not give 1,372 waivers from Obamacare to his friends; nor tell Boeing to building its assembly plant somewhere far away from South Carolina; nor use Israeli tax police to punish criminal organizations guilty of supporting opposition political candidates.

    Tom,

    I was where you are until 0846 hours 11 Sep 2001.

    From then on (for me), support of israel became our national interest.

    Ditto, Fox. During the 1973 war, we were 24/7 flying SR-71’s over Israel. If I told you more, I’d have to shoot myself.

  • Oh, and as for Israel being an ally, I wonder when it became the norm for allies to spy on us?

    Ages ago. Friendly nations spy on each other all the time. We do it, and we’d be stupid not to.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2106079/

  • Art, yep I figured it would not take long for the ad hominems to start

    Rubbish. Your remarks resemble the late Mr. Sobran’s with near precision. (Down to the argumentitive contrivance below). Sorry the comparison bothers you. He remains revered by the Rockford Institute.

    As late as yesterday, Netanyahu was calling Israel “the Jewish state.” I don’t think it’s out of bounds to question the duality involved in claiming that Israel is some sort of religious homeland

    The term ‘Jewish’ denotes an ethnic group and a cultural minority as well as a confessional one. That’s the ‘duality’.

  • “Oh, and as for Israel being an ally, I wonder when it became the norm for allies to spy on us?”

    We spied on the Brits during World War II all the time, and they returned the favor. I can’t think of two closer allies, but routine spying is simply a fact of life between nations.

  • Foxfier,
    I have to agree that Esau’s flippancy meant that he did not deserve the responsibility of being the father of Israel.

  • Much of the 3bn that the US provides to Israel is in reality a cross subsidy to the US arms industry. Giving F16s to the Israelis who are unlikely to use them against US interests, is far better than giving them to either Egypt or Pakistan. The Israelis are the only ones who can field test US weapons and associated tactics given their peculiar circumstances. The 3bn aid should considered a part of the defence R&D budget.

FRIDAY EXTRA EDITION

Friday, May 20, AD 2011

A round-up of some of the best punditry in the Catholic Blogosphere, courtesy of ThePulp.it:

Camosy on Peter Singer & Christian Ethics – Rob Vischer, Mirror of Justice

To Introduce Blaise Pascal to Stephen Hawking? – Frank Weathers, YIMCatholic

Young Christian Beheaded in Northern Iraq – J. Newton & A. Stiefenhofer, CH

Regalism versus Real Catholic Monarchy – John Médaille, Catholic Lane

For Dissidents, We’re All Priests Now – Anne Hendershott, Crisis Magazine

Prayer Banner Battle – Brian J. Lowney, Catholic News Service

U.S. Bishops & Clergy Sex Abuse: Another Round – Joan F. Desmond, NCReg

“Lamb of God…” = “Son of God…”, Not – Father Anthony Ruff O.S.B., Pray Tell

“Full Communion” is 2-Way Street. . . and the Novus Ordo Rupturistas? – R.K.

Who Would Jesus Whip – Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register

New Testament Full of “Forgeries”? – Eric Sammons, TDL

. . .Mark Shea wrote about this here. . .

Do Harsher or Milder Climates Generate More Saints? – John Norton, OSV

_._

If you liked this roundup of the best posts from around the Catholic blogosphere, visit ThePulp.it for daily updates twice a day.

For ThePulp.it click here.

Continue reading...

WEDNESDAY EXTRA EDITION

Wednesday, May 18, AD 2011

A round-up of some of the best punditry in the Catholic Blogosphere, courtesy of ThePulp.it:

“Why Is Mugabe Visiting the Vatican?” – James Kirchick, New Republic

. . .Mark Stricherz of Catholic Vote wrote about this here. . .

God & Political Science – Timothy Shah, Daniel Philpott & Monica Toft, PD

Exposing the Death Dealers – Amy Welborn, Crisis Magazine

Syria Christians Fear for Religious Freedom – Reuters

Pro-Lifers Help Win Canadian Baby Battle – Maryann Gogniat Eidemiller, OSV

About Face on Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ – Joan Frawley Desmond, NCRegister

Abp. Jose Gomez: You Have a Duty to Confront This Culture – Cal Cth Daily

Fig Leaves & Falsehoods (Lying & Planned Parenthood) – Janet E. Smith, FT

Quaeritur: Selling a Rosary & Other Sacred Things – Father John Zuhlsdorf

Paternalistic Violence in the New World – David, The School of Salamanca

Monster Baptism & Chemical Pregnancy – Doctor Stacy Trasancos

The Sistine Chapel, In the Depths of Wales! – Richard Collins, The Guild

_._

If you liked this roundup of the best posts from around the Catholic blogosphere, visit ThePulp.it for daily updates twice a day.

For ThePulp.it click here.

Continue reading...

SATURDAY EXTRA EDITION

Saturday, May 14, AD 2011

The following is courtesy of ThePulp.it:

The Speaker and the Scholars – Carson Holloway, Catholic Vote

Torture Didn’t Lead Us to Bin Laden – Matthew J. Franck, First Things

The Meatless Mark of Identity Restored – Rich Leonardi, Ten Reasons

Subsidiarity, Funding, and the Arts – Jordan J. Ballor, Acton Institute

Bp. Conley on Transcendence in the Liturgy & the New Translation – Fr. Z

Addressing the Church’s Attrition Problem – Margaret Cabaniss, Crisis Mag

Playing the Bully Card – Anthony S. Layne, Outside the Asylum

Movie Fails to Capture Anti-Catholic Brutality of Spanish Civil War – CNA

A Real Person Can Truly Love – Anthony Buono, 6 Stone Jars

On The Power of Personal Witness in the Priestly Proclamation – Msgr. Pope

Comedy Movie Night – Frank Weathers, Why I Am Catholic

The US/Pakistan Tightrope – George Friedman, MercatorNet

_._

If you liked this roundup of the best posts from around the Catholic blogosphere, visit ThePulp.it for daily updates twice a day.

For ThePulp.it click here.

Continue reading...

THURSDAY EXTRA EDITION

Thursday, May 12, AD 2011

The following is courtesy of ThePulp.it:

5 Things A Catholic Businessperson Must Know – Dawn Carpenter, Crisis

Phoenix Poll about BishopThomas Olmstead – Fr. Z

Josef Pieper’s Contemplative Assent to the World – Thomas Austenfeld, FP

Benedict XVI Makes Two Key Vatican Appointments – Edward Pentin, NCReg

A Valuable Lesson in Humility – Pat Lencioni, The Integrated Catholic Life™

On 2 Gifts of Deeper Prayer: Silence & Spaciousness – Msgr. Charles Pope

Some Odds and Loose Ends – Thomas Storck, the Distributist Review

Benedict XVI the “Reformist.” The Prosecution Rests – Sandro Magister

Private Judgment & the Rise of Relativism – Dr. Jeff Mirus, Cthlc Culture

A Christian Economist Clarifies Fair Trade – Louie Glinzak, Acton Institute

Right and Wrong in the Liturgy – Rich Leonardi, Ten Reasons

Notre Dame Drops Charges Against Obama Protesters – Thomas A. Uebbing

_._

If you liked this roundup of the best posts from around the Catholic blogosphere, visit ThePulp.it for daily updates twice a day.

For ThePulp.it click here.

Continue reading...

TUESDAY EXTRA EDITION

Tuesday, May 10, AD 2011

The following is courtesy of ThePulp.it:

Muslims Vandalize Church in Egypt in “Arab Spring” – Lisa Graas

Praying For Shriver-Schwarzenegger – Patrick Archbold, Crtv Mnrty Rprt

A Streetcar Named Moral Confusion – Zac Alstin, MercatorNet

What Would Jesus Cut? – Shawn Ritenour, Crisis Magazine

Further Proof that Catholic-Anglican Dialogue is Floundering – Carl Olson

Break-Away Episcopalian Parish Will Get Day In Court – Cal Cthlc Daily

Raymond Burke’s Opinion on Female Servers in the E.F. Mass – Fr. Z

‘No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act’ – Hadley Arkes, The Cthlc Thing

MN: Legislator Insults & Threatens Parish Priest over Marriage – Th. Peters

. . .Tancred of the Eponymous Flower comments here. . .

IN to Defund Planned Parenthood – Steve Weatherbe, The Daily Register

How Not To Argue Against Torture – Marc DeGirolami, Mirror of Justice

Irish Christian Brothers: Our Future Looks Hopeless – Sarah McDonald, CH

_._

If you liked this roundup of the best posts from around the Catholic blogosphere, visit ThePulp.it for daily updates twice a day.

For ThePulp.it click here.

Continue reading...

The Return of Crisis Magazine

Monday, May 9, AD 2011

Crisis Magazine is making a triumphal return in the Catholic blogosphere.  InsideCatholic, the website that succeeded Crisis Magazine as an online version has reverted to the original namesake.  Their managing editor, Margaret Cabaniss, has provided a press release of this exciting news.

Here is their truncated version:

“The Morley Publishing Group (MPG)  board and staff are thrilled to resurrect a brand that, for 25 years, fought for faithful Catholicism, sound economics, and limited government,” said Laurance Alvarado, chairman of MPG.

Founded in 1982 by Ralph McInerny and Michael Novak to respond to the leftward drift of the U.S. bishops, the current staff moved Crisis online as InsideCatholic.com in September 2007. With the decline of the print industry, the transition was both necessary and opportune. Within two months, the website had doubled the magazine’s monthly readership.

“It was a win-win situation for us,” said Brian Saint-Paul, editor and new president of MPG. “However, with today’s technology — particularly the iPad, and other mobile devices — magazines can now thrive in digital form. All the readership trends suggest that at some point in the next 12 to 24 months, we’ll reach a tipping point where Americans choose mobile devices over computers for their news, articles, and other media.”

With the struggling economy, the dramatic expansion of the federal government, and the ongoing deterioration of our culture, the staff concluded that it was time for Crisis Magazine to return.

“When Ralph and Michael started Crisis, it was a sixteen-page pamphlet,” Alvarado noted. “Through their efforts, and the hard work of former and longtime publisher Deal W. Hudson, that pamphlet became the flagship publication for faithful Catholics. It’s no exaggeration to say that Crisis helped initiate a renaissance in Catholic political and economic thought.”

“That’s our inspiration and our goal,” Saint-Paul concluded.

The new site, www.crisismagazine.com, went live today at noon EST.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to The Return of Crisis Magazine