Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions
which differ from the prejudices of their social environment.
Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.
Albert Einstein
Image of the Day
 |
| Courtesy of Sen. Coburn (R-OK) |
Tweet of the Day
"Don't let anybody tell you that its corporations and businesses that create jobs." -Hillary Clinton:The Constitution created the Presidency
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) October 25, 2014
Hillary Clinton: From "You Didn't Build That" To "You Didn't Hire Them"This is the same old same old economically illiterate garbage, the pejorative "trickle down" economics, a pejorative invented by Statist legal plunderers to finance their parasitic, monopolistic, unsustainable Ponzi-scheming empire building. It's one thing for an economically illiterate populist Pope Francis to copy and paste such drivel like "trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world … which has never been confirmed by the facts, [and] expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power." in his Evangelii Gaudium; as others have pointed out (e.g., here and here), it is rather the pope and others who place undue reliance of the State, which produces nothing of value, often persecutes its own citizens, and wages horrific wars that destroy, don't build national wealth. A free market doesn't rob savers and investors (including holders of government securities) by pursuing easy money policies, doesn't restrict goods by mercantilist policies or occupations at the expense of consumers and entrepreneurs, doesn't try to kill its potential customers. Hillary and her husband are members of the rent-seeking legal profession which benefits from an unknowable, economic-growth crippling regulatory empire which kills almost $2T in a $15T economy and have spent the last generation at the highest levels of government, and for President Zipper, mostly before that at high levels of Arkansas state government since the 1970's. Five of every 6 workers in this economy are employed in the private sector, and all expenditures of the government ultimately come from taxes on the private sector.
A Catholic Welcoming of Gays: A Faithful Perspective
Let's be clear: we are all sinners. We Catholics welcome all fallible humans who acknowledge their weaknesses, do not attempt to rationalize them, repent and seek forgiveness through Christ. Welcoming does NOT mean legitimizing the polically correct, accepting the promiscuous gay lifestyle or agenda, or contradicting the Church's consistent teaching of sex appropriate only within the context of an indissoluble, mutually exclusive union of a man and a woman. Father Longenecker makes the point (my edits):
Catholics should therefore regard gays with the same objective compassion and concern that we have for all people. We see gays, as we see all people, as first and foremost brothers and sisters, fellow human beings created in the image of God and therefore good and precious eternal souls. To accept them as fellow human beings, however, is not to condone their sexual choices or to agree to their ideology.
The homosexual, as I defined it here for the sake of discussion, is a person who experiences same sex attraction. They may not act on their desires and remain celibate. They may choose to marry and defer their homosexual desires. They may be sexually active with various partners, but regret their choices. They may follow the path of friendship–living with a member of the same sex while not being sexually active. The Catholic Church already welcomes such people with the full range of pastoral care. I therefore fail to see why there is so much discussion and pressure to “welcome homosexuals.”
What, therefore, is the discussion on “welcoming homosexuals” really about? The only reason for this discussion is that certain pressure groups wish for the Catholic Church to change her basic stance on homosexuality. What the lobbyists want is for the Catholic Church to endorse same sex relationships as a viable alternative to marriage. “You must welcome homosexuals” means “you must approve of gay sex”This blogpost has a brilliantly sarcastic take on Fr. Longenecker's question of how to welcome gays. It starts out by reflecting that a litany of a crowded list of politically correct victims may lengthen the introduction to Mass (what about those of us left-handed Franco-American nerds?):
The word, 'gays' can also be replaced or exchanged with 'lesbians', 'transgenders', 'transvestites', 'bi-sexuals', 'unsures', 'asexuals' or 'questioning' as well as a multitude of other fabricated sexualities now dominating the queer studies lecturing circuit. The advice is to try and keep the welcome snappy, Fathers, so do not fall into the trap of trying to welcome everyone by any characteristic, sexual predilection, ability, or ethnic minorities, otherwise the 'welcome' will go on too long and it will have been a good fifteen minutes before you get onto the Kyrie and, if appropriate for the season, the Gloria. This is due to the need for sensitivity to ensure that no 'party' of people feels more respected than another, which gives rise to the possibility of over-zealous repetition of the 'types' mentioned in your special 'welcome'.Here is a counterexample to avoid:
"Dear brothers and sisters, welcome to St. Perpetua's Church for this the 23rd Sunday of Ordinary Time. Before we examine our consciences and ask the Lord for His mercy, I would of course like to welcome everyone to St. Perpetua's Church but particularly any gays, lesbians, blacks, transgendered, transvestites, bisexuals, unsure, questioning, disabled, wheelchair users, hard of hearing, blind, Filipino, Irish, Spanish, Portugese, Latin American, asexuals, sufferers with mental health issues (add other 'types' here) who may be in the congregation. If I have missed anyone out I do apologise, but in particular, welcome to any gays out there. Therefore, I hope you feel welcome. And lesbians too...and...(insert 'types' you re-welcome here)..."Here's another type of welcome to avoid, as in Cardinal Kasper's version of inclusiveness that includes divorced or gay Catholics but not conservative African bishops:
"...Therefore, I hope you all feel welcome, apart from any Africans. We don't listen to you and you can't tell us what to do. Your views are not wanted and your participation is not welcome here. By the way if anyone asks you whether I just said that, I didn't. In the unlikely event I have been recorded, if you have recorded me saying that, I have powerful friends in journalism, so don't take me on. I can destroy you, hear me? Yes! Destroy you!"Rand Paul Outlines a Coherent, Restrained "Conservative Realism" Foreign Policy
I have some differences with Rand Paul on foreign policy, particularly his support for ISIS intervention. But while he very clearly does not espouse as his opponents suggest an "isolationist" policy, he does make it clear there are speed bumps on any initiative not involving a direct attack on the US, which provides probably the most restrained of any major potential candidate in decades. His 4 principles:
First, the Use of Force is and always has been an indispensable part of defending our country.
A second principle is that Congress, the people’s representative, must authorize the decision to intervene.
A third principle is the belief that peace and security require a commitment to diplomacy and leadership.
This brings me to the last principle I’d like to discuss today: we are only as strong as our economy.I will quibble with a few points, but what I like in particular is what he points to in his last two points: the importance of free trade as an instrument of peace, and how our chronic deficits and unconscionable national debt (not to mention untenable unfunded liabilities) are threats to our national security. Much of our publicly-held debt is held by foreign investors and could risk our ability to finance essential operations, not to mention a risk of crashing dumped Treasury bond prices, igniting recessionary interest spikes. We must have a sustainable budget; we must have competitive tax policies and regulatory reform to promote economic growth. To me, Rand Paul is both posturing against unpopular neocon policies and defining himself against likely 2016 Presidential candidates and a cohesive argument against the expected Dem challenger, Hillary Clinton.
I'm not going to do a comprehensive critique in this post, but I want to give some points where I don't agree with Rand Paul, at least in how he's presenting his arguments. First, at some point he loosely uses "free trade" as some sort of an American carrot in diplomacy. This is crap; free trade is win-win among consumers in two economies. When trade or access to our markets is a diplomatic concession, we are talking about the neomercantilistic whore of managed trade, which unfortunately reflects the reality of global markets today. Similarly, Rand Paul seems to accept the use of economic sanctions, which I regard as a type of warfare, which I oppose; recall the famous quote most attribute to Bastiat: "When goods don't cross borders, armies will." (Actual author: Mallery.)
Second, I disagree with his general discussion of the Afghanistan war, which he supported. At one point in his discussion, he basically discusses the futility of nationbuilding, and yet he seems to ignore that the Soviets and other occupiers of Afghanistan had found it to be a quagmire. As bad as the Taliban was, thry did not attack America; I understand the point of a safe haven, but once the Taliban was defeated and Al Qaeda was on the run, I disagree with our occupation and nation building.
Finally, I still find Paul's position for military action on ISIS, which had not directly attacked the US, perplexing and unprincipled. Once we open the door of preventive warfare, you hand the neo-cons an unnecessary concession. At one point elsewhere, he points out the unintended consequences of our drone activities, but what about our ISIS initiative?
Choose Life
HT Guideposts
Facebook Corner
(Reason). "Don't let anybody tell you that its corporations and businesses that create jobs." -Hillary Clinton
Economic fascists have now gone from "you didn't build that" to "you didn't hire them"...
(separate)
"Because the Constitution created the Presidency..."
(Ron Paul). VOL reports on Crony capitalism as direct sales of Teslas banned in Michigan. http://bit.ly/1vZKfcU
Do people ever read the post? (By the way, is it only me, or do others also have to go to another (non-Chrome) browser to view VOL posts?) Lots of Big Oil conspiracy theorists... Michigan is not the first state to challenge Tesla's direct-sale business model. There are no doubt lots of anti-competitive factors, including Michigan auto company protectionism, but really it's the lucrative auto dealerships: "The bill in question, HB 5606, was originally passed to regulate fees that automakers may charge dealers; its backer said it provided additional protection to franchised dealers and consumers from price gouging by carmakers." The "price gouging" nonsense is a post hoc paternalistic rationalization. That Michigan's GOP governor signed this corrupt crap is shameful, but anyone who thinks union-bought--and-sold Dems want to see California-produced cars competing in "their" market is delusional....
Really, folks, why do you think Warren Buffett's Berkshire just bought Van Tuyl Group, the fifth largest dealership? "In 2013, the average U.S. dealership produced return on equity of 29 percent, according to the National Automobile Dealers Association. That figure has risen in four of the past five years and is now more than double the 12 percent return recorded in 2008 when U.S. vehicle sales collapsed." (And, of course, Warren owns a big chunk of Government Motors...)
But why is a Ron Paul thread trying to promote the cause of a company which has benefited from lavish unpaid-for tax subsidies of unaffordable green energy cars or other Big Green tax gimmicks from the corrupt Democrats?
More Proposals
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Eric Allie via IPI |
Linda Ronstadt, "Just One Look"
