A few days after the recent election I heard a right wing talk show host speculate that Barack Obama would choose the Reverend Jeremiah Wright to offer the prayer at the inauguration. Shortly after that I was involved in an online discussion, in which most of the participants were of what I call the Latin Right persuasion. One of them said that he had heard that Mr Obama had chosen the homosexual Episcopalian prelate Gene Robinson to do the honors.
Well, a couple of days ago Senator Obama announced his choice to offer the invocation: Rick Warren, pastor of the Saddleback Church and author of The Purpose Driven Life.
While the Reverend Warren’s white bread megachurch evangelicalism is not my favorite type of Christianity, or even Protestantism -although to his credit he does not limit evangelical social concern to the pelvic issues- what is important is that he is opposed to both abortion and homosexual marriage. And so his selection has prompted anger among homosexual activists. Abortion advocates, who are apparently more politically savvy than gay activists, have been silent, having counseled one another to have low expectations in light of expediency.
Now Mr Obama no doubt knew that his choice would not be popular among his gay supporters, but he chose to offend them rather than Evangelical and prolife folks. It’s hard not to see this as a peace offering, an indication that he does not wish to stoke the fires of the so-called culture wars. Certainly his cabinet choices have shown that he is not intending a radical change: the State Department is now full of Democratic interventionists instead of Republican ones, alas. While this in particular is regrettable, in most ways the way his administration is shaping up indicates that he is not going to come out with guns blazing, forging a radical proabortion path. It is doubtful, after offering an olive branch to Evangelicals that he will want war with Catholics.
Let us hope that the dire predictions of Obama closing Catholic hospitals who refuse to perform abortions and stripping all state limitations on abortion prove as misplaced as the ones about the Reverends Wright and Robinson.
—Daniel Nichols
I agree, this is encouraging. It can be taken as no more than a bow to political reality, but I think it’s a step farther than would be required for that. Whatever he really thinks–whether it’s a real desire to reach out, or just a shrewd calculation–it’s encouraging that Obama doesn’t want to stick his finger in the eye of a large portion of the electorate.
This reminds me of what I said in this post before the election. Short version: there is a sort of consensus in the country which doesn’t make either the left or the right very happy, but which no president, Republican or Democrat, is likely to defy in any major way.
By the way, a clarification: I’m not sure if you really meant that Obama would or could directly order the closing of Catholic hospitals, but in case that is what you meant–the concern is not that he would or could, but that passing FOCA, which obviously Obama can’t do on his own, would lead pretty logically to that.
Hi. I just got an email from Maclin about this site, and I wonder if the administrator may have old copies of Caelum et terra and be willing to copy me the series written by Eric Brende. I would be happy to send moolah prior.
Nice blog. Will be back. Merry Christmas.
Sorry, vera, I am the administrator…bwah hah hah hah…
Sorry (really), it didn’t occur to me to offer to copy-as-in-xerox the articles for you. I can do that–I think I have a copy of every issue. Although I wouldn’t get it done till after New Year’s.
It occurs to me, though–you said you had read Brende’s book, and there may not be much in these articles that wasn’t in the book. Can someone who’s read the book and remembers the articles answer that? (Daniel?)
Sorry, my memory is not good enough for that question; all I recall is that the basic story had been reworked beyond recognition to anyone who had read the articles.
Ahem, I do have back issues for sale. Five bucks a shot.
Thank you for both your responses. I really liked the book, but felt that it was missing many of the interesting details. I figure perhaps they would be in the articles, since they were written in the immediacy of the moment, so to speak.
Maclin, please send me an email about how much money to send. I will be very happy to have the copies.
To respond to your article: I saw a lot of angry gays on change.gov; meh. They will have to live with it.
What concerns me far more is the appointment of “more of the same” for the dept of agriculture, Vilsack. Great uproar in alternative ag and foodie circles. Personally, I think it is a big mistake on Obama’s part.
Yes, Obama has impressed me (a pro-lifer who campaigned for McCain, due to my grave concerns over what Obama will mean for the judiciary, family, etc.) with his ability to work with others–even those he doesn’t agree with (now there’s a concept for a politician, huh?).
On the other hand, his pick of “interventionists”, above all, choosing Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff signals that we are not going to get a significant change in our foreign policy.
But perhaps Barack will surprise me there, too.
While Obama may prove to bring a different type of dialogue and administration to government, he clearly believes that excessive government intervention and spending twin solutions to a dire economic condition. Further, in his own words, Obama has set the record regarding his stance on abortion.
My prayers for Obama includes that he find the will to cut back government spending, slash the tax rates, and reduce govenrment intervention and regulation so that private initiative may once again be part of the solution to our problems.
Maybe it will occur with his present economic advisors in place. If he is concerned about the poor and the disenfranchised, then reorder spending to care for these folks. If he cares for these lives, then it is entirely consistent that he cares equally for those who are the most innocent among us, the preborn persons.
I will continue to pray for Mr. Obama and our new Administration, that these people may do Godly things.
Obama’s choice of warmonger and ardent Zionist Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff is certainly a confirmation that he has no interest taking any sort of balanced approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
“My prayers for Obama includes that he find the will to cut back government spending, slash the tax rates, and reduce govenrment intervention and regulation so that private initiative may once again be part of the solution to our problems.”
Cut back on government spending – well, we could do that by ending our foreign wars and ceasing to give money to Wall St. crooks.
Slash tax rates and government regulation? Do you want more of what has produced our present economic and financial debacle? The free market is not the solution.
There is no free market, and hasn’t been since Methuselah. What we have is corporate socialism, aka shameless kleptocracy, aka welfare state for the rich. Bah humbug.
Obama’s choice of warmonger and ardent Zionist Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff is certainly a confirmation that he has no interest taking any sort of balanced approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
‘Balanced approach’ is a term that can be used idiosyncratically. That aside, the business of the President’s chief of staff is to supervise 600 employees of the executive chamber not ensconced within agencies incorporated by statute and to regulate the paper flow to the President. Foreign policy as regards the near east is made by the Bureau of Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, which is a division of the Department of State.
Cut back on government spending – well, we could do that by ending our foreign wars and ceasing to give money to Wall St. crooks.
Again, military expenditure accounts for about 4% of gross domestic product. Reducing it to the rate characteristic of Japan or Canada will cause the ratio of public expenditure to domestic product to plummet from 0.35 to 0.32.
Betwixt and between, we might contrive an orderly way to write down $2.8 trillion of mortgage debt. The last occasion on which the federal government responded to a banking crisis by saying ‘so long suckers’ ran from about November 1930 to March 1933.
Slash tax rates and government regulation? Do you want more of what has produced our present economic and financial debacle? The free market is not the solution.
Not the solution to the banking crisis.
There is no free market, and hasn’t been since Methuselah. What we have is corporate socialism, aka shameless kleptocracy, aka welfare state for the rich. Bah humbug.
Would you care to define the term ‘free market’ as you are using it.?
Art Deco, check this out. http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2008/12/26/mideast.html
Obama makes a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, in which he called for Jerusalem to remain the “undivided” capital of Israel and we’re supposed to be hopeful? Looks like Cheney and Rumsfeld are advising Obama.
Such a declaration of policy may be prudent or imprudent. That it is seen by anyone not a resident of Jerusalem as a cause of despair is peculiar.
Art Deco, Nothing “peculiar”, I lived in Jerusalem for 2 years and have many friends there. Some have had their homes bulldozed under the direction of the Israeli gov’t. Statements like Obama’s are most certainly reasons for despair.
No, they are not. People not resident in Jerusalem have nothing at stake. People who are resident in Jerusalem might be concerned with the quality of public goods, abuses by municipal or superordinate authorities, or with intangible factors derivative of communal identities. It is doubtful that public authorities in the PA will consistently improve on the performance of Israel’s public agencies, the quantum of abuses in the area is circumstantially contingent (and these circumstances are crucially influenced by the behavior and methods of Arab politicians), and the third is of no interest to anyone outside the community in question.
While one might say that since I am not a Palestinian living in Jerusalem I do not personally and directly suffer as a result of the harsh Israeli occupation. However, as a Catholic who cares about those Palestinians (Christian and Muslim) who were so hospitable to my wife and me, I cannot help but be concerned when American politicians rubber stamp the Israeli brutality against those people. As I type this, indiscriminate Israeli bombing has killed over 300 and wounded over 1,000 Palestinians in Gaza. Many of these are civilians. The U.S. response thus far has been for Bush to ask the Israelis to try to avoid civilian deaths if possible and the cowardly word from the Obama camp is that “there is only one president at a time”. How sad, but not surprising.
“People not resident in Jerusalem have nothing at stake. People who are resident in Jerusalem might be concerned with the quality of public goods, abuses by municipal or superordinate authorities, or with intangible factors derivative of communal identities. It is doubtful that public authorities in the PA will consistently improve on the performance of Israel’s public agencies, the quantum of abuses in the area is circumstantially contingent…and the third is of no interest to anyone outside the community in question.”
This is surely vintage Art Deco. I try not to comment on the details or substance of his postings, but this is so typical I can’t help but respond. His technique is to focus on very narrow details and ignore the obvious larger point, so here he says that no one but residents of Jerusalem need worry about U.S. policy toward Jerusalem. Of course, most everyone knows that the U.S. stance toward Jerusalem is a good sign of more general U.S. policy toward Israel. And this latter should be a concern of all Americans, even if only from a fiscal standpoint, but (of course) even more so from the standpoint of justice. Incidentally, Israeli policy toward Jerusalem has long been a concern of the Pope, who is not a resident of Jerusalem.
But if we are concerned with whether our country is observing justice or not, then we (of course) will be concerned with our policy toward Jerusalem, and toward Israel and Palestine. Especially since we have grossly favored Israel over Palestine for so long.
In a similar manner, he earlier had written, “Foreign policy as regards the near east is made by the Bureau of Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, which is a division of the Department of State.” Does he really think that the assistant secretary of state who heads that bureau makes our policy, not the president or the secretary of state? That truly is an odd statement of his.
“While this in particular is regrettable, in most ways the way his administration is shaping up indicates that he is not going to come out with guns blazing, forging a radical proabortion path. It is doubtful, after offering an olive branch to Evangelicals that he will want war with Catholics.”
I always like a good joke! You’re kidding, right??
William and all: This is so typical of Isreali disproportionate reaction. Crude Hamas missles have killed seven Isrealis in two years. In response to this Isreal launches an offensive that has so far killed over 300 Palestinians. I suppose Israel thinks that such brutal reaction will make the Palestinians think twice about resisting them, but all it really does is anger the world and make Israel look bad.
Christopher: I don’t get it; what has Mr Obama done since his election to indicate that he is going to deliberately stoke the “culture wars”? You may be right, but I think everything so far looks like he has so much on his hands that he does not want that particular ugliness.
“Would you care to define the term ‘free market’ as you are using it.?”
A market without artificial distortions like government subsidies, monopolies and the like. And companies “too big to fail.” Heck, when pig farmers cannot but sell to the feedlot middlemen who hog the market, on the cheap, and the customers in a supermarket never see the cheap prices, you know there is no free market. A free market is one that gives feedback about what the heck is going on.
“Art” asked me what I meant by “free market.” I don’t think everything which governs or regulates market forces is rightly called a “distortion,” or, perhaps more properly, we are in need of such distortions in economic affairs, just as we need customs, mores, laws to govern and regulate our sexual appetite. I append the following quote from Pope Pius XI’s 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno.
“Just as the unity of human society cannot be founded on an opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of economic life cannot be left to a free competition of forces. For from this source, as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic teaching. Destroying through forgetfulness or ignorance the social and moral character of economic life, it held that economic life must be considered and treated as altogether free from and independent of public authority, because in the market, i.e., in the free struggle of competitors, it would have a principle of self direction which governs it much more perfectly than would the intervention of any created intellect. But free competition, while justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain limits, clearly cannot direct economic life – a truth which the outcome of the application in practice of the tenets of this evil individualistic spirit has more than sufficiently demonstrated.”
“This is so typical of Israeli disproportionate reaction.” Yes, and having the week off has given me the opportunity to watch more newcasts and commentators than normal (That’s a confession.) and except for Pat Buchanan, I have yet to hear a Republican, Democrat or anyone from the media come close to condemning the Israeli reaction. Where are the liberals when you need them?
If the distortions are necessary (or even just “status quo”), then it should not be called a free market. IMO, that’s a dishonest, ideological stance. That’s all. Isn’t it about time we called things what they actually are?
To Vera,
Probably there’s never been an entirely free market, indeed, the concept is actually self-contradictory (e.g., many free marketers are against labor unions as they are seen to distort market forces, yet on the principle of entire freedom of association, there is no valid way to oppose workers associating with one another).
But we can approach more or less closely to a free market. It is obvious from the quote I posted above that the Church does not regard the free market as a desirable thing. Historically the free market (or, if you insist, the approximation to the free market) has produced much injustice and misery in human affairs. Our appetite for material things, just like our appetite for sexual pleasure, must be controlled and regulated.
Thomas, I quite agree with you and the Church that the economic patterns commonly called “free market” have done a great deal of mischief in the world.
But so have human efforts at control. (Especially those people who control others while reserving “free market” for themselves.)
It is a puzzlement. :-)
This is surely vintage Art Deco. I try not to comment on the details or substance of his postings, but this is so typical I can’t help but respond.
His technique is to focus on very narrow details and ignore the obvious larger point, so here he says that no one but residents of Jerusalem need worry about U.S. policy toward Jerusalem. Of course, most everyone knows that the U.S. stance toward Jerusalem is a good sign of more general U.S. policy toward Israel. And this latter should be a concern of all Americans, even if only from a fiscal standpoint, but (of course) even more so from the standpoint of justice. Incidentally, Israeli policy toward Jerusalem has long been a concern of the Pope, who is not a resident of Jerusalem.
While you are sipping my vintage and making faces, you might repair to “William”‘s comment of 27 December, which is, in its entirety, as follows:
Art Deco, check this out. http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2008/12/26/mideast.html
Obama makes a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, in which he called for Jerusalem to remain the “undivided” capital of Israel and we’re supposed to be hopeful? Looks like Cheney and Rumsfeld are advising Obama.
Raising the ‘very narrow detail’ of the status of Jerusalem was his doing. I merely remarked on what he had to say. I am not obligated to remark on what he did not say.
There are practical advantages to constituting unified metropolitan governments. In this particular case, there may (or may not) be practical costs to a disaggregated administration. Leaving aside the questions of utility for the performance of functions which municipal governments are constituted to do, the effect is going to be a municipal council with a Jewish majority and an executive in the hands of some character like Teddy Kollek rather than an Arab politician (i.e. a red, or one of a Baskin-and-Robbins selection of revanchists, or a gang boss, or a wheel in the patron-client network of a local grandee). This may be an irritant or a disappointment to the population in the Arab quarters. It falls far short of a cause for ‘despair’ [William’s term]. One ‘larger point’ to which you do not refer is that wherever you draw the border, there are going to be ethnic and confessional minorities on either side unless you propose to segregate the populations through a large round of evictions (and, come to think of it, it does appear to be someone’s baseline that the West Bank be judenrein). It is advisable that folks make their peace with reduced but tolerable circumstances, without regard to William’s seratonin levels.
In a similar manner, he earlier had written, “Foreign policy as regards the near east is made by the Bureau of Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, which is a division of the Department of State.” Does he really think that the assistant secretary of state who heads that bureau makes our policy, not the president or the secretary of state? That truly is an odd statement of his.
The President and the Secretary of State have much to occupy (and divert) their attention. The chief of the Near East bureau is the highest official who specializes in this area of policy. William fancies the President’s chief of staff is the salient official. The President’s chief of staff is a reporting channel for the staff of the National Security Council, but otherwise has little to do with foreign policy.
At this particular locus,
http://caelumetterra.typepad.com/blog/2008/02/catholics-for-o.html
you can read one of the more recent exchanges we’ve all had on the ‘obvious larger point’. It should be familiar to you. You were a participant in the discussion. You might even carefully review the contributions of ‘William’ and Daniel Nichols, paying particular attention to what they do not say as well as what they do.
Heck, when pig farmers cannot but sell to the feedlot middlemen who hog the market, on the cheap, and the customers in a supermarket never see the cheap prices, you know there is no free market. A free market is one that gives feedback about what the heck is going on.
I fail to see why state intervention in the trade in one particular commodity means ‘there is no free market’ in goods and services generally. If you wish to point out that there is a distinction between an ideal type and a reality or wish to point out that abstractly conceived principles and models are often violated in day-to-day political life, fine, but your initial comment is a peculiarly maladroit way of doing that.
“Art” asked me what I meant by “free market.”
No, Mr. Storck, my question was directed at ‘vera’.
the concept is actually self-contradictory (e.g., many free marketers are against labor unions as they are seen to distort market forces, yet on the principle of entire freedom of association, there is no valid way to oppose workers associating with one another).
I think critics of trade and industrial unions (e.g. Steve Hanke) would argue that these institutions are analogous to business cartels, associations of a sort they do oppose.
It is obvious from the quote I posted above that the Church does not regard the free market as a desirable thing.
Let us parse the quotation itself.
“Just as the unity of human society cannot be founded on an opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of economic life cannot be left to a free competition of forces. For from this source, as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic teaching. Destroying through forgetfulness or ignorance the social and moral character of economic life, it held that economic life must be considered and treated as altogether free from and independent of public authority, because in the market, i.e., in the free struggle of competitors, it would have a principle of self direction which governs it much more perfectly than would the intervention of any created intellect.
This would appear to rule out an approach to political economy favored by the Ayn Rand Institute or the Libertarian Party, but this represents a very modest tendency in contemporary political life.
But free competition, while justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain limits,
One of the questions we are always facing is what are the limits.
Art Deco, surely you understand that I merely used pig hogging as only one example of an economy where such examples are rife. In fact, they are rather the order of the day.
For those who wish to read the story I was referring to:
Capitalist Pigs: The Wealth of Nations and the Wealth of Farmers. This article examines the manipulation of pork prices by “hog factories” that drive real farmers out of business without any benefit to the public and with much subsidy from the public purse.
http://www.medaille.com/distributivism.html
vera, about 2% of the gross domestic product is accounted for by agriculture, fishing, and forestry. Subsidies and production controls therein date not from the time of Methuselah but from about 1935. Economists are generally quite critical of them.
Other sectors in which the terms of trade are commonly regulated would be medical and nursing care (14% of domestic product), electricity and water provision (3%), and insurance (2%). That is somewhat short of ‘the order of the day’. The first set are endeavours not quite commercial, public, or philanthropic; the second are natural monopolies; and the regulation of the third is, if I am not mistaken, the project of ‘consumer advocates’.
Art Deco, it adds up. What about the 700+ bn we are throwing at the financial sector? The billions at the car industry? Failing big box stores are lining up already. And then the gazillions for the common folk bailout that Obama is proposing.
Vermont just upped its food stamp program for the middle class. It seems we give subsidies of one kind of another to everyone these days, rich, middle class and poor. What kind of a way is this to run a viable economy?!
As for Methuselah, I must apologize for being so, er… sweeping. I meant merely the last 6000 years or so, when the kleptocracies began to take over. :-D
The financial sector constitutes about 6% of domestic product. The problematic banks and insurance companies are about half that. I believe employment in the automotive sector is around 2% of the total work force. New York (as do I believe other states) has in place a definition of criminal usury, but the defining rate is set at such a level that it likely does not constrain banks or credit unions (though it may make most payday lending uneconomic). The federal regulation of interest rates instituted in 1933 were dismantled ca. 1980. If prices of automobiles or auto parts have ever been controlled, it was by the National Recovery Administration (1933-35) or during the Second World War, not since.
Sorry, Art Deco: I only just now saw that your 1/3:10:03 comment was being held for moderation, presumably because of the links.
I think there is a formatting problem in that comment which makes it hard to tell where your quote from William leaves off and your remarks begin. Unfortunately one of the limits of WordPress is that there’s no way to edit a comment so I can’t fix it for you.
“William’ and Daniel Nichols, paying particular attention to what they do not say as well as what they do.”
Well then Art, pay attention to this balanced view. http://palestinian.ning.com/forum/topics/the-other-side-of-the-story . It says it all.
The page you link to has little on it but pictures. The site itself (called “Palestinian Mothers”) appears to be a partisan site maintained by collection of hobbyists. Why is this of much interest?
“Why is this of much interest?” Maybe because we’re members of the human race for starters. If you can’t figure that out, then that’s your problem.
If you wish to do research on a topic, you need to sift your available source material and set priorities, taking into consideration quality. The page you linked to has little or no text, the people who have constructed the site are obscure and appear to have no specialized expertise or commitment to systematic reportage, they do not offer a mix of perspectives, and their diction is crude. You would not bother with the site unless you had a great deal of time on your hands or unless you were specifically engaged in a project of comparing and contrasting hyper-partisan source material. The rest of us would skip over it and read something better. Specialized databases which lead to scholarly books and articles in academic journals would be a better bet, as would consulting a range of news services with known biases for which you could discount.
Art, how many times have you been to Gaza? How long have you lived under Israeli occupation? Have you seen for yourself the result of torture administered to uncharged Palestinians as a result of being in an Israeli prison? Since you want to make excuses for sources and documentation, just come back to talk with me when you’ve had the same first hand experience then that I’ve had. Until then it seems you have no interest in the reality of the situation and if you’re a believer, shame on you for not caring about our brothers and sisters in Christ who are suffering.
William,
I can’t remember if you’ve posted much or any on C&T before this latest round, but “Art Deco” has been here off and on for some time. I’d advise not paying much attention to him. His modus operandi is to ignore the obvious and focus his attention on lesser details by way of distracting from the main point. It seems to have some similarity to the post-modern technique of focusing on the margins and thus ignoring the main point. Clearly the main question here is one of the brutality of the Israeli military operations, and this is within the larger question of the justice of Israeli/Palestinian relations since 1948 and even before.
“His modus operandi is to ignore the obvious and focus his attention on lesser details by way of distracting from the main point.”
Now it makes perfect sense, Thank you, Thomas.
As for the Near East mess, I made it my business a while back to study the history of the area. Not for the squeamish… and neither side emerges looking good. One of the people I read then said that the only thing left to do was to put the whole area under UN or some other international management. Stop both sides. The more this goes on, the more I believe it. When you have a perpetual fight like this, either outsiders break it up or the carnage just continues.
Art, how many times have you been to Gaza?…Since you want to make excuses for sources and documentation, just come back to talk with me when you’ve had the same first hand experience then that I’ve had.
William, William, William. Your posts, and mine, are made of 100% recycled electrons. If there is an academic library near you, I will wager the reference librarian on duty would be pleased to give you a precis on the evaluation of source material, some tips on telling good powder from bad.
Clearly the main question here is one of the brutality of the Israeli military operations, and this is within the larger question of the justice of Israeli/Palestinian relations since 1948 and even before.
Once you are done contemplating the ‘main question’, you might pose to yourself two other questions:
1. What surface characteristics of an ordinary equilibrium between two political authorities are lacking here?
2. Why do you suppose they are? (Think about what the motors of this particular conflict are and what the core values of each party are).
3. How can you get from here to there? (A question that is, at this time, answered when you answer question #2).
Now it makes perfect sense, Thank you, Thomas.
Mr. Storck fancies he is being undone by forensic trickery. Too bad.
I’ve always felt that I had no right to voice an opinion on the Israel-Palestine situation without doing a great deal of research, which I don’t want to do. But “neither side emerges looking good” certainly fits with what I do know.
I was just reading about the Qassam rocket (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rocket) Hamas is using. What a crummy weapon! Assuming those deploying it are not completely and non-metaphorically insane, they can’t possibly have any expectation of doing serious damage with them. What can they possibly hope to accomplish? Presumably they did not intend what they have actually accomplished. One shakes one’s head….
Mr. Deco is clueless as to who the victim is in all of this.
Mr. Nichols,
While trying to decipher what an Obama presidency might really mean, here is something to watch for: a writer, named Olavo de Carvalho, wrote an article entitled “What O’bama Will Do.” You might find this interesting.
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/articles/081118lf_en.html
Whew, for a minute I thought I had identified Art Deco, but no, I see it is the musings of an obscure (meaning I have never heard of him) Brazilian writer.
Not impressed. When people worry about the US military being weakened I can only ascribe it to some form of mental illness; the US spends more on its military than the rest of the world put together. Just to put it in context.
My post was not about anything other than the prospects of Obama waging ideological war on the things traditional Christians hold dear, and the fact that his choice for giving the invocation leads one to hope that he will not do so.
I have deliberately avoided engaging Art Denso.
I have deliberately avoided engaging Art Denso.
Butch up, Daniel. It’s not that hot in this kitchen.
La la la.
For a less sanguine take on the possibilities of an Obama attack on prolife values see this American Conservative article: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/jan/12/0020/
That would be the “Fight of their Lives”…
“What can they possibly hope to accomplish? Presumably they did not intend what they have actually accomplished. One shakes one’s head….”
The Palestinians have been shooting themselves in the foot since the conflict began. They can’t win for losing, and proud of it… For example, there was a time when the UN was dividing up the territory, and the Palestinians would have gotten the *vast* majority of the lands of today’s Israel. They refused such an agreement, apparently holding to the position that the Jews were not entitled to ANY of it.
And considering how the early Jews treated them, as subhuman desert gypsies of no consequence… well, that did not help matters either.
Vera,
The “logic” of the foundations of Israel always struck me as something like this:
We Europeans mistreated Jews and killed (or allowed to be killed) a whole bunch of them,
Therefore let’s give them some Arab land to compensate!
Having said that, nevertheless I would defend Israel’s 1948 boundaries, i.e., the original U.N. boundaries, which, if I’m not mistaken, gave them just slightly over half of Palestine.
Thomas, if my memory serves me right, there was a previous proposal that gave the Palestinians more. They scoffed at it.
You are right about the logic of it… plus I think let’s get them the heck out of Europe. And all those remains of the Ottoman Empire had been held in utter contempt by Europeans… just there to be used as they saw fit…
The Nazis wanted to send the Jews to Madagascar… Perhaps they would have done better there. No Arab hatred to contend with. The Asians who had settled Madagascar in the days of the heroic sea journeys may have appreciated what Jews had to offer.
But on the other hand, then we would not have Unholy Wars over the Holy Land and the fundies would not be happy. What a world.
Y’all probably know this, but in case there’s someone reading it who doesn’t: the Jewish attempt to reverse the Diaspora does go back well before the Holocaust, to the late 19th c at least.
Nearly all Jewish settlement during the Ottoman and mandatory period was in the valley of Jezreel and an adjacent swathe of territory on the coastal plain. Jews constituted a majority in this area by 1948, but Arab demographic growth in this territory was robust as well. The UN partition plans added to this the Negev, which was quite sparsely populated (with Bedouin who speak a different dialect than the sedentary Arabs). The geography of settlement now differs considerably from what was the case in 1947, so the UN partition plans have lost much of their utility (and in any case are unacceptable to Hamas in toto and not salable to the Israeli electorate either).
I read the other day that, in 2000, the Palestinians were offered all of the West Bank and Gaza, and Yasser Arafat refused. It seems to be the Palestinians, and not Israel, who reject a ‘two state solution’.
This just in, relating to the original topic of this post: It has been announced that gay Episcopal bishop Gene Robertson will speak at an inaugural event at the Lincoln Memorial.
It’s not like he is giving the invocation, but probably it is a bone Obama is throwing to the angry gay community.
Robinson has promised to not use a Bible and not be too Christian, which strikes me as absolutely hilarious.
Francesca wrote, “I read the other day that, in 2000, the Palestinians were offered all of the West Bank and Gaza, and Yasser Arafat refused. It seems to be the Palestinians, and not Israel, who reject a ‘two state solution’”
Francesca, I believe there is more to this than what you wrote. I will try to get more information in the next few days, but it’s my understanding is not quite so simple.
“Robinson has promised to not use a Bible and not be too Christian”
Far beyond the reach of satire, as usual. Sometimes I think God created Episcopalians just to make us Catholics feel better about the state of our church.
Funny, Maclin! It seems that the world has gone utterly bizarro. And as far as I can tell, Obama is pretty darn clueless.
As far as the 2 state solution goes, it would have worked in the 40s. I don’t think either side finds it acceptable now.
My solution: ground all men on both sides. Let the women work it out over time. :-)
When I was in seminary I had an old bespectacled round teacher named Fr John Quinn. Fr Quinn would be talking some theological point and then say “Of course our Separated Anglican Brethren believe…” and state the error. Then he would look over his glasses and intone grimly, “Ooohhh, those Separated Anglican Brethren”. And that was before they went really bad.
In response to Francesca’s comment above, blaming the Palestinians for the failure to achieve peace in 2000, I offer the following: http://www.mediamonitors.net/pnt1.html
I can’t vouch for everything on it, but at least some is confirmed by other sources, e.g., the Israeli demand for control over Palestinian airspace. Also, I would note that the West Bank and Gaza are only a portion of the territory originally allotted to Palestinians in the 1948 UN partition plan.
As a gay man I was not particularly bothered by Rick Warren being asked to deliver the invocation. You can’t agree with everyone and not everyone is going to be happy with all of President-elect Obama’s decisions. I’m happy that he included Bishop Robinson for the Sunday event.
Interesting article from The Christian Century:
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=6181
Haven’t checked in for awhile. Y’all are funny.
Re the Christian Century piece: I’m all for tamping down the emotions of the culture wars, but I draw the line at listening to Melissa Etheridge.
No, seriously…let me try that again: I’m all for tamping down the emotions of the culture wars, partly because I think the trajectory is plainly toward physical violence, and I applaud Obama’s efforts to do so, but gestures only get us so far on questions where there are deep disagreements about fundamentals. I want to see Obama back away from any effort to have the central government declare one side the victor, nationwide; specifically, if he follows through on his campaign promises about FOCA, he needn’t waster his time on further warm ‘n’ fuzzy gestures.
Did you read that Obama met with George Will, William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and some other right wing pundits for dinner?
Another indication that he will not want to stoke the fires of the usual controversies. I think he will let the status quo alone on abortion. I have heard that prochoice activists have been telling one another to lower their expectations.
I saw a brief mention of that somewhere and was going to look for further info. I’m inclined to agree with you about the status quo on abortion–hope we’re right.
Daniel, the people Obama met with are the neocons who helepd bring us the Iraq war. The only time they care about abortion is every four years when they want votes, and they’ll be all too happy to “compromise” with Obama: increase abortion *and* wars.
Let me know when Obama meets with Ron Paul.
I only meant that it showed a willingness to be friendly with one’s ideological opponents, which is refreshing in this age of name calling and demonization. I personally do not care at all for any of his dinner companions, and I would be hard-pressed to be polite to them at dinner (except George Will, with whom I could discuss baseball). Mr Obama is a better man than I.
And if Ron Paul were very influential, instead of marginal, I bet Mr Obama would dine with him as well.
Political opponents, not ideological. Though they are hardly in lockstep with him, the neocons are ideologicaly much closer to Obama than either would care to admit.
Well, I think that remains to be seen; Obama has been all over the place in his statements. He really is sort of a mystery at this point; some of his choices for the cabinet are troubling, others reassuring….
President Obama has decided not to reverse the Mexico City policy, which prohibits US funds going to overseas organizations that promote or perform abortions.
It is not clear if he will do so at some time in the future, but refraining from making the decision on the anniversary of Roe V Wade- which Bill Clinton did do- is another indication that he does not want to stoke the fires of the so-called culture wars. And that he is trying to be sensitive to prolifers.
Seems to me the guy is walking the tightrope. In making this decision he is going to anger proabortion activists; he can’t please everyone, but may calculate that even if he disappoints them they are unlikely to bolt for the Republican party, while if he avoids the most egregious provocations he may win the good will of prolifers.
We will see.
Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.
Yeah, so much for that. What a letdown.
Though to put it in perspective:
a) The ban was largely cosmetic, like every limit on abortion the Republicans have enacted. There were exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother. Now, if someone is wanting to abort their baby, I doubt they will be too scrupulous to lie about rape, and if a doctor is wicked enough to kill a baby, I doubt he will not be able to find a health problem in the mother (like anxiety).
b) It is unlikely that this will increase the number of abortions worldwide; it’s not like US federal funds were the only funds available.
c) While it is true that now our tax dollars will be used to kill innocents, we should be used to that by now, with 6 years of unjust wars (and our dollars paid for torture as well under Bush).
Still, a disappointment.
As for federal funding of abortion groups — someone here might know about this better than I, but I recall that funding of groups like Planned Parenthood was not cut off but earmarked for their non-abortion family planning activities. If so, the federal money would free up other money these groups have so they could be used for funding for abortion. The exceptions Daniel mentions, too, have for years been decried by anti-abortion folks as basically allowing abortion on demand.
It used to be that the pro-life movement would only tolerate those who admitted but one exception for abortion — the life of the mother. Now, 26 years after Roe v. Wade, one can be considered pro-life if he thinks abortion should be available to victims of rape and incest and when a woman’s health is endangered. Soon, one will be called pro-life if he merely thinks there should be some restrictions on abortion. I think this development, in part, is the fruit of the lockstep alliance of the pro-life movement with the Republican party. Pro-life folks will take anyone dished up by the party, dress him up, and proclaim him a pro-life champion — and, in the process, lower their own standards. All in the name of an expediency that merely takes us farther and farther our goal.
Just curious; does anyone have global abortion statistics for the years 1992 and 1993? I tried to find them online, with no luck. I’m just curious if Clinton lifting the so-called ban had any effect on the numbers.
Dan,
This seems to contain the statistics you’re looking for. I can’t vouch for their accuracy, of course. They cover the years 1975 to 1996. They’re from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which, as probably everyone knows, is a rabid promoter of abortion.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2504499.html
Hmm. It appears that American funding did not increase the numbers of abortions. But I note that Africa is missing in these statistics….
If they are merely descriptive statistics, they will not account for confounding variables.
Actually, that is a good nickname for Arty: the Confounding Variable. CV for short.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012805.html
Exclusive Interview: Leading Vatican Prelate Says Document of US Bishops Partly to Blame for Election of “Most Pro-Abortion President”
By Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
ROME, January 27, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A document of the US Catholic Bishops is partly to blame for the abandonment of pro-life teachings by voting Catholics and the election of the “most pro-abortion president” in US history, one of the Vatican’s highest officials said in an interview with LifeSiteNews.com.
Archbishop Raymond Burke, the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, named a document on the election produced by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops that he said “led to confusion” among the faithful and led ultimately to massive support among Catholics for Barack Obama.
The US bishops’ document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” stated that, under certain circumstances, a Catholic could in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports abortion because of “other grave reasons,” as long as they do not intend to support that pro-abortion position.
Archbishop Burke, the former Archbishop of St. Louise Mo. and recently appointed head of the highest ecclesiastical court in the Catholic Church, told LifeSiteNews.com that although “there were a greater number of bishops who spoke up very clearly and firmly … there was also a number who did not.”
But most damaging, he said, was the document “Faithful Citizenship” that “led to confusion” among the voting Catholic population.
“While it stated that the issue of life was the first and most important issue, it went on in some specific areas to say ‘but there are other issues’ that are of comparable importance without making necessary distinctions.”
Archbishop Burke, citing an article by a priest and ethics expert of St. Louis archdiocese, Msgr. Kevin McMahon, who analysed how the bishops’ document actually contributed to the election of Obama, called its proposal “a kind of false thinking, that says, ‘there’s the evil of taking an innocent and defenceless human life but there are other evils and they’re worthy of equal consideration.’
“But they’re not. The economic situation, or opposition to the war in Iraq, or whatever it may be, those things don’t rise to the same level as something that is always and everywhere evil, namely the killing of innocent and defenceless human life.”
Archbishop Burke also cited the work of the official news service of the US Catholic Bishops’ Conference, that many pro-life observers complained soft-pedalled the newly elected president’s opposition to traditional morality.
“The bishops need to look also at our Catholic News Service, CNS, they need to review their coverage of the whole thing and give some new direction, in my judgement,” he said.
Actually Archbishop Burke himself was of immense help in elected Barack Obama. He and others help put what swing Catholic voters found to be a very ugly face on their point of view. Comments and actions like Burke’s might had been helpful to the Republicans in the past two elections when mobilizing the base was the strategy, but in this year’s election, Catholic voters who were on the fence turned to Obama in drove, in part out of reaction to their distaste for what was coming from conservative Catholics.
And I think the bishops were quoting Cardinal Ratzinger, who said the same thing…
Ratzinger, according to McCarrick? – whose duplicitous tactics in this regard has already been published elsewhere. And using the Alan Guttmacher Institute as your statistical source? That is suspect, at the least.
And Katherine, don’t try to justify your’s and other Catholic’s votes or non-votes in support of Obama by blaming it on Burke. He merely spoke the truth, albeit too little, too late. If the American bishops had been teaching the truth for years, maybe things would be different in the USA. Methinks that the those Catholics’ votes weren’t changed by Burke’s statements. Their hearts were already hardened to the horror of abortion.
The problem with the American bishops is that they used to be wimpy on abortion. Now they are good on abortion but wimpy on everything else.
And of course it is fictional to think that McCain would have done anything to stop abortion…
“And of course it is fictional to think that McCain would have done anything to stop abortion…”
That certainly is a good bet. However one thinks the election should have gone, we now have President Obama and he is enjoying great public support.
Obama made one comment in 2007 about a bill that has since died in Congress without even so much as a subcommittee hearing. Lacking even a bill currently before Congress, the bishops have sadly made that their focus. Yet the President’s repeated campaign theme of reducing abortions goes almost unresponded to by the bishops. Have they approached the Administration to work on this issue? NO. Have the bishop appointed a staff person to direct such an effort with the Administration? NO. Do they have a plan, a strategy, a working group, a budget, a proposal? NO. It is a crying shame.
“…the President’s repeated campaign theme of reducing abortions…”
I do hope no pro-lifers are fooled by this.
Dear JPG,
I hope no pro-lifers sit on the sidelines and refuse to take the President up on his offer, as the National RTL Committee and, sadly, most of the bishops are doing.
I would rather take the chance of being made a fool than let an opportunity to reduce the number of abortions to pass by. Hopefully, the rest of the pro-life movement will put aside an unchristian hostility to the President and come around.
Good points, Katherine.
Except, Katherine, that Obama wants to reduce abortions mainly by funding contraceptive use, which we Catholics consider immoral. So, they propose something we believe wrong, and when we don’t jump at the chance to participate we are scolded? A transparent ruse, if you ask me.
That said, let’s hope that he backs off on FOCA. But I don’t know; he could have easily let stand the Mexico City policy. There was little public support for overturning it, and all he would have had to say was something like “In this time of financial crisis we must examine carefully where our tax dollars are going, and it is not prudent to fund foreign abortions at present”. That he didn’t do this, which would have been politically painless (or nearly so) suggests that his support for any and all abortions is pretty extreme. But he is also politically savvy, so we shall see…
Dear Daniel,
This new body appointed by the President has yet to develop the means and methods to start reducing abortions. Catholics have a chance to get in on the ground floor and develop the initiative. Whatever its limitations, I think it beats the strategy of sitting in the corner and pouting, as the Establishment Right-to-Life groups have been doing.
I’m pleased to report that Catholic Charities is now on board, though still nothing from our bishops.
As for FOCA, I’m saving my commentary on that until the day FOCA exists. As of today, there is no such legislation.
There is a lot of misunderstand about MCP, some of it deliberately spread by Right-wing organizations. MCP does not add or subtract a dime of taxpayer funding for anything. It has to do with who can bid on government contracts. With or without MCP, these contracts do not provide for abortion funding.
Now, many pro-lifers do not like the idea of Planned Parenthood bidding on these contracts even though it is illegal to use any of the government money to provide or promote abortion. But the quickness to assume the ability to bid on these contracts means PP would win concedes that they would have the best bid, contradicting the fiscal prudence argument for MCP.
Agree to disagree with repeal of MCP, the President is at least consistent. He issued an E.O. saying companies bidding on government contracts cannot use the funding they receive from the contract for union busting, but he did not bar companies that union bust with their own funds from bidding on government contracts.
“Catholics have a chance to get in on the ground floor and develop the initiative.”
That strikes me as very naive, but I’ll be happy to be proven wrong.
Although I think I’m as much irritated by the selective indignation of conservative Catholics – (note I did not say orthodox Catholics, among whom I count myself) – as anyone, still, I don’t see how Catholics could contribute much to a process that at the outset assumes that the baby growing inside the mother is not a human person and that, at least as a last resort, that baby must be able to be killed. How could we work with such a process?
My beef is not so much with the bishops denouncing the abortion policies of President Obama, as that many of them seem taken in by the lip service the Republicans give to the pro-life cause. I agree with Maclin that it seems naive to cooperative with Obama in this matter, but it seems to me equally naive to think that most Republicans were or are serious about ending abortion.
Likewise, to isolate the sin of abortion instead of concentrating on a conversion of our country is short-sighted at best. Abortion is a sympton of deeper failings, and is not likely to be eliminated without some attempt to address those deeper failings.
Katherine: As I pointed out earlier in this thread, all the Republican limits on abortion were cosmetic. There were always exceptions allowed, or- in the case of “partial birth” abortions- other procedures allowed that accomplished the same aim (dead babies). However, there is a symbolic value to the Mexico City policy, and that is not unimportant. By restoring funding, Obama pretty much rendered the title of the original post -“A Sign of Hope” – naive.
And what proposals to the end of limiting the number of abortions do you suppose he will offer, if not what we suspect?
Nonetheless, as I have also mentioned, the personal opinions of the president appear to have little effect on the number of abortions. And I long ago decided that A) outlawing abortion is a lost cause, and B) most who claim to be prolife only want my vote. The issue is no longer a deal breaker for me, though it is important. I was happy to be able to vote for prolife Democrat John Boccierri for congress in the last election, one of the few non-symbolic votes I cast.
And I was somewhat hopeful about Obama, though his first few weeks in office don’t exactly make him look stellar…
My reasons for thinking this is naive are a bit different from what Thomas suggests. Although there may be no common ground on the principle, it would be still be theoretically possible for pro-lifers and pro-choicers to agree on measures that would reduce the incidence of abortion–parental notification laws and the like. What I think is naive is to think that the pro-choice side will agree to this sort of thing. Unlimited availability of abortion seems to be the one thing that most of the powers in the Democratic party absolutely won’t compromise on. So when they talk about measures to reduce abortion they’re usually talking only about more funding for contraception & social programs, both of which seem to have an at-best-questionable connection to abortion rates (and that’s not even addressing their morality).
As far as I can tell the ostensibly more receptive attitude of the Obama administration to pro-lifers is just a change in manners, from “Go to hell” to “Thank you for sharing.”
I should add, as before, that I would be very happy to be wrong.
Dear Maclin —
We will never know until we try.
Are you still worried about quitting smoking? Try Advken Orcas Pod,Steam Crave RDTA and Artery Starter Kit. There is no secondhand smoke and no impact on health. You can choose the nicotine content according to the schedule and the price is cheap and the quality is guaranteed.