Thief:

Maureen Dowd has a good column on the Thief of Baghdad, aka Ahmad Chalabi.




posted by Quiddity at 4/30/2005 12:30:00 AM

Bush proposes $8,000 a year to retire on (in current dollars) for everyone (no matter what you're income level is) by the year 2100:

From Kevin Drum:

Basically, low income earners ($16K/year) currently get about 49% of their income replaced by Social Security. Under the Pozen plan, this would stay the same. Medium income workers ($36K/year), however, would see their replacement rate fall from 36% to 23% by the year 2100. The replacement rate for higher income workers ($58K/year) would fall to 14% and for maximum income workers ($90K/year) to 9%.

Do the math:

$16k * 0.49 = $7.84k
$36k * 0.23 = $8.28k
$58k * 0.14 = $8.12k
$90k * 0.09 = $8.10k

These are in current (2005) dollars. How many people can retire on that amount today?

To have a decent retirement under Bush's plan, you'd better do really well with investments. Either that, or depend on charity.

posted by Quiddity at 4/29/2005 10:17:00 AM

Bush on Social Security:

From the press conference:

We ... have a responsibility to improve Social Security, by directing extra help to those most in need ...

I believe a reform system should protect those who depend on Social Security the most.

I propose a Social Security system in the future where ... you will not retire into poverty.

We have a ... responsibility ... to keep seniors out of poverty ...

In other words:




posted by Quiddity at 4/29/2005 02:01:00 AM

Local news:

We think that how the local news presents Bush is highly significant. It's what most people see, as opposed to reading the New York Times or even watching the network news. So, we were pleased to see the introduction to the 9:00 news on Los Angeles television channel 9. It was:

In a press conference today, president Bush tried to rescue his sinking Social Security plan.

Excellent.

posted by Quiddity at 4/28/2005 09:06:00 PM

Uggabugga market call:

We're goin' down.

Seriously, for some time it's not been clear to us what the future would look like. Will the deficits be inflated away by the printing press? Will higher oil lead to inflation? Will the Fed defend the dollar and raise rates (capping inflation but leading to a recession)? Is Stephen Roach and Paul Volker right that we are headed for big trouble?

The answer to all those question is yes. But how to play it? Will there be inflation first, followed by a recession? Or a slowdown first, possibly followed by inflation? Which way, in other words?

It's looking now as if we are seeing a slowdown as the first manifestation of trouble. Stocks have already weakened, and are poised for further losses. Basically, higher oil seems to be the major culprit - mostly because it is drawing money out of the consumer's wallet, and this economy is very consumer dependent.

Predicting the market is alway an opportunity to look stupid, and we've been reluctant to make a "call" for two years.

Until today.

posted by Quiddity at 4/27/2005 07:16:00 AM

Jahn Tierney makes no sense:

Here are the key lines from his Op-Ed that praises the Chilean private pension plan. Pablo is a Chilean friend of Tierney. (emp add)

• ... our countries have required our employers to set aside roughly the same portion of our income, a little over 12 percent ...
• Pablo called up his account on his computer and studied the projected retirement options for him, which assume that he'll keep working until age 65 and that the fund will get an annual return of 5 percent ...
• After comparing our relative payments to our pension systems ... we extrapolated what would have happened if I'd put my money into Pablo's mutual fund instead of the Social Security trust fund.
• We came up with three projections for my old age ...
  • Retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000.
  • Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000.
  • Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and a one-time cash payment of $223,000.
• You may suspect that Pablo has prospered only because he's a sophisticated investor, but he simply put his money into one of the most popular mutual funds. He has more money in it than most Chileans because his salary is above average ...
• "I'm very happy with my account," he said to me after comparing our pensions.

COMMENTS:

• Who cares about Pablo? All Tierney is doing is running a projection based on a guaranteed 5% return on investments
• Who cares about relative payments? It plays no role in Tierney's argument.
• Has Pablo prospered? We don't know. Tierney supplies no numbers. He merely asserts that Pablo has - up to this point in time.
• BIGGEST DECEPTION: We don't know Tierney's salary (past or present). So those attractive retirement amounts, based on contributions of 12% of an unknown income are meaningless.
• UNCLEARNESS AWARD: "He has more money in it than most Chileans because his salary is above average" - "most Chileans" means what? Chileans in the program? Chileans who have been in the program and contributed the maximum amount? Or just most Chileans - in or out of the program. Tierney doesn't say. And how does Pablo having an above average salary figure in this? How much above average?

The essay is a mess.

posted by Quiddity at 4/26/2005 01:38:00 AM

It's not "people of faith", it's explicitly Christians:

From Justice Sunday: (emp add)

Putting more evangelicals on the court will mean rulings more in tune with the religious convictions of churchgoers, said R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville.

''We are not asking for persons merely to be moral,'' Mohler said. ''We want them to be believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.''

Being "merely moral" isn't enough. If that doesn't scare America, nothing will.

posted by Quiddity at 4/26/2005 01:07:00 AM

Anti-filibuster movement in trouble:

A short round-up:

• ABC World News Tonight: Americans oppose movement to eliminate filibuster 66% to 25%
• ABC World News Tonight: Comment from an anti-filibuster citizen: "We have just as much a right to have our judges ...   (emp add)
• CBS Evening News: Gloria Borger reported that Frist's fellow Republicans were not happy that there was a crawl on the Justice Sunday television broadcast with telephone numbers of their Washington offices.
• NBC Evening News: (re Justice Sunday) "They promised to use their power to put a Christian imprint on the federal courts."
• NBC Nightly News: Anti-filibuster crowd shown as similar to Schiavo protesters.
• NBC Nightly News: Norman Orenstein commenting that this is (a) partly Frist-for-president and (b) no matter what Frist said on JS, he's going to be linked to these "fire breathers"

How about that poll result? 66% to 26%   That's about as lopsided as it gets on a procedural issue.

ALSO: Reid seems to be brokering a deal with Frist. We've been impressed with Reid for quite some time, and though many would like to see the Senate Democrats push the filibuster issue to the limit and not compromise (including us), we defer to the judgement of Reid.

posted by Quiddity at 4/26/2005 12:42:00 AM

Related sideshow:


From this Yahoo Entertainment Photo (while the link lasts).

posted by Quiddity at 4/24/2005 11:28:00 AM

Broder watch (filibuster edition):

No doubt, there will be plenty of critical commentary about Sunday's Op-Ed by David Broder on the filibuster. Essentially, he's saying that the Democrats should cave. Entirely. Broder wrote: (emp add)

The Democratic Senate leadership should agree voluntarily to set aside the continued threat of filibustering ...

In return, they should get a renewed promise from the president that he will not bypass the Senate by offering any more recess appointments to the bench and a pledge from Republican Senate leaders to consider each such nominee individually ...

Democrats should do something - agree to stop filibustering - and the Republicans should promise and pledge to be nicer. Who is going to believe the Republicans (especially the president) will honor their word? And the promise and pledge is nothing more than to adapt procedures that merely delay the eventual approval of a Bush nominee.

Hey, David! You forgot to mention that one of the nominees, Janice Brown, is from California and neither of the Democratic senators approve of her. That, in earlier days of the Blue-slip rule, would have been enough to halt the nomination. Republicans have flexed the Blue-slip rule to suit themselves, depending on who held the White House. Of this, Broder is silent.

After asserting that "the opposition still has a constitutional role to play, at the end of the day that function has to be more than talking important matters to death" - meaning that filibusters are off-limits for Democrats, Broder writes:

[Democrats should] preserve the possibility of a filibuster should Bush later submit someone they find seriously objectionable for a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

That's rich. If anything, there will be a greater call by Republicans for a filibuster-free procedure for the important SC nominee.

More Broder:

Instead of sending a message that they do not trust their Republican colleagues' judgment -- and therefore feel justified in preventing a vote -- the Democrats would be saying to their colleagues and the country: We trust you to take your "advise and consent" duties seriously.

How can Broder say that Democrats should trust Republicans to take the advice-and-consent role seriously when the Republicans want to approve every single Bush nominee to the courts? The Senate Republicans are, for the moment, a rubber-stamp for the White House.

ON A RELATED FRONT: David, how are those Congressional inquiries into administration misbehavior going? You know, the sort of thing that Democrats should trust the Republicans to do. That's right. There are none.

END NOTE: Broder's essay is titled A Judicious Compromise. Broder's idea of a compromise is for Democrats to give up whatever power they have under current Senate rules and trust in promises and pledges from the likes of Bush, Cheney, and Frist. That's a mug's game.

posted by Quiddity at 4/24/2005 12:00:00 AM

Mr. Brownshirt

Love him or hate him, you don't know the real Julius Streicher

By JOHN HEAD-IN-THE-CLOUDS

Julius Streicher and I were well into a bottle of schnapps -- and I believe he was chewing his fourth piece of Bavarian sausage -- when it happened.

From what little I knew of him -- mainly his propensity for declamations such as "The Jewish nose is bent. It looks like the number six" -- I thought it impossible for Streicher to have a sense of humor.

Many of his fans would later tell me it was his fearlessness they admired, his fully unburdened sense of outrage against Jews, against anyone left of Erich Ludendorff (whom Streicher flattered in his best-selling book "Secret Plans Against Germany").

But in person, Streicher is more likely to offer jokes than fury. For instance, you might ask his to name his historical antecedents in the Nazi movement, and he'll burst forth, "I'm Attila the Hun," and then break into gales of laughter so forceful you smell the bratwurst. "Genghis Khan!"

So finally, I asked that he be serious. I wanted to see the rancor that allegedly is his sole contribution to public discourse (that and being a "lying liar," in William L. Shirer's estimation). Why, I asked, did he enjoy attacking others and being attacked?

He composed himself and offered a very Julius Streicher answer. "They're terrible people, Jews. They believe this can really summarize it all - these are people who believe," he said, now raising his voice, "that slaughtering a cow should involve callous brutality and Schadenfreude on the part of the Jewish butchers. Four Jews hold down the cow while its neck is being cut. The Jews stand there and - laugh. That really says it all. You don't want such people to like you!"

The couple at an adjacent table visibly stiffened, and the man groaned. The woman looked at Streicher with white-hot hatred, and Streicher ... smiled.

"You're smiling," I marveled. As he continued to grin and covered his mouth with a beefy hand, he protested, "I am not. I'm just a little amused. Maybe I'm a little drunk. There are a lot of things that would make me smile. Viciously attacking Jews would not."

"No, you are."

"I am not! 'And he had had several helpings of schnapps,'" he told me to write.

O.K., he had, but whether he was truly embarrassed, what I saw of Streicher in that moment was a personality far more human than the piqued vituperator I had expected. After all, one of his most voluble critics, journalist Dr. Fritz Gerlich (Does Hitler Have Mongolian Blood?) told Vossische Zeitung, "The idea that he doesn't coarsen our culture and make it more difficult to speak complicated truths is nonsense."

But while Streicher can occasionally be coarse - he's not one of those Nazis who won't say "untermenschen" two or three times over dinner - he doesn't seem particularly uncomplicated. When I spoke with his friend Joseph Goebbels, Propaganda Minister under Hitler, he said Streicher's appeal 10 years ago, when they met, was "the same as it is today. He was lively and funny and engaging and boisterous and outrageous and a little bit of a polemicist.

Most of the time, people miss his humor and satire and take his way too literally."

I began to wonder, whether Julius Streicher might be ... misunderstood? All his National Socialist capering aside ("We've got to attack France!"), Streicher was an Iron Cross recipient before he was a publisher. He's an omnivorous reader (everything from Count Joseph Arthur de Gobineau to the works of British author Houston Stewart Chamberlain), and he isn't afraid to begin a column on Edith Stein, as he did in March, "Baptism didn't make a Gentile out of her".

Although Streicher is often compared to William Joyce (Lord Haw-haw), he is "first a broadcaster," as he described himself in one of his books. He said his show "is, after all else, still just something for the Brits." Streicher, on the other hand, doesn't think of himself as an entertainer but as a public intellectual. Many would say he's more of a shrieking ideologue, but regardless, his paychecks come solely from selling Der Stürmer. He earns nothing from radio.

To be sure, Streicher is far from the most accomplished Nazi presence in Germany today. Rudolph Hess has greater reach; old-guard guys like Baldur von Schirach and Franz von Papen have more power in Berlin. Countless Nazi scholars Bernhard Rust, Hermann Esser, Alfred Rosenberg, write with greater intellectual heft.

But no one on the right is so iconic, such a totem of this particular moment. Streicher epitomizes the way politics is now discussed, where opinions must come violently fast and cause as much friction as possible. No one, right or left, delivers the required apothegmatic commentary on the world with as much glee or effectiveness as Streicher.

It is almost impossible to watch him and not be sluiced into rage or elation, depending on your views. As a soldier in the Reichswehr 15 years ago, Streicher helped defend the Fatherland. Now he is far more valuable: he helps set the Reich's tone.

Streicher's success in publishing Der Stürmer is exceeded only by his inability to write a book that doesn't become a best seller. His current effort is titled as churlishly as those that preceded it: How to Deal With a Jew (If You Must): The World According to Julius Streicher.

It recently ended a 16-week run on best-seller lists even though it's mostly a collection of previously published columns. A recent documentary, Is It True What They Say About Julius? co-directed by a friend of Streicher's, filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, has played at film festivals and won some favorable notices.

But Streicher's influence on the culture is both more diaphanous and more significant than the calculations of book sales or newspaper readership suggest. He is the bogeyman of politics, the figure that Social Democrats use when reaching for the ultimate insult, the way Nazis use Rosa Luxemburg.

Some Nazis, many of them Streicher's rivals, as he points out have also drawn their knives. "Julius' stuff isn't very serious," says a Beer Hall Putsch veteran who didn't want to begin a public spat with Streicher. "We have this argument every now and then among our side: whether he is a net minus or net plus to Nazism. I have come to the conclusion that he's a minus."

Even fans speak of Streicher in ways that suggest some distance: "I think Julius is a brilliant guy, and he's got the quickest mouth west of the Elbe," says Reich Bishop Mueller. "Now, I probably won't use his on Sunday morning in my church because he is capable of getting a little aggressive."

In November Streicher went to Munich to speak at the Kampfbund Conference (KC), the premier annual event for Nazis. When he arrived, the Beer Hall was hot with anticipation. Activists occupied every inch of available floor space; hundreds stood in the back.

Wearing a trenchcoat and a determined expression, Streicher had to be pushed through the crowd by a platoon of Schutzstaffel. When he swept past the spot I was wedged into, the Hitler Youth near me went bonkers.

Streicher's speech was part stand-up routine, he called Hermann Göring "the human dirigible" and part bloodcurdling agitprop. "Jews like to scream and howl about Nazism," he concluded. "I say, let's give them some. They've had their Kosher terror on the campus for years ... It's time for some serious Nazism."

Curtain.

Social Democrats who believe that Hitler exemplifies the show-no-weakness, make-no-apology Fuehrerprinzip see Streicher as its Ur-spokesman. For instance, Streicher has never wobbled on Hitler's signature deed, the war in Russia. "The invasion of Russia has gone fabulously well," he wrote last January, a few weeks after others suggested the Wehrmacht might need to pull out.

Which is it? Is he a brave warrior or a shallow hack? Or is Julius Streicher that most unlikely of Nazi subspecies: a hard-right ironist?

Not long ago, I called Streicher's father and read him one of his son's more rakish lines. Last year, Streicher wrote that Vossische Zeitung publisher Ludwig Kitzsch is "a little weenie who can't read because he has 'dyslexia.'" "Oh, my," said Fritz Streicher, 76, with a laugh.

"Now, is that the way boys are brought up to speak in Bavaria?" I asked. Julius Streicher grew up in Fleinhausen, Bavaria; his father was raised in Saxony. "I know it's not the way boys are brought up to talk in Saxony."

"I think you've got a point there," Fritz Streicher said, chuckling, "but that is the way he expresses himself, and he does have obviously strong likes and dislikes. That's just the way he puts things ... I think a person who has strong convictions is more convincing to someone who is wavering."

In other words, it's not an act. But as Streicher himself points out in Is It True What They Say About Julius?, "I think the way to convert people is to make them enraged ... Even if I could be convinced that if I had gone through 17 on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hands, I might convince one more Social Democrat out there, I think I'd still write the way I write." Streicher told me that when his editor suggests cutting a line from a column to save space, "I'll ask him, 'But is it racist?' And if he says it's racist, I'll cut an actual fact [instead]."

When I asked Streicher about his mistakes, he responded by mail: "I think I can save you some time ... The one error Social Democrats have produced is that I was wrong when I said the Berliner Tageblatt didn't mention Horst Wessel's death on the front page the day after his death.

Streicher has a reputation for carelessness with facts, but I didn't find many outright Streicher errors.

Although it drives Streicher crazy, even friends sometimes say his public and private personas differ. Hans Hinkel, an early member of the Nazi Party who holds a senior position in the Propaganda Ministry says, "You couldn't find a nicer friend" than Streicher.

But, he adds, "I think he has a professional point of view or a shtick or whatever ... Julius has perfected a thing he does in print because he is outrageous. That's his business, public commentator."

But I'm not sure the public and private Julius are so different. In print or in person, you can trust that Streicher will speak from his heart.

The officialdom of punditry, so full of phonies and dullards, would suffer without his humor and fire. Which is not to say you don't want to shut him up occasionally. Not long ago, I went to a Nuremberg rally with Streicher. Roland Freisler spoke of how "the Jews are our misfortune" and to women and girls: "the Jews are your ruin."

After he finished, I asked Streicher for his reaction. "The Jews are fools if they think we really want to send them to Madagascar." With that, he threw his head back and laughed.

posted by Quiddity at 4/22/2005 01:58:00 AM

Micro Cloud-Coulter update:

From the Time magazine cover story: (emp add)

Eight months later, Coulter's relationship with MSNBC ended permanently after she tangled with a disabled Vietnam veteran on the air. Robert Muller, co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, asserted that "in 90% of the cases that U.S. soldiers got blown up [in Vietnam] Ann, are you listening? -- they were our own mines." (Muller was misquoting a 1969 Pentagon report that found that 90% of the components used in enemy mines came from U.S. duds and refuse.)

Coulter, who found Muller's statement laughable, averted her eyes and responded sarcastically: "No wonder you guys lost." It became an infamous and oft-misreported Coulter moment. The Washington Post and others turned the line into a more personal attack: "People like you caused us to lose that war."

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz: (blockquote)

One personal quibble. In 1997, as an MSBNC commentator, Coulter was debating a disabled Vietnam veteran. She says she told him, "No wonder you guys lost." This, says Time, was "oft-misreported" by the likes of The Washington Post, which turned the line into a more personal attack: "People like you caused us to lose that war."

I can now reveal my source for that quote. It was: Ann Coulter, recounting the incident in explaining why MSNBC dropped her. I did note that, according to Coulter, the vet was appearing by satellite and she didn't know he was disabled.

posted by Quiddity at 4/21/2005 11:20:00 AM

David Brooks' fact free zone:

About Brooks' most recent NYTimes Op-Ed, Roe's Birth, and Death

David Brooks writes	The facts are
When Blackmun wrote the Roe decision, it took the abortion issue out of the legislatures and put it into the courts.	REF The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health," and in the third trimester, demarcating the viability of the fetus, a state can choose to restrict or even to proscribe abortion as it sees fit.
... Blackmun and his concurring colleagues invented a right to abortion, and imposed a solution more extreme than the policies of just about any other comparable nation.	REF Legend Yes - Legal, No - Illegal, Varies - Varies by regions * - Legal during 1st trimester only (exact date may vary) Country To Protect Mother's Life Physical Health Mental Health Rape Fetal Defects Socio-economic factors On Demand Austria Yes Yes Yes * Yes * * Belgium Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Canada Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Denmark Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Finland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No France Yes Yes Yes * Yes * * Germany Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Greece Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Hungary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Iceland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Italy Yes Yes Yes * Yes * * Latvia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Netherlands Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Norway Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sweden Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes United States Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Varies
Over the past four years Democrats have resorted to the filibuster again and again to prevent votes on judicial nominees they oppose. Up until now, minorities have generally not used the filibuster to defeat nominees that have majority support.	REF1 (Richard Paez) REF2 (Marsha Berzon) Over the past five years Republicans and Democrats have resorted to the filibuster again and again to prevent votes on judicial nominees they oppose.

UPDATE: Michael Bérubé looks at how Brooks would have written his essay - using the same logic - about other legal issues forty or fifty years ago.

posted by Quiddity at 4/21/2005 01:23:00 AM

218 years ago:

Shays' Rebellion: (emp add)

Shays' Rebellion was an armed uprising in Western Massachusetts that lasted from 1786 to 1787. Many of the rebels, known as Regulators, were small farmers angered by high debt and tax burdens. The rebellion started on August 29, 1786.

The crisis leading to the rebellion was precipitated by credit problems incurred after the American Revolutionary War, when many of the trade benefits of British colonialism vanished and British companies began to demand payment of debts. This debt ultimately trickled down to consumers, in large part small farmers. In addition, the tax system at the time was highly regressive. As a result, many small farmers were forced to sell their land to meet their debts, often less than 1/3 real price.

[...]

The farmers also demanded that debtor courts, which enforced many of the credit schemes at the time, be staffed by elected rather than appointed officials. These efforts were resisted and stymied by wealthy and influential parties, led by men like James Bowdoin who had strong control of the government because of the property eligibility requirements for office at the time. When Bowdoin was elected governor, many of the people in Western Massachusetts became restless.

Calling themselves Regulators, men from all over the western and central parts of the state began to agitate for change. Initial disturbances were mostly peaceful and centered primarily on freeing incarcerated farmers from debtor's prisons.

posted by Quiddity at 4/21/2005 12:05:00 AM

Disgrace:

President Signs Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention, Consumer Protection Act



President George W. Bush (R) signs into law S.256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, Wednesday, April 20, 2005, at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. Culminating an eight-year effort to reform the laws, S.256 makes it harder for people to wipe out their debts after liquidating assets. Watching on, from left are: Senator Tom Carper, D-Del.; Congressman Steve Chabot, R-Ohio; House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.; Congressman James “Jim” Sensenbrenner, Jr., R-Wis., Chairman of the Judiciary Committee; Senator Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Finance Committee; Senator Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Majority Whip Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Congressman Rick Boucher, D-Va. White House photo by Paul Morse

There is no consumer protection. The sponsors of the bill rejected amendments that would inform borrowers of costs, and cap interest rates at 30%.


posted by Quiddity at 4/20/2005 05:56:00 PM

Don't be so quick to judge:

Matthew Fox (also in Salon):

Now we have the Inquisitor General of the 21st century, who led the assault on theologians and women, yoga (“dangerous” because it gets you too much in touch with your body), homosexuals (who are “evil”), liberation theology, ecumenism and interfaith, made “spiritual head” of 1.1 billion people.

Indian news wire:

Pope admires Indian culture, yoga

Acharuparambil, who continued as a rector for eight years, remembers Ratzinger as a widely read man, highly inquisitive about yoga.

He believed yoga, through meditation and contemplation, was the perfect health approach, said Acharuparambil, who had served at the university for 24 years.

Which is it? While we are predisposed not to like the new pope, one should be careful when reading various stories about the man. Maybe he doesn't like yoga. Maybe he does. There will be a lot of stuff tossed around in the media in the coming weeks. Don't swallow everything you read.

posted by Quiddity at 4/20/2005 03:25:00 AM

Get ready for it:

Via a general news story on the new pope, Cardinal Ratzinger - Pope Benedict XVI on Life, Faith, Family and Freedom, we found this: (emp add)

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles
by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

posted by Quiddity at 4/20/2005 01:49:00 AM

Pope watch:

Benedict XVI is presumed to be conservative and against the trends of the modern world. From Wikipedia's entry on popes:

Traditionally, the pope-elect takes the Papal oath (the so called "Oath against modernism") at his coronation, but John Paul I and later John Paul II have refused to do so.

Will Benedict take the "Oath against modernism"?

posted by Quiddity at 4/20/2005 01:29:00 AM

No sale:

Putting all considerations of the new pope's theology and politics aside, the guy just doesn't look like a pope. Too much hair. Not lean or (if fat) smooth-skinned.   Ugh!




posted by Quiddity at 4/19/2005 11:27:00 AM

Look Ma! I'm writing!

Even though the Time magazine cover story on Ann Coulter is behind a subscription wall at time.com (the last time we checked), the full story by John Cloud can be had at CNN (here). What struck us was the peculiar way the piece was written. It's got an irritating, cutie-pie, I've-got-a-thesaurus-at-home style. Consider these lines: (emp add)

• She composed herself and offered a very Ann Coulter answer.
• ... covered her mouth with a delicately thin hand ...
• ... what I saw of Coulter in that moment was a personality far more labile and human than the umbrageous harridan I had expected ...
• I began to wonder, in a moistly liberal formulation, whether Ann Coulter might be ... misunderstood?
• She's an omnivorous reader (everything from her friend Matt Drudge's website to the works of French philosopher Jacques Ellul) ...
• No one, right or left, delivers the required apothegmatic commentary on the world with as much glee or effectiveness as Coulter.
• It is almost impossible to watch her and not be sluiced into rage or elation ...
• But Coulter's influence on the culture is both more diaphanous and more significant than the calculations of book sales or Web postings suggest.
• Coulter is more like Clare Boothe Luce, the wife of this magazine's co-founder, who rankled the Roosevelt establishment in the '40s with her take-no-prisoners opposition to the New Deal and communism.
• ... Luce called Vice President Henry Wallace's liberal approach to postwar foreign policy "globaloney," a proto-Coulterism that shocked many in Washington.
• The combination of hard-charging righteousness and willowy, sex-kitten pulchritude is vertiginous and - for her many young male fans - intoxicating.
• One consequence of Coulter's feline aggression is ...

Labile, umbrageous, moistly liberal, Jacques Ellul, apothegmatic, sluiced, diaphanous, Clare Boothe Luce, proto-Coulterism, pulchritude, vertiginous, feline aggression.

To be blunt, is this the vocabulary of red states? (or even blue states, for that matter) People actually shell out money for this writing style?

And what's with "Coulter's influence on the culture is both more diaphanous and more significant"? Those words are practically antonyms.

What a mess.

posted by Quiddity at 4/19/2005 01:32:00 AM

Time printed the picture:

According to the comments section at Communists for Kerry, Time magazine printed the picture of protesters of Coulter, though they cropped the image (excluding the CfK logo).

So that's something they can't fix, unlike the web-based photo gallery.

posted by Quiddity at 4/18/2005 10:45:00 PM

Insane:

No doubt, you've heard about the fact that in Time magazine's photo-essay accompanying the cover story (!) of Ann Coulter, there is a picture with the caption:

Demon and Idol: Protesters blast Coulter at the G.O.P. Convention in New York City last year.

The problem is that the people identified as "protesters" are, in fact, from the parody group Communists for Kerry. They go over-the-top in order to make fun of the left. But Time magazine didn't get it. They were duped.

But by now (3PM EDT), they know they've been fooled. What do they do? They keep the image there, but update the caption. Here's the situation at the moment:

Now the caption reads:

Pro-G.O.P protesters at the Republican Convention in New York City last year

Correction: The original caption incorrectly stated that these protesters were blasting Coulter

Pro-GOP protesters at the GOP convention?

Pro-GOP protesters, protesting those who are pro-GOP (Coulter).

Can it get any more ridiculous?

Well, what do you expect from a magazine that called the error-prone Powerline blog, the blog-of-the-year.

posted by Quiddity at 4/18/2005 12:01:00 PM

After 51 votes, then what?

People are saying that Bill Frist "has the votes" to invoke the nuclear option. By that, they mean 51 votes (or a maximum of 55). This is supposed to be enough to change the Senate rules and disallow the filibuster for, at least, votes on judicial nominees. But is it?

Last week, Stephen Moore, formerly of the Club for Growth, and now of the Free Enterprise Fund co-wrote a Washington Post Op-Ed defending the filibuster. In it, we read:

It is clear to us that it takes a two-thirds majority (67 votes) to change the Senate's standing rules.

Later that same day (15 April) on PBS' News Hour, Mark Shields had this to say:

... the Congressional Reference Service, the Library of Congress came out this week and said they actually need two-thirds of the Senate to change the rules.

So some people think two-thirds is required. If Frist calls for a vote and gets between 51 and 55 votes, then what?

Who makes the call? It could get crazy.

Well, to tell the truth, it's already crazy.

posted by Quiddity at 4/18/2005 11:09:00 AM

Bill Frist's top ten list:



posted by Quiddity at 4/15/2005 11:06:00 PM

Boom!

Santa Monica's NPR station, KCRW, has a regular Friday program Left, Right, and Center. Tony Blankley, editor of the Washington Times, is the spokesman for the right. On today's program, speaking about the Nuclear Option, he said that:

• Frist will invoke it.
• Frist has the votes.
• It's going to be a bloody partisan fight for the next two to six months.

You can listen to the clip of Blankley here (490K .wav - two separate statements in the single clip).

If Blankley is right, it explains Frist's throwing caution to the wind with his appearance at the upcoming Sunday con-fab on filibusters & faith.

posted by Quiddity at 4/15/2005 02:56:00 PM

One upset conservative:

John Cole (not Juan Cole) of the conservative blog Balloon Juice was disgusted with the way Republicans handled the Schiavo affair. Now he's appalled at Sen. Frist teaming up with Christians to denounce filibustering Democrats as hostile to people of faith.

Here's the problem. John Cole follows the news and knows what's going on. His reactions to recent events are typical for a "reasonable conservative". But how many other reasonable conservatives are out there who aren't aware of what the Republicans are up to?

Sure, liberals have their position staked out on all these issues. But if the radical-right is to be stopped, it will require those in the center and center-right to sit up and take notice. Will they?

posted by Quiddity at 4/15/2005 11:20:00 AM

Bummed out:

• "Pro-democracy" Bush administration silent on the antics in Mexico.
• House passes bill to repeal estate tax. Bush approves, saying it's a matter of "fairness."
• House set to pass bankruptcy bill. New Democrat Coalition supports it.
• According to USNews, after Bush's 60-day Social Security barnstorming, there may be an immediate follow-on 120-day campaign.
• NASA budget still pared down, threatening Voyager and Hubble. Nobody cares (except Tom Toles).
• Continued harsh rhetoric against Republican appointed judges from Dobson, et al.
• Ann Coulter in Time magazine's top 100 list.
• Powerline blog still taken seriously by the media.
• Cardinal Law one of the selected few holding a Mass in Rome following the pope's death. Boston diocese abuse victims ignored.
• Brooks, Limbaugh, and others line up to support John Bolton, a guy who was denounced by a conservative, Republican, Bush & Cheney admiring, State Department official.
• Bush and Republicans retreat on cutting farm subsidies.
• HUD budget slashed.
• Republican's changing long-standing Senate rules that encourage compromise (blue-slip, filibuster).
• Republicans supporting bills in Congress that will override tougher state laws on the environment and privacy.
• Big coverage over the fact that Bush will toss the baseball in the Washington Nationals opening game (bring smelling salts to revive David Broder and Chris Matthews after they swoon).

Our response?

F.Y.M.   (From the movie Fear of a Black Hat - warning: foul language)




posted by Quiddity at 4/14/2005 10:41:00 AM

Bible backlash?

Michael Medved had the producer* of the NBC mini-series, Revelations, on for an extended interview. What was surprising was the number of unhappy callers who took issue with the story. A Catholic called to complain that a lead character, a nun, was portrayed as believing in the Rapture, something that's not part of Catholic doctrine. That was followed by a Southern Baptist who, taking Revelation literally, didn't like other elements of the plot. It could turn out that the effort by NBC to tap into a religious audience may backfire.

*- or some executive associated with the event.

posted by Quiddity at 4/13/2005 03:37:00 PM

That guy:

Carl W. Ford Jr., assistant secretary for intelligence and research who testified yesterday in opposition to the Bolton nomination, opened his remarks by saying that he was a "Republican", "conservative to the core", "an admirer of Bush", and of Cheney.

It will be interesting to see how he will be portrayed by the right-wing crowd.

UPDATE: A quick look at the ususal suspects (Instapundit, Hugh Hewitt, Powerline) turns up nothing about the hearing. No mention of Ford or Bolton.

posted by Quiddity at 4/13/2005 07:43:00 AM

Missing person:

Ted Rall had a good cartoon last week. We won't spoil it, note that Ted forgot someone: George F. Kennan.

posted by Quiddity at 4/12/2005 10:22:00 PM

Fascinating:

From the BBC - A German army officer who saved hundreds of Jews from the Nazi Holocaust in Lithuania has been honoured at a ceremony in Israel.

posted by Quiddity at 4/11/2005 09:55:00 PM

Official government website for gasoline and diesel:

The Department of Energy has a webpage that shows prices of fuel throughout the nation and also the change over the last week and year. Check out those increases in 12 months! About 50 cents on average.

Found it via comments in Angry Bear's excellent overview on oil prices and the economy.

BOTTOM LINE: If we read Angry Bear right (actually the post was by CalculatedRisk), oil at $50 a barrel will cause a strong recession. Oil at $40 will cause a mild recession. (Prices must stay at that level for one year.)

Expect real trouble to start this summer.

posted by Quiddity at 4/11/2005 07:26:00 PM

Unhealthy:

In the Los Angeles Times, there was a story about wages not keeping up with inflation. But then there was this line:

Despite the failure of their wages to keep pace with inflation, American consumers have kept shopping. Consumer spending has continued to rise. Analysts say that's partly because some shoppers are thinking less about their paychecks and more about their biggest asset: their homes.

Home prices rose 21.1% in Southern California and 9% nationwide from February 2004 to February 2005, sheltering consumers, and the economy, from much of the pinch of higher prices.

First of all, not everybody has a home, and those people are really losing. Second, when inflation is being "cured" with rapidly rising home prices, you've got a problem. Nothing is being produced. Nothing is being exported. Nothing of value is generated.

But the rise in home prices will work for a while, but only up to a certain point. When that's reached, there will be no way to keep the economy chugging along at a decent rate. Then comes the stall. Then comes the decline.

posted by Quiddity at 4/11/2005 06:37:00 PM

When will high gasoline prices make a serious impact on Bush's approval rating?

Have you seen the price of gas? Of course you have. It's affecting everybody at the pump and beginning to cause prices of goods to rise. Yet Bush isn't being held to account. In the 1970's Carter was pilloried when gas prices shot up. Back then there was rationing and long gas lines. Is the public less riled when the price is sky high, but still available? And without waiting? That seems to be the difference.

Still, it's a puzzle why there hasn't been more political fallout.

RELATED: gaspricewatch.com for a nationwide perspective, losangelesgasprices.com for Los Angeles.


NOTICE: We are having trouble with Blogger again. Even the 'restore post' feature doesn't seem to be working. (It was supposed to put a pending post into a cookie should the connection fail.) Thus, the irregular posting schedule.

posted by Quiddity at 4/10/2005 10:43:00 PM

We explain it all in this post:

Why is it so crazy out there?

The latest development is that at an anti-judge conference (!) one of the attendees, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira, said his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem.'"

Also, at that conference:

"I am in favor of impeachment," Michael Schwartz, chief of staff to Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, said in a panel discussion on abortion, suggesting "mass impeachment" might be needed.

That's outrageous, you say. And it is. But what's making this conservative clock tick? We followed up and looked at characters involved with the conference (and elsewhere) and found that in addition to attacking the judiciary, these people want to:

• End Social Security
• Return to the gold standard
• Eliminate public schools

To name a few goals.

What they all have in common is extreme distrust of the government. They don't trust the government to maintain a fiat currency. They don't trust the government to continue to run a 75-year old social insurance program. They don't trust the government to educate their children. They don't' trust the government to apply the law.

Why?

The government is, broadly speaking, representative of the society around us. If you don't trust or feel comfortable with the people in your neighborhood (or city or state or nation), you certainly won't feel comfortable with the government.

Before we go any further, we acknowledge that the current crop of wild right-wing characters are in a distinct minority. They do not represent all conservatives. But they do indicate feelings that lurk beneath the surface for many people.

That said, it is our firm belief that the reason for the current anti-government, pro-family and pro-religion trends is a fear that the nation is transforming itself into something unfamiliar. Something alien.

Consider the following facts: (emp add)

In recent years, Hispanics and minority racial groups (defined here as racial and ethnic groups that make up less than 50 percent of the population and include non-Hispanic blacks, Asians and American Indians) have each grown faster than the population as a whole. In 1970 these groups together represented only 16 percent of the population. By 1998 this share had increased to 27 percent. Assuming current trends continue, the Bureau of the Census projects that these groups will account for almost half of the U.S. population by 2050. Although such projections are necessarily imprecise, they do indicate that the racial and ethnic diversity of the United States will expand substantially in the next century.

That's real change. 33% over 80 years. Also, the sense of the nation being "under assault" by swarthy foreigners was given a huge boost with the Al-Qaeda attacks in 2001. A huge boost. And even though Indians are over in Asia, they're only a Dell-support-center phone call away. Yikes! They're comin' at us!

What we get is a panic reaction. A retreat to safe havens like the home and the church. And rage at public institutions. And while we're at it, just to be safe, why not put all Arabs into internment camps? (Malkin) Or perhaps, fantasize about leaving them all behind to taste the torments of hellfire? (LaHaye) Speaking of the latter, if that isn't exclusionary, what is?

This explains the reason why many people are drawn to Bush's persona. The protective father and all that. Only the father is not so much protecting us from foreign threats, but from a vague, inchoate threat coming from the inside.

We could even engage in some speculation on the subject. The move of southern racists from the Democratic party to the Republican party signaled to those concerned about a transforming United States, that Republicans are the best bet for preserving, somehow, the white culture.

POLITICAL DETOUR: Forget the framing. Forget being Beinart-tough on foreign policy. Forget just about everything. As much as we deplore racism, it seems to be a constant in human affairs. In the last century racism was a substantial political force. Why should it disappear in the 21st century? Anyone offering strategic advice to Democrats must address the demographic and cultural "threats" perceived by many white Americans.

RELATED: Until people feel more like they're all part of the same group, it will be hard to generate support for any redistributionist policies. Or "social" anything. Perhaps that explains the bizarre reintroduction of the conservitive epithet "socialist" which is often applied to completely-in-the-mainstream Democrats and Republicans.

On the bright side, intermarriage and the passing of generations can do much to reduce the fears. And we have accepted, and continue to do so, increasing diversity. One hundred fifty years ago being German-American put you outside the mainstream. One hundred years ago Irish and Italians were outside the mainstream. We don't do it anymore, but in the past, people were very sensitive to the small differences between Caucasians. One could look at the bone structure and make a good guess as to what part of Europe somebody was from. Back then, it was a learned behavior, and not all that hard to do. (Study faces for an art class and you will quickly see the metrics that determine a person's visage, and therefore, the ethnicity.) But today, "all whites look alike," to abuse the cliche.

So whatever process ground down the inter-Caucasian tensions should, over time, do the same for tensions arising from increasing numbers of Mexicans, Chinese, Africans, and others. It will take time, however.

Short term politics? Hard to say. Democrats are behind the 8-ball on this. They are perceived as being more "ethnic friendly" which doesn't get the votes in Wyoming. It will take major economic distress in order for the Democrats to return to power. Until this country has adjusted to its new demographics, which might take until 2030, we are likely to see the continued thrashing by distressed whites. And because of that, a continuation of right-wing extremist talk, and action.


POSTSCRIPT: Are we too focused on race and ethnicity? We try not to be, but our thought process was this: Read about the mistrust of fiat currency. Then mistrust over Social Security. The way the arguements were made, it seemed more like mistrust with one's fellow citizen, and less with a specific policy. And in trying to think what would lead people to such a position, we couldn't think of anything besides a demographic change, which, as it turns out, is taking place and is substantial.

UPDATE: changes made to improve clarity and spelling

posted by Quiddity at 4/09/2005 05:20:00 PM

Post Schiavo "Talking Points" memo:

You all know the real story about the Sciavo Talking Points Memo - that it was genuine and came from Republican senator Martinez' office. The Powerline guys are fools. Malkin is a dunce. Etc.

What is kind of interesting it the absolute failure of those who touted the "fake memo" theory to act like responsible citizens. They either take credit for "exposing" the truth (Hewitt, Pruden) or minimize the whole affair now that it's no longer working to their advantage (Kaus).

Hugh Hewitt:

Some ... bloggers have tried to paint the "Schiavo memo" story as a blow to Powerline's credibility, not realizing that in attempting to do so they discredit only themselves as serious pundits/reporters.

The truth about the memo came out because these bloggers pushed MSM to back up the sloppy first accounts.

Wes Pruden of the Washington Times: (emp add)

Unable to deal with the smoke supplied by this newspaper's account, Mr. Martinez owned up with a cough and a splutter. He was the man who gave a copy of a memo prepared by Brian Darling ...

Mickey Kaus: (orig emp)

The whole "memo" fuss, as played up by WaPo and ABC's Linda Douglass, was wildly overdone even if the memo was a GOP leadership document--as if senators never consider what is a good political issue, as if that's a no-no in a democracy.

And of course, there are many more non-apologies like these.

Want to know what a frenzy looks like? The blog, You're in the Right Place, was getting excited with each "development" that occurred. These "developments" were not hard facts, but typically another pile-on by a right-winger. The posting sequence for the blog is 1 2 3 4 5 6. It's a lot of reading, so to give you an idea of the tone, here are selected items from the posts (BOLD = post title)

• As unbelievable as it may sound, it looks like it is happening AGAIN! A reader at Power Line has pointed out something that makes it plain as day that the "talking points memo" being referred to all over the MSM, especially at WaPo & ABC News, about the GOP using the Schiavo case to score political points is a FAKE!!!
• The Schiavo Memo Scandal Continues...
• John Hinderaker of Power Line, who, unsurprisingly, has been the lead hound on the trail of this story from the start, wrote this must-read article for the Daily Standard, which is the best summation of the incident that I have read to date.
• Uh-oh, it's getting awfully quiet out there! Are we just going to let the media and the Dems get away with this? Luckily, some of the leading figures in the hunt for the truth are still grinding away for answers.
• The Schiavo Memo Scandal: The Dam Bursts!The Schiavo Memo Scandal: The Washington Post Gets Snared in a (World-Wide) Web of Lies!
• Michelle Malkin and John Hinderaker are on top of it again, as they and some other blogging sharpshooters catch the Washington Post red-handed in an apparent lie!
• The Schiavo Memo Scandal: WaPo Admits Errors, Refuses to Print Correction!
• [After the revelation that the memo was from a Republican senator's office]
  ... while some apologies are due, the revelations that have come to light STILL DO NOT EXONERATE THE WASHINGTON POST OR ABC NEWS ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES RELATED TO THIS MATTER!

The right-wing bloggers claim that the Republican leadership has clean hands. But the leadership was totally involved with the Schiavo legislation. Martinez represents Florida, where the drama was playing out. The "Schiavo bill" was introduced by Martinez. And then there's this:

For a freshman senator, Martinez's first three months in office have been heady.   ...   He has kept company with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Sen. Rick Santorum, the third-ranking Republican. He introduced and passed his first bill - the Schiavo bill. He was selected over others to go to Rome for the pope's funeral.

Asserting that Martinez, Frist, and Santorum weren't in frequent and close contact over the tactics and political ramifications of the Schiavo legislation is a denial of reality.

posted by Quiddity at 4/09/2005 01:57:00 PM

Explain this!

Earlier this week, there was the news about the very likely shutdown of the NASA program that monitors the Voyager spacecraft.

The probable October shutdown of a program that currently costs $4.2 million a year has caused dismay among scientists who have shepherded the twin Voyager probes on flybys of four planets and an epic journey to the frontier of interstellar space.

Got that? Saving $4.2 million a year. And at the price of losing out on learning something about our solar system.

Today Voyager 1, about 9 billion miles from Earth and traveling at 46,000 miles per hour, and Voyager 2, about 7 billion miles away doing 63,000 miles per hour, are flirting with the edge of the solar system, where the sun's magnetic field and the solar wind give way to interstellar wind. Virtually nothing is known about this boundary. Data from the spacecraft show periodic increases in radiation levels -- expected when the solar wind is no longer able to block incoming cosmic rays -- followed by smaller declines.

''By 2006, the spacecraft may have crossed into the outermost layer of solar atmosphere, where the supersonic wind has slowed and heated to a million degrees as it interacts with the interstellar wind," said Edward C. Stone, Voyager's chief scientist from the outset. ''If Voyager is terminated, we will lose the opportunity to observe [this] interaction."

... Voyager has been what Stone, a physicist at California Institute of Technology, described in an e-mail as ''the defining event that has shaped my career for the last 30 years." The Voyagers have amassed accomplishments unsurpassed by any spacecraft. The two probes have discovered 22 moons at four planets. Voyager 1 has traveled farther than any other spacecraft and took the first portrait of the solar system from the outside looking in.

There's more.

The administration is rearranging NASA's finances to finance Bush's ''Vision for Space Exploration" to the moon and eventually Mars. Cuts in aeronautics funding prompted by the initiative have provoked an uproar at some NASA centers.

That's a ruse. Nobody is going to Mars.

And it's not just the Voyager spacecraft.

NASA officials said the possibility of cutting Voyager and several other long-running missions in the Earth-Sun Exploration Division arose in February, when the Bush administration proposed slashing the division's 2006 budget from $75 million to $53 million.

The other programs on the block are Ulysses, launched in 1990 to study the sun; Geotail (1992), Wind (1994) and Polar (1996), to trace the interaction between solar events and their effects on Earth; FAST (1996), to study Earth's aurora; and TRACE (1998), to investigate the solar atmosphere and magnetic fields.

Who cares about the sun? Who cares about magnetic fields? Who cares about the interaction between the sun and the earth?   The sun has absolutely nothing to with the earth! We don't need no stinkin' sun!

But seriously, how can this be justified? The probes listed (above) have already been launched. Bush is proposing saving $4.2 million on Voyager and $22 million overall. We won't get valuable data and instead, will reduce the deficit by a pittance. This is insane.

No wait, it's not insane. It's scary.

Again, going back to the proposal to quit monitoring Voyager. $4.2 million is nothing in the grand scheme of things. Especially when you consider the pork-barrel projects in the works. From CNN's Inside Politics (6 Apr 2005)

BRUCE MORTON, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: This year's earmarks will cost taxpayers $27.3 billion, 19 percent more than last year's total. And, of course, the federal deficit is setting records.

The champion pork dispenser, Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, the outgoing chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. $26 million for Alaskan villages, $1.7 for barrier research, $1.1 million for alternative salmon projects. Well, you get the idea.

TOM SCHATZ, CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE: This time Senator Stevens, the outgoing and now former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, really went whole hog. He added $646 million for his state ...

When the proposed budget calls for cutting $4 million or $22 million which eliminates spacecraft monitoring programs, it's on the level of being handed some information, not looking at it, and throwing it in a trash can.

This is contempt for science and contempt for the future. Have Bush and Co. embraced the notion that the apocalypse is nigh? Is this guiding the policy choices? We've always thought such charges against Bush were over the top. But if anything, this move to ignore science makes the case.

And don't forget that the invaluable Hubble telescope is scheduled to plunge into the ocean when it fails (because no rescue missions are planned).

The only other explanation we can think of is that the Bush cabal believes the U.S. is headed for decline, that this will be China's century, the brains will be in India and Europe, and so it's grab-the-money time as this nation moves back to an extractive economy.

[FULL DISCLOSURE: Edward Stone was our instructor when we took physics at college.]

posted by Quiddity at 4/08/2005 06:34:00 PM

Bad clip-art Friday:

There isn't much in the news to comment on today and yesterday's post about the Powerline screw-up with the Shiavo "Talking Points" memo got lost in blogger-land. But since we are approaching the milestone of one million unique page views, we've got to do something.

We don't have any cat pictures to share - or any other animals for that matter. What we do have is a fairly extensive library of clip-art. Used for the occasional diagram or graphic cartoon. When looking for the right clip-art image, one encounters some really weird and horrible items. Why not share them with uggabugga visitors? Here is the first of what may become a regular series. File entry is "briefcase". Get it? They say puns are the lowest form of humor. We strive to crawl under that bar with a graphic representation of a pun.



You're welcome.

posted by Quiddity at 4/08/2005 10:09:00 AM

Pretty much unbelievable:

In the news: Florida eyes allowing residents to open fire whenever they see threat. Excerpt: emp add)

Florida's legislature has approved a bill that would give residents the right to open fire against anyone they perceive as a threat in public, instead of having to try to avoid a conflict as under prevailing law.

Outraged opponents say the law will encourage Floridians to open fire first and ask questions later, fostering a sort of statewide Wild West shootout mentality. Supporters argue that criminals will think twice if they believe they are likely to be promptly shot when they assault someone.

Republican Governor Jeb Bush, who has said he plans to sign the bill, says it is "a good, commonsense, anti-crime issue."

Current state law allows residents to "shoot to kill if their property, such as their home or car, is invaded by an unknown assailant."

The bill, supported by the influential National Rifle Association, was approved by both houses of the Republican-run legislature on Tuesday.

It's looking more and more that the only way to reverse the current pro-violence, extra-judicial trend is to have a big messy event that discredits these folks.

posted by Quiddity at 4/06/2005 05:44:00 PM

Evaluating John Paul II:

NewDonkey.com has a thoughtful review of what the last pope was all about. In The Post-European Pope, we read:

In the end, what Karol Wojtyla will be most remembered for is not his role in the end of the Cold War, or the formidable windbreak he built against the storms of doctrinal change initiated by the Second Vatican Council. His most important legacy, I surmise, may be as the key transitional figure in the transformation of Roman Catholicism specifically, and Christianity generally, from a "Western" tradition rooted in Europe to a truly global faith centered in the South rather than the North.

... nearly everything about the powerful and perhaps irreversible trajectory he set for the Church points South, to the Third World, and away from Europe and the United States. Many obituarists of this Pope have struggled to categorize him ideologically as "conservative" on faith and morals yet "liberal" or even "radical" on issues of globalization, poverty and war, even as they acknowledge the unity of his own thinking.

But these are Eurocentric ways of looking at his teachings, which may confuse and distress American Catholics and what's left of the faith in Europe, but make perfect sense to most Catholics in Africa, Latin America and Asia.

A deeply illiberal approach to issues involving sexuality and gender; a rejection of capitalism as a necessary counterpart to democracy; and an abiding hostility to U.S.-European political, military, economic and cultural hegemony: this is a consistent point of view with strong support in the global South, among Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

That seems right.

posted by Quiddity at 4/06/2005 12:49:00 PM

What percentage of kids are bullies?

Take a guess.

Today's Boston Globe, has a short item, Preschoolers more likely to become bullies if they watch lots of TV. In it, there is a line about how many kids are considered bullies (these days).

To find out, select with your cursor the text from HERE Overall, about 13 percent of the children turned out to be bullies. TO HERE.

That strikes us as high. We would have guessed 1/2 to 1/3rd the reported figure.

posted by Quiddity at 4/06/2005 08:30:00 AM

Drilling in the A.N.W.R. is nothing compared to this:

NYTimes story: Greenspan Expects High Price to Lead to More Fuel Supplies. Excerpts: (emp add)

... Mr. Greenspan was optimistic about the long-run outlook for energy supplies, and he warned against efforts to "distort" or "stifle" prices set in global markets.

Though Mr. Greenspan conceded that higher oil prices had caused only a "modest" reduction in demand so far, he predicted that higher prices over the long run would lead to higher investment in extraction technologies, exploration and unconventional sources of energy like methane gas frozen in Arctic ice.

Are we now going to destroy the polar ice cap? Is this where "Randian free market" doctrine leads? The "market" is everything. But the "market" has serious weaknesses. Its horizon is almost always short term (<5 years) and long-term collective goals are often undermined by "opportunistic" economic entities (currently the burn-fossil-fuels corporations).

posted by Quiddity at 4/06/2005 07:33:00 AM

Trent Lott is a liar:

In the Washington Post article about Republican post-Schiavo blues, we read: (emp add)

Even some Republicans who strongly oppose the Democrats' filibusters are worried that the Schiavo case suggests a GOP drift away from nuts-and-bolts legislation and toward the more polarizing agenda of religious conservatives. "I didn't come here to make a statement," said Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), the former majority leader. "I came here to get results."

But, as Digby pointed out recently:

Via Sandrover over at Kos I read that four senators have sponsored an act that "makes it possible for the Congress to charge any judge with a crime who disagrees with the concept that all law, liberty, and government comes only from God."

"The Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution.Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.

Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution.

Co-sponsors:
Sen Brownback, Sam - 3/3/2005
Sen Burr, Richard - 3/3/2005
Sen Craig, Larry E. - 3/8/2005
Sen Lott, Trent - 3/8/2005

posted by Quiddity at 4/05/2005 01:35:00 PM

The choice:

Which would you prefer the Democrats spend their political energy on, fighting the bankruptcy bill even though it almost certainly will pass, or fighting the John Bolton nomination even though blocking him will have no impact on Bush's foreign policy?

Good politics dictates that the bankruptcy bill be the choice.

posted by Quiddity at 4/05/2005 01:29:00 PM

Senator John Cornyn wonders if Republicans are causing courthouse violence:

People in the celeblere* have mostly missed the point when commenting on Cornyn's statement about attacks on judges. What he said was this: (emp add)

I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence.

To clarify: Cronyn wonders if the perception of unaccountable judges is causing courtroom violence.

The sequence is this:

• Some people speak of "unaccountable judges"
• This results in a "perception" that there are unaccountable judges.
• The perception "builds up to the point where some people engage in" courthouse violence

Therefore, in order to find out who is to blame for the violence we must look to those asserting that there are unaccountable judges, as well as those who act as a result of this perception.

Who is talking about unaccountable judges? Who is causing courthouse violence? These people:

• House Majority Leader Tom Delay - [There is an] out of control, unaccountable judiciary ...
• Senator Jeff Sessions (R - AL) - Judges too often with lifetime appointments unaccountable to the American people are doing things ...
• Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) - Unelected, unaccountable judges should not be able to ...
• Tony Perkins President, Family Research Council - We cannot allow a few unaccountable judges to redefine marriage ...
• Colin Stewart Executive Vice President, Family Research Council - ... we are ruled by unelected, unaccountable judges who impose their own political opinions on the law, disregarding the will of the people ...
• Fox News columnist Cal Thomas - ... all of us are potentially at risk of euthanasia if we do not measure-up to cultural and arbitrary whims imposed by unaccountable judges.
• National Review's Jonah Goldberg - ... liberals spend their time ... convincing unaccountable judges to do ...
• Armstrong Williams - ... unaccountable judges ought not be given the power to ...
• David Horowitz' Front Page Mag.com essayist Chris Weinkopf - ... judges are unelected and thus unaccountable.
• Rush Limbaugh - We are now being run by unelected and unaccountable judges.
• David Limbaugh - Do a majority of Americans believe that unelected, unaccountable judges should overrule the democratically elected legislative branch on issues, especially social ones?

* - celeblere (Center Left Blogosphere)

posted by Quiddity at 4/05/2005 11:32:00 AM

New Pope:

Just some thoughts. The electoral procedure has been modified such that a determined minority can prevent the election of a consensus - and therefore moderate - pope. If after a while, no candidate can get a 2/3rds majority, a simple majority will be the standard. It looks as if there is a determined conservative minority, and that they will resist electing a compromise candidate until the rule change. At that point, either a conservative or a liberal pope could be elected, but most likely a conservative. If it is a conservative pope, look for further alienation of the Vatican from Europe and North America.

What name will the next pope choose? We're betting on John Paul III.   If,however, he chooses Pius XIII, then expect major fireworks.

posted by Quiddity at 4/03/2005 09:50:00 PM

Question: Why not do it for adults?

In the news: Government Abstinence Web Site Draws Ire

WASHINGTON - An array of advocacy groups are calling on the federal government to take down one of its new Web sites, saying it presents biased and inaccurate advice to parents on how to talk to their children about sex. The site - 4parents.gov - stresses the promotion of abstinence.

We've got one question for the pro-abstinence folks:   Teen pregnancy aside, every other 'fact' cited can be applied towards arguing that non-married adults should not have sex. So why aren't you making that case as well?

UPDATE: Found this at the website: (emp add)

Oral Sex     More and more newspapers are reporting oral sex between children at school, during class, on school buses and at parties.   ...   Parents must make it clear to their children that oral sex is as dangerous in terms of disease as is intercourse.

More and more newspapers are reporting oral sex on school buses?

UPDATE 2: Check out the ethnic mix of the only picture on the main page of the website:

---

posted by Quiddity at 4/01/2005 01:22:00 AM