Waldo's Virginia Political Blogroll » Michael Bindner http://vapoliticalblogs.com A totally biased and unreasonable list of blogs that I think you might enjoy reading. Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:55:15 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 DADT Repeal, Not a Done Deal http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/09/dadt-repeal-not-done-deal.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/09/dadt-repeal-not-done-deal.html#comments Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:47:00 +0000 Michael Bindner
Will that injunction be effective immediately? I doubt it. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network already has a case in progress. They argued that DADT is unconstitutional on First and Fifth Amendment grounds in light of Lawrence v. Texas, which made consensual sodomy legal. That case, Cook v. Casey, was unsuccessful and the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court because it found that national command authorities deserve great deferrance in the area of military readiness. Of course, the plaintiffs in Cook did not challenge the readiness aspect of the law, so yesterday's decision certainly upsets the apple cart for the United States Government.

Will the Department of Justice appeal this decision? Considering that there is a conflicting Circuit Court decision, it pretty much has to. Indeed, the Government did not challenge the readiness agrument (factually, it really could not, since the Pentgon does what the plaintiffs allege) because it relied on the First Circuit's jurisdicational ruling. If the Ninth Circuit agrees with the Government, the case dies and the only hope for repeal is for one Republican member to vote to allow the Defense Authorization bill to come to a vote in the Senate and for all amendments to the managers language (which mirrors the House language repealing DADT) remains intact. If the bill passes and is signed, the President, Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs must certify that DADT repeal can go forward, with repeal effective 60 days later. Since nothing is certain, it would be better for yesterday's ruling to stay intact - if only as a safety valve.

If the Ninth Circuit affirms the District Court on Appeal, then two circuits will be in disagreement, which will fast track both cases for the Supreme Court. The Office of the Solicitor General is currently in opposition to having the Supreme Court hear Cook v. Gates, in an opinion signed by then Solicitor General Elena Kagan, however they will certainly change their minds if the Ninth Circuit disagrees with the First. Indeed, I suspect that all consideration of the Writ of Certiori, which is legalese for a decision to hear the case, will be held up while the Ninth Circuit hears the case. Cert takes four votes and because Kagan signed the motion to deny it in Cook, she will likely recuse herself - which is why the Ninth Circuit affirming the District is important if the Senate removes DADT repeal from the Defense bill. If DADT is not repealed and the Ninth Circuit affirms the First Circuit, then Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas or Kennedy must agree to hear the case. This is possible, but not likely.

If DADT is repealed in the bill and the President, et al, certify that it should be, the case would be moot. Indeed, before briefs could even be filed before the Ninth Circuit (and the timing is up to the Justice Department), the Defense bill will likely be passed with or without repeal language. If I were the Acting Solictor General, I would stretch that decision out as long as possible, while asking for a stay of the injunction until any appeal has taken place or until Congress acts. Indeed, I would expect all parties will move to dismiss all appeals in all courts, since DADT would then be gone.

The case is mostly valuable as leverage at this point, although it could also be used by weak Democrats to justify acting - so it is a double edged sword at this point. The focus now moves to the Senate, with the Ninth Circuit waiting in the wings.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/8997273904874262709/comments/default 0 The Iowa Center for Fiscal Equity: Note to White House Economists: It’s the Housing Market, Stupid! http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/09/iowa-center-for-fiscal-equity-note-to.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/09/iowa-center-for-fiscal-equity-note-to.html#comments Fri, 10 Sep 2010 02:15:00 +0000 Michael Bindner The Iowa Center for Fiscal Equity: Note to White House Economists: It's the Housing Market, Stupid!

Note that there is also a tie-in to the Virginia-08 race, since I explore the role the incumbent Congressman played in making the housing bubble possible.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/4217815143274467393/comments/default 0 The general election and Archbishop Chaput’s views on JFK’s speech http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/09/general-election-and-archbishop-chaputs.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/09/general-election-and-archbishop-chaputs.html#comments Mon, 06 Sep 2010 02:58:00 +0000 Michael Bindner http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/04/archbishop-chaputs-comments-on-jfks.html and on my Examiner blog at http://www.examiner.com/progressive-catholic-perspectives-in-washington-dc/denver-archbishop-chaput-s-comments-on-jfk-s-legacy

Archbishop Chaput saw Kennedy’s speech as a beginning of the decoupling by Catholic politicians of their political duties from their political beliefs. In his mind, Catholic politicians who do not adhere to doctrine are “selling out” for political correctness and power – that they are morally cowardly where matters of faith are concerned. Catholic politicians, from Mario Cuomo to Joseph Biden, claim that because not everyone is Catholic, they cannot impose their moral teachings on the body politic.

In my blog posts, I criticized Catholic politicians for a different type of moral cowardice, not because they are selling out their religious beliefs, but because they are hiding behind pluralism rather than explaining to the hierarchy why the Church’s political position on abortion is untenable as a matter of constitutional law and public policy. Indeed, the pluralism argument would fall apart if every citizen were a professed Catholic, while the constitutional and policy arguments would not.

The Church claims that its doctrines are based entirely on natural law, however determining what is true in natural law is the province of every thinking person – it is not dependent upon the authority of position. In practice, that is not the natural law theory held to by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Rome grants itself a privileged position in natural law reasoning based on the grant of binding and loosening to St. Peter, even though in other places this power was granted to all of the Apostles, if not to the Church as a whole. In this formulation, both Catholic politicians and Catholic voters must adhere strictly to the teachings and interpretations of the Church, even when they are wrong on their face. In other words, the hierarchy still wants us to pray, pay, obey and vote their way – even when their way is bad public policy or based on faulty reasoning or evidence.

Four examples stand out. The first is in the area of homosexuality. A non-privileged theory of natural law would conclude that if a person was born gay or lesbian and that sexuality is a gift from God, that gays and lesbians are both wonderfully made and entitled to unitive sexual expression in a marital relationship. The hierarchy will never accept this unless the faithful demand it of them, which I believe is inevitable and scripturally based.

While a commitment to heterosexual marriage was radical in the early church, because it raised women up to equality with men, the equality of women in marriage is no longer in danger except in the most conservative circles, which brings me to the second example, women priests. Indeed, the current teachings of the Church are ahistorical in this regard, as St. Junia, an Apostle, was also a woman, as was St. Priscilla, the benefactor of the Church of Roman before the arrival of St. Peter (if Peter arrived at all).

The third example is with birth control and stem cell research. While we can’t determine necessary when ensoulment occurs, we can determine when it can’t have occurred – and both traditionally and scientifically that has been before gastrulation – when twinning can take place and when cross species blastocysts can still grow. Indeed, stem cell research itself shows that adult and embryonic stem cells are ontologically equivalent – so no human organisms are harmed when stem cells are harvested before gastrulation or when a blastocyst is prevented from implantation before that point.

A final example is the case in Phoenix when an abortion was authorized by the ethics committee at a Catholic hospital in order to save the life of the mother and the local Bishop declared the administrator, a Sister of the order that owned the hospital, excommunicate for her participation on the committee. Unbiased versions of natural law would recognize that a child who could never be born has no right to life at the expense of his or her mother. The Church view is that it would have been better had both died than the mother, the doctors or the hospital administrator – or the Bishop had he known in advance, consented to killing the child – indeed such consent would have put the soul of those involved in danger, as their conception of God would never allow such disobedience. In other words (as I have said before at http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/07/lessons-from-abortion-in-phoenix.html ) this case is as much about the underlying theological beliefs of the bishop and his fellows as his ethics. It is no accident that evangelization is becoming harder, as the conception of God being preached is entirely unlovable rather than Love itself. Until a different conception of God is advanced, the Church is in danger of continued decline.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/7266640393805950082/comments/default 0 The Gay Marriage ruling http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/08/gay-marriage-ruling.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/08/gay-marriage-ruling.html#comments Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:05:00 +0000 Michael Bindner http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/more-gay-marriage-ruling

I responded to Mr. Winters that he should be glad that the common law and the consitution allows the "privacy out" on such questions, as well as the freedom of relgions to do what they want. You would not like the alternative - for a state that is empowered to rule on the wrongness of homosexuality would also be able to rule on its rightness and impose that ruling on the Churches.

By the way, the Church's teaching on this issue is not consistent with any natural law reasoning that does not seek refuge in scripture and theism. That's not my view, its the view of the author of Fagothy's Right and Reason, which is the ethics book used in Catholic minor seminary.

The teaching that homosexuality is disordered is a band-aid. Prior to that teaching, which is recent, the church was on the road to teaching that homosexuals were wonderfully made and that sexuality is a gift from God. Put the two together, and you have to concede gay marriage and the licitness of homosexual sexuality. JPII, assisted by the current Pope, attempted retrenchment - but it won't last.

Traditionally, Catholic teaching on marriage has followed the lead of the state and in some nations, marriage and its sacramental blessing are still separate acts. This presents a problem for the Church, which can be solved in understanding Torah teaching on what happens in marriage, which Christ echoed when addressing the question of divorce. When someone gets married, the leave their families and cling to their spouse and the two shall become one. That is as much about legality as sexuality and it is true regardless of the genders of the parties involved. What was disturbing was the parents of gay children excluding their life partners in times of medical crisis and the state not recognizing their rights in relation to the rights of the family. This had to be corrected and marriage corrects it. Celebrating weddings in the Catholic Church is a way for families to recognize that the familial dynamic has altered. To not celebrate gay weddings is to deny Catholic families with gay members the chance to come to grips with the transition, which comes when one person promises fidelity to another - which is the essence of sacramental marriage and does not depend upon either priest nor witness (as I was taught in both marriage prep and Catholic H.S.).

On the question of moral disapproval, it could have easily been written as moral scorn - meaning that moral scorn is no more an actionable right under the freedom of religion (demanding conformity by society, such as outlawing the marriage rights of others or their right to serve in the armed forces) than yelling fire in a theater is a legitimate application of the freedom of speech. This protects the Church in areas in the south where the prominent domination still holds to and teaches the belief that the Pope is the anti-Christ. You cannot have it both ways.

I suspect gay marriages in the Catholic Church in the not too distant future, since often the Sacrament follows the lead of civil law. As far as the Commonwealth of Virginia's marriage amendment, it is all but toast. It was unconstitutional on its face because it violated the private contract rights of gays and lesbians for now valid reason, since the Commonwealth has no interest in interfering with who has medical power of attorney, control over visitation and who inherits the property of gay people. Its only role in settling estates is as a neutral arbiter, it cannot outlaw an individual's desires for the distribution of his or her property just because that person is gay. I suspect that worries about the Richmond Circuit are why this has not been challenged before, although it could be that no one has come forward to challenge such arrangements when they do occur and are executed. Either family members have not objected or Courts have ignored the constitutional provision. Now that there is federal precident going the other way, any attempt to enforce the Virginia Amendment would be problematic, although I expect it to eventually occur.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/2585089130338533343/comments/default 0 The New Roman (Catholic) Missal http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-roman-catholic-missal.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-roman-catholic-missal.html#comments Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:59:00 +0000 Michael Bindner http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3200

This will lead many parishes who abandonned the use of Missalettes to bring them back, which is probably a good thing for those who wish to read the scriptures as they are proclaimed - however it will be costly. Those parishes who use hard copy missals will need to replace them, which will be very costly and may not happen in time, considering that service music is still being adapted.

Music ministers will probably take the lead in some of the cathechises, since many things which are sung will be changed, like the translation of the Sanctus. I suspect that in many parishes, the Pastor will be glad to let the Cantors take the lead in this instruction.

As I have written previously, this could go well or it could be the straw that breaks the camels back regarding the American and English speaking Church's relationship to Rome. Creation of a new Great Church, or rather a revitalization of the ancient Galatian Church (which was Gallic, i.e., made up of people with blond or red hair and blue or green eyes) is a real possibility - and plays right in with Benedict XVI's new dialogues with His All Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Archbishop of Constantinople and New Rome (which is a claim of petrine descent). If the Galatian Church decided to create its own Patriarch, it could also establish its own Rite and Missal. Because of the ancient origins of the Galatian Church, such an action would even be scriptural. Indeed, other Churches could, and likely will, follow suit, if the American bolt from Rome.

Personally, I like the Roman Rite and find it discordant that the lapsing translation was so different from the Latin. This new translation is not too different than my feeling about the Extraordinary Rite, which is that it should be celebrated in both Latin and in the Venacular. I suspect that the new translation is the halfway point between the lapsing translation and a Venacular Extraordinary Rite - and if we continue in union with Rome, this is likely a good place to end up, although abandonning such union certainly opens the door to a reconsideration of certain other issues which may be beneficial in the long run - i.e., married priests, female priests, openly gay priests and openly gay married female priests (whose marriages could be celebrated with the pagentry of the Extraordinary Rite, just to add a note of irony that will drive some Traditionalists absolutely crazy).
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/4049944648813091103/comments/default 0 Catholic Gay Marriage Poll http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/08/catholic-gay-marriage-poll.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/08/catholic-gay-marriage-poll.html#comments Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:52:00 +0000 Michael Bindner http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3204

the Public Religion Research Institute sheds light on the impact of religion and the 2008 vote to abolish same-sex marriage rights in California. The poll finds that today, a slim majority of Roman Catholics, 51%, support same-sex marriage

This is a telling finding. I suspect that support for gay marriage will continue to grow among the laity (and secretly among the clergy) and that one day soon enough families will demand that the Church witness these weddings that Rome will discover scriptural justification for doing so.

Both Torah and Jesus recognize that when a couple gets married, they leave their family and cling to each other, forming a new family. Families are the basic unit of society and marriage is an essential part of family life, both because it creates new families and allows the exit from one's family of birth. From a civil rights perspective, marriage cannot be denied to gay people because they cannot be kept in their families of origin against their will. Morally, the proof that the Sacrament of Matrimony, which is accomplished by the couple and only witnessed by the priest, is alive and well in the gay community, is how committed gay couples take care of each other in hard times (and gay people have harder times than most). As Jesus said, by their fruits ye shall know them.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/5966912057064963179/comments/default 0 Embryo decision http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/08/embryo-decision.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/08/embryo-decision.html#comments Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:27:00 +0000 Michael Bindner
While I disagree with using the law to protect grant seekers from more competition, per se, the problem is not with the ruling but with the underlying law - which confuses a pre-Gastrulation blastocyst with a developing embryo.

The part of the blastocyst that is destroyed to harvest stem cells becomes the afterbirth. Indeed, stem cell research shows that after harvesting, such cells are no different ontologically than adult cells - except for the fact that cells that have not gone through gastrulation may not be viable in the first place. The value of this research is not the cells themselves, but the process by which eventual therapeutic cloning can take place in order to go from extracted DNA to a whole organ or nerve fiber. Of course, use of organ cartilage and adult stem cells seems to do this adequately anyway, so therapeutic cloning does not appear to be necessary. As to the ethics of this, it’s not a child until it is an organism, with differentiation, bodily integrity (meaning if you remove a cell, you lose an adult structure), influence from the genes of both parents, and no possibility that the genes from a non-human parent are effecting development. That point is gastrulation, not fertilization.

I suspect that the underlying law will be changed shortly.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/5200348963844548040/comments/default 0 SECDEF speculation: General Wes Clark http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/08/secdef-speculation-general-wes-clark.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/08/secdef-speculation-general-wes-clark.html#comments Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:51:00 +0000 Michael Bindner
I remember back at the Denver Convention that a group of retired generals took the stage. Among these, and probably organizing them, was former presidential candidate and NATO Supreme Commander Wesley Clark. Until he spoke the truth about Senator McCain's lack of command experience while in military service, General Clark was considered Vice Presidential material. We didn't see much of him after that.

General Clark was considered a candidate for Secretary of State, however President Obama instead called on Hillary Clinton for that post and she has performed well. He was also a possible presidential candidate last time and it would be expedient if the war in Afghanistan goes badly to keep him out of the race next time. The surest way to do that, and to make sure that the war does not turn out badly, would be to appoint General Clark as the Secretary of Defense. This could not happen earlier, as retired generals are not allowed to serve as SECDEF for a number of years after their military service. That number of years has about concluded. The timing suggests that Secretary Gates was keeping the seat warm for General Clark. His experience in negotiating the Dayton accords, which stopped the Serb genocide of Bosnian Muslims, gives him the credibility to oversee a negotiated settlement of the Afghan occupation. If he can pull it out, the issue is neutralized from both left and right for 2012. Given his general health and fitness (Wes is an avid runner), a 2016 Clark run of a different kind is not out of the question.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/4638409262507211230/comments/default 0 The Iowa Center for Fiscal Equity: An open letter to the President http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/08/iowa-center-for-fiscal-equity-open.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/08/iowa-center-for-fiscal-equity-open.html#comments Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:06:00 +0000 Michael Bindner The Iowa Center for Fiscal Equity: An open letter to the President
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/8375281289215685237/comments/default 0 Cuccinelli and despotism http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/08/cuccinelli-and-despotism.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/08/cuccinelli-and-despotism.html#comments Tue, 03 Aug 2010 14:30:00 +0000 Michael Bindner here. This ruling is at the request of a Prince William County member of the House of Delegates, Bob Marshall, likely in defense of the county’s immigration law, which are along the same lines as the recently defanged Arizona statute. Passing an Arizona style law is impossible in Virginia, since the Democratic Senate would never allow it. Instead, Cuccinelli is resorting to tyranny by decree.

This story has gotten me thinking about how much of both law and libertarianism has been used of late to enshrine despotism. Indeed, the tension within the Tea Party movement seems to be between those factions which are authentically upset at both sides and those who are defending the economic advantage of big business. Immigration is a key example. Turning up the heat on the topic makes compromise elusive, keeping the status quo in place. The status quo consists of illegal migrant workers laboring on farms and in factories - primarily in the food industry - with few rights and the constant threat of deportation. It is the ultimate in despotism for these workers. Legalization, whether it be by a path to citizenship, by straight out amnesty or by the repeal of immigration and right to work laws altogether would end the ability to treat these people as slaves, thus keeping food cheap in this country. No progress on the issue stops any change, and keeps meat cheap.

The food industry does not want to give these jobs to Americans. Americans would demand safe working conditions and higher pay. Legal immigrants would soon want the same thing. Only illegality preserves the status quo of corporate despotism - which is why I wonder whether food industry money is being used to fan the flames of xenophobia in the Tea Party movement so reform becomes impossible.

In terms of the culture theory of Mary Douglass and Aaron Wildavsky, this is a move by some libertarians into the “high grid” zone of fatalism, or as it has been called more recently, despotism. In despotism, the despotic few are free to act, but the many are both bound by rules and isolated from group activity. Illegal immigrants are prime candidates for participation in a despotic culture, especially in right to work states, so that they have no refuge in either governmental action or unionization. Indeed, in some places, the local sheriff will prevent them from fleeing, so their only alternatives are acceptance and escapism through alcohol and drug abuse. Keeping them outside the law and resisting immigration reforms that would grant them status only further the status quo. Cuccinelli, who is Catholic, should be ashamed of himself, since the bishops are very clear that the status quo should not be maintained.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/6346721560771269405/comments/default 0 The Iowa Center for Fiscal Equity: Solutions for the Fed to consider http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/07/iowa-center-for-fiscal-equity-solutions.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/07/iowa-center-for-fiscal-equity-solutions.html#comments Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:46:00 +0000 Michael Bindner The Iowa Center for Fiscal Equity: Solutions for the Fed to consider since it holds many of the mortgage backed securities in its portfolio while most of us who are underwater can't catch a break from our lenders.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/144875753413367482/comments/default 0 Lessons from an abortion in Phoenix http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/07/lessons-from-abortion-in-phoenix.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/07/lessons-from-abortion-in-phoenix.html#comments Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:10:00 +0000 Michael Bindner http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/mercy-sister-margaret-mcbride-speaks-out-her-silence

I am not going to take the usual stance on this event. Its been done and done well, both from the feminist perspective and from the Catholic moralist perspective. I will instead bring a bit of scripture to the issue, as well as my training in organization theory and bureaupathology.

Part of the criticism of Sister Margaret's actions were that she did not notify the local bishop in advance of the situation to get his guidance. In other words, she broke the chain of command. I am not sure this is a valid criticism, since everyone knows what Bishop Olmsted would have done. It is demonstrated by his excommunicaiton of Sister. He would have said no. He really had no choice in the matter, since ascenting to the abortion would have caused him to share in the taint of it, even if he did not procure it himself. I suspect that in his mind, he would have been as culpable as Sister Margaret for the abortion (as if he could really stop it). In other words, he would have likely put the state of his own soul before the life of the woman who's pregnancy - and let's face it - who's child was killing her for a reason only known to the pathologist who did the post mortem.

Is the life of another worth your own soul? Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, in Chapter 13 (often read at weddings) asks what does it profit a man if he gains the world but loses his own soul, however such an interpretation takes the concept of saving your soul out of context. Paul was talking about having love as the great gift that lasts. Putting one's own moral scruples ahead of the life of another hardly qualifies as a loving act, to either the woman or even to the child who is doomed should his mother die. The more applicable scripture is the one where the Lord cautions that he who would preserve his own life will lose it, but he who gives up his own life will save it.

Had Bishop Olmsted approved of the abortion ahead of time, or concurred with the action of the committee, he would have faced the same kind of consequences he felt necessary to impose on Sister Margaret. It would have been an act of moral bravery and faith in God one does not expect much from American Catholic bishops. It would have also had major blowback. Some fanatic who makes a fetish of life, probably one of his flock, would have complained to Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia, the USCCB as a whole and to the Papal Nuncio in Washington. There would be talk that he was excommunicate for putting the life of the mother ahead of the life of the child. Indeed, he would have been at risk of losing his Benefice - his diocese, the house, the towncar and the authority of office. He would have given up his life in order to save our as yet unnamed mother of four who was in danger of death.

I have no knowledge of whether these factors entered into his Excellency's moral calculus - however if they did he reached the wrong decision. Only he can answer for his own motivations - and answer he will - not to us, but to God. I would be remiss, however, if I did not urge him to consider the motivations for his decision and seek absolution if required. Indeed, I would urge the USCCB to examine their motivations on this question and see if their actions were motivated by love or by authority - not because they must answer to me or to all of us in the Church (although in reality they do), but because they must answer to God for both their actions and their motivations.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/3067900270031684690/comments/default 0 Archbishop Wuerl’s comments http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/07/archbishop-wuerls-comments.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/07/archbishop-wuerls-comments.html#comments Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:22:00 +0000 Michael Bindner http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3121

My comments, which are yet to be published on the site because they have upped their level of review, are as follows:

Ordination occurs within the confines of the government of the Church. It does not help matters to ordain women outside of this. To disobey this rule is to actively resist the structure of the Church and it is no surprise that the hierarchy will react badly.

Whether ordination of women is invalid does not depend on whether it is illicit. Ancient history indicates that there were women at all levels of the Church in its earliest times, but the counter-cultural nature of this was quickly overcome by the dominant male culture.

It is naive, however, to claim that a valid ordination will ever be accepted as licit without first gaining permission and it actually hurts the cause of female ordination to do so - at least within the context of the Roman Catholic Church. Within the context of a non-Roman Catholicism that seeks its own legitimacy, what Rome says is moot. I am sure we can debate what is more scandalous - strking out on one's own or forcing women into doing so.

The old bulls who insist that female ordination is invalid will retire or die soon enough. Time will not wait for them nor will time end when they are gone. This explains the stridency of their current rhetoric. The fact that A/B Wuerl is joining the chorus is only proof that they are dangling a red hat in front of his face. Whether he maintains the status quo after he receives it and the old bulls have retired will be one of the most interesting questions in the life of the Church.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/3376292558449870939/comments/default 0 The Iowa Center for Fiscal Equity: Incentives Chuck Grassley will work for http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/07/iowa-center-for-fiscal-equity.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/07/iowa-center-for-fiscal-equity.html#comments Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:13:00 +0000 Michael Bindner The Iowa Center for Fiscal Equity: Incentives Chuck Grassley will work for examines whether raising taxes makes people work less or work harder. The answer is obvious to anyone who is married.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/3055153753281256416/comments/default 0 The Iowa Center for Fiscal Equity: Revised submission to Fiscal Commission http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/07/iowa-center-for-fiscal-equity-revised.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/07/iowa-center-for-fiscal-equity-revised.html#comments Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:24:00 +0000 Michael Bindner The Iowa Center for Fiscal Equity: Revised submission to Fiscal Commission is a link to my briefing charts and comment to the Fiscal Commission.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/4623762593402351090/comments/default 0 Focussing on Africa http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/07/focussing-on-arfrica.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/07/focussing-on-arfrica.html#comments Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:55:00 +0000 Michael Bindner http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs/2010/07/07/Bartletts-Notations-Focus-on-Africa.aspx Many of the articles he summarized highlighted the population policy impacts on African development, with the usual connotation that development demands controlling population. I commented on the site. What Bruce did not address, and I did, is how this all links to development policy that is made in this town. You may hear an echo between my comments and the Vatican's stance against population control in the recent encyclical Caritas in Veritate. That echo is intentional. You can read the comments there or you can keep reading and leave your comments below.

Africa v. OEDC is largely improving because OEDC is in the crapper. I quarrel with the view that rising populations are a bad thing in a subsistence economy. Indeed, having an excess of people is historically a precursor to industrialization. Eliminating family planning policies would likely help Africa in the long term. Chinese workers are begining to demand higher wages and consumer products. Indian workers will likely soon follow suit, although there is much Indian labor that is still untapped. The global south has much potential for industrialization, particularly Africa. Indeed, Buckminster Fuller's dreams of automated factories and Nicholas Kelso's dream of two-factor income won't be realized as long as there are low wage labor markets which are untapped.

A final note: the other reason family planning policies for Africa should be considered as tenuous is that one day someone will tell the President that they are directed at his relatives and others that look like him - not for their benefit but because they are considered inconvenient. If he gets that message, expect the family planning budget for Africa to sink - especially if Obama shames Gates and Buffett into defunding them - or raises their taxes enough so that they can no longer afford to do so (and takes family planning off of the list of legitimate charities).
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/6893816979320979888/comments/default 0 Funding Extended Unemployment and Bailout Out the States http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/07/funding-extended-unemployment-and.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/07/funding-extended-unemployment-and.html#comments Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:04:00 +0000 Michael Bindner
In the interim, people are losing their benefits. At the same time, many states, indeed the vast majority, are facing budget cuts - some draconian - as the new fiscal year begins.

I am not sure that letting Senators and Members go home and face the music is not a bad idea. I would hope that whenever one of them makes a public appearance or holds a town meeting, they hear from local government officials, people who have lost or are about to lose their benefits and those agencies who are providing stop-gap assistance.

Of course, in DC (where this diary is being written), the member is always at home and knows full well how bad the problem is - although joblessness among the poor in DC is not as sexy as joblessness in the hinterlands. Additionally, because she has not vote and there are no voting (or non-voting) members of the Senate, the voice of DC voters on these issues does not matter.

In Virginia and Maryland, this is another matter - although most area members are on the right side of the issue - although it is still a good idea to remind the Democrats that we feel this is important and give them some stories to use in debate when this issue comes up again. E-mail is also a good way to tell your story to your Senator. Go to http://house.gov and http://senate.gov to share your story. You can also make policy suggestions on how to deal with this issue. Here is what I told my Congressman, Jim Moran, and my Senators, Jim Webb and Mark Warner (feel free to cut and paste):

It is time to get serious on extending Unemployment Insurance. The Republicans keep demanding that we pay for extending coverage. I say we call their bluff and fully fund extended unemployment on a permanent basis in the only way that it is appropriate to do so, by raising the payroll tax on employer who have layed people off (leaving the base rate unchanged). Indeed, while we are at it, the amount of benefits should also be increased (and funded by an increase to the base rate). Put this proposal front and center and dare the Republicans to vote against incentives to avoid unemployment and the extended unemployed. If this is the only alternative, we will hear nothing more from them again on funding this emergency through deficit spending.

On a related topic, I hope that during this recess you have heard from our local elected officials on their fiscal situation and are ready to come back to work with a stimulus that includes aid to the states.

Finally, let me suggest that a tax rebate that distributes money in November and December will be just in time for Christmas. Indeed, for some families, it will be the only Christmas they see - and for retailers too. This rebate should be for everyone - including people with no tax liability and even for people who owe back taxes to the IRS (normally rebates go to tax debt - this year the merchants need it more).
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/7501127017200813870/comments/default 0 Paying for Doctors and the Unemployed http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/06/paying-for-doctors-and-unemployed.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/06/paying-for-doctors-and-unemployed.html#comments Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:27:00 +0000 Michael Bindner http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3023&comment=1&success=1 and see the original story at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061804700.html. I responded to the knee jerk libertarians, who relied on the American concept of rights rather than the positive rights recognized by the Church - and then related the whole thing to the abortion question. I then offerred a solution to the canundrum of the "Doc Fix" as well as the ultimate fix for other problems in both Medicaid and Unemployment Insurance. Here is what I said:

...the right to health care that MSW was referring to was not one found in the constitution but in Catholic doctrine. Not all considerations of what people are entitled to need to be referenced in American ideals of liberty. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church states that there are positive rights that people are entitled to, regardless of what their governments declare, and among these are health care and a fair living wage (meaning that families need to earn enough to survive and larger families deserve greater consideration). To the extent that political or economic libertarianism is inconsistent with this teaching is the extent that Catholics must ignore their politics and support doctrine. This is also true in abortion - however in all cases, it is best left to the Catholic politicans to say how this is best done. Note that the Social Security system was designed in consultation with a Jesuit priest based on Catholic social encyclicals (Fr. Ryan). I would argue that living wage legislation is the best way to solve both our economic obligations and our obligation to protect the lives of the unborn (just as providing low cost or mandatory rehab is a better way to fight alcoholism than prohibition).

On the subject of paying for care - paying for a doctor fix, the medical needs of the baby boomers, the need to provide affordable medical coverage to people on COBRA and the need to provide for extended unemployment insurance all have a ready made answer, although many will find it distateful. These are all from funds that were designed to be self-supporting originally. Expansions of these programs or merely making them cost effective must ultimately be funded by raising their dedicated revenue streams - however we need not do so in advance of need. We can drop the requirement that the Medicare trust fund maintain some type of long term balance that must be pre-funded. It would be better to allow the tax rate to be raised automatically than to mandate budget cuts instead - or perhaps we can mandate a mix of both unless Congress acts.

In the short term, deficit finance is necessary - however in the long term, subsidizing COBRA, funding doctor fees adequately, providing for longer term unemployment and for Medicare Part D is best done with payroll tax hikes. Indeed, in the area of unemployment - a higher tax rate may have employers think again before assuming that laying people off is in their best interests. The whole point of the tax was to add a little bit of pain to the decision to reduce payrolls to save money. Perhaps this is just the time to make that pain increase.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/8210261655035880829/comments/default 0 The Sagittarius Project: The US Open http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/06/sagittarius-project-us-open.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/06/sagittarius-project-us-open.html#comments Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:53:00 +0000 Michael Bindner The Sagittarius Project: The US Open about the awful greens at last weekends championship.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/6181507091666912839/comments/default 0 Public Accommodation and Liberty http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/06/public-accommodation-and-liberty.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/06/public-accommodation-and-liberty.html#comments Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:23:00 +0000 Michael Bindner
The standard libertarian critique over these provisions, which Paul expressed to Rachel Maddow, is that private property holders should be able to refuse service to whomever they please, even if it is based on racism. My usual response is that if a business is open to the public, especially if it is incorporated, it cannot do that. Indeed, private clubs are still free to discriminate - as much as we dislike that. Someone who does business from their private home can certainly not take all clients, but if the public space is used, the freedom to deny service does not exist. Hanging a sign that says "open" rather than "by appointment only" pretty much obligates you to take all comers.Let me now add another piece to the argument - one that shuts down any libertarian objection to public accommodation.

The essential part of the freedom to exclude is what happens when someone comes in and demands service, even though a "White's Only" sign hangs in the door. The police are called, or private security is summoned, and violence is used to remove the person. This fact alone should settle the question for any true libertarian, since the violence involved was most likely governmental violence. Indeed, without direct violence, or a right of private violence, restricting service based on race is impossible, especially when the excluded parties come in anyway. If big L libertarians are really serious about their pledge to do no violence, then public accommodation laws are actually the most libertarian option - much more than a faux respect for private party which really masks a culture of violent racism.

Let's now remove the "right to refuse service" meme from the liberty conversation forever.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/639536997672538908/comments/default 0 Me on CNN yesterday http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/06/me-on-cnn-yesterday.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/06/me-on-cnn-yesterday.html#comments Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:12:00 +0000 Michael Bindner ]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/1830553509907004268/comments/default 0 Catholic Herald: The Right Way to Oppose Birth Control http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/06/catholic-herald-right-way-to-oppose.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/06/catholic-herald-right-way-to-oppose.html#comments Fri, 18 Jun 2010 02:06:00 +0000 Michael Bindner Arlington Catholic Herald, Mary Beth Bonacci writes about her reflections on 50 years of the birth control without actually writing about the pill itself. Instead, she writes about Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, whose legacy she definitely does not celebrate. Mrs. Bonacci has good reason not to, since her grandmother was one of the women who was unknowingly sterilized when her last child was born (Mary Beth's father). This was part of Sanger's desire for eugenics, where Italians and African Americans were considered undesirable parts of the human race. At the time, the miners in the area of southern Colorado where the family lived (including her grandfather) were engaged in labor struggles with Sanger backer John Rockefeller over attempts to enforce the rights of workers to organize and receive a just wage. Italian workers demanding their rights were not Sanger or Rockefeller's kind of people. You can read her moving piece at http://www.catholicherald.com/opinions/detail.html?sub_id=13162

This personal story moves the discussion on contraception to where it should be and to where Pope Benedict XVI takes it as well - to its roots in opposing eugenics, especially involuntary eugenics targeted on "inconvenient" populations.

President Obama would be wise to listen to such arguments, since the inclusion of family planning in the developmental budget of his government operates from the same eugenic assumptions and the target for such eugenics are people who look like and are related to him.

Rooting our teaching in social justice is much more productive than basing it on clerical notions of sexuality. Indeed, the prior is affirming of human freedom and dignity, while the other is based on fourth century notions on sexuality that see sexuality as incompatible with spirituality, even within Sacramental marriage (which did not exist then). The first affirms human dignity while the second does not - at least in the opinion of many married Catholics who ignore the Church's teachings on the aforementioned birth control pill.

If we stressed economic justice more, both for the poor in developing nations and for low income workers and families here, there would be much less resistance on this issue. When the American Church both advocates for (and pays) a living wage as defined as a substantial raise whenever a child is born, it can more authoritatively teach on this issue. This is one example where we must follow the command of the Lord to love one another so that all will know that we are His disciples.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/9163258253441416201/comments/default 0 Russell Shaw on Gen. Kagan and natural rights http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/05/russell-shaw-on-gen-kagan-and-natural.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/05/russell-shaw-on-gen-kagan-and-natural.html#comments Fri, 28 May 2010 21:19:00 +0000 Michael Bindner http://www.catholicherald.com/detail.html?sub_id=13066

I would disagree with his comments. The essence of equal protection jurisprudence, which is responsible for most precedent on both gay rights and abortion, resides in the natural rights tradition, which, as you say, has its source in natural law. You might not agree with how it has been argued of late, and it certainly does not agree with how the CDF sees it, but that does not mean the concepts are not in play.

The concerns you cite are both examples of rights being balanced - albeit not in a way that Shaw would agree with. It is definitely the case that the rights of the unborn are given short shrift in comparison with those of the mother - however it would take a particularly egregious act of judicial activism to change this in the name of natural law. Indeed, a natural law argument could be made for disregarding the rights of the unborn before assisted viability. Conferring rights any earlier than the time most natural miscarriages has occurred confers impossible responsibilities on doctors to preserve the lives of unborn individuals with fatal defects that probably should be left to die. Such a requirement would lead medical professionals to avoid, if at all possible, caring for mothers until that time has passed. This puts all pregnancies at risk and that risk is not justified. Of course, this is a prudential judgment, as is the debate over how best to preserve life. There is nothing in natural law that indicates the criminal power of the state - exercised solely against abortion providers - is a necessary conclusion to a finding that the unborn have rights from the point of gastrulation (natural science proves that nothing earlier is justified).

On gay rights, it seems that society at large could benefit from natural law reasoning. Fagothy's Right and Reason (the ethics text used when I took a minor seminary ethics course as a pre-law student) could not, based on the merits, could not justify not granting full rights to homosexuals without resorting to the teaching authority of the Church. In a natural rights construction of the issue without such an option, the natural law position is to grant full rights to gays and lesbians. The entire body of law against gay marriage is about to be overturned based on the natural rights of such people not to have laws made against them which are based solely on malice. If Miss Kagan agrees to such a construction when it comes before her, I will be satisfied that she does indeed consider the role of both natural rights and natural law.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/1677541790934127939/comments/default 0 The Iowa Center for Fiscal Equity: The National Debt turns 13 (trillion dollars) http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/05/iowa-center-for-fiscal-equity-national.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/05/iowa-center-for-fiscal-equity-national.html#comments Thu, 27 May 2010 15:09:00 +0000 Michael Bindner The Iowa Center for Fiscal Equity: The National Debt turns 13 (trillion dollars)
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/4534965603886290712/comments/default 0 DADT repeal and Catholic reaction http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/05/dadt-repeal-and-catholic-reaction.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/05/dadt-repeal-and-catholic-reaction.html#comments Wed, 26 May 2010 14:48:00 +0000 Michael Bindner http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2920

The "Unit Cohesion" argument eventual boils down to the ability of some members to have their moral scorn over another's sexuality treated with heightened respect in the areas of freedom of association and religion. Moral scorn is no more deserving of such protection under these rights than shouting fire in a theater should be protected under freedom of speech. The age when the United States should police the morality of its military members or civilian employees is over - as well it should be in a nation founded on the protection of individual rights. I talk about DADT in my book, Musings from the Christian Left in my essay on Iraq here http://xianlp.blogspot.com/2009/10/lessons-from-war-in-iraq-geocities.html and about gay rights here http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2009/10/gay-rights-geocities-rescue.html

Some will say we were founded as a Christian nation (which I spoke about a few days ago here http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/05/america-as-christian-nation.html. Actually, the founders of the government were deists and the original settlers were a particular kind of Christian - the anti-Catholic kind. For this reason, I am bemused whenever a Catholic uses the Christian Nation meme, since until 50 years ago it was used against Al Smith and was almost used against John F. Kennedy.

There is something unseemly about any group of people who were once a persectured minority who is no longer persecuted and instead persecutes others. The classical church did it in the 4th Century and now the American Church is doing it. Sad. It reminds me of the parable of the ungrateful servant.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/9208473031699231312/comments/default 0 The Bishops letter to Congress on ENDA http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/05/bishops-letter-to-congress-on-enda.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/05/bishops-letter-to-congress-on-enda.html#comments Wed, 26 May 2010 14:19:00 +0000 Michael Bindner America Magazine reports that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops sent a letter to Congress on May 19, on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) , focusing on same-sex marriage. the letter is quite a read and quite a disappointment. One of its authors was Washington Archbishop Wuerl. You can read the letter here http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2923#comments

The Church's teaching on homosexuality need not impact how it behaves as an employer. It must be respectful toward its employees rights - it need not celebrate their unions or affirm their sexual practices.There should be no more an exception here than for race. While Catholics may not seek a religious exemption for race, many evangelical churches are divided upon racial lines and such division should not be affirmed by religious exemptions to ENDA. The Church should not more discriminate against gay marriages, which actually affirm marriage as a concept, the same way it should not discriminate on race.

The function of marriage in civil society (and indeed in religion as well) is to make official the separation of a person from their family of origin and to recognize their freely chosen union with a spouse. As such, it dissolves rights for some and creates rights for others. There is no rational basis for denying such ability to rearrange one's family affairs for gay family members when it is automatic for straight family members. It has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with the right of association at the most intimate level. It is also why objections to redefining marriage to include a brother or mother carry no weight, as such relations are already existent in the law. Marriage severs the primacy of these relations and gives them to the spouse.

The Federal case on Proposition 8 actually shows that ENDA will not be necessary, since Prop 8 will be overturned without ENDA (the Bishops think ENDA will be part of the legal argument for overturning it). Prop. 8 will be overturned because it was motivated by animus for a class worthy of protection. It is interesting that the Bishops mention Roe. The letter shows that whoever drafted it does not understand Roe and why it was decided - or that the primacy of individual rights over state majorities actually protects the Church in places where Catholics are rare - Alabama and Mississippi come to mind (places where pluralities believe the Pope is the Antichrist).

As for the associational rights of others, there is no right to discriminate from moral scorn, nor should there be, within the freedoms of either religion or association. My feeling is that the people in the pews are way out in front of the Bishops on this. If they had consulted us, we would have said to recognize gay marriages and those of us with gay family members would demand that they also be celebrated sacramentally. This demand is what truly scares the Bishops.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/6980894301218428314/comments/default 0 America as a Christian Nation http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/05/america-as-christian-nation.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/05/america-as-christian-nation.html#comments Tue, 25 May 2010 15:20:00 +0000 Michael Bindner
The nation was founded on a particular brand of Christianity which was decidedly anti-Catholic. Indeed, there are still some quarters where this is still the case. Of course, Catholicism is now the plurality religion, with Catholics as Speaker of the House, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (and a majority of its members) and President of the Senate - with a former Catholic Charities employee as President of the United States.

The original settlers, including my and the President's Plymouth Colony ancestors would be aghast at this development - so lets not have any more of this Christian nation talk. They would also be aghast that Boston is a hub of Catholic voters, especially Irish Catholic voters and that many of the Plymouth Colony descendents, including your humble servant, are Catholic.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/1131436953489742820/comments/default 0 The Fatima Secret and St. Malachy http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/05/fatima-secret-and-st-malachy.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/05/fatima-secret-and-st-malachy.html#comments Mon, 24 May 2010 16:06:00 +0000 Michael Bindner http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1001924.htm The key point of the story is that the current Pope believes that, when he supervised its release in June 2006, stated:

that there was nothing apocalyptic. "No great mystery is revealed; nor is the future unveiled," he said. He went on to give a theological framework to the apparitions and messages of Fatima, he insisting that in the church's tradition, "prophecy" is not like a "film preview," but more like offering signs that can be useful for Christians.Cardinal Ratzinger said that was how to understand the third secret's vision of a "bishop in white" who struggles up a hill amid corpses of slain martyrs, and then falls dead after being shot by soldiers. Whether this bishop symbolized Pope John Paul II, who was shot and wounded on May 13, 1981, or a "convergence" of several 20th-century pontiffs who helped the church ward off the dangers, it doesn't mean someone must be killed, the cardinal said.


I disagree with his Holiness on this point. It does not apply to John Paul II, since John Paul survived. St. John Boscoe has a similar prophesy about the assassination of a Pope. Further, St. Malachy talks of the destruction of Rome in his last prophesy, so the Secret should not be written off too quickly. Here is what Malachy says (as quoted from wiki here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes):

"During the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, the seat will be occupied by Peter the Roman, who will feed his sheep in many tribulations: and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the formidable Judge will judge His people.The End."


This is Malachy's last prophesy, which foretells either the end of the world or the end of the Papacy. Given the current Pope's prophesy (Gloria Olivae) and his desire for Christian unity with the Eastern Church, I suspect that the latter is true, not the former. It may even be that Peter the Roman is an anti-pope, elected in protest against unity and that he will be killed as part of some general disorder in Italy rather than a deliberate persecution.

I'd say the jury is still out on the Fatima Secret.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/2572102605388748568/comments/default 0 The Kagan Question (is she or isn’t she?) http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/05/kagan-question-is-she-or-isnt-she.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/05/kagan-question-is-she-or-isnt-she.html#comments Thu, 20 May 2010 20:51:00 +0000 Michael Bindner http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2901. I also received an email today from one of Liberty U.'s lawyers, Matt Barber, but I won't discuss it since it was, frankly, reasoned badly (as one would expect from Barber).

As I wrote on the comment page, elections matter. Indeed, if the GOP would stop demagoging abortion for their electoral agenda and really address how to get beyond Roe in reducing abortion (by using Congressional action instead of attempting to overturn most equal protection doctrine by overturning Roe), they might have gotten more Catholic votesin the last election and be nominating someone else - although considering who they put on the ticket (an abortion demagogue who was not even familiar with the arguments on her own side) - that was unlikely to happen anyway. In other words, in a world of sane anti-abortion policy, Sarah Palin would not be where she was (or is).I don't expect abortion to come up again judicially for the foreseeable future - accept around the edges. Indeed, partial birth is already decided, although Congress could change the law and there would be no court case for Kagan to hear, since the law was upheld because of Congressional power.

There are seven votes against overturning Roe - three of whom no counting Stevens - who were GOP appointees. When O'Connor retired, she was replaced origionally with Roberts - which replaced a pro-Roe centrists with one of the same. Roberts than replaced Rehnquist, which was an anti-Roe loss, since the former CJ voted with Scalia and Thomas. Souter was replaced by Sotomayor - a moderate for a moderate and now Stevens is being replaced by Kagan. This is a loss for the pro-choice side, since Stevens was in that camp while Kagan, who told Clinton to sign the Partial Birth Abortion Act, is probably moderate on the issue. We are left with two pro-choicers (Breyer and Ginsburg), two pro-lifers (Thomas and Scalia) and five in the middle (Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Sotomayor and Kagan). Maybe I am wrong on elections mattering. They do matter on who gets to chose - however the choser appears not to be the most pro-abortion President in history.I do expect economic issues to come up more. I hope that Kagan votes like a liberal - although given her mainstream career path, it is a hope, not an expectation.

Her sexuality matters not, although even if she were a lesbian, I would hope she sides with Kennedy on the issue of gay marriage - against a body of state passed constitutional amendments which are motivated by malice towards a minority group and which, therefore, cannot be constitutional. It would be no more inappropriate to put Kagan on to agree with such basic justice as it was to put a prior Solictor General on the Court (Marshall) in order to vote correctly on civil rights matters. Even if the left puts up a hue and cry about her moderation on abortion, I doubt Obama will dump his long time friend (unlike Bush, who dumped Meyers and did not even come close to appointing Gonzales). Unless there is a total GOP fillibuster against her (and I doubt Bennett would follow it), she is in.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/4676045191640834449/comments/default 0 White Racial Superiority Disproven – Our Neanderthal Past http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/05/white-racial-superiority-disproven-our.html http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/05/white-racial-superiority-disproven-our.html#comments Mon, 17 May 2010 22:01:00 +0000 Michael Bindner
This should upset the whole basis for white priviledge - or rather should it into the perspective of a permanent inferiority complex which the white race can never live down - but only interbreed itself out of. This would only pollute the master species, of course, with lesser DNA - but it is a better alternative to true homo sapiens engaging in genocide against the rest of the planet (including African Americans, who are also polluted genetically by interbreeding with white slave owners).

What amazes me most is that no one else seems to have raised this point in reaction to the latest scientific news. I say most of this with tongue firmly in cheek - though not entirely. There are still people who regard the white race as God's gift to the planet. The new genetic analysis should prove that this is not the case - that there is no justification by white racists for any such claims when we are, in fact, the product of intermarriage with an inferior species.
]]> http://xianleft.blogspot.com/feeds/7612161001052633752/comments/default 0