Digest of Today's Posts (31 July 2008)

Candidates' Recent Efforts at Catholic Outreach

New Quinnipiac Poll: Obama's Catholic Problem Persists

Lloyd Webber's Pie Jesu, Sung by The Choirboys

Unbelievable! Dems File Ethics Complaints Against Senator for Delivering Babies Free of Charge



(Digest of Yesterday's Posts (30 July 2008))

Candidates' Recent Efforts at Catholic Outreach

Sen. McCain meets with Archbishop Chaput.

Sen. Obama meets with ... Rep. Rosa "Emily's List" DeLauro?

New Quinnipiac Poll: Obama's Catholic Problem Persists

(Hat tip: Brian Burch at Fidelis)

From God-O-Meter at Beliefnet:

A Quinnipiac poll out today shows that the presidential race is surprisingly tight in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, given the unpopularity of President and lingering anti-Republican sentiment. One of Obama's biggest vulnerabilities: white Catholics. These are many of the same voters who kept Hillary Clinton going for so long during the Democratic primaries.

In both Florida and Ohio, Obama's losing white Catholics to McCain by 52-percent to 40-percent. That's not an insignificant gap. (In Pennsylvania, white Catholics are evenly split between the Democratic and Republican candidates.) It's not as dramatic as the gap in 2004, when John Kerry lost white Ohio Catholics (one in four Buckeye State voters) to President Bush 59-41 and lost Florida Catholics 59-41. But the difference from 2004 says more about Catholic uncertainty about John McCain than any increase in Catholic support for Obama.

That means Obama has an opening. But also that he hasn't seized it yet. For all the attention lavished on evangelical voters, Catholics are the swing voters who could decide the election with how they cast their ballots. Evangelicals, who vote overwhelmingly Republican, are more likely to decide the election by whether they go to the polls or stay home on Election Day.

Lloyd Webber's Pie Jesu, Sung by The Choirboys

Jean posted this at Catholic Fire a couple of days ago:


Here is another version (featuring Lloyd Webber's ex, Sarah Brightman).

And a particularly tearjerking version from Britain's Got Talent.

I fell in love with Andrew Lloyd Webber's beautiful Pie Jesu the very first time I heard it (sung as a soprano duet in, of all places, a Sunday morning worship service in a Southern Baptist church).

This one's definitely on the funeral program whenever I happen to kick the bucket. It's really not that difficult a piece for a couple of halfway decent sopranos.

Unbelievable! Dems File Ethics Complaints Against Senator for Delivering Babies Free of Charge

Feddie highlights this outrageous story:

You can’t make this stuff up, folks: Senate dems are actually filing ethics complaints against Senator Tom Coburn because he delivers babies free of charge.


Does anyone believe that this complaint would have been filed against Senator Coburn if he had been performing free abortions?

[More]

Digest of Today's Posts (30 July 2008)

Rod Dreher: "The Word Catholic Lefties Can't Say"

Contradictions

Just One Month to Go ...

Will Obama Pick Virginia's "Pro-Choice" Catholic Governor Tim Kaine as His Running Mate?

Starting to Believe His Own Hype?

Catholic Actor Jon Voight Announces His Retirement from Acting in a Washington Times Op/Ed

Creative Minority Report: "Why Pro-Lifers Will Win"



(Digest of Yesterday's Posts (29 July 2008))

Rod Dreher: "The Word Catholic Lefties Can't Say"

(Hat tip: Feddie)

Rod Dreher writes at Crunchy Con:

Via the Progressive Revival blog, I learn of a new Vote the Common Good initiative by a collection of Catholic leftie organizations. Here's their platform. It's fairly long, and there are some things a religious conservative like me supports, e.g.:

we need infrastructures and programs to build up local communities and businesses and to provide access to education, jobs, needed services and green space. Local businesses are important in developing strong communities that support families.

It's a long platform, and fairly comprehensive. They even come out in favor of the United Nations. But search the whole thing, and the one word you won't see is...

Abortion.

They can't say it, can they? In fact, there's nothing in that entire platform taking the slightest issue with gay marriage or any other fruit of the sexual revolution, about which the Roman Catholic church has said a few things.

The "common good" in this case is a euphemism for "things left-wing Catholics support." Nothing new here, just another organizing tool for the Democratic Party...

[Read the whole thing]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
The Catholic Left Meets in Philadelphia

Convention for the "Common Good"

Bill Donohue: "How the Catholic Left Is Boxed in by Abortion"

Deal Hudson: "Catholics Organize to Elect Barack Obama"

Democrat Front Group Posing as Catholic Org Calls for End to "Christmas Culture War"

In January's Catholic Chronicle - "Vote Your Values" Revisited

Vote Your Values"

"NOT An Approved Catholic Voter Guide"

What's Missing?

Contradictions

(Hat tip: Rich Leonardi at Ten Reasons)

The Top 10 Contradictory Attitudes of the 60's Bunch.

And The Curt Jester has added 10 more for good measure.


How about this one?

Ecumenicalism is good.

Working with evangelicals on pro-life and other causes in support of the traditional family is bad.

Just One Month to Go ...

... until the start of college football.

And in case you hadn't noticed, the biggest non-conference match-up of the year takes place in the 3rd week of the season when THE Ohio State University Buckeyes (the "new Notre Dame" in the sense of being America's most-hated college football team) travel to the Los Angeles Coliseum to take on the University of Southern California Trojans.

I hate to break it to ya, sports fans (actually, I relish breaking it to ya), but IF the Buckeyes beat the Trojans AT USC's home turf on September 13, they have pretty smooth sailing the rest of the way en route to a berth in yet another National Championship Title Game.*

In other college football news, here's hoping that a top recruiting class followed by a good spring of practice means that the Fighting Irish won't completely suck this fall. Otherwise, I'd say it's time ol' Charlie got the Tyrone treatment, and we started looking down Gainesville way for a new coach.


* I know, I know. Some of you haters will be quick to say that Ohio State will be on its way to yet another loss in the National Championship Title Game. But the fact is that you have to play in the game to have a chance to win it, and Ohio State has played in 3 Title games this decade, winning 1. Which is 1 more than the vast majority of Buckeye haters can boast of during the past decade. And if you wanna make the argument that there are other "more deserving" teams that should play in the game besides Ohio State, tell those teams to win their frickin' games! Tell 'em to break up their stupid super-conferences and play a schedule that makes sense!


UPDATE
Speaking of "haters", that sissy girl Carson Palmer hates the Buckeyes so much because he knows where fan loyalty in that part of Ohio lies - Buckeyes, Bearcats, and then ... somewhere waaaay down the list ... Bungles. The Buckeyes and Bearcats manage to put a winning product out on the field year in and year out, while the Bungles perennially blow. Carson can't stand it that Todd Boeckman (who?) probably has a bigger following in Cincy than he does.

Hey Carson! Win more. Hate less.

;-)

Will Obama Pick Virginia's "Pro-Choice" Catholic Governor Tim Kaine as His Running Mate?

Details at InsideCatholic.


UPDATE
There's more here:

Catholics Fear Obama Considering Pro-Abortion Catholic Veep

CHICAGO, July 29, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Kaine, Biden, Dodd or Sebelius Could Prompt Backlash

Catholic voters attuned to speculation over possible vice presidential candidates are expressing concern over reports that Senator Barack Obama is seriously considering a pro-abortion Catholic as his running mate. According to Fidelis, a national Catholic based advocacy group, such a choice would represent a major insult to Catholic voters who are still evaluating his candidacy.

"The choice of a pro-abortion Catholic for vice president would deal a major blow to any efforts by the Obama campaign to reach out to Catholic voters," said Brian Burch, President of Fidelis. "Both the bishops and the laity continue to wrestle with the scandal of prominent Catholic politicians who support abortion, and the choice of a pro-abortion Catholic running mate would amount to scratching at a deep and festering wound in the American Catholic Church."

Most recently, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine has been discussed as a good fit for Obama given his Catholic faith and purported "pro-life" views.

[More]

(Hat tip: Feddie)

Starting to Believe His Own Hype?

This comment, by itself, is reason enough not to vote for Sen. Obama:

"I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

Got Humility?


UPDATE
The other side of the story?


UPDATE #2
Peter Kirsanow writes at The Corner:

Simple assignment for the press corps: ask the senator to name three specific traditions to which America will return upon his election and why his election will prompt their return. No teleprompters allowed.

And follows up with:

Pop quiz for the press corps. Which of the following phrases is not attributable to Sen. Obama?:

—"People of the world — this is our moment."

—"We are the change we've been waiting for."

—"I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

—"I am the way and the truth and the life."

—"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment... when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

—"I am a ..Citizen of the World."

—"Vero Possemus."

Catholic Actor Jon Voight Announces His Retirement from Acting in a Washington Times Op/Ed

The Cranky Conservative has the details.

In Hollywood, critizing Barack Obama and openly supporting Republicans = "announcing his retirement from acting".

Blacklists for brazen commies and their fellow-traveling sympathizers ... bad.

Blacklists for outspoken conservative and/or Republican actors ... good.

Creative Minority Report: "Why Pro-Lifers Will Win"

Matthew Archbold, writing at Creative Minority Report, lists "a few reasons pro-lifers will win...eventually":

1) Pro-aborts can't call themselves what they are. They call themselves pro-choice. It's a not-so-subtle nomenclature shift meant to appeal to freedom-loving Americans. But in the end, I believe, if your rallying cry is a lie your supporters are going to figure it out after a while. They're not pro-choice. They're pro-abortion. But they can't admit to that. If you have to lie about what you're for, you're going to lose...eventually.

2) Improvements in science continues to enhance our knowledge of what's going on in the womb, putting pro-aborts on the side of being "anti-science." When Roe first became the law of the land pro-aborts argued that the baby wasn't a baby at all but just a clump of cells. Most people know that's not true anymore. People have seen 3-D Ultrasounds. People have seen the photo of the baby reaching out during an in-utero surgery. The numbers of the ignorant are dwindling and that aids our cause.

[More]

Digest of Today's Posts (29 July 2008)

The Man Who Was Nearly President ...

Looks Like M&M / Mars Needs to "Get Some Nuts"

Pastor Rick Warren to Toss Softballs to Obama?

Gallup: Only Two Percent of Conservatives Don’t Believe in a Higher Power

LOL! The Dems Haven't Even Won Yet, and Already They're Calling for a Purge

(Digest of Yesterday's Posts (28 July 2008))

The Man Who Was Nearly President ...

... partying with young, drunk females who show off their undergarments and drink through penis-shaped straws.

Looks Like M&M / Mars Needs to "Get Some Nuts"

(Hat tip: HotAir)

From The Telegraph (U.K.):

Mr T's Snickers ad deemed offensive to homosexuals

An advert featuring the A-team actor Mr T has been pulled after complaints in the US that it is offensive to homosexual men.

[More]

My Comments:
The emasculation of America continues.

Here's the "offending" commercial:

Pastor Rick Warren to Toss Softballs to Obama?

Deal Hudson reports at InsideCatholic:

After I published my Window about the August 16 event hosted by Rick Warren with Obama and McCain, I got an interesting phone call. I was told that Warren is under "tremendous pressure" not to put Obama on the hot seat about abortion and marriage.

In other words, there isn't a "chance," I was told, Warren will raise those issues in a way that could make Obama squirm.

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Deal Hudson on "McCain's Opportunity, Obama's Challenge"

Gallup: Only Two Percent of Conservatives Don’t Believe in a Higher Power

HotAir reports on a Gallup poll regarding belief in God in America.

Among the breakdowns in the poll are belief in God by region:


Not surprisingly (at least to me), the South and Midwest have a higher percentage of folks who believe in God.

The poll is also broken down by belief in God by political ideology:


Again not surprisingly, conservatives are more likely to believe in God than non-conservatives. But then, that sorta goes along with the definition of being, you know, "conservative". (See, e.g., Russell Kirk's tenets of conservatism, which include the belief in a transcendant order or natural law.)

LOL! The Dems Haven't Even Won Yet, and Already They're Calling for a Purge

(Hat tip: Donald McClarey via email)

Glenn Greenwald is ready to give the "Blue Dogs" the boot.

What an incredibly stupid thing to propose in a year in which the Dem nominee for President is having problems attracting "Blue Dog" type Democrats (you know, the folks "clinging" to "God and guns"). Threatening to "boot" such folks from the Democrat Party is sure to win them over to Sen. Obama's cause.

Never mind that the ONLY reason the Dems are in control of Congress right now is because they were smart enough in 2006 to run a whole lot of "Blue Dogs" (as well as a whole lot of folks who pretended to be more conservative than they really are) for congressional seats in districts that are fairly conservative.

But if the Dems are stupid enough to believe that there is a "progressive" (i.e. left-liberal) majority in this country that will keep them in power without the "Blue Dogs", far be it from me to stand in their way as they purge their ranks of moderate-to-conservative members.

Good luck retaining those red state seats, by the way. Not to mention winning the White House.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
In Flag City USA, False Obama Rumors Are Flying

Obama the Egghead Professor is Bound and Determined to "Explain" All Us Red Staters and Our Unwillingness to Support Him

Democrats Fail to Learn Lessons of 2004 - Part 2: Why Red Staters "Vote Against Our Interests" [UPDATED]

"Rats Is Stupid"

Democrats Fail to Learn the Lessons of 2004

Attention Super-Delegates: Obama Cedes Ohio Valley?

Obama Disses Blue Collar Voters Again: Says They "Cling to Guns or Religion" Because They Are "Bitter" [UPDATED]

Obama's Problems in Pennsylvania Mirror His Problems in Ohio

Obama Attributes Support for Reagan by Blue Collar "Reagan Democrats" to "Anger Over Welfare and Affirmative Action" [UPDATED]

Digest of Today's Posts (28 July 2008)

Columnist Robert Novak Hospitalized; Diagnosed With Brain Tumor

Picture Worth a Thousand Words? Mandating Ultrasound Before Abortions

Deal Hudson on "McCain's Opportunity, Obama's Challenge"

"By What Moral Authority?": Newt Gingrich on Detroit

Dave Hartline on "Sen. Obama's European Victory Lap"

(Digest of Friday's Posts (25 July 2008))

Columnist Robert Novak Hospitalized; Diagnosed With Brain Tumor

Sad news about yet another Catholic journalist. Columnist Robert Novak, a Catholic convert, has been diagnosed with a brain tumor:

Robert Novak was admitted yesterday to a Boston hospital where he was diagnosed with a brain tumor. In a written statement given to his publisher, Novak said:

“On Sunday, July 27, I was diagnosed with a brain tumor. I have been admitted to Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where doctors will soon begin appropriate treatment.

“I will be suspending my journalistic work for an indefinite but, God willing, not too lengthy period.”

[More]

My Comments:
Prayers for a speedy recovery. We've already lost 2 of my favorite Catholic journalists this year; I don't want to see it happen to a 3rd.


UPDATE
Here's more from Novak's employer, The Chicago Sun-Times.

(Hat tip: Ed Morrissey, who wonders what the reaction will be from the "compassionate" left)

Picture Worth a Thousand Words? Mandating Ultrasound Before Abortions

From Catholic News Service (via the Diocese of Toledo's Catholic Chronicle):

WASHINGTON (CNS)—State by state, Catholics and others in the pro-life community are accomplishing a mission that they hope will give pregnant women considering an abortion the clearest proof yet that their action would still an unborn child's beating heart.

So far in 2008, four states — Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota — have passed legislation or strengthened earlier laws requiring abortion providers to offer women considering an abortion an opportunity to view the ultrasound image of their unborn child.

***
In addition to the four added or expanded in 2008, states with ultrasound laws include Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Utah and Wisconsin. Louisiana requires an ultrasound if a pregnancy has reached 20 weeks and says the woman must be offered an opportunity to view it. Florida and Arizona laws compel the use of ultrasound for any abortion after 12 weeks, but the woman has to ask to see the images.

At the federal level, the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act was introduced in both the House and Senate in the 110th Congress but neither bill made it out of committee.

[More]

Deal Hudson on "McCain's Opportunity, Obama's Challenge"

Deal Hudson writes at InsideCatholic on the candidates' efforts to reach out to religious voters.

"By What Moral Authority?": Newt Gingrich on Detroit

(Hat tip: Eric Scheske at The Daily Eudemon)



As I once told Sarah's uncle (who grew up in the Cleveland suburbs), "Detroit exists to make Cleveland feel better about itself."

Dave Hartline on "Sen. Obama's European Victory Lap"

Dave Hartline writes at The Catholic Report that Sen. Obama's basking in the adulation of our more enlightened European betters is "a turnoff for heartland voters".

Digest of Today's Posts (25 July 2008)

Comerica Bank: Doing It's Part to Kill Small-Town America

Why Is Sen. McCain So Gung-Ho to Name His Running Mate Early?

St. Thomas More Society at Marquette Law School

Lessons in Manliness: Sacrifice

40th Anniversary of Humanae Vitae

(Digest of Yesterday's Posts (24 July 2008))

Comerica Bank: Doing It's Part to Kill Small-Town America

Shame on them:

Comerica Bank called $11 million loan, demanding liquidation
Thursday July 24 2008, 1:38 pm

The acting CEO for Norwalk Furniture said Comerica Bank, which holds $11 million in loans for the company, has refused to even talk to several investors interested in buying out the loans and taking over the company.

***
Aversa said he finds it suspicious that Comerica would call in a loan in Ohio in which the company had paid back $2 million within the past 60 days shortly after the bank closed their Ohio offices.

“I don’t think its an accident that Comerica closed their Cleveland offices (recently), they stopped making loans in Ohio and then they show up on our doorstep and say liquidate,” Aversa said. “They know they’re never going to do any banking here. If this was in Detroit, it would not be this way.

“What’s happening here is a crazy, panicked world. The dynamics are almost like a depression,” he said. “If this company was located in Detroit or Texas, would they be treating us like this?”

[More]


Comerica Caravan
Friday July 25 2008, 1:40 pm

In just 16 hours, Norwalk Furniture employees gathered about 50 employees and headed up in a caravan to Comerica headquarters in Detroit with one message "Norwalk Furniture Calling, Answer Your Phone."

After Dominic Aversa, acting CEO in the company's reorganization, released details about Comerica's refusal to consider buyout offers and the bank's insistance on liquidation, employees finally saw a way they could join in the battle.

"I don't think they have any idea what they've done," said Kim Gross, an employee who helped organize the caravan. "We're going to show Comerica what we do for a living."

Company officials gave the employees several pieces of furniture made in Norwalk to take along to set on the sidewalk in front of the bank.

"Hopefully we can get Comerica to answer their phone," Gross said. Aversa said Thursday that bank officials wouldn't even respond to phone calls from the company or several groups of investors interested in buying out the loan and putting workers back in the factory.

The bank called company officials late last Friday afternoon insisting on full repayment of the company's $11 million loan and line-of-credit or immediate liquidation. The bank insisted the company shut down immediately, leaving about $1 million worth of unfinished orders sitting on the factory floor and finished items waiting undelivered in trucks.

***
After they rally in front of Comerica's headquarters, the Norwalk employees will head to Comerica Park, the home of the Detroit Tigers, for tonight's game against the Chicago White Sox at 7.

Gross said they will hold up their signs and talk to anyone who will listen about Comerica's treatment of businesses and employees in Ohio.

***
"Comerica paid $66 million for naming rights to Comerica Park," she said. "I guess that's their vision of community support, a little different from ours."

***
Gross also pointed out that Norwalk Furniture was the first account Comerica ever got in Ohio.

[More]

Comerica chairman, Henry F. Potter, was unavailable for comment. But a spokesman said that Mr. Potter would be willing to take on many of the Norwalk Furniture employees thrown out of work as tentants in his rental properties in "Potter's Field". The spokesman also noted that Mr. Potter was looking forward to the renaming of Norwalk as "Pottersville".

Why Is Sen. McCain So Gung-Ho to Name His Running Mate Early?

News reports are indicating that Sen. McCain may name his running mate within the next couple of weeks rather than holding off until the traditional period leading up to the Republican Convention. The question I have is why?

My guess is that it's for 1 of 2 reasons:

1. Sen. McCain is set to name a running mate who will not add much lustre to the ticket (and thus not much of a bounce in his poll numbers). The names Gov. Pawlenty and Gov. Romney come to mind. Sen. McCain could be thinking that he should go ahead and get the collective yawn over his dud choice out of the way now (and give the country a little time to get to know his choice better) rather than have it affect whatever momentum he achieves coming out of the GOP convention.
2. Sen. McCain is set to name a running mate who will be controversial among key GOP constituents (read: conservatives, especially of the social conservative variety). The names Gov. Ridge and Gov. Crist come to mind. His thinking could be to get the controversy over with now and allow the buffers of the Olympics and the Democrat Convention as a cooling off period for conservatives. The last thing Sen. McCain can afford is for social conservatives to come out of the Convention even less motivated to vote for him. Of course, if McCain goes this route, I wouldn't put it past him to think he can pull out a win without those troublesome and "divisive" social conservatives.

St. Thomas More Society at Marquette Law School

A reader writes in to inform me that a group of law students at Marquette Law School have refounded the St. Thomas More Society at that school.

Good for them! May they be blessed in their efforts. I've added their blog to my blogroll.

St. Thomas More, pray for the formation of faithful Catholic lawyers at our nation's law schools.

Lessons in Manliness: Sacrifice

(Hat tip: Feddie)

The Art of Manliness on "Lessons In Manliness: Private Ross A. McGinnis & Petty Officer Michael Monsoor".

Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
~ Gospel of St. John, ch. 15, v. 13

40th Anniversary of Humanae Vitae

The Anniversary of Humanae Vitae by Joseph Bottum at On the Square

Message Refused: Humanae Vitae, 40 Years Later by Russell Shaw at InsideCatholic

Guest Post: Defending Humanae Vitae at Domestic Vocation

There Are None So Blind... by Patrick Archbold at Creative Minority Report

40th Anniversary of Humanae Vitae at Catholic Mom of 10 Revisited

40 Years of "Humanae Vitae" at Catholic Dads

Humanae Vitae - From "Object" to "Subject" at The Truth Will Make You Free

Humanae Vitae: Proof that the Prophetic Charism Remains with the Church at Catholic And Enjoying It

"The Vindication of Humanae Vitae"... at Ignatius Insight

Evidence of the lack of intelligent reflection in the Universe at Abbey-Roads2

Human Life at Darwin Catholic

40 Years at Acts of the Apostasy

Dissidents respond to Humanae Vitae anniversary by Margaret Cabaniss at InsideCatholic

Humanae Vitae and The Catholic Church at Aggie Catholics

Digest of Today's Posts (24 July 2008)

Nat Hentoff on Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as McCain's VP

Hillary and Nancy (and Barack?) vs. the Bishops

Deacon Keith Fournier: "A New Abolitionism, It is Time to End Abortion"

(Digest of Yesterday's Posts (23 July 2008)

Nat Hentoff on Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as McCain's VP

Pro-life liberal Nat Hentoff writes:

Amid the speculation regarding John McCain's choice to complete his presidential ticket, I offer my unsolicited suggestion for his vice president: the first woman — and youngest — governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, who is an unstereotypical and effective Republican.

During her first year in office, as reported by the Associated Press on May 10, she "distanced herself from the old guard, powerful members of the state GOP (and) stood up to the oil interests that hold great power in Alaska, and with bipartisan support in the statehouse, she won a tax increase on the oil companies' profits." Last December, this mother of four children, Mrs. Palin, four months' pregnant, found she was going to have a child with Down syndrome — a condition characterized by moderate-to-severe mental retardation. A school friend of one of my sons had Down syndrome; I have also known functioning adults with the extra chromosomes of that syndrome.

***
Mrs. Palin's first reaction to the diagnosis was to research the facts about the condition, since, as she said, "I've never had problems with my other pregnancies." As a result, she and her husband, Todd, never had any doubt they would have the child.

"We've both been very vocal about being pro-life," she told the Associated Press. "We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential." In an age when DNA and other genetic-selection tests increasingly determine who is "fit" to join us human beings, we are witnessing the debate between sanctity of life vs. quality of life being more often decided in favor of death. This is a result welcomed by internationally-influential bioethicist Peter Singer. He is now a celebrated Princeton University professor, who, in July 1983, wrote in Pediatrics, the official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics: "If we compare a severely defective human infant with a nonhuman animal, a dog or pig, for example, we will often find the nonhuman to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and anything else that can plausibly be considered morally significant." And there are bioethicists who point to the continuing costs of rearing a "defective infant."

By inspirational contrast, Mrs. Palin, says of her new son, Trig: "I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection. Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?" Three days after she gave birth, Mrs. Palin was back in her Anchorage office with her husband and Trig. "I can think of so many male candidates," she tells the AP, "who watched families grow while they were in office. There is no reason to believe a woman can't do it with a growing family. My baby will not be at all or in any sense neglected." Says the governor of Alaska: "I will not shirk my duties." Taking her stand for life as a holder of high political office is all the more valuable in the face of the termination of fetal lives as not worth continuing before they can speak for themselves. Mrs. Palin's stand also puts a searching light on the growing "futility" doctrine in hospitals which is affecting people of all ages.

***
She would be a decided asset: an independent Republican governor, a woman, a defender of life against the creeping culture of death and a fresh face in national politics. She was described in "the Almanac of National Politics" as "an avid hunter and fisher with a killer smile who wears designer glasses and heels, and hair like modern sculpture." Moreover, I doubt that she would engage in such campaigning, as Sen. McCain's strongly implying that a Hamas terrorist saying he would like Barack Obama to be president thereby damages Mr. McCain's opponent (though Mr. Obama has totally condemned Hamas). Still unknown is whether Mrs. Palin would be as flip-flopping as Mr. McCain on the Bush torture policy that has so blighted our reputation in the world. But we would find out: If chosen as his running mate, she would create more interest in this already largely scripted presidential campaign.

And her presence could highlight Mr. Obama's extremist abortion views on whether certain lives are worth living — even a child born after a botched abortion.

[More]

My Comments:
Sen. McCain could do worse. In fact, I believe all the other names mentioned as potential McCain running mates, apart from Bobby Jindal (and he really needs to serve out his term as Governor of Louisiana in my opinion), would be worse picks.

I've thought for a while that Gov. Palin would be a good choice and would seriously change the dynamics in this presidential race.

Hillary and Nancy (and Barack?) vs. the Bishops

From LifeSiteNews:

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 22, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The US Catholic Bishops are now entering the political fracas over a Bush Administration plan to protect the conscience rights of health care professionals that object to abortifacient contraception, crossing swords with Sen. Hillary Clinton and other abortion-supporters in the process.

"This issue provides self-described 'pro-choice' advocates with an opportunity to demonstrate their true convictions," stated Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee (USCCB) on Pro-Life Activities.

"Or is the 'pro-choice' label a misleading mask for an agenda of actively promoting and even imposing morally controversial procedures on those who conscientiously hold different views?"

Clinton and abortion advocates are apoplectic over a draft proposal from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that defines abortion to include "any of the various procedures - including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action - that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."

The proposed HHS regulations would ban individuals and entities receiving federal funds from discriminating against health care professionals and institutions that have moral or religious objections to abortion and abortifacient birth control.

Sen. Clinton along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and 104 Congressman have objected vociferously to the proposed HHS rules, saying health care professionals would then be free to refuse to dispense IUDs, the morning-after pill, emergency contraception, and other abortifacient forms of birth control.

"The draft regulation could have a disastrous effect upon access to safe and effective birth control for millions of women across the country," one protest letter states, adding the regulation would "threaten virtually any law or policy designed to protect women's access to safe and effective birth control...by defining 'abortion' in a way that could sweep in many common forms of birth control."

Representing the USCCB, Rigali stated in a letter written to all members of the US Congress that abortion advocates are being mendacious in claiming that pro-life doctors and nurses - a group they have derided for years as "a tiny minority of religious zealots" - would devastate women's access to abortion and contraception by having their conscience rights protected. The Philadelphia Archbishop added that even if that were the case, it would indicate that the medical community does not regard abortifacient services as essential to "basic" health care as abortion advocates have made it out to be.

"Patients with pro-life convictions, including women who require a physician's care for themselves and their unborn children during pregnancy, deserve 'access' to health care professionals who do not have contempt for their religious and moral convictions or for the lives of their children," he added.

The proposed HHS regulations would ban individuals and entities receiving federal funds from discriminating against health care professionals and institutions that have moral or religious objections to abortion and abortifacient birth control. The HHS pointed to conscience violations by state laws (such as New York and Connecticut) that force abortifacient emergency contraception on Catholic hospitals or threaten the loss of funding as compelling reasons for a stronger federal regulation.

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
"Obama Catholics", where does Sen. Obama stand on the issue of protecting the conscience rights of pro-life health care providers?

For that matter, where does Sen. McCain stand on this issue? We know how loathe he is to upset the "bipartisan" applecart over "divisive" social issues.

Deacon Keith Fournier: "A New Abolitionism, It is Time to End Abortion"

Deacon Keith Fournier writes as Catholic Online:

... We witnessed another example of the powerful abuse of loaded language in a sad chapter in our own American history - when slavery was “legal”, even called a “right” and protected by the United States Supreme Court. The lingering effects of this social evil still cry out for remedy!

Human Persons whose skin pigmentation was darker than those who then held the reigns of power were treated as property and allowed to be “legally owned” and used by others - all with the approval of a Supreme Court which had sacrificed Natural Law and Justice.

A very similar jurisprudence is found in Roe v Wade and its progeny; an entire class of persons, children in the womb, have been relegated to the status of “chattel”, personal property, who can be disposed of by those more powerful than they.

They have no voice that can be heard except our own.

These human children, our first neighbors in the first home of the whole human race, their mothers’ womb, are being killed by chemicals and surgical strikes - all of which is currently protected by the power of a State.

They have no power to resist this new form of slavery without our help. They are subject to use, abuse and destruction by those with more power. Medical science has simply confirmed what our conscience already knows; the child in the womb is our neighbor.

***
In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down abortion bans across the country. In so doing, they “legalized” the killing of the unborn in all 50 states throughout all nine months of pregnancy, at least in the positive law. Fifty million lives have been taken since then in procured abortions.

The Court “created” a new “right”, somehow discovering it in a “penumbra” around the so called “right to privacy” in the U.S. Constitution. Even many of the legal scholars who support legal abortion now acknowledge that the legal opinion is a disaster. It was poorly reasoned, based on junk medical science, inaccurate history and is on a collision course with itself.

Each time Juan Williams used the phrase “anti-abortion rights”, I cringed in my car seat. I asked him aloud in my car the following question:

“Juan, if you had been alive during the last round of slavery, would you have referred to those who rightly opposed it, even though it was called a “right” and protected by the then Supreme Court, “anti-slavery rights activists”?

***
Human Rights activism always requires an asymmetrical approach. The choice is not “either/or”, it is always “both/and”.

I have long supported incremental efforts geared toward the limitations and curtailment of abortion. I was a practicing pro-life lawyer for a very long time. For seven years in the last decade I led the American Center for Law and Justice which used such incrementalism in securing the protection of pro-life speech.

However, pitting these complimentary strategies against one another is wrong. It also fails to comprehend the gravity of the moral evil that is legal abortion.

That is why I have now chosen to use a new term to characterize my own opposition to legal abortion. It is time for a new abolitionism. It is time to end abortion!

[More]

My Comments:
Count me as an abortion abolitionist. If that puts me in the "extreme" camp, as the slavery abolitionists were viewed even by slavery opponents such as Lincoln, so be it.

I once opposed moving too fast at the state level, preferring a more incremental approach, out of fear that another Supreme Court setback reaffirming Roe would set the pro-life movement back even further for at least another generation.

I still prefer taking incremental steps toward chipping away at Roe. But as Deacon Fournier notes, there's no reason such an approach can't be "both/and" rather than "either/or".

Digest of Today's Posts (23 July 2008)

Archbishop Chaput to Release Book on Catholic Faith and Voting

"The Wisdom of Judas Iscariot"

"I Am Not Against Catholics in Office Following the Moral Teachings of the Church"

“Faith . . . Hope . . . Obama.”

Swing State Issues

Are the Suburbs Killing Your Manhood?

(Digest of Yesterday's Posts (22 July 2008))

Highlighted from Yesterday:

Is So-Called Chemical "Castration" for Sex Offenders Morally Licit? [UPDATED]

Fr. Neuhaus Responds to Doug Kmiec

Times of London: "Pope Rejects Invitation by ‘Apostate’ Strasbourg"

Archbishop Chaput to Release Book on Catholic Faith and Voting

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)

Margaret Cabaniss writes at InsideCatholic:

Archbishop Chaput of Denver has long been a clear and reasoned voice when it comes to the intersection of faith and politics. Now it appears that he will be releasing a book next month on just that subject, titled Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life, well in time for November's election...

***
We've had voting guides before, of course, but this sounds as if it will go well beyond a simple checklist of items Catholics must (or must not) vote for, and rather delve into an understanding of why they should do so, and why it is necessary and proper for Catholics to bring their faith into the political sphere in the first place.

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Archbishop Chaput: Thoughts on “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08”

Archbishop Chaput Warns Catholics on Supporting Pro-Abortion Candidates

Archbishop Chaput: "Better Citizens, More Faithful Catholics"

John Allen Interviews Archbishop Chaput Regarding Catholic Voting Guides

Archbishop Chaput Not Satisfied With Proposed New USCCB Document on Voting

Archbishop Chaput: The Time for Behind-The-Scenes Diplomacy with Politicians Is Over

"The Wisdom of Judas Iscariot"

Notwithstanding my criticism of the tone of one of Mark's posts yesterday, I am usually in general agreement with him. And Mark's description of those who decry the alleged "wealth" of the Catholic Church is dead on accurate:

... I've never quite gotten the whole "The Catholic Church is rolling in dough" thing. Where exactly? Every parish I know is always scrambling to pay the light bill. From all I can tell, the Church operates on a shoestring.

Dorothy Day, not exactly a friend of the GOP fatcat type thought one of the dumbest things her fellow lefties wanted to do was demand that the Church "sell off her treasures" because churches were one of the only places that the poor could experience beauty. All that plan would result in would be a modest boost in revenue that would almost instantly evaporate (what with the Church being the largest charitable institution on the face of the earth) and the world greatest art would hencefort and forever be the inaccessible property of a few rich people. The whole "Why were these things not sold?" deal is the wisdom of Judas Iscariot. It's most often heard in the countries, like the US and Canada, that have vast sums of wealth dwarfing the rest of the world. It's the complaint of greedy people.

If the Church were to "sell off her treasures", things like this would be impossible.

"I Am Not Against Catholics in Office Following the Moral Teachings of the Church"

Kathryn Jean Lopez writes at The Corner on National Review Online:

"I am not against Catholics in office following the moral teachings of the Church"

Today the Catholic blogger on the Washington Post's ridiculous religion blog has generously announced the above. How big of him. The topic is bishops denying communion to politicians and he's glad to see that there haven't been any new incidents in the last few weeks. Bishops, you see, shouldn't shepherd the faithful publicly, is his position. Mercifully, giving aid to scandal isn't a Church position.

“Faith . . . Hope . . . Obama.”

From Jay Nordlinger at National Review Online:

A reader writes,

Jay:

I know you’re always interested in chronicling the wonders of our bumper-sticker culture. so here you go: I was tooling about Bloomingdale, Ill., when I stumbled across the following very slight modification of Scripture: “Faith . . . Hope . . . Obama.”

Yes, and the greatest of these is Obama, right?

Oh, yes.

Swing State Issues

Peter Kirsanow writes at The Corner on National Review Online:

Fwiw—talked with some veteran Ohio politicos yesterday who relate that the number one concern among the state's voters is (no surprise) gas prices. Focus group data supposedly shows one of Obama's top vulnerabilities is his record of voting "present" 100+ times in the Illinois state senate—blue collar voters expect senators to work, not straddle. Sleeper issue is Obama's Induced Birth Infant Liability Act vote. Almost nobody knows about it but when informed the reaction is nearly always the same: momentary incredulity followed by revulsion.

(emphasis added)

Are the Suburbs Killing Your Manhood?

From The Art of Manliness: "Are the Suburbs Killing Your Manhood?"

My Comments:
I would say the answer is yes. It's a well-known fact that neighborhood associations - the bane of suburbia - impose restrictive covenants strictly prohibiting testicles. You have to hand 'em over at closing.

Digest of Today's Posts (22 July 2008)

Is So-Called Chemical "Castration" for Sex Offenders Morally Licit? [UPDATED]

Jilted Lover Cries Over Media Love Affair with Obama

Catholic Caveman: "The Main Reason I Won't Vote For John McCain"

Fr. Neuhaus Responds to Doug Kmiec

Times of London Columnist: "Eventually, We Will All Hate Obama Too"

Despicable Clintonite Attacks Pro-Life Advocate Jill Stanek

Times of London: "Pope Rejects Invitation by ‘Apostate’ Strasbourg"

Is So-Called Chemical "Castration" for Sex Offenders Morally Licit? [UPDATED]

I don't know the answer (but tend to think perhaps not, while nevertheless remaining open to hearing the arguments either way), but Mark Shea seems to think the issue is a slam dunk "NO":

I eagerly await the finely parsed exegeses in my comboxes explaining, not only that castration is acceptable for rapists, but that hand amputations are suitable for thieves, tongue branding or removal is justice for slanderers, and foot removal is the due penalty for prison escapees.

One thing we NEVER have to "eagerly anticipate" is sanctimony and moral preening from certain bloggers regarding what someone MIGHT say in a combox about an issue that doesn't seem to be as cut and dry as the blogger tries to make it out to be.

As usual, M.Z. offers the more level-headed take:

I don't think a reasonable request is to ask sex offender to castrate himself. While one can construe the chemical castration as voluntary, that would ignore the coercive elements of the act. I think we do a disservice to the quandry when we don't evaluate this.

You run into dangerous territory when you attempt to deem moral or immoral those acts related to an immoral act. A question often arises if it is worse for a boyfriend and girlfriend to have relations with a condom rather than without. Going deeper the question arises whether it is licit for two gay men to use a condom. The first question I would answer in the negative and the second I would answer in the negative, but there are those who would debate those answers, particularly the latter. There are any number of circumstances and qualifiers that would affect people's answers. And before someone mentions it, yes the acts remain objectively evil, but I was addressing subjective culpability. Such will never make an evil act righteous, but is can reduce the actor's culpability.

As to the general case over medical treatments that may cause a reduction in libido or impede procreation, HV makes clear one may do so as long as the intention is treatment of the medical condition and not contraceptive. I'm not aware - meaning that literature could indeed exist and be plentiful, you're reading this in a combox after all - of literature addressing psychotropic drugs that would reduce illicit desires. I'm not aware of literature addressing the liciety of hormone modification to lessen illicit desires.

Now THERE'S a response that actually examines the moral issues involved without devolving into questioning the motives or moral judgment of those who might struggle with the moral and religious implications of a particular act (which don't seem so clearly defined as one might make them out to be).

I also think Blackadder's take is one that makes sense, even if I'm not yet prepared to agree:

Actually, I'd say the difference between chemical castration and physical castration is the difference between anti-psychotic drugs and a lobotomy. Does the fact that one is opposed to lobotomy require one to be opposed to the use of anti-psychotic drugs? I would think not.

If we were talking about physically castrating someone, I'd be the first in line behind Mark in unequivocally condemning that act. But I'm not so secure in the superiority of my own moral reasoning that I can state unequivocally that the use of drugs in treating the sick compulsion of perverts by inhibiting libido (i.e. "chemical castration") is morally illicit.


UPDATE
Now I see that Mark's viewpoint is stated not (necessarily) from sanctimony but from ignorance of what the drugs involved actually do:

Anti-psychotic drugs correct an imbalance that should not be there. Lobotomies destroy healthy tissue that should be there. All legitimate medicine is about helping nature do what it is designed by God to do. Whacking of somebody's balls or zapping them with chemicals so they no longer work is not assisting nature, but thwarting nature [ED.: Apparently, it's "natural" for pervs to have a compulsion to use their equipment to rape little kids?]. I have no problem incarcerating a rapist. But chemically or physically destroying part of his body so that it does not function anymore is, I think, pretty hard to square with the tradition.

(emphasis added)

Blackadder attempts to set Mark straight:

My understanding is that Depo-Provera works not by rendering men impotent, but by reducing the sex drive, along the lines of an appetite suppressant. So describing it as "destroying part of his body" isn't really accurate.

Again, I'm NOT saying that "chemical castration" is morally licit. I've yet to be convinced, and believe it's perhaps not - at the very least, we ought to be putting up some big 'ol "CAUTION" and "DANGER" signs. Indeed, there are certainly moral and religious issues that are raised by this (as M.Z. points out). But I'm just not so cocksure (no pun intended) that it's a slam dunk from the perspective of Catholic teaching.

Besides, I'm all for locking up these pervs for the rest of their lives and throwing away the key (which makes "chemical castration" or whatever you wish to call it irrelevant).


UPDATE #2
An interesting addition to the discussion:

Perhaps its the term castration that is the problem. Perhaps hormone treatment would be less incidiary though might not satisfy everyone.

The National Catholic Bioethics Center has 41 articles on the topic. I can't access them as I am not a member. However, it seems there might be some disagreement on the matter if there are 41 articles.

(emphasis added)

I, too, would be interested in knowing what the National Catholic Bioethics Center articles have to say on this topic, if anyone reading this has access to them.


UPDATE #3
Nevertheless, some are intent on demonizing (literally):

"Hormone treatment" sounds downright diabolical in its euphemism. It's not a "treatment." It's practically a mutilation.

(emphasis added)

To which I answered:

Why? If it's a more accurate description than "chemical castration"?

Perhaps it's "downright diabolical in its euphemism" if your intent is to sanctimoniously demonize or ascribe bad motives and/or poor moral judgment to those who might not be so cocksure (no pun intended) about the moral illicitness of administering these drugs.

Although by using the term "cocksure" a second time, I suppose the pun has, at that point, become intended.

;-)


UPDATE #4
I don't plan to update this post further, so let me conclude by saying that I am not at all comfortable with "chemical castration" or "hormone treatment" or whatever you wish to call it being used as a component of our penal system. I prefer the "lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key" model of dealing with sex crimes (especially of the variety involving children).

Nevertheless, I am unprepared to unequivocally condemn the use of these drugs as violating Catholic teaching until I have read something more definitive than a bunch of bloggers and combox mini-popes pontificating on the subject. I'd REALLY like to know what those 41 articles at the National Catholic Bioethics Center have to say.


UPDATE #5 (23 July)
Okay, one more update. But there's a late-breaking development of which you should be aware. Commenter "Phillip" has posted the text of 2 articles from the National Catholic Bioethics Center (the other 39 articles appear not to directly address the matter of chemical castration) beginning here.

While I'm not sure those articles are necessarily dispositive of the issue, they certainly change, in my view, the dynamic of the discussion from one that is "I'm right and all the rest of you on the rubber-hose right who disagree with me are bad Catholics" to one that is more open-ended.

Jilted Lover Cries Over Media Love Affair with Obama

Today, I received the following email from the McCain people:

It's pretty obvious that the media has a bizarre fascination with Barack Obama. Some may even say it's a love affair. We want you to be the judge. We've compiled two videos of the more outrageous moments of this not so secret love affair. Follow this link to watch the two videos and vote on which one you think is better. Your vote will determine which video we put on the air.

The media is in love with Barack Obama. If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny.

Regards,

The McCain Campaign

Cry me a river, Maverick, you hypocrite! You've spent the last 8 years or more courting the media and basking in a media love affair of your own to the detriment of your fellow conservatives, who were the unwilling victims that you routinely sacrificed in order to attain such media adulation.

So, forgive me if I don't get too emotionally wrought over your hurt feelings in being jilted by that same MSM during their collective media Obasm.

Catholic Caveman: "The Main Reason I Won't Vote For John McCain"

Our favorite stone-age Marine spells out the main reason he (and I) cannot support John McCain:

... I'll wholeheartedly agree that the Obamanation is a first class baby-butcher. After all, in regards to children who survived the abortion procedure, he's the same guy who did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."

All that aside, it's time for an integrity check... there's no getting around it - John McCain is also in favor of murdering children.

***
Anyhow, unless McCain fully, sincerely and substantially renounces his stance on ESCR, there simply is no way I can vote for him. We all know what the five non-negotiables are. We can't pick-and-choose. We either abide by them all, or throw them all out the window. Period, end of story.

[More]

(emphasis in original)

My Comments:
Amen, Cavey. Unless and until McCain renounces his position on ESCR, I cannot, in good conscience, support him.

Fr. Neuhaus Responds to Doug Kmiec

National Catholic Register has now made available online Fr. Neuhaus' response (originally published in the July 13-19 issue of the Register) to Prof. Doug Kmiec's pro-Obama sophistry:

... The question is that of justice for unborn children. When one candidate supports the unlimited abortion license and another wants the abortion question returned to the states, it is disingenuous to suggest that they are equally pro-choice. And to say that the first candidate’s position is closer to a Catholic understanding of subsidiarity is, I am sorry to say, risible. Catholic teaching and the mandate of justice is that all members of the human family, born and unborn, be protected in law. To deny that protection is a grave injustice.

The candidate who would return the abortion question to the states so that citizens working through their elected representatives can enact laws protecting the unborn is, in taking that position, pro-life. The candidate who, by supporting Roe v. Wade, would deny to citizens that opportunity is pro-choice. It is a great disservice to try to obfuscate such an obvious distinction.

***
It is deeply regrettable that Mr. Kmiec cites Archbishop Chaput’s 1976 support of President Carter, who endorsed Roe v. Wade, as evidence that one can rightly support his preferred candidate today. Archbishop Chaput can speak for himself, and he has, both on the First Things website (May 20) and in his new book Render Unto Caesar. He makes it unequivocally clear that he regrets that 1976 decision, which he rationalized at the time along lines very similar to those now employed by Mr. Kmiec.

The archbishop says that he does not believe there is a proportionate reason — a reason he will one day have to give to the aborted babies — to justify support for a pro-choice candidate. Nor has Mr. Kmiec indicated such a proportionate reason. Mr. Kmiec claims his candidate wants to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the incidence of unwanted pregnancy, and he will do that by encouraging “responsible sexual behavior.” One may be permitted to point out that four decades of sex education, including the massive promotion of contraception, has not been a great success in reducing unwanted pregnancies or abortions.

[More - by subscription only]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Deal Hudson's Open Letter to Doug Kmiec

National Catholic Register on Catholics, Kmiec, and Obama

Prof. Hadley Arkes: "Political Distraction Among the Catholics"

Doug Kmiec - What He Said Then vs. What He Says Now Re: Constitutional Jurisprudence

What is the "Pro-Life Position" Regarding Abortion?

Traumatized

Unrequited Love

Doug Kmiec: "After Meeting with Barack" [UPDATED]

Cranky Conservative: "But At Least He Says It with a Smile"

Doug Kmiec Again Places Platitudes Above Policy [UPDATED]

Prof. Bainbridge on "Obama, Abortion, & Catholics"

Prof. Rick Garnett on Kmiec's Latest Nonsense

Deacon Keith Fournier: "Why I Disagree with Doug Kmiec, Once Again"

Give It a Rest Already, Prof. Kmiec!

Deacon Keith Fournier: "No More ‘Left’ or ‘Right’, Time for a New Catholic Action"

Doug Kmiec's Newfound Celebrity Status Among Those on the Left

Doug Kmiec Soon To Be Sorely Disappointed

E.J. Dionne on Kmiec Being Denied Communion [UPDATED]

Archbishop Chaput: Thoughts on “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08”

Deal Hudson on Prof. Kmiec and Blurring the Lines Between "Pro-Choice" and Pro-Abortion

Did Doug Kmiec Just Now Catch On That Obama and NARAL Are Politically Conjoined? [UPDATED]

Deal Hudson on "How Obama's Catholics Will Dodge the Infanticide Question"

Kmiec's Dishonesty [UPDATED]

Catholic Teaching and Political Risk Taking: When Credit Isn't Given Where Credit is Due [UPDATED]

Kmiec's Wishful Thinking on Obama and Abortion

The Curt Jester: "Shameless Garment" [UPDATED]

So-Called "Catholic Reaganite" Doug Kmiec Endorses Obama [UPDATED]

"No'bama for Me, Thanks"

Can a Catholic Vote for Obama?

Obama's Pledge to Planned Parenthood: “I Will Not Yield"

Deal Hudson: "Barack Obama's Catholic Problem"

"Why American Catholics are Supporting Barack Obama"

Catholics at the Ballot Box

How the Catholic Left Will Tackle McCain

Why Does Kmiec Criticize McCain for Positions on Which He Gave Romney a Pass?

Deal Hudson on "Douglas Kmiec and the Lure of Obama"

Douglas W. Kmiec on "The Moral Duty to Inquire"

Professor Bainbridge: "Will Catholic Reaganites Go for Obama?"

Deal Hudson: "Preacher Man: Barack Obama and the the Gospel of Liberalism"

"Sorry, Doug Kmiec, But This Catholic Isn't Buying Obama"

Ramesh Ponnuru on Douglas Kmiec and "Catholic Reaganites for Obama" [UPDATED]

Romney Advisor Says Obama "a Natural for the Catholic Vote"

Times of London Columnist: "Eventually, We Will All Hate Obama Too"

David Aaronovitch writes in The Times of London:

It amuses me that some of those who criticise the present US Administration for its Manichaeism - its division of the world into good and evil - themselves allocate all past badness to Bush and all prospective goodness to Obama. As the ever-improving myth has it, on the morning of September 12, 2001, George W. and America enjoyed the sympathy of the world. This comradeship was destroyed, in a uniquely cavalier (or should we say cowboyish) fashion, through the belligerence, the carelessness, the ideological fixity and the rapacity of that amorphous and useful category of American flawed thinker, the neoconservative. They just threw it away.

***
This week you could hear the author Andrew O'Hagan on Radio 4, reading from his collection of self-conscious essays, The Atlantic Ocean, in which - despite his own claims - every impact of American life on Britain is somehow configured negatively. He writes of an exported popular culture “born in the suburbs of America” and defined as “Spite as entertainment. Shouting as argument. Dysfunction as normality. Desires as rights. Shopping as democracy.” This in the country that has sent Big Brother, Pop Idol, Wife Swap and Location, Location, Location over the Atlantic in the other direction, while taking delivery of Curb Your Enthusiasm and The Wire.

I should admit that I am irked by O'Hagan's dismissal of the “idiots who supported that bad and stupid war (ie, Iraq)” and am willing to match my idiocy against his intelligence in any debating forum that he cares to name. More interesting, though, is the desire to blame America. For all that O'Hagan claims that the US has lost its purchase on the world's affections, it remains the chosen destination for the most ambitious of the planet's migrants. For all that he claims that this change in sentiment is recent, I can't help recalling those - the most honest - who commented, in journals he writes for and on the very day after September 11, that the Americans had had it coming.

In part I think that anti-Americanism is linked to a view of change as decline. The imagination is that dynamic capitalism, associated with the US, is destroying our authentic lives, with our own partly willing connivance. It is a continuing and - at the moment - constant narrative, uniting left and right conservatives, which will usually take in the 19th- century radical journalist William Cobbett (conveniently shorn of his anti-Semitism), and end with an expression of disgust over the Dome, the Olympics or Tesco. Just as bird flu is a disease from out of the East, runaway modernity is a scourge originating to the West.

So Barack Obama, en fête around the world, will one day learn that there is no magical cure for the envy of others. What makes America the indispensable power (and even more indispensable in the era of the new China), is precisely what makes anti-Americanism inevitable.

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
Of course, with a name like "David Aaronovitch", he MUST be a "neocon" himself.
/sarcasm