Once again, a prominent conservative demonstrates his moral and ethical superiority. This from yesterday's Daily Kos:
Washington Post's Jim Brady: He Can't Google, So He Should Be Replaced
by DHinMI
Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 10:50:09 PM PDT
Poor Jim Brady, sharp people like Brad DeLong give him lots of clues, but Brady chooses to remain clueless:
A 24-year-old blogger for The Washington Post, Ben Domenech, resigned yesterday after being confronted with evidence that he had plagiarized articles in other publications.
His resignation came after writing six blog items in the three days he worked for Red America, a blog that The Post created to offer a conservative viewpoint on its Web site...
But by late Thursday, the bloggers had found instances of what appeared to be plagiarism, including an article by Mr. Domenech in The New York Press that contained passages resembling an article that ran on the front page of The Washington Post.
Evidence of one instance of plagiarism first surfaced on the liberal blog Daily Kos on Thursday. [Kudos to Oregon Guy for getting the plagiarism search started.] A comment posted on the blog said a passage from an article by Mr. Domenech was nearly identical to a chapter from P. J. O'Rourke's book, "Modern Manners: An Etiquette Book for Rude People."
Other articles that contained passages that appeared to be copied were published in National Review Online, The New York Press and The Flat Hat, the student newspaper at the College of William and Mary, which Mr. Domenech attended.
...And more, which you may read for yourself.
Although the gist of the remainder of the post is to take Jim Brady (executive editor for the Washington Post web site) to task for hiring Domenech in the first place (and for some rather puzzling statements as the plagiarism story began to break), I find it amazing how huffy and morally self-righteous so many right-wingers can be regarding, say, Bill Clinton, while at the same time blithely practicing theft and lying (which is what plagiarism is, after all).
Strange, no, that they have such a reputation for moral uprightness when so many of them prove to be so morally compass-less.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Monday, March 20, 2006
Another Batch of Quotations
More quotations that have been piling up for awhile. As usual, most if not all of them came to me via A Word a Day.
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. -Anne Lamott, writer (1954- )
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire, philosopher (1694-1778)
When we have the courage to speak out -- to break our silence -- we inspire the rest of the "moderates" in our communities to speak up and voice their views. -Sharon Schuster
If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul. -Isaac Asimov, scientist and writer (1920-1992)
I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center. -Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., writer (1922- )
It came to me that reform should begin at home, and since that day I have not had time to remake the world. -Will Durant, historian (1885-1981)
Let us face a pluralistic world in which there are no universal churches, no single remedy for all diseases, no one way to teach or write or sing, no magic diet, no world poets, and no chosen races, but only the wretched and wonderfully diversified human race. -Jacques Barzun, professor and writer (1907- )
I am malicious because I am miserable. ... If any being felt emotions of benevolence towards me, I should return them a hundred and a hundred fold (words of Frankenstein monster). -Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, author (1797-1851)
To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. -Abraham Lincoln, 16th US president (1809-1865)
A man needs a little madness, or else he never dares cut the rope and be free. -Nikos Kazantzakis, writer (1883-1957)
Half the truth is often a great lie. -Benjamin Franklin, statesman, author, and inventor (1706-1790)
As the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence. -Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948)
War, at first, is the hope that one will be better off; next, the expectation that the other fellow will be worse off; then, the satisfaction that he isn't any better off; and, finally, the surprise at everyone's being worse off. -Karl Kraus, writer (1874-1936)
People do not wish to appear foolish; to avoid the appearance of foolishness, they are willing to remain actually fools. -Alice Walker, writer (1944- )
Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws. -John Adams, 2nd US president (1735-1826)
God is conscience. He is even the atheism of the atheist. -Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948)
Take long walks in stormy weather or through deep snows in the fields and woods, if you would keep your spirits up. Deal with brute nature. Be cold and hungry and weary. -Henry David Thoreau, naturalist and author (1817-1862)
We must learn to regard people less in the light of what they do or omit to do, and more in the light of what they suffer. -Dietrich Bonhoeffer, theologian and writer (1906-1945)
It does not require many words to speak the truth. -Chief Joseph, native American leader (1840-1904)
Truth is not only violated by falsehood; it may be equally outraged by silence. -Henri Frederic Amiel philosopher and writer (1821-1881)
Lying is done with words and also with silence. -Adrienne Rich, writer and teacher (1929- )
Why should I give them my mind we well? -Dalai Lama, when asked if he wasn't angry at the Chinese for taking over his country. (1935- )
I love you, and because I love you, I would sooner have you hate me for telling you the truth than adore me for telling you lies. -Pietro Aretino, satirist and dramatist (1492-1556)
Saturday, March 18, 2006
A Little Knowledge
Here is the text of a particularly underbaked letter that ran this week in my local newspaper:
In response to Pauline Polete's Feb. 28 letter, in which she criticizes protecting lawful possession of weapons and the interference of women of an abortion clinic, I would like to remind all those who slept through government class that gun ownership is explicitly protected by the Constitution of the U.S.
The 2nd Amendment states that I have a lawful right to own one. And in-as-much as it is a guaranteed right I question the constitutionality of laws requiring its citizenry to obtain a weapons permit. If I choose to carry one I am acting within my rights, while knowing if I am is not one of your rights.
With regard to abortion, it is only through the rulings of would-be dictators dressed in judges' robes, accountable to no one and acting outside the powers granted them by the Constitution of the U.S. that such fanatical and horrendous rights might be given. The Constitution does not give anyone the right to abortion, regardless of the circumstances in which it was conceived or would be born into.
Michael R. Mongar, Sioux Falls
Where to begin, where to begin...
Let's start with the mostly polite reply that I sent off to the paper this very day:
The author of a recent letter in the Argus Leader asserts, for the benefit of "all those who slept through government class," that "gun ownership is explicitly protected by the Constitution of the U.S." and that "the 2nd Amendment states that I have a lawful right to own one."
Well, here's what the Second Amendment has to say:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That's it. The whole enchilada. Certainly not much "explicit" there. Nothing about guns at all--just "arms." Also, nothing about an individual's right to bear arms just "the people," which, given the reference to "militia," some scholars interpret to mean the states' right to raise militias, not the individual's right to own guns.
It's not enough to just stay awake during class: It's also helpful to read the material before you start asserting what it does and does not say.
A model of restraint, no?
The local rag has a pretty draconian limit on letters' length--200, they say, although frequently the editors violate that rule, which I guess is an editor's prerogative--so there's a lot that I didn't say in my well-crafted rebuttal. F'rinstance:
+ If the Second Amendment does in fact guarantee gun ownership, how does the state's requiring a gun permit fly in the face of the amendment? Certainly no one could seriously argue that needing a permit somehow constitutes "infringement" as mentioned in the amendment.
+ I skipped the whole abortion angle--partly because of the 200-word limit, partly to try to unmuddy the waters a little. However. Does it not amuse that the letter's author uplifts the Constitution as a sacred text when it comes to his owning guns but implicitly tramples it underfoot when it comes to his "would-be dictators dressed in judges' robes"--the independent judiciary being, yes, explicitly delineated in the Constitution? How very similar to right-wing extremists' attitude toward the Bible: sacred, holy, and inarguably infallible when it says what they want it to say, easily ignored when it does not.
+ Of course, it is "only through the rulings of would-be dictators dressed in judges' robes, accountable to no one and acting outside the powers granted them by the Constitution of the U.S. that such fanatical and horrendous rights might be given"--that is, the right to own anything that goes bang. Oh, wait, he was talking about abortion, wasn't he? How embarrassing. So let me see if I have this right: Judges are good when they interpret the rather poorly written Second Amendment to mean gun ownership by individuals, bad when they interpret law and tradition to uphold a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. Got it. I think.
+ He says, "The Constitution does not give anyone the right to abortion, regardless of the circumstances in which it was conceived or would be born into." Again like the Bible, the Constitution says and doesn't say a lot of things. Most religions that espouse the Judeo-Christian scriptures rely also on traditions and interpretations that have been made by their institutions over the centuries. So it is with the Constitution--for all but the most wild-eyed strict-constructionist right-wingers: U.S. law is founded on the Constitution and must not be contrary to it (unconstitutional, in a word)--but the document is not all there is to the law. Nor should it be.
I am reminded of a similarly ill-educated letter-writer from the days when I was an editor of TWA Ambassador magazine. I don't recall the context, but she was pretty hot about something someone had said in an article, and concluded her diatribe with, "Whatever happened to government by the people, for the people, of the people? Doesn't anyone read the Constitution anymore?" My spoilsport boss wouldn't let me run it with the obvious answer, viz., "Apparently not, since you just quoted the Gettysburg Address."
A little knowledge really is a dangerous thing!
In response to Pauline Polete's Feb. 28 letter, in which she criticizes protecting lawful possession of weapons and the interference of women of an abortion clinic, I would like to remind all those who slept through government class that gun ownership is explicitly protected by the Constitution of the U.S.
The 2nd Amendment states that I have a lawful right to own one. And in-as-much as it is a guaranteed right I question the constitutionality of laws requiring its citizenry to obtain a weapons permit. If I choose to carry one I am acting within my rights, while knowing if I am is not one of your rights.
With regard to abortion, it is only through the rulings of would-be dictators dressed in judges' robes, accountable to no one and acting outside the powers granted them by the Constitution of the U.S. that such fanatical and horrendous rights might be given. The Constitution does not give anyone the right to abortion, regardless of the circumstances in which it was conceived or would be born into.
Michael R. Mongar, Sioux Falls
Where to begin, where to begin...
Let's start with the mostly polite reply that I sent off to the paper this very day:
The author of a recent letter in the Argus Leader asserts, for the benefit of "all those who slept through government class," that "gun ownership is explicitly protected by the Constitution of the U.S." and that "the 2nd Amendment states that I have a lawful right to own one."
Well, here's what the Second Amendment has to say:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That's it. The whole enchilada. Certainly not much "explicit" there. Nothing about guns at all--just "arms." Also, nothing about an individual's right to bear arms just "the people," which, given the reference to "militia," some scholars interpret to mean the states' right to raise militias, not the individual's right to own guns.
It's not enough to just stay awake during class: It's also helpful to read the material before you start asserting what it does and does not say.
A model of restraint, no?
The local rag has a pretty draconian limit on letters' length--200, they say, although frequently the editors violate that rule, which I guess is an editor's prerogative--so there's a lot that I didn't say in my well-crafted rebuttal. F'rinstance:
+ If the Second Amendment does in fact guarantee gun ownership, how does the state's requiring a gun permit fly in the face of the amendment? Certainly no one could seriously argue that needing a permit somehow constitutes "infringement" as mentioned in the amendment.
+ I skipped the whole abortion angle--partly because of the 200-word limit, partly to try to unmuddy the waters a little. However. Does it not amuse that the letter's author uplifts the Constitution as a sacred text when it comes to his owning guns but implicitly tramples it underfoot when it comes to his "would-be dictators dressed in judges' robes"--the independent judiciary being, yes, explicitly delineated in the Constitution? How very similar to right-wing extremists' attitude toward the Bible: sacred, holy, and inarguably infallible when it says what they want it to say, easily ignored when it does not.
+ Of course, it is "only through the rulings of would-be dictators dressed in judges' robes, accountable to no one and acting outside the powers granted them by the Constitution of the U.S. that such fanatical and horrendous rights might be given"--that is, the right to own anything that goes bang. Oh, wait, he was talking about abortion, wasn't he? How embarrassing. So let me see if I have this right: Judges are good when they interpret the rather poorly written Second Amendment to mean gun ownership by individuals, bad when they interpret law and tradition to uphold a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. Got it. I think.
+ He says, "The Constitution does not give anyone the right to abortion, regardless of the circumstances in which it was conceived or would be born into." Again like the Bible, the Constitution says and doesn't say a lot of things. Most religions that espouse the Judeo-Christian scriptures rely also on traditions and interpretations that have been made by their institutions over the centuries. So it is with the Constitution--for all but the most wild-eyed strict-constructionist right-wingers: U.S. law is founded on the Constitution and must not be contrary to it (unconstitutional, in a word)--but the document is not all there is to the law. Nor should it be.
I am reminded of a similarly ill-educated letter-writer from the days when I was an editor of TWA Ambassador magazine. I don't recall the context, but she was pretty hot about something someone had said in an article, and concluded her diatribe with, "Whatever happened to government by the people, for the people, of the people? Doesn't anyone read the Constitution anymore?" My spoilsport boss wouldn't let me run it with the obvious answer, viz., "Apparently not, since you just quoted the Gettysburg Address."
A little knowledge really is a dangerous thing!
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
They're Making Fun of Us!
And who could blame them? My friend Ron sent these editorial cartoons lampooning South Dakota's near-total ban on abortion, passed into law this week.
"Somebody Stop Me"
Hot on the heels of signing the most draconian abortion ban in the nation (basically: no abortions, period. At least, no legal ones), my state's governor now backs away from the measure he signed into law. Fascinating. You don't suppose politics could have anything to do with anything, do you??
An interesting quotation in the item below, from my local newspaper, is this:
Asked about the lack of an exception for victims of rape or incest, Rounds said, "I did not write this bill." Another time during the questions and answers, he said "This isn't my bill.''
I would suggest that once a governor signs a measure into law, it then becomes his or her bill--regardless of its original author(s), the governor has now taken ownership of it. If he doesn't support it, why did he sign it? If he does support it, why is he trying to slide away from it now? I suspect it's because this measure goes way beyond what most South Dakotans, and most Americans, support (at the very least, most people have some compassion for women and girls who find themselves pregnant as the result of rape or incest, or women whose health would be endangered by continuing their pregnancy--most people, that is, who are not South Dakota Republican state legislators), and because he's looking not only at re-election but also at an eventual run for U.S. Senate. So now having appeased the extreme right-wing, he's already madly dashing back toward the center.
I did not vote for the Governor Rounds, but I formerly had a great deal more respect for him than I do today.
Anyway, here's the piece:
Rounds explains abortion decision
Governor doesn't embrace ban he signed
TERRY WOSTER
ARGUS LEADER (Sioux Falls, SD)
March 8, 2006, 2:55 am
PIERRE - Gov. Mike Rounds on Tuesday carved a bit of space between him and the abortion ban he signed into law, repeatedly saying it's not his bill.
Rounds also said he wouldn't campaign actively for it if a threatened referral drive materializes.
Rounds, a Republican, held his first news conference since signing the bill at the same time Tuesday that U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson issued a statement in which he suggested the bill is out of the mainstream.
There's been political speculation that if Rounds wins re-election as expected this year, he might be pressured by the state GOP to challenge Johnson, a Democrat who won his last race by 528 votes.
"This law is an extreme and radical approach to a very difficult and personal subject, and I do not support it," Johnson's statement said.
Rounds, responding to questions from reporters, reminded them at least twice that it's not his legislation.
He signed the bill Monday.
Sponsors hope it will start a federal court challenge to the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that became the foundation for legal abortion. The measure would make it a felony crime for a doctor to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. Even in those instances, the doctor would be required to try to save both lives.
Opponents, who say they intend to make a court challenge, also have talked in recent days about circulating petitions and placing the issue on the South Dakota ballot in November. The law wouldn't take effect until after the vote if those petitions were filed.
If that happened, a loud and rowdy campaign could be expected. Rounds wouldn't be among those making the noise, he said.
"I would not actively campaign either way on this particular issue at this stage of the game," the governor said. "When people asked my opinion, I would share with them that my preference would be to take Roe v. Wade apart piece by piece. But other than that, in terms of the bill itself and those individuals who believe this is the right approach to taking apart Roe v. Wade, this is their opportunity to find out, at least in the next few years, whether or not the Supreme Court would entertain this as the right vehicle to address abortion within the United States."
Asked about the lack of an exception for victims of rape or incest, Rounds said, "I did not write this bill." Another time during the questions and answers, he said "This isn't my bill.''
Johnson, Herseth differ from Thune
Johnson's statement said the proposed law "would deny individual women, even under the most extreme circumstances, their current right to prayerfully determine for themselves whether to have an abortion."
He said the law goes beyond what President Bush has said he would accept. He said the national goal should be to make abortion rare "through education, voluntary contraceptive resources, improved adoption procedures and help for low-income new mothers and their children."
Politicians shouldn't substitute their judgment for "the painfully difficult and very personal decisions of women and their families," Johnson said.
Republican Sen. John Thune said in a statement Tuesday that the Legislature took an anti-abortion stand that reflects South Dakota's position as an anti-abortion state.
"While I have consistently supported a ban on abortion with the exception of rape, incest and when the mother's life is in danger, I share the goal of the South Dakota Legislature to promote a culture of life," Thune said.
Democrat Rep. Stephanie Herseth said she doesn't think the bill represents the view of a majority of South Dakotans.
"This legislation, which contains no protection for victims of rape or incest and provides no exceptions for a mother's health, is far outside of the mainstream," Herseth said.
Instead of seeking common ground, she said, "proponents of this extreme bill have chosen a highly political and divisive approach."
Time to add exceptions for rape, incest
Rounds said there is a five- to seven-day window of an exception for rape and incest, since the bill he signed into law would allow contraceptive drugs to be issued until the time that a pregnancy could be determined by testing.
"So if you do have an individual who has been victimized with rape or incest, there is a time period in which this bill does not apply to contraceptive drugs and so forth being utilized," he said.
Rounds' signature on the bill set in motion a series of protests and demonstrations this week.
In a news conference, representatives of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League Pro-Choice South Dakota, South Dakota Advocacy Network for Women, Planned Parenthood of South Dakota, and State Rep. Elaine Roberts, D-Sioux Falls, decried the new abortion law and outlined the major thrusts of challenges against it. They include:
# Questioning the establishment of a legal defense fund to receive contributions to pay for court challenges to the new abortion law.
# Consolidating support among women to view the law as a dismissive attack on women's rights.
# Recruiting legislative candidates to run against those who voted for the bill.
Kate Looby, Planned Parenthood's state director, said that while the abortion bill passed, bills before the Legislature to require hospitals to make women aware emergency contraception is available, to make insurance companies cover contraceptive drugs if they cover other prescription drugs and to require school districts to offer sex education all failed in committee.
Looby said legislators who backed the abortion law have "a huge problem...communicating with people in the state who strongly support a rape/incest exception."
Planned Parenthood also is holding a rally against the abortion ban Thursday from noon to 1 p.m. at the federal courthouse.
Roberts called the abortion law "a wake-up call" for her constituents who want the Legislature to focus on jobs, education, health care and property tax relief, and question "why we spend so much time on this" abortion issue. She opposes the legal defense fund.
"Are we for sale?" she asked. "This is another way to hide funds, another way to put money some place where you don't know who is contributing. If this (abortion law) is what the people of South Dakota really want, the people of South Dakota ought to pay for it, and I don't think we do. I don't think we want our tax money to pay for it."
Argus Leader reporter Peter Harriman contributed to this story.
An interesting quotation in the item below, from my local newspaper, is this:
Asked about the lack of an exception for victims of rape or incest, Rounds said, "I did not write this bill." Another time during the questions and answers, he said "This isn't my bill.''
I would suggest that once a governor signs a measure into law, it then becomes his or her bill--regardless of its original author(s), the governor has now taken ownership of it. If he doesn't support it, why did he sign it? If he does support it, why is he trying to slide away from it now? I suspect it's because this measure goes way beyond what most South Dakotans, and most Americans, support (at the very least, most people have some compassion for women and girls who find themselves pregnant as the result of rape or incest, or women whose health would be endangered by continuing their pregnancy--most people, that is, who are not South Dakota Republican state legislators), and because he's looking not only at re-election but also at an eventual run for U.S. Senate. So now having appeased the extreme right-wing, he's already madly dashing back toward the center.
I did not vote for the Governor Rounds, but I formerly had a great deal more respect for him than I do today.
Anyway, here's the piece:
Rounds explains abortion decision
Governor doesn't embrace ban he signed
TERRY WOSTER
ARGUS LEADER (Sioux Falls, SD)
March 8, 2006, 2:55 am
PIERRE - Gov. Mike Rounds on Tuesday carved a bit of space between him and the abortion ban he signed into law, repeatedly saying it's not his bill.
Rounds also said he wouldn't campaign actively for it if a threatened referral drive materializes.
Rounds, a Republican, held his first news conference since signing the bill at the same time Tuesday that U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson issued a statement in which he suggested the bill is out of the mainstream.
There's been political speculation that if Rounds wins re-election as expected this year, he might be pressured by the state GOP to challenge Johnson, a Democrat who won his last race by 528 votes.
"This law is an extreme and radical approach to a very difficult and personal subject, and I do not support it," Johnson's statement said.
Rounds, responding to questions from reporters, reminded them at least twice that it's not his legislation.
He signed the bill Monday.
Sponsors hope it will start a federal court challenge to the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that became the foundation for legal abortion. The measure would make it a felony crime for a doctor to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. Even in those instances, the doctor would be required to try to save both lives.
Opponents, who say they intend to make a court challenge, also have talked in recent days about circulating petitions and placing the issue on the South Dakota ballot in November. The law wouldn't take effect until after the vote if those petitions were filed.
If that happened, a loud and rowdy campaign could be expected. Rounds wouldn't be among those making the noise, he said.
"I would not actively campaign either way on this particular issue at this stage of the game," the governor said. "When people asked my opinion, I would share with them that my preference would be to take Roe v. Wade apart piece by piece. But other than that, in terms of the bill itself and those individuals who believe this is the right approach to taking apart Roe v. Wade, this is their opportunity to find out, at least in the next few years, whether or not the Supreme Court would entertain this as the right vehicle to address abortion within the United States."
Asked about the lack of an exception for victims of rape or incest, Rounds said, "I did not write this bill." Another time during the questions and answers, he said "This isn't my bill.''
Johnson, Herseth differ from Thune
Johnson's statement said the proposed law "would deny individual women, even under the most extreme circumstances, their current right to prayerfully determine for themselves whether to have an abortion."
He said the law goes beyond what President Bush has said he would accept. He said the national goal should be to make abortion rare "through education, voluntary contraceptive resources, improved adoption procedures and help for low-income new mothers and their children."
Politicians shouldn't substitute their judgment for "the painfully difficult and very personal decisions of women and their families," Johnson said.
Republican Sen. John Thune said in a statement Tuesday that the Legislature took an anti-abortion stand that reflects South Dakota's position as an anti-abortion state.
"While I have consistently supported a ban on abortion with the exception of rape, incest and when the mother's life is in danger, I share the goal of the South Dakota Legislature to promote a culture of life," Thune said.
Democrat Rep. Stephanie Herseth said she doesn't think the bill represents the view of a majority of South Dakotans.
"This legislation, which contains no protection for victims of rape or incest and provides no exceptions for a mother's health, is far outside of the mainstream," Herseth said.
Instead of seeking common ground, she said, "proponents of this extreme bill have chosen a highly political and divisive approach."
Time to add exceptions for rape, incest
Rounds said there is a five- to seven-day window of an exception for rape and incest, since the bill he signed into law would allow contraceptive drugs to be issued until the time that a pregnancy could be determined by testing.
"So if you do have an individual who has been victimized with rape or incest, there is a time period in which this bill does not apply to contraceptive drugs and so forth being utilized," he said.
Rounds' signature on the bill set in motion a series of protests and demonstrations this week.
In a news conference, representatives of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League Pro-Choice South Dakota, South Dakota Advocacy Network for Women, Planned Parenthood of South Dakota, and State Rep. Elaine Roberts, D-Sioux Falls, decried the new abortion law and outlined the major thrusts of challenges against it. They include:
# Questioning the establishment of a legal defense fund to receive contributions to pay for court challenges to the new abortion law.
# Consolidating support among women to view the law as a dismissive attack on women's rights.
# Recruiting legislative candidates to run against those who voted for the bill.
Kate Looby, Planned Parenthood's state director, said that while the abortion bill passed, bills before the Legislature to require hospitals to make women aware emergency contraception is available, to make insurance companies cover contraceptive drugs if they cover other prescription drugs and to require school districts to offer sex education all failed in committee.
Looby said legislators who backed the abortion law have "a huge problem...communicating with people in the state who strongly support a rape/incest exception."
Planned Parenthood also is holding a rally against the abortion ban Thursday from noon to 1 p.m. at the federal courthouse.
Roberts called the abortion law "a wake-up call" for her constituents who want the Legislature to focus on jobs, education, health care and property tax relief, and question "why we spend so much time on this" abortion issue. She opposes the legal defense fund.
"Are we for sale?" she asked. "This is another way to hide funds, another way to put money some place where you don't know who is contributing. If this (abortion law) is what the people of South Dakota really want, the people of South Dakota ought to pay for it, and I don't think we do. I don't think we want our tax money to pay for it."
Argus Leader reporter Peter Harriman contributed to this story.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
What Are Conservatives Conserving?
An interesting editorial from the Charleston (West Virginia) Daily Mail. Not the first time it has occurred to me that "conservatives" are more interested in having a big, red-ink government sticking its nose into people's business than "liberals," who are often accused of same.
Charleston Daily Mail
Editorials: South Dakota hurts the right
Government has no business interfering in personal matters
Tuesday February 28, 2006
PLANNED Parenthood operates the only legal abortion clinic in South Dakota, performing about 800 abortions a year. These are difficult decisions for the women involved, and many of them must travel far to get to the facility.
The South Dakota Legislature now wants to make those women travel even further, to another state. A bill to ban abortion in South Dakota except to save a woman's life passed its House, 50-18, and its Senate, 23-12.
A doctor who performs an abortion could face up to five years in prison under this proposal. South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds said he is inclined to sign this ban into law.
This is madness, not conservatism. The idea that the state should interfere with a medical decision is repugnant. As awful as abortions are, having the government make such decisions is even worse.
As Bill Clinton said when he was president, "Abortions should be safe, legal and rare."
The South Dakota legislature and its governor seek to hijack the appointment of two fine judges to the federal Supreme Court. The South Dakota politicians seek to portray Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito as men hell-bent on overturning Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision that recognized a woman has a right to make this choice.
But from their testimony during their nomination hearings, neither man is likely to vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Refine it, yes. Parental notification laws and a ban on late-term abortion make sense.
The South Dakota ban does not. Rape victims who become pregnant would be forced to bear a child and the rapist would have parental rights, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault.
"The idea the rapist could be in the child's life . . . makes the woman very, very fearful. Sometimes they need to have choice," Heeren-Graber told Chet Brokaw of the Associated Press.
Nanny government is the forte of liberalism. Having the government decide whether an unwanted pregnancy is terminated is nanny-ism squared.
What is conservative about regulating such decisions?
Here is hoping the governor of South Dakota comes to his senses and vetoes the bill.
© Copyright 2005 Charleston Daily Mail
Charleston Daily Mail
Editorials: South Dakota hurts the right
Government has no business interfering in personal matters
Tuesday February 28, 2006
PLANNED Parenthood operates the only legal abortion clinic in South Dakota, performing about 800 abortions a year. These are difficult decisions for the women involved, and many of them must travel far to get to the facility.
The South Dakota Legislature now wants to make those women travel even further, to another state. A bill to ban abortion in South Dakota except to save a woman's life passed its House, 50-18, and its Senate, 23-12.
A doctor who performs an abortion could face up to five years in prison under this proposal. South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds said he is inclined to sign this ban into law.
This is madness, not conservatism. The idea that the state should interfere with a medical decision is repugnant. As awful as abortions are, having the government make such decisions is even worse.
As Bill Clinton said when he was president, "Abortions should be safe, legal and rare."
The South Dakota legislature and its governor seek to hijack the appointment of two fine judges to the federal Supreme Court. The South Dakota politicians seek to portray Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito as men hell-bent on overturning Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision that recognized a woman has a right to make this choice.
But from their testimony during their nomination hearings, neither man is likely to vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Refine it, yes. Parental notification laws and a ban on late-term abortion make sense.
The South Dakota ban does not. Rape victims who become pregnant would be forced to bear a child and the rapist would have parental rights, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault.
"The idea the rapist could be in the child's life . . . makes the woman very, very fearful. Sometimes they need to have choice," Heeren-Graber told Chet Brokaw of the Associated Press.
Nanny government is the forte of liberalism. Having the government decide whether an unwanted pregnancy is terminated is nanny-ism squared.
What is conservative about regulating such decisions?
Here is hoping the governor of South Dakota comes to his senses and vetoes the bill.
© Copyright 2005 Charleston Daily Mail
That's Our Boy!
This from Fortune magazine about our junior senator, John Thune:
South Dakota's $2.5 billion railroad jackpot
A provision inserted into last year's transportation bill by a lawmaker turned lobbyist turned lawmaker is attracting renewed scrutiny.
Fortune Magazine
By Barney Gimbel, FORTUNE
February 27, 2006: 8:21 PM EST
NEW YORK (FORTUNE) - In Washington, the revolving door usually leads lawmakers to become lobbyists so they can cash in on their connections. But in some cases, it spins all the way around; creating a rare circumstance in which a lawmaker turns lobbyist turns lawmaker.
It goes a long way to explaining why a small provision inserted in last summer's mammoth transportation bill is attracting renewed scrutiny. Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., says he plans to introduce legislation on Tuesday that would ban elected representatives from advocating for any former client during his or her first two years in office. Under current ethics rules, former legislators can't lobby Capitol Hill during their first year out of office. There are no regulations the other way around.
Dayton says he's responding to an amendment championed by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., which quietly laid the tracks for funding the largest railroad project in almost 100 years. It'll cost $2.5 billion, run 880 miles and link the coalfields of Wyoming's Powder River Basin to the power plants of the Midwest.
Dayton's problem? Before becoming senator, Thune had been through that revolving door. After serving three terms as South Dakota's lone congressman, he spent 18 months as a lobbyist for the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad, the company that's building the new railroad. It was then that he and DM&E President Kevin Schieffer realized one way to get the stalled eight-year-old project going was through a Federal Railroad Administration loan.
There were problems with the idea, of course. For one thing, the project didn't precisely fit the loan program, whose mandate was to help railroads fix existing track. Worse, the program was small: Its entire annual budget was only $3.5 billion.
While lobbying for the DM&E in 2004, Thune was campaigning for South Dakota's Senate seat. And when he won, he continued to push for the project. As it happened, expanding the railroad loan program fit neatly into last summer's $286-billion transportation bill, which gained instant notoriety for such pork-barrel excesses as its $223 million grant to build Alaska's "bridge to nowhere." Senator Thune, just eight months after collecting his last check as DM&E's lobbyist, got a provision added with the Powder River Basin project specifically in mind.
It increased the Federal Railroad Authority's loan budget for 2006 by a decimal point -- from $3.5 billion to $35 billion. And it required the FRA to give priority to projects like DM&E's that "alleviate rail capacity problems." While the railroad's loan hasn't yet been approved, many analysts think it's likely.
Asked about the railroad's role in the legislation, the Senator says the increase in funding was in the public interest: "The DM&E was involved in the legislative process because of their expertise.... It was a national priority to bring this project over the finish line."
Coalmines in Wyoming's Powder River Basin and the electrical utilities that buy the coal have been complaining that the two railroads providing service to the mines -- the Union Pacific (Research) and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (Research) -- have been unable to keep up with the growing demand for low-sulfur Wyoming coal. "We needed another railroad years ago," says Chuck Linderman of the Edison Electrical Institute, who represents the utilities.
While Dayton calls Thune's actions "reprehensible," he too has an interest in the railroad project beyond simply lobbying reform. He wants this project killed because the coal trains would roll right past his biggest constituent, the Mayo Clinic. "The railroad will enter Rochester over my dead body," he says. "The Mayo Clinic is worth a hell of a lot more than the whole state of South Dakota."
The White House also wants to kill the loan program. "We would simply prefer the program not exist," says Alex Conant of the Office of Management and Budget. President Bush tried and failed to eliminate it in his 2006 budget and is trying again in his 2007 plan. Thune says there's little chance the White House will win this one. "The administration has always frowned on this, but it has very strong congressional support, and that's what's important," he says.
Thune, for his part, doesn't see a problem with his role in the project:"I backed this project when I was a Congressman, I backed it when I was in the private sector, and I'm backing it now. The project's a no-brainer."
Points to ponder:
* Mark Dayton's comment about South Dakota was idiotic. He later apologized, but that doesn't mean the original comment wasn't idiotic.
* Thune campaigned as the "moral" candidate, the one who "really represented South Dakotans. Well, I guess the DM&E people are South Dakotans. We should have asked Thune to be more specific about which South Dakotans he intended to represent.
* Republicans in this state tend to market themselves as fiscal conservatives who will do something about "out of control spending" in Washington. Hard then to understand Thune's backing the pork-laden transportation bill...and packing more of his own in there. I guess it's only "pork" if it's bein spent in someone else's state.
South Dakota's $2.5 billion railroad jackpot
A provision inserted into last year's transportation bill by a lawmaker turned lobbyist turned lawmaker is attracting renewed scrutiny.
Fortune Magazine
By Barney Gimbel, FORTUNE
February 27, 2006: 8:21 PM EST
NEW YORK (FORTUNE) - In Washington, the revolving door usually leads lawmakers to become lobbyists so they can cash in on their connections. But in some cases, it spins all the way around; creating a rare circumstance in which a lawmaker turns lobbyist turns lawmaker.
It goes a long way to explaining why a small provision inserted in last summer's mammoth transportation bill is attracting renewed scrutiny. Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., says he plans to introduce legislation on Tuesday that would ban elected representatives from advocating for any former client during his or her first two years in office. Under current ethics rules, former legislators can't lobby Capitol Hill during their first year out of office. There are no regulations the other way around.
Dayton says he's responding to an amendment championed by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., which quietly laid the tracks for funding the largest railroad project in almost 100 years. It'll cost $2.5 billion, run 880 miles and link the coalfields of Wyoming's Powder River Basin to the power plants of the Midwest.
Dayton's problem? Before becoming senator, Thune had been through that revolving door. After serving three terms as South Dakota's lone congressman, he spent 18 months as a lobbyist for the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad, the company that's building the new railroad. It was then that he and DM&E President Kevin Schieffer realized one way to get the stalled eight-year-old project going was through a Federal Railroad Administration loan.
There were problems with the idea, of course. For one thing, the project didn't precisely fit the loan program, whose mandate was to help railroads fix existing track. Worse, the program was small: Its entire annual budget was only $3.5 billion.
While lobbying for the DM&E in 2004, Thune was campaigning for South Dakota's Senate seat. And when he won, he continued to push for the project. As it happened, expanding the railroad loan program fit neatly into last summer's $286-billion transportation bill, which gained instant notoriety for such pork-barrel excesses as its $223 million grant to build Alaska's "bridge to nowhere." Senator Thune, just eight months after collecting his last check as DM&E's lobbyist, got a provision added with the Powder River Basin project specifically in mind.
It increased the Federal Railroad Authority's loan budget for 2006 by a decimal point -- from $3.5 billion to $35 billion. And it required the FRA to give priority to projects like DM&E's that "alleviate rail capacity problems." While the railroad's loan hasn't yet been approved, many analysts think it's likely.
Asked about the railroad's role in the legislation, the Senator says the increase in funding was in the public interest: "The DM&E was involved in the legislative process because of their expertise.... It was a national priority to bring this project over the finish line."
Coalmines in Wyoming's Powder River Basin and the electrical utilities that buy the coal have been complaining that the two railroads providing service to the mines -- the Union Pacific (Research) and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (Research) -- have been unable to keep up with the growing demand for low-sulfur Wyoming coal. "We needed another railroad years ago," says Chuck Linderman of the Edison Electrical Institute, who represents the utilities.
While Dayton calls Thune's actions "reprehensible," he too has an interest in the railroad project beyond simply lobbying reform. He wants this project killed because the coal trains would roll right past his biggest constituent, the Mayo Clinic. "The railroad will enter Rochester over my dead body," he says. "The Mayo Clinic is worth a hell of a lot more than the whole state of South Dakota."
The White House also wants to kill the loan program. "We would simply prefer the program not exist," says Alex Conant of the Office of Management and Budget. President Bush tried and failed to eliminate it in his 2006 budget and is trying again in his 2007 plan. Thune says there's little chance the White House will win this one. "The administration has always frowned on this, but it has very strong congressional support, and that's what's important," he says.
Thune, for his part, doesn't see a problem with his role in the project:"I backed this project when I was a Congressman, I backed it when I was in the private sector, and I'm backing it now. The project's a no-brainer."
Points to ponder:
* Mark Dayton's comment about South Dakota was idiotic. He later apologized, but that doesn't mean the original comment wasn't idiotic.
* Thune campaigned as the "moral" candidate, the one who "really represented South Dakotans. Well, I guess the DM&E people are South Dakotans. We should have asked Thune to be more specific about which South Dakotans he intended to represent.
* Republicans in this state tend to market themselves as fiscal conservatives who will do something about "out of control spending" in Washington. Hard then to understand Thune's backing the pork-laden transportation bill...and packing more of his own in there. I guess it's only "pork" if it's bein spent in someone else's state.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
In the News!
My adoptive home state is in the news again...as usual, for something I wouldn't be inclined to brag about. Here's the lead from an item in today's International Herald Tribune "Americas" section:
PIERRE, South Dakota South Dakota lawmakers have voted to outlaw nearly all abortions, setting up the first direct legal attack on Roe v. Wade by a state in 14 years.
It goes on to say:
After more than an hour of fierce and emotional debate, the senators Wednesday rejected exceptions for incest or rape or for the health of a mother and voted, 23-12, to outlaw all abortions, except those to save a mother's life. They also rejected an effort to allow South Dakotans to decide the question in a referendum and an effort to prevent state tax dollars from financing what is certain to be a long and expensive court battle.
Now, read that again. The "compassionate" conservatives in the statehouse don't care if pregnancy threatens a woman's (or girl's) health. They don't care if she is pregnant thanks to a rapist or incestuous sexual predator. (It wouldn't surprise me at all if at least some of them don't think it's "her own fault" for "leading on" her attacker.)
Nor do they care what the voters of their state think.
It strikes me as odd that they are so concerned with "protecting" the unborn while displaying such callous disregard for those who are already here: the girls and women who would be affected by this legislation. To say nothing of kids in school, for whom there never seems to be enough money...despite there apparently being plenty of money to fight a "test case" in the courts.
Don't get me wrong: Abortion is a terrible thing all the way around. Lives are lost, lives are scarred. Nobody wins.
But why is it that no one seems interested in trying to do something about the cause of abortions--the circumstances that some women find themselves in in which this physically, emotionally, psychically deadly option seems their only choice? Why can't the "concerned" folks in the legislature, or those marching in front of "abortion mills," find enough compassion in their hearts to worry about the women involved?
And make no mistake: This legislation, if passed, will not prevent abortions in this state. Just legal ones. And, again, where's the compassion? Where's the heart?
Of course, this is the same legislature that, earlier this term, decided that the working poor of this state didn't deserve a bump in the minimum wage, so I guess I shouldn't be at all surprised. In fact, I'm not: It's been obvious for some time that there are a couple of grandstanders in the capitol who enjoy seeing their names in the news and who are more than happy to carry that notoriety to the national arena.
It's just too bad that people will have to suffer so that they can get their headlines. And that taxpayers will have to foot the bill.
PIERRE, South Dakota South Dakota lawmakers have voted to outlaw nearly all abortions, setting up the first direct legal attack on Roe v. Wade by a state in 14 years.
It goes on to say:
After more than an hour of fierce and emotional debate, the senators Wednesday rejected exceptions for incest or rape or for the health of a mother and voted, 23-12, to outlaw all abortions, except those to save a mother's life. They also rejected an effort to allow South Dakotans to decide the question in a referendum and an effort to prevent state tax dollars from financing what is certain to be a long and expensive court battle.
Now, read that again. The "compassionate" conservatives in the statehouse don't care if pregnancy threatens a woman's (or girl's) health. They don't care if she is pregnant thanks to a rapist or incestuous sexual predator. (It wouldn't surprise me at all if at least some of them don't think it's "her own fault" for "leading on" her attacker.)
Nor do they care what the voters of their state think.
It strikes me as odd that they are so concerned with "protecting" the unborn while displaying such callous disregard for those who are already here: the girls and women who would be affected by this legislation. To say nothing of kids in school, for whom there never seems to be enough money...despite there apparently being plenty of money to fight a "test case" in the courts.
Don't get me wrong: Abortion is a terrible thing all the way around. Lives are lost, lives are scarred. Nobody wins.
But why is it that no one seems interested in trying to do something about the cause of abortions--the circumstances that some women find themselves in in which this physically, emotionally, psychically deadly option seems their only choice? Why can't the "concerned" folks in the legislature, or those marching in front of "abortion mills," find enough compassion in their hearts to worry about the women involved?
And make no mistake: This legislation, if passed, will not prevent abortions in this state. Just legal ones. And, again, where's the compassion? Where's the heart?
Of course, this is the same legislature that, earlier this term, decided that the working poor of this state didn't deserve a bump in the minimum wage, so I guess I shouldn't be at all surprised. In fact, I'm not: It's been obvious for some time that there are a couple of grandstanders in the capitol who enjoy seeing their names in the news and who are more than happy to carry that notoriety to the national arena.
It's just too bad that people will have to suffer so that they can get their headlines. And that taxpayers will have to foot the bill.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Reading ads for fun and profit.
Well, this is different. I have for quite a few years now subscribed to, belonged to, been a part of—not sure what the right term is—an operation called MyPoints. (I think it was called BonusMail or something back when I signed on in the Dark Ages.) Anyway, it's a pretty slick deal: basically, they e-mail you advertising. You click on the "Get Points" link that takes you to the advertiser's web site, and you earn a few points (usually 5 or 10); more if you buy what the advertiser's selling (the exact number depends on the offer). You can also get points by logging on at MyPoints and shopping via their links. Eventually you can spend your points on a pretty wide variety of stuff—a year or so ago I "cashed in" for a bunch of gift cards from Target, Suncoast, and I forget what all.
Of course, as with any "points" system, you need a lot of points before you can start buying stuff—most $10 gift cards seem to cost 1400 points, so you can see that you'll have to read a lot of 5-point messages before you get very far; but responding to even one or two of the offers can really rack up points fast. I've bought some things at Office Depot, for instance, via MyPoints mail: they have a nice "staggered" system where larger purchases earn more points. Makes a difference.
So what? Well, in my MyPoints e-mail this morning comes this tip:
My tip for members:
Have a blog? Want to earn 25 Points? Blog about MyPoints ... the good stuff, of course, like your favorite way to earn Points or how you spent your Points. Send us a link by February 23, 2006, to blogaboutMyPoints@mypoints.com to be considered. Offer good for first 500 qualified responses.
Odds are good that I won't be among the first 500, but what the hey: I've talked up the service to people before with no benefit to myself (I do see they now have a refer-a-friend program that I haven't investigated), so why not now? And you never know: When I was in junior high I won a whole case of Mountain Dew in a radio call-in contest. Too bad Mountain Dew was and is the one soda I really dislike…
Monday, February 20, 2006
Monsignor Mac redux
A longer obit for my late friend, Msgr. John McEneany:
Msgr. John McEneaney
(December 12, 1917 - February 16, 2006)
Msgr. John J. McEneaney, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, died February 16, 2006, at Avera McKennan Hospital. He was 88.
John McEneaney was born on December 12, 1917, in Lawrence, MA. He was educated at Holy Cross University and St. John’s Seminary before being ordained for the Archdiocese of Boston in 1943. He came to South Dakota on an 18-month loan in 1946, and stayed. He was formally incardinated in the Diocese of Sioux Falls in 1949. He served at parishes in Aberdeen, Clark, Garretson, Hartford, Huntimer, Brookings, and Huron. He served as rector of St. Joseph Cathedral for 10 years, and as pastor of Christ the King, Sioux Falls for another 10.
He was named Vicar General of the diocese in 1976, a position he held for three bishops until 1994. He was named a prelate in 1965, and in 1995, a Protonotary Apostolic. Over the years he served as a member of the priest council, finance council, Priest Retirement Committee and currently was a member of the board of the Catholic Foundation for Eastern South Dakota. He served as president of the National Liturgical Conference from 1965-1967. He conducted Liturgy and Worship workshops for several dioceses around the country and for military chaplains. He was active in ecumenical affairs, including a long running local television program with other ecumenical-minded leaders called “The Open Door.” He received a variety of honors and awards in his lifetime, and was a member of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem.
His “retirement” came in 1994 but his days were filled with more personal ministry including his daily hospital visits, substantial correspondence and weekend parish coverage. As recently as 2003 he served as sacramental minister for St. Edward, Worthing for several months. His entire ministry was rooted in his love of God. At his Golden Jubilee homily he said, “What a joy and privilege is has been for me to be ordained to the priesthood. For a priest is empowered by the Sacrament of Holy Orders to proclaim the infinite riches of Christ, in word, in sacrament and in loving deed.”
He is survived by his sister, Mary Elizabeth Wilkinson, many nieces, nephews, cousins, brother priests, and countless friends.
The Mass of Christian Burial will be celebrated 1: 00pm Tuesday, February 21, at St. Joseph Cathedral. Burial will follow at St. Michael Cemetery. Visitation begins at 2:00pm Monday, at St. Joseph Cathedral. A Scripture Service and Rosary will be held at 7:00 on Monday evening, also at the Cathedral. Visitation will then continue and will be ongoing to the time of the celebration of Mass.
In lieu of flowers, memorials may be directed to the Msgr. John J. McEneaney Endowment Fund at the Catholic Foundation for Eastern South Dakota.
Msgr. John McEneaney
(December 12, 1917 - February 16, 2006)
Msgr. John J. McEneaney, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, died February 16, 2006, at Avera McKennan Hospital. He was 88.
John McEneaney was born on December 12, 1917, in Lawrence, MA. He was educated at Holy Cross University and St. John’s Seminary before being ordained for the Archdiocese of Boston in 1943. He came to South Dakota on an 18-month loan in 1946, and stayed. He was formally incardinated in the Diocese of Sioux Falls in 1949. He served at parishes in Aberdeen, Clark, Garretson, Hartford, Huntimer, Brookings, and Huron. He served as rector of St. Joseph Cathedral for 10 years, and as pastor of Christ the King, Sioux Falls for another 10.
He was named Vicar General of the diocese in 1976, a position he held for three bishops until 1994. He was named a prelate in 1965, and in 1995, a Protonotary Apostolic. Over the years he served as a member of the priest council, finance council, Priest Retirement Committee and currently was a member of the board of the Catholic Foundation for Eastern South Dakota. He served as president of the National Liturgical Conference from 1965-1967. He conducted Liturgy and Worship workshops for several dioceses around the country and for military chaplains. He was active in ecumenical affairs, including a long running local television program with other ecumenical-minded leaders called “The Open Door.” He received a variety of honors and awards in his lifetime, and was a member of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem.
His “retirement” came in 1994 but his days were filled with more personal ministry including his daily hospital visits, substantial correspondence and weekend parish coverage. As recently as 2003 he served as sacramental minister for St. Edward, Worthing for several months. His entire ministry was rooted in his love of God. At his Golden Jubilee homily he said, “What a joy and privilege is has been for me to be ordained to the priesthood. For a priest is empowered by the Sacrament of Holy Orders to proclaim the infinite riches of Christ, in word, in sacrament and in loving deed.”
He is survived by his sister, Mary Elizabeth Wilkinson, many nieces, nephews, cousins, brother priests, and countless friends.
The Mass of Christian Burial will be celebrated 1: 00pm Tuesday, February 21, at St. Joseph Cathedral. Burial will follow at St. Michael Cemetery. Visitation begins at 2:00pm Monday, at St. Joseph Cathedral. A Scripture Service and Rosary will be held at 7:00 on Monday evening, also at the Cathedral. Visitation will then continue and will be ongoing to the time of the celebration of Mass.
In lieu of flowers, memorials may be directed to the Msgr. John J. McEneaney Endowment Fund at the Catholic Foundation for Eastern South Dakota.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Monsignor Mac
This appeared today in my local newspaper:Monsignor McEneaney dies after 60 years of service
From Staff Reports
February 17, 2006, 2:55 am
Monsignor John McEneaney, who gave heart to young priests, comfort to the sick and inspiration to Catholics across South Dakota for six decades, died Thursday at McKennan Hospital. He was 88.
McEneaney left an indelible impression on the faithful in Sioux Falls, say those who knew him.
"I think if one wanted to hold up a model of priesthood for the ages, you would look at the life Monsignor McEneaney lived," said Jerry Klein, diocese chancellor in Sioux Falls. "He was effective, generous and true to his calling, true to his beliefs, true to God."
A prayer service and rosary will be held at 7 p.m. Monday at St. Joseph cathedral. The funeral Mass will begin at 1 p.m. Tuesday at the Cathedral. Arrangements are under the direction of Miller Funeral Home.
He came to South Dakota from Boston in 1946. Among his assignments were Aberdeen, Garretson, Clark, Brookings and Sioux Falls.
In addition to McEneaney's spiritual life, he was an avid sports fan. He said the naming of McEneaney Field at O'Gorman High School was one of his greatest honors.
+++
Monsignor Mac was a longstanding friend of my family. Here's what I wrote in the funeral home's online guest book:
"I haven't seen you in a hundred years"--or so Monsignor Mac would always greet me, even if we hat chatted the day before! The monsignor has been a good and great friend of my family for at least that hundred years he was always talking about. When my mother was hospitalized before her death, Monsignor Mac was always there. When she died, he did us the honor of co-officiating at her funeral. Just two weeks before his own death (the last time I saw him), his concern was about how my father was getting along. We've lost one of the good guys. But our lives are so much the richer for his having shared his with us. So long, Monsignor. See you again, by and by!
+++
Well, that's how it goes. Mac lived a good, long life--by which I mean both good and long. Whenever the Catholic priesthood is being bashed around because of the latest revelations of abuse of, usually, altar boys by their parish priest, I think of guys like Mac, and a dozen or more others I've known over the years, and feel very sorry for them. It's the old story: The people who are doing their best to do their best are always overshadowed by the crooks, the creeps, and the bums--who in turn tar the entire profession by their misdeeds. (Don't get me wrong: Pedophile priests belong behind bars, as do the bishops who protect them.) Monsignor Mac was indeed one of the good guys, one of the guys who provided an example for other priests as well as for ordinary citizens, and I'll miss seeing him at the fitness center.
There was only one occasion that Mac and I were at odds with one another. Back in the 1980s there was a certain hubbub around town that had to do with taxpayer support of Catholic education--specifically, public dollars for textbooks to be used in Catholic schools. I wrote a letter to the editor in opposition to it. Although a product of Catholic grade school and college, I'm a staunch believer in the separation of church and state. If you want to send your kid to Catholic school--or Lutheran school, or any private school--then go for it. But don't then complain that your school doesn't have the same resources as public institutions and insist that the public should help underwrite your desire for private education for your kid. Well, that sort of attitude doesn't get you very far with most of my fellow Catholics. I had a few nasty phone calls about that (funny how abusive "Christians" get when you disagree with them). And I also had a very nice note from Mac, expressing some dismay at my stand, since, as he pointed out, I graduated from a Catholic university that, like virtually every university in the country, accepts federal dollars.
"Since your note is much nicer in tone than most of the comments I've received," I wrote back--or words very much like that, "and since you have the good sense to be Irish, I'll explain myself further." I pointed out that what he said was true, and unfortunate. But that was the reality of the world, and had been since well before I went to college. No one asked for my input, nor was there anything I could do about it. However, I pointed out that by virtue of participating in federal funding for college, colleges lose a degree of independence. The one who has the checkbook always gets to make the rules, or he takes the checkbook away. The local Catholic schools were insisting that they had a "right" to textbooks paid for by the state, which was ludicrous and was in fact inviting the state to come in an exercise more control over the private schools--since, everybody knows, there's no free lunch.
Well, that was all there was to that. Mac and I pretty much agreed, I think, to disagree. Which only further illustrates what a gentleman he was--as the saying goes, a gentleman and a gentle man. I miss him already.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Aging Fast Enough, part 2
This past Sunday, I groused about finding myself on "old peoples" mailing lists, specifically HeartLine Plus, a Dakotacare program apparently designed for folks on Medicare who have heart conditions (neither condition applies to me); and AARP, expressing confusion over my not joining since I am "fully eligible" for their dubious services (even though their letters clearly state you must be 50 or older, and I'm not). As previously outlined, I tried to be a good sport and tell them they were wasting money by sending me their stuff—no easy task, since neither organization is very forthcoming with useful e-mail contact information. Here's where things stand at the moment:
Never heard from the Executive Director of HeartLine Plus (Dakotacare), whom I had originally e-mailed some weeks ago. But on my second go-round I e-mailed the Marketing Director, who sent me a very nice if somewhat puzzling note. She apologized for the "inconvenience" of my receiving mail from them, and indicated that they were sending said mail to lots of people to make them aware of the program. Okaaaay…. Except that the mail that I received from them very clearly was addressed to people who are on Medicare and have a heart condition, not a general audience. By the time I'm eligible for Medicare, in sixteen years (assuming the Bush Administration has not succeeded in destroying the program), I'm sure that the various supplemental programs from Dakotacare and others will be completely different, so I have very little (read: no) incentive for paying any attention to what they're offering today. But I appreciate the speedy, friendly, and personal reply.
And speaking of speedy, friendly, and personal replies, there's AARP, which was certainly speedy in sending me this boilerplate:
Thank you for your recent communication. Your concerns are very important to us at AARP. Please be assured that we will prepare a response for you as quickly as possible.
Please do not reply to this message. This email address is not monitored for responses.
Additionally, all of your Member Benefits and Services are available by visiting the Member Services and Discounts area of the Web site at http://www.aarp.org/benefits.
It has been our pleasure to assist you.
AARP Member Service
Well, of course, so far they actually haven't assisted me, but I remain inexplicably hopeful, even after nearly a week.
Still, one does wonder about the quality of their customer service, no? And considering that I will be eligible for AARP in another year, you'd think maybe they'd be trying to get on my good side now. As it stands, I'm inclined to keep my money in my wallet, not theirs.
Okay, What Would Jesus Do?
In his blog in today's Washington Post, Dan Froomkin references his column of last Friday, in which he wrote about President Bush's "fundamental challenge as he tries to regain his political footing," viz., most Americans don't trust him anymore. (Anymore??) Anyhow, Froomkin had invited readers to suggest sample interview questions for the president regarding his credibility, uh, problem. You can read the ones Froomkin published in his column, but here's my favorite:
What Would Jesus Do?
From Mary Beth Hastings:
"Mr. President, you have spoken often and with conviction of your Christianity and how you bring Christian principles to bear on your conduct of foreign and domestic policy. The 2007 budget you have just proposed extends tax cuts that mostly benefit upper income Americans, while drastically cutting programs that help the poor, including sick children. As news sources have pointed out, the cost of these tax cuts is far greater than the cost savings coming from entitlement program cuts. Given the number of times the Bible, and Jesus himself, references lifting up the poor and tending to the sick, how do you reconcile this proposed budget with your Christianity?"
Well put, Ms. Hastings! Nice to know there are a few people who agree that there's more to being a Christian than the ability to spout the "right" lines at the "right" times.
What Would Jesus Do?
From Mary Beth Hastings:
"Mr. President, you have spoken often and with conviction of your Christianity and how you bring Christian principles to bear on your conduct of foreign and domestic policy. The 2007 budget you have just proposed extends tax cuts that mostly benefit upper income Americans, while drastically cutting programs that help the poor, including sick children. As news sources have pointed out, the cost of these tax cuts is far greater than the cost savings coming from entitlement program cuts. Given the number of times the Bible, and Jesus himself, references lifting up the poor and tending to the sick, how do you reconcile this proposed budget with your Christianity?"
Well put, Ms. Hastings! Nice to know there are a few people who agree that there's more to being a Christian than the ability to spout the "right" lines at the "right" times.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Telegram
This is in today's New York Times:
February 8, 2006
Appreciations
The Telegram
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
I've received exactly one telegram in my life. It arrived on New Year's Eve a couple of decades ago. The message was congratulatory — it quoted J. D. Salinger — and so was the medium, which had a sort of "all the ships at sea" feeling about it. In fact, the telegram was just a piece of paper that looked a little down at the heels, as if it had been a ragged night for the telegraphers. But it arrived with a sense of its own occasion, which went a long way toward enhancing the occasion it had been sent to celebrate: a wedding.
The last telegram ever delivered appears to have been sent by Western Union — whose very name seems to say "telegram" — on Jan. 27. It's easy to understand why the practice of sending telegrams lapsed. They simply could not compete with telephones, express delivery services, e-mail and text-messaging — which, in its compression, bears some curious analogy to the telegram. But knowing that the last telegram has now been delivered is somehow a little like knowing that the last martini has been drunk or the last dinner jacket worn. I would like to believe that there will always be a world where telegrams come directly to the door, throwing a note of suspense into the air.
How many movies turn on that moment! The doorbell rings. A uniformed boy says, "Telegram!" or, "Western Union!" He hands over an envelope in return for a tip, and the plot rounds the corner. Only the telephone has rivaled the telegram as a plot point. It's hard to imagine that e-mail will ever play as large a role in Hollywood.
It is probably as well, though, that the telegram has gone its way. We are out of the habit. Hardly any of us could manage opening the door, tipping the boy and slitting the telegram's throat with the air of familiarity — even aplomb — that one sees in the old movies. In these days when information flows like a river, when e-mail comes and goes no matter how we are dressed or what change we have in our pockets, the telegram has become too singular, too momentous.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
I too remember the only telegram I've ever received. (When I was a kid, someone sent my parents a Candygram—anyone remember those?—but that hardly counts.) On the morning of our wedding day, almost 25 years ago, we arrived at the church to find waiting for us an honest-to-gosh telegram, congratulations from my then-boss in St. Paul. He and I didn't often see eye-to-eye, but I've always said he had class.
February 8, 2006
Appreciations
The Telegram
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
I've received exactly one telegram in my life. It arrived on New Year's Eve a couple of decades ago. The message was congratulatory — it quoted J. D. Salinger — and so was the medium, which had a sort of "all the ships at sea" feeling about it. In fact, the telegram was just a piece of paper that looked a little down at the heels, as if it had been a ragged night for the telegraphers. But it arrived with a sense of its own occasion, which went a long way toward enhancing the occasion it had been sent to celebrate: a wedding.
The last telegram ever delivered appears to have been sent by Western Union — whose very name seems to say "telegram" — on Jan. 27. It's easy to understand why the practice of sending telegrams lapsed. They simply could not compete with telephones, express delivery services, e-mail and text-messaging — which, in its compression, bears some curious analogy to the telegram. But knowing that the last telegram has now been delivered is somehow a little like knowing that the last martini has been drunk or the last dinner jacket worn. I would like to believe that there will always be a world where telegrams come directly to the door, throwing a note of suspense into the air.
How many movies turn on that moment! The doorbell rings. A uniformed boy says, "Telegram!" or, "Western Union!" He hands over an envelope in return for a tip, and the plot rounds the corner. Only the telephone has rivaled the telegram as a plot point. It's hard to imagine that e-mail will ever play as large a role in Hollywood.
It is probably as well, though, that the telegram has gone its way. We are out of the habit. Hardly any of us could manage opening the door, tipping the boy and slitting the telegram's throat with the air of familiarity — even aplomb — that one sees in the old movies. In these days when information flows like a river, when e-mail comes and goes no matter how we are dressed or what change we have in our pockets, the telegram has become too singular, too momentous.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
I too remember the only telegram I've ever received. (When I was a kid, someone sent my parents a Candygram—anyone remember those?—but that hardly counts.) On the morning of our wedding day, almost 25 years ago, we arrived at the church to find waiting for us an honest-to-gosh telegram, congratulations from my then-boss in St. Paul. He and I didn't often see eye-to-eye, but I've always said he had class.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Aging Fast Enough, Thanks
I just wasted half an hour trying to slow down the aging process, sort of. And getting pretty vexed at a couple of organizations that supposedly serve so-called Older Americans.
Obviously, some out there has A Mailing List, and on that Mailing List is my name, and after my name is an incorrect date of birth. Consequently, I have been receiving junk mail from HeartLine Plus, a Dakotacare program apparently designed for folks on Medicare who have heart conditions. I appreciate their concern, but I'm still 16 years away from being eligible for Medicare, nor do I have a heart condition.
Being a good sport, I went online a few weeks ago seeking to e-mail them and encourage them to quit wasting good money sending me unsolicited junk that will go straight into the garbage. Of course, their web site was spectacularly unhelpful. You would think a "Contact Us" link might provide something more than an 800 number and a street address (I wish to waste neither a stamp nor my time on what will likely be a sales pitch)...like, say, an e-mail address, since it's a virtual certainty that someone who visits their web site will have e-mail access. But no. Finally I Googled them, found an address for the Executive Director, and e-mailed him. No reply. Well, unless you count the junk mail that came from them the other day, over the signature of the Marketing Director. Whom I e-mailed today (thanks again, Google, since the Dakotacare web site hasn't improved in the last couple of weeks). We'll see. Hah.
I've also been getting junk from AARP, expressing confusion over my not joining since I am "fully eligible" for their dubious services. And yet, the very junk mail they send me indicates that one is eligible for membership at the age of 50...which I have not yet hit. Whoops.
Well, see above re: being a good sport, and also good luck finding an e-mail contact on the AARP web site. Again, do they not suspect that anyone who is, you know, at their site might have e-mail? Their "Contact Us" page is in fact an overgrown FAQ page. Google was not much help, at least in part because there are so bloody many hits. Finally I did come upon a form to fill out with comments on the web site. My comment, naturally, was that their site does a pretty poor job of proffering contact information and, oh, by the way, howzabout you take me off your mailing lists, since I am ineligible...which is why I was trying to contact you in the first place!!
I have to say, my experience with these two organizations does not fill me with enthusiasm for possibly doing business with either of them when I reach my Golden Years. They don't seem to be very detail oriented; in the case of Dakotacare, they don't seem very responsive; and based on my experience with their web sites, neither seems really interested in making it easy for their "members" (or anyone else) to contact them. Both of these outfits are really going to have to spruce themselves up if they want any money from me down the line.
Obviously, some out there has A Mailing List, and on that Mailing List is my name, and after my name is an incorrect date of birth. Consequently, I have been receiving junk mail from HeartLine Plus, a Dakotacare program apparently designed for folks on Medicare who have heart conditions. I appreciate their concern, but I'm still 16 years away from being eligible for Medicare, nor do I have a heart condition.
Being a good sport, I went online a few weeks ago seeking to e-mail them and encourage them to quit wasting good money sending me unsolicited junk that will go straight into the garbage. Of course, their web site was spectacularly unhelpful. You would think a "Contact Us" link might provide something more than an 800 number and a street address (I wish to waste neither a stamp nor my time on what will likely be a sales pitch)...like, say, an e-mail address, since it's a virtual certainty that someone who visits their web site will have e-mail access. But no. Finally I Googled them, found an address for the Executive Director, and e-mailed him. No reply. Well, unless you count the junk mail that came from them the other day, over the signature of the Marketing Director. Whom I e-mailed today (thanks again, Google, since the Dakotacare web site hasn't improved in the last couple of weeks). We'll see. Hah.
I've also been getting junk from AARP, expressing confusion over my not joining since I am "fully eligible" for their dubious services. And yet, the very junk mail they send me indicates that one is eligible for membership at the age of 50...which I have not yet hit. Whoops.
Well, see above re: being a good sport, and also good luck finding an e-mail contact on the AARP web site. Again, do they not suspect that anyone who is, you know, at their site might have e-mail? Their "Contact Us" page is in fact an overgrown FAQ page. Google was not much help, at least in part because there are so bloody many hits. Finally I did come upon a form to fill out with comments on the web site. My comment, naturally, was that their site does a pretty poor job of proffering contact information and, oh, by the way, howzabout you take me off your mailing lists, since I am ineligible...which is why I was trying to contact you in the first place!!
I have to say, my experience with these two organizations does not fill me with enthusiasm for possibly doing business with either of them when I reach my Golden Years. They don't seem to be very detail oriented; in the case of Dakotacare, they don't seem very responsive; and based on my experience with their web sites, neither seems really interested in making it easy for their "members" (or anyone else) to contact them. Both of these outfits are really going to have to spruce themselves up if they want any money from me down the line.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
You Said It!
More of the quotations I like to collect. As usual, most if not all are from A Word A Day.
- As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests. -Gore Vidal, writer (1925- )
- I love you, and because I love you, I would sooner have you hate me for telling you the truth than adore me for telling you lies. -Pietro Aretino, satirist and dramatist (1492-1556)
- In the republic of mediocrity genius is dangerous. -Robert G. Ingersoll, lawyer and orator (1833-1899)
- Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God holds others in contempt. -Robert Green Ingersoll, lawyer and orator (1833-1899)
- We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -Dwight David Eisenhower, U.S. general and 34th president (1890-1969)
- Which of us is not forever a stranger and alone? -Thomas Wolfe, novelist (1900-1938)
- A king can stand people fighting but he can't last long if people start thinking. -Will Rogers, humorist (1879-1935)
- The problem with being sure that God is on your side is that you can't change your mind, because God sure isn't going to change His. -Roger Ebert, film-critic (1942- )
- An open mind is a prerequisite to an open heart. -Robert M. Sapolsky, neuroscientist and author (1957- )
- Literature is the language of society, as speech is the language of man. -Louis de Bonald, philosopher and politician (1754-1840)
- It is one of the maladies of our age to profess a frenzied allegiance to truth in unimportant matters, to refuse consistently to face her where graver issues are at stake. -Janos Arany, poet (1817-1882)
- Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear. -Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician, author, Nobel laureate (1872-1970)
- I don't hate my enemies. After all, I made 'em. -Red Skelton, comedian (1913-1997)
- Words are things; and a small drop of ink / Falling like dew upon a thought, produces / That which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think. -Lord Byron, poet (1788-1824)
- Creative activity could be described as a type of learning process where teacher and pupil are located in the same individual. -Arthur Koestler, novelist and journalist (1905-1983)
- When I was young, I admired clever people. Now that I am old, I admire kind people. -Abraham Joshua Heschel, theology professor (1907-1972)
- I place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. -Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826)
- Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little. -Edmund Burke, statesman and writer (1729-1797)
- We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. -Albert Einstein, physicist, Nobel laureate (1879-1955)
- Whoever, in the pursuit of science, seeks after immediate practical utility, may generally rest assured that he will seek in vain. -H.L.F. von Helmholtz, physiologist and physicist (1821-1894)
- The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. -Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd US President (1882-1945)
- These are not books, lumps of lifeless paper, but minds alive on the shelves. -Gilbert Highet, writer (1906-1978)
- In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful. -Leo Tolstoy, author (1828-1910)
- We are not the same persons this year as last; nor are those we love. It is a happy chance if we, changing, continue to love a changed person. -William Somerset Maugham, writer (1874-1965)
- If writers were good businessmen, they'd have too much sense to be writers. -Irwin S. Cobb, author and journalist (1876-1944)
- If you want to work on your art, work on your life. -Anton Chekhov, short-story writer and dramatist (1860-1904)
- A society that presumes a norm of violence and celebrates aggression, whether in the subway, on the football field, or in the conduct of its business, cannot help making celebrities of the people who would destroy it. -Lewis H. Lapham, editor and writer (1935- )
- When angry, count to four; when very angry, swear. -Mark Twain, author and humorist (1835-1910)
- Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough. -Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd US President (1882-1945)
- The life of every man is a diary in which he means to write one story, and writes another, and his humblest hour is when he compares the volume as it is with what he vowed to make it. -J.M. Barrie, novelist and playwright (1860-1937)
- Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -Ernest Hemingway, author and journalist, Nobel laureate (1899-1961)
- When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kind of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt. -Robert T. Pirsig, author and philosopher (1928- )
- Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)
- The power to command frequently causes failure to think. -Barbara Tuchman, author and historian (1912-1989)
- For me, words are a form of action, capable of influencing change. -Ingrid Bengis, writer and teacher (1944- )
- Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe, seldom executed. -Benjamin Franklin, statesman, author, and inventor (1706-1790)
- It is lamentable, that to be a good patriot one must become the enemy of the rest of mankind. -Voltaire, philosopher (1694-1778)
- Literature is the art of writing something that will be read twice; journalism what will be grasped at once. -Cyril Connolly, critic and editor (1903-1974)
- The more powerful and original a mind, the more it will incline towards the religion of solitude. -Aldous Huxley, novelist (1894-1963)
- In the case of good books, the point is not how many of them you can get through, but rather how many can get through to you. -Mortimer J. Adler, philosopher, educator and author (1902-2001)
- Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -Friedrich Nietzsche, philosopher (1844-1900)
- The bitterest tears shed over graves are for words left unsaid and deeds left undone. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and novelist (1811-1896)
- An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. -Don Marquis, humorist and poet (1878-1937)
- New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common. -John Locke, philosopher (1632-1704)
- Ideas are like rabbits. You get a couple and learn how to handle them, and pretty soon you have a dozen.--John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968)
- A quiet conscience sleeps in thunder. -English proverb
- Questions show the mind's range, and answers its subtlety. -Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
- The voice of conscience is so delicate that it is easy to stifle it; but it is also so clear that it is impossible to mistake it. -Madame De Stael, writer (1766-1817)
- Political freedom cannot exist in any land where religion controls the state, and religious freedom cannot exist in any land where the state controls religion. -Samuel James Ervin Jr., lawyer, judge, and senator (1896-1985)
- You can't do anything about the length of your life, but you can do something about its width and depth. -H.L. Mencken, writer, editor, and critic (1880-1956)
- Learning is weightless, a treasure you can always carry easily. -Chinese Proverb
- To read without reflecting is like eating without digesting. -Edmund Burke, statesman and writer (1729-1797)
- A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury. -John Stuart Mill, philosopher and economist (1806-1873)
- Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it. -Flannery O'Connor, writer (1925-1964)
- In this age, the mere example of nonconformity, the mere refusal to bend the knee to custom, is itself a service. -John Stuart Mill, philosopher and economist (1806-1873)
- The high minded man must care more for the truth than for what people think. -Aristotle, philosopher (384-322 BCE)
- You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. -Naguib Mahfouz, writer (1911- )
- It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry. -Thomas Paine, philosopher and writer (1737-1809)
- The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause. A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business. - Eric Hoffer, philosopher and author (1902-1983)
- A sneer is the weapon of the weak. -James Russell Lowell, poet, editor, and diplomat (1819-1891)
- People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them. -Dave Barry, author and columnist (1947- )
- They defend their errors as if they were defending their inheritance. -Edmund Burke, statesman and writer (1729-1797)
Good and Evil
Here's a letter to the editor, which I wrote a week or so ago and which ran in my local newspaper this morning. The genesis, as alluded to, was a previous letter whose author asserted that "leftists" don't know the difference between good and evil, therefore are always wrong, therefore "aren't worth anything"--or words to that effect. I saved a copy of that letter, but lost it. Anyhow, here's mine:
____________________
January 28, 2006, 2:55 am
A recent letter-writer mean-spiritedly claimed that liberals (or, as he insisted, "leftists") know not the difference between good and evil.
Nonsense. We liberals do indeed know the difference between good and evil. For instance:
Deceiving Americans and their elected representatives to launch a war against a country that did not attack us and which did not possess nor was building weapons of mass destruction: Evil.
Questioning politicians and their cronies whose actions work against the good of the people, the progress of American society, and plain old common sense: Good.
Torturing prisoners who are incarcerated indefinitely without being charged: Evil.
Insisting that those in authority keep their promises, including their promise to uphold the Constitution: Good.
Crowing about being such moral Christians while ignoring inconvenient teachings of Christ (see especially Matthew 5:9, John 8:2-11, Luke 18:9-14, and Matthew 7:1-2 (yes, liberals read the Bible and go to church and everything): Evil.
Branding everyone who doesn't agree with you as "evil": Evil. And un-American.
Interesting aside: "Liberal" and "liberty" derive from the Latin "liber," meaning "free" - as in "free speech," "free choice," "free society", that old-fashioned stuff on which the United States was founded.
____________________
I'll happily concede naivete, and I often suspect I'm nostalgic for a time that never was, but it seems to be more than ever that we are completely unwilling to listen to a contrary opinion...hell, it's not that we won't listen to it: we don't want any to be out there whether we have to listen to it or not!
Whatever happened to that strange old notion, "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"? Or was it always just big talk?
Of course, we have always demonized "the other" as a way to justify out opinion, position, or action. And I have to give conservatives their due: they've done a superb job as portraying anyone who disagrees with them as not just wrong but out-and-out evil. Many of my conservative acquaintances think this is just swell (they also think of themselves as pretty exemplary Christians, which is either ironic or hypocritical depending on what sort of mood I'm in when I think about it), and I suspect they will continue to think so right up until they find themselves on the "wrong" side of an issue.
That may be a long time in coming, of course: most of my conservative acquaintances are so bobble-headed (always nodding yes) that they seem incapable of forming an opinion of their own but only regurgutate the latest doublespeak coming from Pennsylvania Avenue.
____________________
"An open mind is a prerequisite to an open heart." -Robert M. Sapolsky, neuroscientist and author (1957- )
____________________
Good v. evil
January 28, 2006, 2:55 am
A recent letter-writer mean-spiritedly claimed that liberals (or, as he insisted, "leftists") know not the difference between good and evil.Nonsense. We liberals do indeed know the difference between good and evil. For instance:
____________________
I'll happily concede naivete, and I often suspect I'm nostalgic for a time that never was, but it seems to be more than ever that we are completely unwilling to listen to a contrary opinion...hell, it's not that we won't listen to it: we don't want any to be out there whether we have to listen to it or not!
Whatever happened to that strange old notion, "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"? Or was it always just big talk?
Of course, we have always demonized "the other" as a way to justify out opinion, position, or action. And I have to give conservatives their due: they've done a superb job as portraying anyone who disagrees with them as not just wrong but out-and-out evil. Many of my conservative acquaintances think this is just swell (they also think of themselves as pretty exemplary Christians, which is either ironic or hypocritical depending on what sort of mood I'm in when I think about it), and I suspect they will continue to think so right up until they find themselves on the "wrong" side of an issue.
That may be a long time in coming, of course: most of my conservative acquaintances are so bobble-headed (always nodding yes) that they seem incapable of forming an opinion of their own but only regurgutate the latest doublespeak coming from Pennsylvania Avenue.
____________________
"An open mind is a prerequisite to an open heart." -Robert M. Sapolsky, neuroscientist and author (1957- )
Monday, November 28, 2005
"The Law Is the Law"
A friend sent me the following today, apparently concerned that my blood pressure might be too low. I shared it (and vented) with a few trusted (viz., right-minded) souls. Plus a couple of people I wanted to bug (you know who you are!). Plus whoever reads this blog.
My well-reasoned comments appear after the original, which I have not altered in any way...not even to correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors, and you know how hard that is for me...
_______________
THE LAW IS THE LAW !
This is one of the better e-mails I have received in a long time! I hope this makes its way around the USA several times over!!!!! So Be It!
THE LAW IS THE LAW
So if the US government determines that it is against the law for the words "under God" to be on our money, then, so be it.
And if that same government decides that the "Ten Commandments" are not to be used in or on a government installation, then, so be it.
And since they already have prohibited any prayer in the schools, on which they deem their authority, then so be it.
I say, "so be it," because I would like to be a law abiding US citizen.
I say, "so be it," because I would like to think that smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions.
I would like to think that those people have the American Publics' best interests at heart.
BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE?
Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot Post His Commandments in Government buildings,
I don't believe the Government and it's employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life.
I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays. After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the Senate and the House of Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the "Christmas Break." After all it's just another day.
I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter.
It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be "politically correct."
In fact....
I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping God...) because, after all, our government says
that it should be just another day....
What do you all think????
If this idea gets to enough people, maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the minority opinions and begin, once again, to represent the 'majority' of ALL of the American people.
SO BE IT...........
Please Dear Lord, Give us the help needed to keep you in our country!
'Amen' and 'Amen'
_____________________
Dear Jesus, please protect us from your followers...
Well, where to begin? First off, I might point out that the government hasn't decided to remove the words "under God" from our money...mostly because they were never there. The motto on our currency is "In God We Trust," and it's still there. Guess that shows how much attention the original author actually pays to the various empty phrases he/she seems to want to defend.
Second, why would he/she think that God needs our "help" in order to "keep [him] in our country"? I mean, isn't God, ex officio, everywhere? And isn't the concept of our "helping" God just a little conceited? Since, for me at least, it's ordinarily kind of the other way around...
Third, does anybody really and truly believe that not having organized (Christian) prayer in (state-operated) public schools means and end to prayer? "Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot Post His Commandments in Government buildings"... Huh?? You mean you can't pray to God unless a government employee tells you to? And how to? And when? Sad. Likewise, I don't think anyone can legislate one way or another whether anyone trusts in God. And doe the Ten Commandments somehow have no meaning or validity unless posted in a state-owned building?
Finally, I have to wonder about the whole prayer-in-public-schools (and other government settings) business. Specifically, how would these folks -- the ones who seem to think it's not only okay but a good idea for the government to dictate what and when and how to pray -- would feel if Christianity were not in the driver's seat in this country. I read an article some years ago (pre-9/11, so things may have changed) that pointed out that, if then-current population and immigration trends continued, the major religion in the United States by the mid- to late-21st century will be Islam. One then wonders how enthusiastic some of these allegedly Christian folks will feel about prayer in public schools when "prayer" involves the kids facing east, rolling out a mat, and bumping their little foreheads on the floor. Oh, you're not Muslim? That's okay--just pretend to pray. Won't hurt you a bit.
My guess is that the evangelicals and other conservative Christians will break both legs rushing to their hated ACLU for protection from the tyrannical majority, which in turn will be annoyed and disgusted by the whining Christian minority who refuse to just shut up and play along, and which will view any concession toward "those Christians' " feelings or beliefs as mere "political correctness."
But I've discovered that a lot of self-proclaimed Christians are pretty unfamiliar with their Bibles...especially those namby-pamby limp-wristed parts like "love they neighbor" and "do unto others" and that other liberal crap.
My well-reasoned comments appear after the original, which I have not altered in any way...not even to correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors, and you know how hard that is for me...
_______________
THE LAW IS THE LAW !
This is one of the better e-mails I have received in a long time! I hope this makes its way around the USA several times over!!!!! So Be It!
THE LAW IS THE LAW
So if the US government determines that it is against the law for the words "under God" to be on our money, then, so be it.
And if that same government decides that the "Ten Commandments" are not to be used in or on a government installation, then, so be it.
And since they already have prohibited any prayer in the schools, on which they deem their authority, then so be it.
I say, "so be it," because I would like to be a law abiding US citizen.
I say, "so be it," because I would like to think that smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions.
I would like to think that those people have the American Publics' best interests at heart.
BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE?
Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot Post His Commandments in Government buildings,
I don't believe the Government and it's employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life.
I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays. After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the Senate and the House of Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the "Christmas Break." After all it's just another day.
I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter.
It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be "politically correct."
In fact....
I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping God...) because, after all, our government says
that it should be just another day....
What do you all think????
If this idea gets to enough people, maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the minority opinions and begin, once again, to represent the 'majority' of ALL of the American people.
SO BE IT...........
Please Dear Lord, Give us the help needed to keep you in our country!
'Amen' and 'Amen'
_____________________
Dear Jesus, please protect us from your followers...
Well, where to begin? First off, I might point out that the government hasn't decided to remove the words "under God" from our money...mostly because they were never there. The motto on our currency is "In God We Trust," and it's still there. Guess that shows how much attention the original author actually pays to the various empty phrases he/she seems to want to defend.
Second, why would he/she think that God needs our "help" in order to "keep [him] in our country"? I mean, isn't God, ex officio, everywhere? And isn't the concept of our "helping" God just a little conceited? Since, for me at least, it's ordinarily kind of the other way around...
Third, does anybody really and truly believe that not having organized (Christian) prayer in (state-operated) public schools means and end to prayer? "Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot Post His Commandments in Government buildings"... Huh?? You mean you can't pray to God unless a government employee tells you to? And how to? And when? Sad. Likewise, I don't think anyone can legislate one way or another whether anyone trusts in God. And doe the Ten Commandments somehow have no meaning or validity unless posted in a state-owned building?
Finally, I have to wonder about the whole prayer-in-public-schools (and other government settings) business. Specifically, how would these folks -- the ones who seem to think it's not only okay but a good idea for the government to dictate what and when and how to pray -- would feel if Christianity were not in the driver's seat in this country. I read an article some years ago (pre-9/11, so things may have changed) that pointed out that, if then-current population and immigration trends continued, the major religion in the United States by the mid- to late-21st century will be Islam. One then wonders how enthusiastic some of these allegedly Christian folks will feel about prayer in public schools when "prayer" involves the kids facing east, rolling out a mat, and bumping their little foreheads on the floor. Oh, you're not Muslim? That's okay--just pretend to pray. Won't hurt you a bit.
My guess is that the evangelicals and other conservative Christians will break both legs rushing to their hated ACLU for protection from the tyrannical majority, which in turn will be annoyed and disgusted by the whining Christian minority who refuse to just shut up and play along, and which will view any concession toward "those Christians' " feelings or beliefs as mere "political correctness."
But I've discovered that a lot of self-proclaimed Christians are pretty unfamiliar with their Bibles...especially those namby-pamby limp-wristed parts like "love they neighbor" and "do unto others" and that other liberal crap.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)