Monday, May 01, 2006
You know you're getting old...
...when you start collecting obituaries. Lately, I seem to be doing just that. At least they're mostly not people of my generation...but that day will undoubtedly come. In the meantime, here are recent obits for our former next-door neighbor, Thelma Wickstrom, and a friend of my dad with whom I was friends also, Dick Blashill.
Sad to say, although she was our neighbor for several years, we did not know Thelma very well. By the time we moved in, health problems forced her to keep a pretty low profile. Still, she was a friendly and pleasant woman, and we were sorry when her health prompted her to sell her house and move into an assisted-living facility.
_______________________________________________________
Dick Blashill worked for the phone company. Yes, Virginia, there was a time when you could say that so-and-so works for "the phone company" and everyone knew what you meant since, for all practical purposes, there was but one phone company. Around these parts, that was Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, a component of the Bell System. My dad also worked for the phone company, and that's where I, as a kid, first met Dick. In more recent years, we renewed our acquaintance at his church, where my wife is a member and where Dick was a frequent usher. He always struck me as a friendly, genuine sort of fellow, and I'm sorry that I won't be seeing him on SUnday mornings anymore.
Richard E. Blashill
(May 9, 1928 - April 26, 2006)
Richard E. “Dick” Blashill, 77, of Sioux Falls, died Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at his residence.
Sad to say, although she was our neighbor for several years, we did not know Thelma very well. By the time we moved in, health problems forced her to keep a pretty low profile. Still, she was a friendly and pleasant woman, and we were sorry when her health prompted her to sell her house and move into an assisted-living facility.
|
 Thelma A. Wickstrom(February 18, 1919 - April 25, 2006)
Sioux Falls- Thelma Wickstrom, 87, died, April 25, 2006 at the Good Samaritan Luther Manor Home. Thelma A. Arne, daughter of John and Mary (Thompson) Arne, was born February 18, 1919 in a sod house near New England, ND. At just over three pounds her bed was a shoebox in an open dresser drawer. She graduated from Beresford High School and married Milton Wickstrom on April 9, 1939. In addition to handling calls for her husband’s business, she played in the Plumber’s Auxiliary Korny Kitcheneer’s band that included dances and various fund raisers in the community. She was a Sunday school teacher for many years and active in her church circle. She became known as “MoMo” during her 25 years of providing daycare to many children as well as her own grandchildren and two oldest great-granddaughters. Until health problems arose, her retirement was filled with volunteer work at such places as the Library, Avera McKennan Prestige Plus, VFW Auxiliary, and the Bergland Center. She was active in the Solo Club, RSVP, Widow Awareness group, and helping friends and family when they needed care. She enjoyed many nights of socializing and dancing at the Senior Center, Odd Fellows, and VFW. Grateful for having shared her life are her two daughters, Mary Lee (Don) Williams, Sioux Falls, and Sharon Zocco (Wendell Harms), Tea, SD; five grandchildren, Shane (Becky) Williams, Ames, IA; Brett Williams, Sioux Falls, Kim Hammers, Durango, CO, Tim (Suzie) Hammers, Lino Lakes, MN, Jason (Jodi) Hammers, Sioux Falls; and seven great-grandchildren. Special in her life have been a caring staff at the Home and two guardian angels and tablemates, Elsie and Yetta. Thelma is preceded in death by her parents, infant son, Milton Wickstrom Jr.; her husband, one sister, Annetta Shuck; four brothers, Henry Arne, Arlie Arne, Juel Arne, and Lloyd Arne. Visitation will begin at 11:00 AM on Thursday, April 27, 2006 at George Boom Funeral Home with the family present to greet friends from 7:00 to 8:00 PM. Funeral service will be at 11:00 AM on Friday, April 28 in the Christ The Victor Chapel at First Lutheran Church with burial to follow at Brooklyn Evangelical Free Church Cemetery near Beresford, SD.
|
Dick Blashill worked for the phone company. Yes, Virginia, there was a time when you could say that so-and-so works for "the phone company" and everyone knew what you meant since, for all practical purposes, there was but one phone company. Around these parts, that was Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, a component of the Bell System. My dad also worked for the phone company, and that's where I, as a kid, first met Dick. In more recent years, we renewed our acquaintance at his church, where my wife is a member and where Dick was a frequent usher. He always struck me as a friendly, genuine sort of fellow, and I'm sorry that I won't be seeing him on SUnday mornings anymore.
Richard E. Blashill(May 9, 1928 - April 26, 2006)
Richard E. “Dick” Blashill, 77, of Sioux Falls, died Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at his residence. Richard was born May 9, 1928 in Garden City, SD. He moved with his family to Wallace, SD at an early age, then to Castlewood, SD in 1935 where he grew up and received his education. He graduated from Castlewood High School in 1946. Upon graduating from high school, he began working for Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. He continued to live in Castlewood until he entered military service in March of 1951. Dick served in the US Army until receiving his honorable discharge in 1953.
On September 24, 1951, he married Ramona Krause in Clear Lake, SD. Upon his return from the military, he resumed his career with the phone company. He and Ramona lived in Watertown, SD from 1953 until moving to Sioux Falls in 1959. Ramona preceded him in death on December 6, 1966.
Dick was united in marriage with Evelyn L. Quinn on August 3, 1968 in Mason City, Iowa. He and Evelyn lived in Sioux Falls where he continued to work for the telephone company in various supervisory positions until his retirement on December 31, 1983.
He was a member of First Lutheran Church, the American Legion, the Moose Lodge, and Telephone Pioneers. For hobbies, Dick enjoyed hunting and fishing.
Grateful for having shared his life are his wife, Evelyn, of Sioux Falls; one daughter, Ann Marie Guernon and her husband, Tom, of Sugar Grove, IL; one grandson, Jacob Guernon, of Sugar Grove, IL; and a sister, Helen (Ronnie) Brown of Vermillion, SD. He is also survived by several nieces and nephews.
Dick was preceded in death by his parents and one brother, Donald Blashill.
Funeral services will be 1:30 pm Monday at First Lutheran Church. Interment will be in Woodlawn Cemetery. The family will be present to greet friends from 2:00 – 4:00 pm Sunday at Miller Funeral Home, Main Avenue location.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Just as Funny as Ever!
About a month ago, I sent a letter to my local newspaper, and it went like this:
At last!
I have waited for years for the resolutely unfunny, one-note comic strip "Mallard Fillmore" to produce something even marginally amusing (as a rule, "Rex Morgan, M.D." engenders more laughs), and it has finally happened! The punch line in the March 7 installment--"But first we're gonna go right on beating the Dick Cheney hunting accident story to death"--is absolutely hilarious...simply because that item disappeared out of the so-called liberal media at least a week before, and it is in fact dim-bulb right-wring extremists such as "Fillmore"'s creator who are keeping the story alive. What a hoot!
Even funnier is that "the story" never was about the hunting accident, which could have been a real tragedy--the story always was about Cheney's high-handed, arrogant "handling" of the incident. But I typically find as much accuracy as humor in "Fillmore"--which is to say, almost none--so no surprise there.
The "comic" strip in question was this:
Amusingly, before my letter even appeared (some weeks later, by which point I would think it no longer timely), the "creative" "mind" behind Mallard Fillmore decided to keep alive the issue he was accusing "liberals" of keeping alive:
By the time that one appeared, the issue was dead and gone, and yet with typical monotony, this exemplar of right-wing indignation insisted on revisiting it. Quite astonishing.
Typical of the inherent inconsistency with which the mindless faction of the radical right-wing must live is this more recent entry in the ongoing saga of "The World's Most Unfunny Comic Strip":
Now, think about this a moment. Obviously unable to craft or sustain an independent thought, the "author" of the strip once again, and as usual, falls back on hackneyed cliche (is there any other kind?), viz., irresponsible, free-spending liberals. Okay. But at the moment, both the executive and the legislative branch of government are in the hands of the Republican Party, and have been for several years now. Somehow, though, these "conservatives" managed to blow through the budget surplus left by the free-spending Democrats of the Clinton administration, and are diving ever deeper into red ink. So, to follow the "logic" of this strip: Spending money like it grows on trees is wrong. The federal government is spending money like it grows on trees. Republicans are in control of the federal government. Therefore, Republicans are wrong.
Okay. Works for me.
Still leaves me with the question: What are conservatives conserving? Not money, at least not federal money.
And why? Could it be that spending the country in the hole is a good excuse for cutting social programs while giving corporations and wealthy individuals all kinds of tax advantages?
Hmm...
At last!
I have waited for years for the resolutely unfunny, one-note comic strip "Mallard Fillmore" to produce something even marginally amusing (as a rule, "Rex Morgan, M.D." engenders more laughs), and it has finally happened! The punch line in the March 7 installment--"But first we're gonna go right on beating the Dick Cheney hunting accident story to death"--is absolutely hilarious...simply because that item disappeared out of the so-called liberal media at least a week before, and it is in fact dim-bulb right-wring extremists such as "Fillmore"'s creator who are keeping the story alive. What a hoot!
Even funnier is that "the story" never was about the hunting accident, which could have been a real tragedy--the story always was about Cheney's high-handed, arrogant "handling" of the incident. But I typically find as much accuracy as humor in "Fillmore"--which is to say, almost none--so no surprise there.
The "comic" strip in question was this:
Amusingly, before my letter even appeared (some weeks later, by which point I would think it no longer timely), the "creative" "mind" behind Mallard Fillmore decided to keep alive the issue he was accusing "liberals" of keeping alive:
By the time that one appeared, the issue was dead and gone, and yet with typical monotony, this exemplar of right-wing indignation insisted on revisiting it. Quite astonishing.
Typical of the inherent inconsistency with which the mindless faction of the radical right-wing must live is this more recent entry in the ongoing saga of "The World's Most Unfunny Comic Strip":
Now, think about this a moment. Obviously unable to craft or sustain an independent thought, the "author" of the strip once again, and as usual, falls back on hackneyed cliche (is there any other kind?), viz., irresponsible, free-spending liberals. Okay. But at the moment, both the executive and the legislative branch of government are in the hands of the Republican Party, and have been for several years now. Somehow, though, these "conservatives" managed to blow through the budget surplus left by the free-spending Democrats of the Clinton administration, and are diving ever deeper into red ink. So, to follow the "logic" of this strip: Spending money like it grows on trees is wrong. The federal government is spending money like it grows on trees. Republicans are in control of the federal government. Therefore, Republicans are wrong.
Okay. Works for me.
Still leaves me with the question: What are conservatives conserving? Not money, at least not federal money.
And why? Could it be that spending the country in the hole is a good excuse for cutting social programs while giving corporations and wealthy individuals all kinds of tax advantages?
Hmm...
Monday, April 03, 2006
Absolutely!
I have been reflecting on a sermon I listened to (don't worry: it doesn't happen often) yesterday morning. The preacher, as is typical, wove his point around an anecdote concerning a late acquaintance of his, a big old salt-of-the-earth Wisconsin farmer. In describing him, the preacher included a comment along the lines of "He knew what was right and what was wrong, and there was no question in his mind about them," adding, "In this relativistic age, the world needs more people like X."
Indeed.
As a (moderate) relativist from way back, I object. The absolutist attitude--"I know what's right and I know what's wrong, and if you disagree then you're wrong"--is not, as this and so many other preacher would have us believe, a refreshing breath of moral certitude in a venal, sinful world. It is rather a recipe for moral and religious intolerance. And to any preacher who thinks that's a virtue, I refer him to the events of 9/11/01.
Of course, preachers as a group are opposed to what they like to call relativism because church institutions are by their very nature absolutist. Churches, most of them, do no hold that there might be a God who may have created the universe and who could have sent his son to redeem the world, and so on. To open the door to possibilities is to risk undermining the pulpit in which they stand. So, naturally, they turn to absolutism: perhapsthis is the way it is; what preach is what is right; weour church has the answers.
Now, when the "our church" in question really is "our" church, then that may strike us as all well and good. Indeed, my own Catholic church is extraordinarily good as positioning itself as "the one true faith" (as we were taught in Catholic school...and which, my observation has been over the years, more lay people than priests are willing to buy into. I find it interesting, all these years later, than even as a second-grader at St. Joan of Arc school in Omaha, that assertion did not have the ring of truth to it. As fond as I am of the Catholic faith, and as much as it suits me, I have never believed it to be God's denomination, nor have I ever subscribed to the idea that it's the only path to salvation. Indeed, as soon as anyone starts telling me that his is the only path, I start looking for another path).
However (to return to the point), when the church in question is not "our" church...well, then, absolutism becomes a problem. When the "church" in question--more accurately, faith in question--is, say, radical Islam, and the absolutist attitude is "I know what's right and I know what's wrong"--exactly what my preacher friend held up as a virtue in his sermon--then we have a problem. Because the absolutist cannot easily say, "I know what's right and what's wrong, and if you disagree, well, that's the way it goes." As indicated above, absolutist mentality says, "I know what's right and I know what's wrong, and if you disagree then wrong"--and this is not a recipe for tolerance and understanding. In fact, the "Christian" right continuously reminds us that "tolerance" is a bad word. If "tolerance" is bad, then you'reintolerance must be good, right?
And intolerance is what led to the events of 9/11/01.
As a (moderate) relativist, I tend more toward statements like "I know what is right and what is wrong for me" and "I know what is right and what is wrong in this context." The one-size-fits-all attitude of the absolutist is abhorrent, and rife with danger.
Too, there is a hypocrisy to be found in so many ministers' harangue against "relativism": much of what our churches teach is relativistic. As I learned the Sixth Commandment, it was "Thou shalt not kill." But it was and is not taken literally--certainly not absolutely--because most churches of my acquaintance have, with greater or lesser degrees of relish, allowed exceptions: Self-defense, war, the death penalty. Pat Robertson, that great Christian, not long ago suggested that the United States go and "take out" Hugo Chavez. I don't think he mean to take him out for an ice cream. Whither the Sixth Commandment?
So what we really say in teaching the Sixth Commandment is, "Don't do this. Unless..." Which I consider a relativistic point of view. An absolutist, black-and-white, right-or-wrong point of view, so highly prized in theory by so many preachers, would say, "The Commandment says 'Thou shalt not kill,' and the circumstances--the relative circumstances--don't enter into it. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and the Commandment tells us that killing is wrong. Period."
But that is certainly not the attitude in most quarters. Why? Because despite all the denouncing of it, our churches in the main have adopted a relativistic attitude toward killing. Indeed, I have noted as my kids have been educated in churchy things that the Sixth is today often rendered, "Thou shalt not murder"--an important and interesting bit of fudgery. Sixth Commandment a little too absolute, perhaps? That's all right--just rewrite it. It's obviously what God must have had in mind. Relatively speaking.
"I know what's right" is the seed from which religious intolerance sprouts. Religious intolerance is the stem from which "holy wars," "sectarian violence," and jihads grow. Absolutism, in matters moral and religious, probably makes life easier for folks who don't like to do a lot of thinking, or who don't like to have their beliefs questioned. But it makes it a helluva lot more dangerous for everyone else.
Indeed.
As a (moderate) relativist from way back, I object. The absolutist attitude--"I know what's right and I know what's wrong, and if you disagree then you're wrong"--is not, as this and so many other preacher would have us believe, a refreshing breath of moral certitude in a venal, sinful world. It is rather a recipe for moral and religious intolerance. And to any preacher who thinks that's a virtue, I refer him to the events of 9/11/01.
Of course, preachers as a group are opposed to what they like to call relativism because church institutions are by their very nature absolutist. Churches, most of them, do no hold that there might be a God who may have created the universe and who could have sent his son to redeem the world, and so on. To open the door to possibilities is to risk undermining the pulpit in which they stand. So, naturally, they turn to absolutism: perhapsthis is the way it is; what preach is what is right; weour church has the answers.
Now, when the "our church" in question really is "our" church, then that may strike us as all well and good. Indeed, my own Catholic church is extraordinarily good as positioning itself as "the one true faith" (as we were taught in Catholic school...and which, my observation has been over the years, more lay people than priests are willing to buy into. I find it interesting, all these years later, than even as a second-grader at St. Joan of Arc school in Omaha, that assertion did not have the ring of truth to it. As fond as I am of the Catholic faith, and as much as it suits me, I have never believed it to be God's denomination, nor have I ever subscribed to the idea that it's the only path to salvation. Indeed, as soon as anyone starts telling me that his is the only path, I start looking for another path).
However (to return to the point), when the church in question is not "our" church...well, then, absolutism becomes a problem. When the "church" in question--more accurately, faith in question--is, say, radical Islam, and the absolutist attitude is "I know what's right and I know what's wrong"--exactly what my preacher friend held up as a virtue in his sermon--then we have a problem. Because the absolutist cannot easily say, "I know what's right and what's wrong, and if you disagree, well, that's the way it goes." As indicated above, absolutist mentality says, "I know what's right and I know what's wrong, and if you disagree then wrong"--and this is not a recipe for tolerance and understanding. In fact, the "Christian" right continuously reminds us that "tolerance" is a bad word. If "tolerance" is bad, then you'reintolerance must be good, right?
And intolerance is what led to the events of 9/11/01.
As a (moderate) relativist, I tend more toward statements like "I know what is right and what is wrong for me" and "I know what is right and what is wrong in this context." The one-size-fits-all attitude of the absolutist is abhorrent, and rife with danger.
Too, there is a hypocrisy to be found in so many ministers' harangue against "relativism": much of what our churches teach is relativistic. As I learned the Sixth Commandment, it was "Thou shalt not kill." But it was and is not taken literally--certainly not absolutely--because most churches of my acquaintance have, with greater or lesser degrees of relish, allowed exceptions: Self-defense, war, the death penalty. Pat Robertson, that great Christian, not long ago suggested that the United States go and "take out" Hugo Chavez. I don't think he mean to take him out for an ice cream. Whither the Sixth Commandment?
So what we really say in teaching the Sixth Commandment is, "Don't do this. Unless..." Which I consider a relativistic point of view. An absolutist, black-and-white, right-or-wrong point of view, so highly prized in theory by so many preachers, would say, "The Commandment says 'Thou shalt not kill,' and the circumstances--the relative circumstances--don't enter into it. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and the Commandment tells us that killing is wrong. Period."
But that is certainly not the attitude in most quarters. Why? Because despite all the denouncing of it, our churches in the main have adopted a relativistic attitude toward killing. Indeed, I have noted as my kids have been educated in churchy things that the Sixth is today often rendered, "Thou shalt not murder"--an important and interesting bit of fudgery. Sixth Commandment a little too absolute, perhaps? That's all right--just rewrite it. It's obviously what God must have had in mind. Relatively speaking.
"I know what's right" is the seed from which religious intolerance sprouts. Religious intolerance is the stem from which "holy wars," "sectarian violence," and jihads grow. Absolutism, in matters moral and religious, probably makes life easier for folks who don't like to do a lot of thinking, or who don't like to have their beliefs questioned. But it makes it a helluva lot more dangerous for everyone else.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Podcast
Last weekend I was interviewed by Donald Carr of the South Dakota Democratic Party for their podcast, Dakota Blues. Pretty fun--although, from my end, it was no different than being interviewed for anything else. We talked about my illustrious career, living in the Mount Rushmore State, and the recently ended debacle that is the 2006 legislative session. This makes me the first kid on my block to be podcast...podcasted...call it what you will.
I was amused to note, when the podcast went up, that the party used a 20+ year-old picture of me, from the dustjacket of my first book. I imagine they either scanned it from that or swiped it from the Nebraska Center for Writers at my alma mater, Creighton University. I didn't even know the site was there; who knows how they found it, though one suspects Google must have been involved. Anyhow, I sent them a more recent photo--less hair, alas, and a somewhat lighter shade. Here are the photos in question. I leave it to you to guess their chronology:
I was amused to note, when the podcast went up, that the party used a 20+ year-old picture of me, from the dustjacket of my first book. I imagine they either scanned it from that or swiped it from the Nebraska Center for Writers at my alma mater, Creighton University. I didn't even know the site was there; who knows how they found it, though one suspects Google must have been involved. Anyhow, I sent them a more recent photo--less hair, alas, and a somewhat lighter shade. Here are the photos in question. I leave it to you to guess their chronology:
Saturday, March 25, 2006
What Is Leslee Unruh Afraid Of?
The local newspaper reports on efforts to collect 16,728 signatures to put the Mount Rushmore State's exciting new to-hell-with-everyone-who-isn't-an-unborn-child abortion law to a public vote in November. From that article, here's a swell quotation from a particularly venomous local anti-abortion shill who has spent more years than I care to count trying to cram her opinions down everyone else's throat:
"Do not make it easy for them. Make them work for every little signature they can get," said ban supporter Leslee Unruh, president of the Alpha Center crisis pregnancy clinic.
Now, what do you suppose Unruh means by this?
I can only conclude that her statement is a coded message to her minions: Get out there and terrorize would-be petition signers just as we've been terrorizing people in front of women's clinics all these years.
This indicates to me that Unruh realizes, perhaps subconsciously, perhaps consciously, that her extremist stance is not share by the majority of South Dakotans...and that she must work overtime to make sure the people never get to vote on it.
What else could statements like "Do not make it easy for them" and "Make them work for every little signature they can get" mean?
I guess she must figure it's going to be harder to hoodwink an entire state than one little state legislature and a governor.
"Do not make it easy for them. Make them work for every little signature they can get," said ban supporter Leslee Unruh, president of the Alpha Center crisis pregnancy clinic.
Now, what do you suppose Unruh means by this?
I can only conclude that her statement is a coded message to her minions: Get out there and terrorize would-be petition signers just as we've been terrorizing people in front of women's clinics all these years.
This indicates to me that Unruh realizes, perhaps subconsciously, perhaps consciously, that her extremist stance is not share by the majority of South Dakotans...and that she must work overtime to make sure the people never get to vote on it.
What else could statements like "Do not make it easy for them" and "Make them work for every little signature they can get" mean?
I guess she must figure it's going to be harder to hoodwink an entire state than one little state legislature and a governor.
They're Making Fun of Us Again (Still)!
A friend of mine sent me the following, from Slowpoke Comics. His subject line pretty much sums it up: "Sigh........"
Moral Superiority
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)