Fraters Libertas
"The purpose of all war is ultimately peace."
--Saint AugustineChadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03781053410876242483noreply@blogger.comBlogger8493125
Updated: 2 hours 28 min ago
Love the One You're With?
Tonight’s precinct caucuses give Minnesota Republicans a chance to have a say in which candidate is best-suited to face President Obama in November. Well, not really. The results of tonight’s vote are non-binding, which means no delegates will be awarded based on them. Which is the same way it works in a certain neighboring state whose caucus attract a great deal more attention. At least we should be able to conduct an accurate and timely count of the vote.
At this point, I’m torn about which way I should vote. I followed fellow Frater Saint Paul in jumping on the Gingrich bandwagon after he appeared to be the best and most viable alternative to Romney. While I still like a lot about Newt, his viability as the non-Romney candidate has now come into serious question. While I definitely think Ron Paul and his paleo-libertarian views have a place in the Republican Party, he is simply not a serious consideration for CIC. That leaves us with Rick Santorum. While Santorum raises concerns in a number of areas, it seems like he may now be best positioned to emerge as the chief contender to Romney. Wins in Minnesota and Missouri could help his campaign regain the momentum they briefly had (and lost) after the Iowa caucus. And a late switch to Santorum wouldn’t violate the Buckley Rule: “Support the most conservative Catholic candidate who is electable.” Okay, I may have added a little corollary there.
Pondering who to support tonight also lead to the realization that when it comes to GOP presidential primary endorsements (at least the contested ones), I’ve rarely had the privilege of been able to support a candidate from start to finish.
It started way back in 1980. Believe it or not, I was actually backing George H.W. Bush at the beginning of the primary campaign. Once it became obvious that Reagan was the man of the hour, I realized the error of my ways and became a confirmed Reaganite. Keep in mind that I was all of eleven at the time.
I don’t really consider 1988 to be much of a contest as Bush was the sitting VP and natural choice.
1996 was a different matter. Early on, I was actually intrigued by the candidacy of one Lamar Alexander. Yes, that Lamar Alexander. Anyway, once Lamarmentum failed to catch hold, I reluctantly came over to support the sacrificial lamb known as Bob Dole.
In 2000, I started out as a tepid supporter of George W. Bush. The media’s infatuation with “maverick” John McCain eliminated him from consideration and although I liked Steve Forbes’ policies, I just couldn’t see him winning a national election.
Going in to 2008, I was excited about having Rudy Giuliani in the hunt. Then there was the Fred Thompson bubble. Remember Sam Brownback? Finally, I settled (again) with John McCain.
Then there were the ones who never ran like Tommy Thompson or that former South Carolina governor who I was at one point convinced would make a fine candidate for president. Sigh. I’m not sure if this history is a indictment of my judgment or that of my fellow Republicans.
One thing is certain. No matter who I decide to vote for tonight, they won’t be the one I really want.
At this point, I’m torn about which way I should vote. I followed fellow Frater Saint Paul in jumping on the Gingrich bandwagon after he appeared to be the best and most viable alternative to Romney. While I still like a lot about Newt, his viability as the non-Romney candidate has now come into serious question. While I definitely think Ron Paul and his paleo-libertarian views have a place in the Republican Party, he is simply not a serious consideration for CIC. That leaves us with Rick Santorum. While Santorum raises concerns in a number of areas, it seems like he may now be best positioned to emerge as the chief contender to Romney. Wins in Minnesota and Missouri could help his campaign regain the momentum they briefly had (and lost) after the Iowa caucus. And a late switch to Santorum wouldn’t violate the Buckley Rule: “Support the most conservative Catholic candidate who is electable.” Okay, I may have added a little corollary there.
Pondering who to support tonight also lead to the realization that when it comes to GOP presidential primary endorsements (at least the contested ones), I’ve rarely had the privilege of been able to support a candidate from start to finish.
It started way back in 1980. Believe it or not, I was actually backing George H.W. Bush at the beginning of the primary campaign. Once it became obvious that Reagan was the man of the hour, I realized the error of my ways and became a confirmed Reaganite. Keep in mind that I was all of eleven at the time.
I don’t really consider 1988 to be much of a contest as Bush was the sitting VP and natural choice.
1996 was a different matter. Early on, I was actually intrigued by the candidacy of one Lamar Alexander. Yes, that Lamar Alexander. Anyway, once Lamarmentum failed to catch hold, I reluctantly came over to support the sacrificial lamb known as Bob Dole.
In 2000, I started out as a tepid supporter of George W. Bush. The media’s infatuation with “maverick” John McCain eliminated him from consideration and although I liked Steve Forbes’ policies, I just couldn’t see him winning a national election.
Going in to 2008, I was excited about having Rudy Giuliani in the hunt. Then there was the Fred Thompson bubble. Remember Sam Brownback? Finally, I settled (again) with John McCain.
Then there were the ones who never ran like Tommy Thompson or that former South Carolina governor who I was at one point convinced would make a fine candidate for president. Sigh. I’m not sure if this history is a indictment of my judgment or that of my fellow Republicans.
One thing is certain. No matter who I decide to vote for tonight, they won’t be the one I really want.
Categories: Dominated
The Ice We Skate
This year has been a trying one for those of us in the business of building and maintaining backyard rinks. The weather has been mostly uncooperative for the period of time when it’s usually possible to support decent outdoor ice here in Minnesota (sometime from early-December to mid-to-late February depending on the year). Too many warm days and far too few cold ones made it difficult to first get that initial base you need to build on and then to refreeze and enjoy the ice regularly afterward.
It wasn’t until after Christmas that I was finally able to get said base established and it’s been a struggle since then to find days when the ice was suitable for skating. The weekend before last was one of the few all winter that had two decent days ice wise and we were lucky enough to be able to get out on both of them. Yesterday, we laced ‘em up for a quick skate before the Super Bowl and considering how mild the temps have been lately, the ice was actually surprisingly decent. But overall this year, the payoff that you get from being able to play on the rink has not been up to expectations given the effort involved in setting it up.
Which is part of the bargain of course. Backyard rink builders are like farmers in that we’re at the mercy of the weather when it comes to the quality of the product that we’ll be able to deliver. At least for us, it’s just a hobby and not a livelihood. And as disappointing as the results have been this year, it’s still an experience that I’m glad to have gone through. This is my second year working on a backyard rink and the weather, and associated challenges that come with it, has been almost entirely different from the inaugural season. Cold wasn’t as much of an issue last year as trying to keep the rink clear of snow. Hopefully, dealing with those differences has helped prepare me for further unpredictable conditions in future seasons.
This year’s rink was also a bit bigger than last year’s and that expansion, while not significant, presented its own challenges. I’ve probably reached the point where any further growth in the rink’s size would require some leveling of the yard. I’d have to weigh the cost/benefits of that carefully. I have already given thought to adding boards to next year’s edition. I considered it for a while this year, but the delays brought about by the mild temps diminished my enthusiasm for that additional effort. Besides at this point, the kids don’t have much of a problem keeping the puck or tennis ball within the current confines of the rink’s short walls. But next year...
One of the pleasures of the backyard rink is the feeling of satisfaction-however fleeting it may have been this year-of putting together and then enjoying something all of your own doing. And for those of us who sit in offices and bang on keyboards or talk on telephones all day long there is also the physical element required in it and working with (and sometimes against) nature and the elements. Not the things you get to experience when you’re putting together a PowerPoint presentation. So even in a year such as this when the rewards are small, the effort is still worthwhile.
It’s almost ironic that as we approach what would normally be the beginning of the end of the outdoor ice season, the forecast for the rest of this week actually calls for weather suitable for ice making (with a high of thirteen and low of six on Friday for example). And it’s also the week where we depart for a family vacation to Florida. Upon our return home, it’s highly unlikely that we’ll see such cooperative conditions again which means that the useful season for our rink probably ends this week. The kids will still have fun enough playing on the ice and breaking it apart as it melts with the coming of spring, but the skating days are over. Until next year.
It wasn’t until after Christmas that I was finally able to get said base established and it’s been a struggle since then to find days when the ice was suitable for skating. The weekend before last was one of the few all winter that had two decent days ice wise and we were lucky enough to be able to get out on both of them. Yesterday, we laced ‘em up for a quick skate before the Super Bowl and considering how mild the temps have been lately, the ice was actually surprisingly decent. But overall this year, the payoff that you get from being able to play on the rink has not been up to expectations given the effort involved in setting it up.
Which is part of the bargain of course. Backyard rink builders are like farmers in that we’re at the mercy of the weather when it comes to the quality of the product that we’ll be able to deliver. At least for us, it’s just a hobby and not a livelihood. And as disappointing as the results have been this year, it’s still an experience that I’m glad to have gone through. This is my second year working on a backyard rink and the weather, and associated challenges that come with it, has been almost entirely different from the inaugural season. Cold wasn’t as much of an issue last year as trying to keep the rink clear of snow. Hopefully, dealing with those differences has helped prepare me for further unpredictable conditions in future seasons.
This year’s rink was also a bit bigger than last year’s and that expansion, while not significant, presented its own challenges. I’ve probably reached the point where any further growth in the rink’s size would require some leveling of the yard. I’d have to weigh the cost/benefits of that carefully. I have already given thought to adding boards to next year’s edition. I considered it for a while this year, but the delays brought about by the mild temps diminished my enthusiasm for that additional effort. Besides at this point, the kids don’t have much of a problem keeping the puck or tennis ball within the current confines of the rink’s short walls. But next year...
One of the pleasures of the backyard rink is the feeling of satisfaction-however fleeting it may have been this year-of putting together and then enjoying something all of your own doing. And for those of us who sit in offices and bang on keyboards or talk on telephones all day long there is also the physical element required in it and working with (and sometimes against) nature and the elements. Not the things you get to experience when you’re putting together a PowerPoint presentation. So even in a year such as this when the rewards are small, the effort is still worthwhile.
It’s almost ironic that as we approach what would normally be the beginning of the end of the outdoor ice season, the forecast for the rest of this week actually calls for weather suitable for ice making (with a high of thirteen and low of six on Friday for example). And it’s also the week where we depart for a family vacation to Florida. Upon our return home, it’s highly unlikely that we’ll see such cooperative conditions again which means that the useful season for our rink probably ends this week. The kids will still have fun enough playing on the ice and breaking it apart as it melts with the coming of spring, but the skating days are over. Until next year.
Categories: Dominated
Where Are All the People?
There seems to be a widespread assumption that the Obama administration’s recent assault on religious liberty and freedom of conscience will be met with widespread resistance by American Catholics. While it appears that some Catholic leaders are responding thusly, I remain skeptical that there will any kind of mass Catholic backlash against President Obama because of this. For if the laity is to become engaged in the battle in a meaningful way, the people in the pews must be shaken out of their current passivity.
Many Catholics seem all too willing to erect their own wall between church and state and like to pretend that their politics has nothing to do with the Catholic Church and vice versa. The problem is that when the government breaks through that barrier and injects itself into the affairs of the Church by attempting to force it to accept policies that violate core tenants of its beliefs, the illusion of this happy little coexistence is shattered. Well, at least it would be if the Church were more consistent and forceful in explaining exactly what is taking place and why it matters to American Catholics.
My experience may not be typical, but so far little word of this current controversy has surfaced in our parish on any given Sunday. A few months ago, there was an insert in the bulletin that touched on it. Since then, nothing. No homilies, no presentations, no mention in the weekly bulletin. The only thing related to politics that has merited attention has been on the marriage front, with updates on the Minnesota Marriage Amendment appearing in the last few bulletins. But nothing on the Obamacare rules which are a direct threat to the freedom of the Catholic Church to exercise its religious beliefs.
In order for there to be action, there needs to be a call for it first. I fear that too many Catholic leaders are still reluctant to sound it.
Many Catholics seem all too willing to erect their own wall between church and state and like to pretend that their politics has nothing to do with the Catholic Church and vice versa. The problem is that when the government breaks through that barrier and injects itself into the affairs of the Church by attempting to force it to accept policies that violate core tenants of its beliefs, the illusion of this happy little coexistence is shattered. Well, at least it would be if the Church were more consistent and forceful in explaining exactly what is taking place and why it matters to American Catholics.
My experience may not be typical, but so far little word of this current controversy has surfaced in our parish on any given Sunday. A few months ago, there was an insert in the bulletin that touched on it. Since then, nothing. No homilies, no presentations, no mention in the weekly bulletin. The only thing related to politics that has merited attention has been on the marriage front, with updates on the Minnesota Marriage Amendment appearing in the last few bulletins. But nothing on the Obamacare rules which are a direct threat to the freedom of the Catholic Church to exercise its religious beliefs.
In order for there to be action, there needs to be a call for it first. I fear that too many Catholic leaders are still reluctant to sound it.
Categories: Dominated
The Bellweather Next Door
Gary Larson on what the effort to recall Governor Walker means to Wisconsin and how it could serve as a prelude to November's national election:
Pouring untold millions in recall elections effort, state and national unions seek now to overturn the results of the last real election. Recall looms for Gov. Walker and four Republicans legislators similarly targeted for their reformist ways.
Unions seek a form of jury disqualification on a massive, statewide scale. Facts are immaterial in labor-induced wars to get their way. Unions' collective wish here in Wisconsin is to restore a pushover state government which labor can “bargain” with (a-ha!) for members' privileges, a.k.a. entitlements, with payoffs at the end to legislators falling in line with their demand.
Frequently referred to — both by union biggies and their allies in news media, as “union rights,” somehow immutable, or Heaven-sent. They are not; rather these are man-made revocable labor contracts masquerading as “rights.”
Outcomes of the recall elections will cast a shadow on national elections in November. In essence, one central issue – unrestrained government spending – dominates. And then, the $15-plus trillion dollar question will be answered: Do Americans really care about budget restraints, about shared sacrifices, about living within means, about bloated labor contracts, etc.? Or opt to continue to saddle their grandkids with massive, unsustainable debt loads?
Pouring untold millions in recall elections effort, state and national unions seek now to overturn the results of the last real election. Recall looms for Gov. Walker and four Republicans legislators similarly targeted for their reformist ways.
Unions seek a form of jury disqualification on a massive, statewide scale. Facts are immaterial in labor-induced wars to get their way. Unions' collective wish here in Wisconsin is to restore a pushover state government which labor can “bargain” with (a-ha!) for members' privileges, a.k.a. entitlements, with payoffs at the end to legislators falling in line with their demand.
Frequently referred to — both by union biggies and their allies in news media, as “union rights,” somehow immutable, or Heaven-sent. They are not; rather these are man-made revocable labor contracts masquerading as “rights.”
Outcomes of the recall elections will cast a shadow on national elections in November. In essence, one central issue – unrestrained government spending – dominates. And then, the $15-plus trillion dollar question will be answered: Do Americans really care about budget restraints, about shared sacrifices, about living within means, about bloated labor contracts, etc.? Or opt to continue to saddle their grandkids with massive, unsustainable debt loads?
Categories: Dominated
Beer of the Week (Vol. CXXXIII)
Another edition of Beer of the Week sponsored as always by the sporty crew at Glen Lake Wine & Spirits who have the wine, whisky, and beer to make your big game Sunday most super whether your pulling for the Pats, the G-men, or are one of the millions tuning in for the sake of spectacle (and Madonna’s half time show).
We continue to focus on beers that are appropriate to the season even if this particular winter has been mostly unseasonal in these parts. Considering the foggy, damp days we’ve experienced this week, it seems like a perfect time for a Scotch Ale:
Scotch Ale is the name given to a strong ale believed to have originated in Edinburgh in the 18th century. Beers using the designation Scotch Ale are popular in the USA where most examples are brewed locally. Examples of Scotch Ale brewed in Scotland are exported to the USA, though may be available in Scotland under a different name. For example, Caledonian's Edinburgh Scotch Ale is sold from the cask in Scotland as Edinburgh Strong Ale or as Edinburgh Tattoo.
Strong Scotch Ale is also known as "Wee Heavy". Examples of beers brewed in the USA under the name Wee Heavy tend to be 7% abv and higher, while Scottish-brewed examples, such as Belhaven's Wee Heavy, can be found between 5.5% and 6.5% abv. On the other hand, Scottish brewed exceptions include Traquair House Ale which is brewed to a strength of 7.2% abv, and Traquair Jacobite Ale which is 8% abv. McEwan's Scotch Ale is also 8% abv.
As with other examples of strong Ales, such as Barley Wine, these beers tend toward sweetness and a full body, with a low hop flavour and aroma.
Historical hop levels are debated. Examples from the Caledonian brewery would have toffee notes from the caramelizing of the malt from the direct fired copper. This caramelizing of Caledonian's beers is popular in America and has led many American brewers to produce toffee sweet beers which they would label as a Scotch Ale.
This week’s beer is the first that we’ve featured from Dark Horse Brewery in Marshall, Michigan. Dark Horse seeks to lay claim to being the best brewery in the state, which is a bold boast to make considering the number of and quality of craft brewers who call Michigan home (Arcadia, Bell’s, Founder’s, New Holland, etc.). Our beer of the week is the equally bold and brash Scotty Karate Scotch Ale:
For those of you who don't know who "Scotty Karate" is... He is a local one man band who plays an amazing slurry of honky tonk influenced, punk country songs. His voice is amazing as well as his high energy shows. (Check him out @ www.scottykarate.com) So, we decided to make a beer and name it in his honor. This beer is a big, full bodied Scottish ale. It is 9.75% alc. but it is very smooth and balanced.
Retails for $8.99 for a four-pack of 12oz brown bottles. Label features a funky rendering of namesake one man band leader with purple and yellow color streaks. Based on the headgear that he’s sporting and the color scheme, this could be the official beer of the Vikings.
STYLE: Scotch Ale
ALCOHOL BY VOLUME: 9.75%
COLOR (0-2): Dark copper-brown. 2
AROMA (0-2): Caramel malt with hints of alcohol. 2
HEAD (0-2): Tan color, light volume, tiny bubbles, decent lacing. 2
TASTE (0-5): Strong malt flavors predominate with caramel, toffee, and bread. Sweet, but not overly so. Some tangy fruit as well with a bit of a hop bite at the finish. Heavy-bodied with a smooth thick mouthfeel. You can definitely taste the heat although it’s not overwhelming. It is a beer that you’ll want to sip and savor. 4
AFTERTASTE (0-2): Long lasting and rich. 2
OVERALL (0-6): This is a big beer with the robust flavors that you’re craving in the doldrums of winter. Yet it’s also surprisingly smooth. You’ll know that you’re drinking a beer with a ABV pushing double digits, but won’t be put off by the amped up alcohol content. This “wee heavy” comes in just right. 5
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 17
We continue to focus on beers that are appropriate to the season even if this particular winter has been mostly unseasonal in these parts. Considering the foggy, damp days we’ve experienced this week, it seems like a perfect time for a Scotch Ale:
Scotch Ale is the name given to a strong ale believed to have originated in Edinburgh in the 18th century. Beers using the designation Scotch Ale are popular in the USA where most examples are brewed locally. Examples of Scotch Ale brewed in Scotland are exported to the USA, though may be available in Scotland under a different name. For example, Caledonian's Edinburgh Scotch Ale is sold from the cask in Scotland as Edinburgh Strong Ale or as Edinburgh Tattoo.
Strong Scotch Ale is also known as "Wee Heavy". Examples of beers brewed in the USA under the name Wee Heavy tend to be 7% abv and higher, while Scottish-brewed examples, such as Belhaven's Wee Heavy, can be found between 5.5% and 6.5% abv. On the other hand, Scottish brewed exceptions include Traquair House Ale which is brewed to a strength of 7.2% abv, and Traquair Jacobite Ale which is 8% abv. McEwan's Scotch Ale is also 8% abv.
As with other examples of strong Ales, such as Barley Wine, these beers tend toward sweetness and a full body, with a low hop flavour and aroma.
Historical hop levels are debated. Examples from the Caledonian brewery would have toffee notes from the caramelizing of the malt from the direct fired copper. This caramelizing of Caledonian's beers is popular in America and has led many American brewers to produce toffee sweet beers which they would label as a Scotch Ale.
This week’s beer is the first that we’ve featured from Dark Horse Brewery in Marshall, Michigan. Dark Horse seeks to lay claim to being the best brewery in the state, which is a bold boast to make considering the number of and quality of craft brewers who call Michigan home (Arcadia, Bell’s, Founder’s, New Holland, etc.). Our beer of the week is the equally bold and brash Scotty Karate Scotch Ale:
For those of you who don't know who "Scotty Karate" is... He is a local one man band who plays an amazing slurry of honky tonk influenced, punk country songs. His voice is amazing as well as his high energy shows. (Check him out @ www.scottykarate.com) So, we decided to make a beer and name it in his honor. This beer is a big, full bodied Scottish ale. It is 9.75% alc. but it is very smooth and balanced.
Retails for $8.99 for a four-pack of 12oz brown bottles. Label features a funky rendering of namesake one man band leader with purple and yellow color streaks. Based on the headgear that he’s sporting and the color scheme, this could be the official beer of the Vikings.
STYLE: Scotch Ale
ALCOHOL BY VOLUME: 9.75%
COLOR (0-2): Dark copper-brown. 2
AROMA (0-2): Caramel malt with hints of alcohol. 2
HEAD (0-2): Tan color, light volume, tiny bubbles, decent lacing. 2
TASTE (0-5): Strong malt flavors predominate with caramel, toffee, and bread. Sweet, but not overly so. Some tangy fruit as well with a bit of a hop bite at the finish. Heavy-bodied with a smooth thick mouthfeel. You can definitely taste the heat although it’s not overwhelming. It is a beer that you’ll want to sip and savor. 4
AFTERTASTE (0-2): Long lasting and rich. 2
OVERALL (0-6): This is a big beer with the robust flavors that you’re craving in the doldrums of winter. Yet it’s also surprisingly smooth. You’ll know that you’re drinking a beer with a ABV pushing double digits, but won’t be put off by the amped up alcohol content. This “wee heavy” comes in just right. 5
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 17
Categories: Dominated
Wake Up Call?
Peggy Noonan says that while Romney's gaffe this week was serious it was nothing compared to the blunder made by President Obama. She opinines that taking on the Catholic Church is A Battle the President Can't Win;
The church is split on many things. But do Catholics in the pews want the government telling their church to contravene its beliefs? A president affronting the leadership of the church, and blithely threatening its great institutions? No, they don't want that. They will unite against that.
The smallest part of this story is political. There are 77.7 million Catholics in the United States. In 2008 they made up 27% of the electorate, about 35 million people. Mr. Obama carried the Catholic vote, 54% to 45%. They helped him win.
They won't this year. And guess where a lot of Catholics live? In the battleground states.
There was no reason to pick this fight. It reflects political incompetence on a scale so great as to make Mitt Romney's gaffes a little bitty thing.
There was nothing for the president to gain, except, perhaps, the pleasure of making a great church bow to him.
Enjoy it while you can. You have awakened a sleeping giant.
I wish I shared Noonan's conviction of a mass Catholic awakening over this. I'm afraid that it still may not be enough to jolt many Catholics out of their blissfully ignorant slumber.
The church is split on many things. But do Catholics in the pews want the government telling their church to contravene its beliefs? A president affronting the leadership of the church, and blithely threatening its great institutions? No, they don't want that. They will unite against that.
The smallest part of this story is political. There are 77.7 million Catholics in the United States. In 2008 they made up 27% of the electorate, about 35 million people. Mr. Obama carried the Catholic vote, 54% to 45%. They helped him win.
They won't this year. And guess where a lot of Catholics live? In the battleground states.
There was no reason to pick this fight. It reflects political incompetence on a scale so great as to make Mitt Romney's gaffes a little bitty thing.
There was nothing for the president to gain, except, perhaps, the pleasure of making a great church bow to him.
Enjoy it while you can. You have awakened a sleeping giant.
I wish I shared Noonan's conviction of a mass Catholic awakening over this. I'm afraid that it still may not be enough to jolt many Catholics out of their blissfully ignorant slumber.
Categories: Dominated
Not Adding Up
Facebook Tracks Ascent of Google:
Profit margins are very similar as well. Facebook's operating-profit margins have averaged 49% the past two years. Google averaged 48% in 2004 and 2005, a level it roughly maintained until last year.
Oil Company Earnings: Reality over Rhetoric:
Industry profit margins are cyclical too. But on average, between 2006 and 2010, the largest oil companies averaged a profit margin of around 6.5%.
Dems propose Reasonable Profits Board to regulate oil company profits:
Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), want to set up a "Reasonable Profits Board" to control gas profits.
The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a "windfall profit tax" as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit.
Definition of reasonable by the Free Online Dictionary:
rea•son•a•ble (r z -n -b l) adj.
1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.
Profit margins are very similar as well. Facebook's operating-profit margins have averaged 49% the past two years. Google averaged 48% in 2004 and 2005, a level it roughly maintained until last year.
Oil Company Earnings: Reality over Rhetoric:
Industry profit margins are cyclical too. But on average, between 2006 and 2010, the largest oil companies averaged a profit margin of around 6.5%.
Dems propose Reasonable Profits Board to regulate oil company profits:
Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), want to set up a "Reasonable Profits Board" to control gas profits.
The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a "windfall profit tax" as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit.
Definition of reasonable by the Free Online Dictionary:
rea•son•a•ble (r z -n -b l) adj.
1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.
Categories: Dominated
Board to Tears
There was an interesting piece in yesterday's WSJ on the lengths that airline travelers are going to in order to Avoid Luggage Check-In Fees (sub req):
Fights between passengers for overhead bin space are extremely rare, airlines say. But Catherine Jorgens feared mayhem was about to erupt on a Frontier Airlines flight where passengers did argue over jamming bags into already-full bins. "It was a madhouse of many people in many rows competing for sacred overhead-bin space,'' she said.
Going through security is no longer the worst part of the flying experience for Ms. Jorgens. "I think the boarding experience is the most unpleasant time for me,'' she said. Now she packs light and closes her eyes while others board, preferring not to look at the oversized bags being dragged onboard so she doesn't get upset.
"It is such a slow, tedious process,'' said Ms. Jorgens, a retiree living in Florida who travels regularly. "At what other time nowadays do you see such an endless line of people all bearing the same morose expression?''
You know, I think I would have to agree with that assessment. It used to be that light at the end of the arduous series of steps involved in air travel was when you reached the gate and were waiting to board the aircraft. Now, the battle for overhead space has introduced a new element of anxiety and stress. If you're one of those carrying luggage onboard that requires utilizing precious overhead space-as it seems more and more people are now since airlines started charging for checked luggage-you need to make sure you get on the plane before those bins are filled which they almost always are these days.
Priority boarding is one of the few perks of having elite status with an airline that really matters these days. Upgrades are getting harder and harder to come by, but being able to board the plane early at least guarantees that you’ll have open overhead bin space to stow your bag. But then you still have to sit there through the rest of the boarding process-which takes longer now that more people carry on-and listen to the inevitable wailing and gnashing of teeth when there’s no more room in the bins. It’s not exactly humanity at its finest and the misery is compounded when you have snarky flight attendants snapping at passengers who are just trying to find a place for their bag. Which has been the situation on pretty much every Delta flight I’ve been in the last few years. More bags stuffed into overhead bins also means that getting off the plane takes longer than it used. It gets ya comin' and goin'.
The worst part is that all of this pain and suffering which has been introduced into the boarding process has been inflicted because the airlines started charging to check luggage. Which is why it kills me when the flight attendants get all pissy about passengers carrying on bags. I want to scream, “It’s not their fault. It’s your company that created the problem. If you want to get mad at somebody, get mad at them and quit blaming the victim!”
I don’t have easy answers for how to fix this, but I know that there has to be a better way.
Fights between passengers for overhead bin space are extremely rare, airlines say. But Catherine Jorgens feared mayhem was about to erupt on a Frontier Airlines flight where passengers did argue over jamming bags into already-full bins. "It was a madhouse of many people in many rows competing for sacred overhead-bin space,'' she said.
Going through security is no longer the worst part of the flying experience for Ms. Jorgens. "I think the boarding experience is the most unpleasant time for me,'' she said. Now she packs light and closes her eyes while others board, preferring not to look at the oversized bags being dragged onboard so she doesn't get upset.
"It is such a slow, tedious process,'' said Ms. Jorgens, a retiree living in Florida who travels regularly. "At what other time nowadays do you see such an endless line of people all bearing the same morose expression?''
You know, I think I would have to agree with that assessment. It used to be that light at the end of the arduous series of steps involved in air travel was when you reached the gate and were waiting to board the aircraft. Now, the battle for overhead space has introduced a new element of anxiety and stress. If you're one of those carrying luggage onboard that requires utilizing precious overhead space-as it seems more and more people are now since airlines started charging for checked luggage-you need to make sure you get on the plane before those bins are filled which they almost always are these days.
Priority boarding is one of the few perks of having elite status with an airline that really matters these days. Upgrades are getting harder and harder to come by, but being able to board the plane early at least guarantees that you’ll have open overhead bin space to stow your bag. But then you still have to sit there through the rest of the boarding process-which takes longer now that more people carry on-and listen to the inevitable wailing and gnashing of teeth when there’s no more room in the bins. It’s not exactly humanity at its finest and the misery is compounded when you have snarky flight attendants snapping at passengers who are just trying to find a place for their bag. Which has been the situation on pretty much every Delta flight I’ve been in the last few years. More bags stuffed into overhead bins also means that getting off the plane takes longer than it used. It gets ya comin' and goin'.
The worst part is that all of this pain and suffering which has been introduced into the boarding process has been inflicted because the airlines started charging to check luggage. Which is why it kills me when the flight attendants get all pissy about passengers carrying on bags. I want to scream, “It’s not their fault. It’s your company that created the problem. If you want to get mad at somebody, get mad at them and quit blaming the victim!”
I don’t have easy answers for how to fix this, but I know that there has to be a better way.
Categories: Dominated
Never Too Late to Learn?
In what they admit may be the first in a long-running series, the WSJ editorial board tries to explain What Mitt Really Meant:
Mr. Romney's larger mistake is to think and speak in "class" terms. He touts his concern for the "middle class" all the time, as if he's trying to show that a rich guy can identify with average Americans. But this is a game that Democrats play better, and it leads Mr. Romney into cul-de-sacs like saying the poor are fine because they benefit from government, while the middle class don't. Mr. Obama will turn this into an argument for hooking the middle class on more government.
Mr. Romney's failures to communicate are common among businessmen and other normal people who have the right instincts but haven't spent their lives thinking about politics. He also recently ran into trouble when he said he liked firing people, when he was really talking about the discipline of market competition.
Still, his business now is politics, and as the Republican front-runner he has an obligation to explain how conservative principles and policies can address America's current problems. We'll be happy to translate for him in these columns, but it would be less politically painful if Mr. Romney sat down for a week-long tutorial with, say, Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush and others who can help him avoid such obvious liberal traps.
You would think that after spending the last six years essentially doing almost nothing but running for president, Romney would be better prepared by now to avoid such pitfalls. The fact that he isn't should give Romney supporters pause. If Romney does indeed secure the GOP nomination as now seems likely, he would do well to spend a considerable amount of time with the gentlemen listed above to learn some rather basics tricks of the political trade.
Mr. Romney's larger mistake is to think and speak in "class" terms. He touts his concern for the "middle class" all the time, as if he's trying to show that a rich guy can identify with average Americans. But this is a game that Democrats play better, and it leads Mr. Romney into cul-de-sacs like saying the poor are fine because they benefit from government, while the middle class don't. Mr. Obama will turn this into an argument for hooking the middle class on more government.
Mr. Romney's failures to communicate are common among businessmen and other normal people who have the right instincts but haven't spent their lives thinking about politics. He also recently ran into trouble when he said he liked firing people, when he was really talking about the discipline of market competition.
Still, his business now is politics, and as the Republican front-runner he has an obligation to explain how conservative principles and policies can address America's current problems. We'll be happy to translate for him in these columns, but it would be less politically painful if Mr. Romney sat down for a week-long tutorial with, say, Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush and others who can help him avoid such obvious liberal traps.
You would think that after spending the last six years essentially doing almost nothing but running for president, Romney would be better prepared by now to avoid such pitfalls. The fact that he isn't should give Romney supporters pause. If Romney does indeed secure the GOP nomination as now seems likely, he would do well to spend a considerable amount of time with the gentlemen listed above to learn some rather basics tricks of the political trade.
Categories: Dominated
Debt Bombing
Over the last year, some Democrats have taken to dousing Republicans in confetti. They call it “glitter bombing”. Mitt Romney was the latest “victim” of this puzzling trend right here in Minnesota.
Apparently, glitter bombers believe that undecided voters will see a Republican covered in glitter and say to themselves: “That Republican looks ridiculous covered in glitter; obviously I cannot vote for him.”
It seems doubtful that any such inner monologue has ever occurred, but that hasn’t stopped the assaults. Fortunately, we Republicans are above such inane tactics.
But if we weren’t above such things, we could certainly come up with a form of glitter bombing that at least made sense. The Bureau of Printing and engraving sells five pound bags of shredded currency. Dousing a spendthrift Democrat in this currency confetti or “debt bombing”, would actually be an understandable political statement. Or, it would be if our side wasn’t too classy for such behavior.
Yep, we’d be better than the Democrats at their own game, if we were willing to stoop to their level.
Apparently, glitter bombers believe that undecided voters will see a Republican covered in glitter and say to themselves: “That Republican looks ridiculous covered in glitter; obviously I cannot vote for him.”
It seems doubtful that any such inner monologue has ever occurred, but that hasn’t stopped the assaults. Fortunately, we Republicans are above such inane tactics.
But if we weren’t above such things, we could certainly come up with a form of glitter bombing that at least made sense. The Bureau of Printing and engraving sells five pound bags of shredded currency. Dousing a spendthrift Democrat in this currency confetti or “debt bombing”, would actually be an understandable political statement. Or, it would be if our side wasn’t too classy for such behavior.
Yep, we’d be better than the Democrats at their own game, if we were willing to stoop to their level.
Categories: Dominated
Church or State?
The following is an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal Op Ed on Religious Freedom by Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan :
Now we have learned that those loud and strong appeals were ignored. On Friday, the administration reaffirmed the mandate, and offered only a one-year delay in enforcement in some cases—as if we might suddenly be more willing to violate our consciences 12 months from now. As a result, all but a few employers will be forced to purchase coverage for contraception, abortion drugs and sterilization services even when they seriously object to them. All who share the cost of health plans that include such services will be forced to pay for them as well. Surely it violates freedom of religion to force religious ministries and citizens to buy health coverage to which they object as a matter of conscience and religious principle.
The rule forces insurance companies to provide these services without a co-pay, suggesting they are "free"—but it is naïve to believe that. There is no free lunch, and you can be sure there's no free abortion, sterilization or contraception. There will be a source of funding: you.
Coercing religious ministries and citizens to pay directly for actions that violate their teaching is an unprecedented incursion into freedom of conscience. Organizations fear that this unjust rule will force them to take one horn or the other of an unacceptable dilemma: Stop serving people of all faiths in their ministries—so that they will fall under the narrow exemption—or stop providing health-care coverage to their own employees.
The Catholic Church defends religious liberty, including freedom of conscience, for everyone. The Amish do not carry health insurance. The government respects their principles. Christian Scientists want to heal by prayer alone, and the new health-care reform law respects that. Quakers and others object to killing even in wartime, and the government respects that principle for conscientious objectors. By its decision, the Obama administration has failed to show the same respect for the consciences of Catholics and others who object to treating pregnancy as a disease.
This latest erosion of our first freedom should make all Americans pause. When the government tampers with a freedom so fundamental to the life of our nation, one shudders to think what lies ahead.
In the wake of the administration's modern day kulturkampf (why yes, I have been reading a biography of Bismarck) and the Church's unified (so far) response to it, one also shudders to think what lies ahead for groups such as Catholics for Obama. When it comes down to it, will they choose to support their Church or their president?
Now we have learned that those loud and strong appeals were ignored. On Friday, the administration reaffirmed the mandate, and offered only a one-year delay in enforcement in some cases—as if we might suddenly be more willing to violate our consciences 12 months from now. As a result, all but a few employers will be forced to purchase coverage for contraception, abortion drugs and sterilization services even when they seriously object to them. All who share the cost of health plans that include such services will be forced to pay for them as well. Surely it violates freedom of religion to force religious ministries and citizens to buy health coverage to which they object as a matter of conscience and religious principle.
The rule forces insurance companies to provide these services without a co-pay, suggesting they are "free"—but it is naïve to believe that. There is no free lunch, and you can be sure there's no free abortion, sterilization or contraception. There will be a source of funding: you.
Coercing religious ministries and citizens to pay directly for actions that violate their teaching is an unprecedented incursion into freedom of conscience. Organizations fear that this unjust rule will force them to take one horn or the other of an unacceptable dilemma: Stop serving people of all faiths in their ministries—so that they will fall under the narrow exemption—or stop providing health-care coverage to their own employees.
The Catholic Church defends religious liberty, including freedom of conscience, for everyone. The Amish do not carry health insurance. The government respects their principles. Christian Scientists want to heal by prayer alone, and the new health-care reform law respects that. Quakers and others object to killing even in wartime, and the government respects that principle for conscientious objectors. By its decision, the Obama administration has failed to show the same respect for the consciences of Catholics and others who object to treating pregnancy as a disease.
This latest erosion of our first freedom should make all Americans pause. When the government tampers with a freedom so fundamental to the life of our nation, one shudders to think what lies ahead.
In the wake of the administration's modern day kulturkampf (why yes, I have been reading a biography of Bismarck) and the Church's unified (so far) response to it, one also shudders to think what lies ahead for groups such as Catholics for Obama. When it comes down to it, will they choose to support their Church or their president?
Categories: Dominated
We Disengage, We Turn the Page
Jonah Goldberg asks What is Wrong With This Guy?:
Again, I’d happily vote for Romney over Obama. And I’d be fine with Romney crushing Obama with negative ads, if that was remotely possible. And there are plenty of things one could say to defend Romney on the merits of what he says here. But great politicians on the morning after a big win, don’t force their supporters to go around defending the candidate from the charge that he doesn’t care about the poor. They just don’t.
After eight years of cringing through the ups and downs and ideological inconsistencies of the Bush administration and the 2008 campaign trying to pretend that John McCain-a fundamentally good man-actually represented a conservative choice for America’s future, a lot of us are tired of having to put up with Republican politicians that we can’t wholeheartedly support or really believe in. So let me officially state that I am not going to go down that road with Mitt Romney.
I’ll leave that to the Hugh Hewitts, Ann Coulters, and Ramesh Ponnurus of the world. You’ve been selling us on Romney’s electability and telling us that he’s the only one who can beat President Obama in November. Fine. Now that it appears almost certain that your dreams of Romney at the top of the Republican ticket are going to come true, you’re going to have your chance. You get to be the ones who can explain away blunders like this morning’s. You get to keep telling people that RomneyCare is in no way related to ObamaCare. You get to describe for us how Romney’s tepid and uninspired economic plan is going to turn things around. You get to justify the fact that at a time when the American people are itching for a serious debate about the future paths the country could and should take, Romney has demonstrated neither the ability nor inclination to put forth a strong argument for a conservative vision as an alternative to President Obama’s.
The way things are looking now, we’re going to be in for a LONG campaign. And an even longer four years after that with President Obama in the White House.
Is it too early for the Ryan in 2016 speculation to begin?
Again, I’d happily vote for Romney over Obama. And I’d be fine with Romney crushing Obama with negative ads, if that was remotely possible. And there are plenty of things one could say to defend Romney on the merits of what he says here. But great politicians on the morning after a big win, don’t force their supporters to go around defending the candidate from the charge that he doesn’t care about the poor. They just don’t.
After eight years of cringing through the ups and downs and ideological inconsistencies of the Bush administration and the 2008 campaign trying to pretend that John McCain-a fundamentally good man-actually represented a conservative choice for America’s future, a lot of us are tired of having to put up with Republican politicians that we can’t wholeheartedly support or really believe in. So let me officially state that I am not going to go down that road with Mitt Romney.
I’ll leave that to the Hugh Hewitts, Ann Coulters, and Ramesh Ponnurus of the world. You’ve been selling us on Romney’s electability and telling us that he’s the only one who can beat President Obama in November. Fine. Now that it appears almost certain that your dreams of Romney at the top of the Republican ticket are going to come true, you’re going to have your chance. You get to be the ones who can explain away blunders like this morning’s. You get to keep telling people that RomneyCare is in no way related to ObamaCare. You get to describe for us how Romney’s tepid and uninspired economic plan is going to turn things around. You get to justify the fact that at a time when the American people are itching for a serious debate about the future paths the country could and should take, Romney has demonstrated neither the ability nor inclination to put forth a strong argument for a conservative vision as an alternative to President Obama’s.
The way things are looking now, we’re going to be in for a LONG campaign. And an even longer four years after that with President Obama in the White House.
Is it too early for the Ryan in 2016 speculation to begin?
Categories: Dominated
Cabin Fever
Cabin ownership used to be more prevalent among the common people of Minnesota. Back in the 70s and 80s, while growing up in decidedly middle class environs, it wasn’t uncommon for our neighbors and friends to own a cabin and head up north every summer weekend. But something has happened over the past few decades to change this, probably some combination of increased demand for vacation homes eating up supply, increased property taxation on these properties. Plus the standards for the “cabin” have increased dramatically over the years. A cabin used to be nothing more than a ramshackle hut with a few rooms, questionable heating and suspect plumbing (and we loved it!). Now it’s assumed to be a McMansion on the lake with multiple guests rooms and built in bars and Jacuzzis and big screen plasma TVs. No doubt this has driven up the price as well.
For whatever the reason, those among the working class rarely speak of their cabins anymore. For all but the wealthy, they are not affordable. And with that goes much of the cherished Minnesota institution of going “up north”.
Well, maybe not for everyone.
One of the private amusements I’ve enjoyed with myself over the years (one of the many!) is reading the retirement announcements of teachers and education bureaucrats and other government employees, and noticing how often they mention retiring to their cabins. No, I didn’t have the foresight to compile statistics and clippings over the years to prove this, but trust me, it happens quite a bit, otherwise it wouldn’t be so funny to me every time I see it. And I’ve always taken it as another piece of evidence that perhaps we’re being a bit too generous in the compensation and retirement benefits for teachers, education bureaucrats, and other government employees. Should we really be subsidizing a lifestyle for our public servants that is unattainable for those they are serving? I report, you decide.
The latest from Washington County, the County Administrator is stepping down after serving the public for 37 years. His plans for retirements? From the Stillwater Gazette:
We have a family cabin in northwest Wisconsin that we haven't been able to spend enough time at.
Yes, yes, yes, maybe the cabin has been in their family for generations and didn’t cost him a cent. Or maybe his wife made all the real dough in the family through private sector endeavors and she popped for it. Or maybe he won the lottery some years back and splurged on a cabin.
Or, maybe, just maybe, my confirmation bias is right on the money, and that cabin has been paid for by the good graces of the Washington County taxpayers who’ll never have such a luxury in store for themselves.
Ah well, whatever the circumstances, it’s always nice to see a life of honest labor rewarded with some years of comfort and ease. We wish him the best, and we look forward to the tenure of our new Washington County Administrator, just now taking her position. The Oakdale-Lake Elmo Review has a profile, including this tidbit on her hobbies:
In her spare time, O'Rourke said she enjoys gardening and skiing. She and her husband of 30 years are also fulfilling their dream of building a cabin, O'Rourke said.
Just a coincidence, I’m sure.
For whatever the reason, those among the working class rarely speak of their cabins anymore. For all but the wealthy, they are not affordable. And with that goes much of the cherished Minnesota institution of going “up north”.
Well, maybe not for everyone.
One of the private amusements I’ve enjoyed with myself over the years (one of the many!) is reading the retirement announcements of teachers and education bureaucrats and other government employees, and noticing how often they mention retiring to their cabins. No, I didn’t have the foresight to compile statistics and clippings over the years to prove this, but trust me, it happens quite a bit, otherwise it wouldn’t be so funny to me every time I see it. And I’ve always taken it as another piece of evidence that perhaps we’re being a bit too generous in the compensation and retirement benefits for teachers, education bureaucrats, and other government employees. Should we really be subsidizing a lifestyle for our public servants that is unattainable for those they are serving? I report, you decide.
The latest from Washington County, the County Administrator is stepping down after serving the public for 37 years. His plans for retirements? From the Stillwater Gazette:
We have a family cabin in northwest Wisconsin that we haven't been able to spend enough time at.
Yes, yes, yes, maybe the cabin has been in their family for generations and didn’t cost him a cent. Or maybe his wife made all the real dough in the family through private sector endeavors and she popped for it. Or maybe he won the lottery some years back and splurged on a cabin.
Or, maybe, just maybe, my confirmation bias is right on the money, and that cabin has been paid for by the good graces of the Washington County taxpayers who’ll never have such a luxury in store for themselves.
Ah well, whatever the circumstances, it’s always nice to see a life of honest labor rewarded with some years of comfort and ease. We wish him the best, and we look forward to the tenure of our new Washington County Administrator, just now taking her position. The Oakdale-Lake Elmo Review has a profile, including this tidbit on her hobbies:
In her spare time, O'Rourke said she enjoys gardening and skiing. She and her husband of 30 years are also fulfilling their dream of building a cabin, O'Rourke said.
Just a coincidence, I’m sure.
Categories: Dominated
Across the Great Divide
Charles Murray has a sobering new book out called “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.”
There was a review in today’s WSJ by W. Bradford Wilcox (sub req):
So much for the idea that the white working class remains the guardian of core American values like religious faith, hard work and marriage. Today the denizens of upscale communities like McLean, Va., New Canaan, Conn., and Palo Alto, Calif., according to Charles Murray in "Coming Apart," are now much more likely than their fellow citizens to embrace these core American values. In studying, as his subtitle has it, "the state of white America, 1960-2010," Mr. Murray turns on its head the conservative belief that bicoastal elites are dissolute and ordinary Americans are virtuous.
Focusing on whites to avoid conflating race with class, Mr. Murray contends instead that a large swath of white America—poor and working-class whites, who make up approximately 30% of the white population—is turning away from the core values that have sustained the American experiment. At the same time, the top 20% of the white population has quietly been recovering its cultural moorings after a flirtation with the counterculture in the 1960s and 1970s. Thus, argues Mr. Murray in his elegiac book, the greatest source of inequality in America now is not economic; it is cultural.
He is particularly concerned with the ways in which working-class whites are losing touch with what he calls the four "founding virtues"—industriousness, honesty (including abiding by the law), marriage and religion, all of which have played a vital role in the life of the republic.
The January 21st edition of the WSJ featured an excerpt from Murray’s book which detailed this divide in virtues and values. To clarify the gulf that has developed, Murray employs two fictional neighborhoods. Belmont (after an archetypal upper-middle-class suburb near Boston) and Fishtown (after a neighborhood in Philadelphia that has been home to the white working class since the Revolution).
Marriage: In 1960, extremely high proportions of whites in both Belmont and Fishtown were married—94% in Belmont and 84% in Fishtown. In the 1970s, those percentages declined about equally in both places. Then came the great divergence. In Belmont, marriage stabilized during the mid-1980s, standing at 83% in 2010. In Fishtown, however, marriage continued to slide; as of 2010, a minority (just 48%) were married. The gap in marriage between Belmont and Fishtown grew to 35 percentage points, from just 10.
Single parenthood: Another aspect of marriage—the percentage of children born to unmarried women—showed just as great a divergence. Though politicians and media eminences are too frightened to say so, nonmarital births are problematic. On just about any measure of development you can think of, children who are born to unmarried women fare worse than the children of divorce and far worse than children raised in intact families. This unwelcome reality persists even after controlling for the income and education of the parents.
In 1960, just 2% of all white births were nonmarital. When we first started recording the education level of mothers in 1970, 6% of births to white women with no more than a high-school education—women, that is, with a Fishtown education—were out of wedlock. By 2008, 44% were nonmarital. Among the college-educated women of Belmont, less than 6% of all births were out of wedlock as of 2008, up from 1% in 1970.
Industriousness: The norms for work and women were revolutionized after 1960, but the norm for men putatively has remained the same: Healthy men are supposed to work. In practice, though, that norm has eroded everywhere. In Fishtown, the change has been drastic. (To avoid conflating this phenomenon with the latest recession, I use data collected in March 2008 as the end point for the trends.)
The primary indicator of the erosion of industriousness in the working class is the increase of prime-age males with no more than a high school education who say they are not available for work—they are "out of the labor force." That percentage went from a low of 3% in 1968 to 12% in 2008. Twelve percent may not sound like much until you think about the men we're talking about: in the prime of their working lives, their 30s and 40s, when, according to hallowed American tradition, every American man is working or looking for work. Almost one out of eight now aren't. Meanwhile, not much has changed among males with college educations. Only 3% were out of the labor force in 2008.
There's also been a notable change in the rates of less-than-full-time work. Of the men in Fishtown who had jobs, 10% worked fewer than 40 hours a week in 1960, a figure that grew to 20% by 2008. In Belmont, the number rose from 9% in 1960 to 12% in 2008.
Crime: The surge in crime that began in the mid-1960s and continued through the 1980s left Belmont almost untouched and ravaged Fishtown. From 1960 to 1995, the violent crime rate in Fishtown more than sextupled while remaining nearly flat in Belmont. The reductions in crime since the mid-1990s that have benefited the nation as a whole have been smaller in Fishtown, leaving it today with a violent crime rate that is still 4.7 times the 1960 rate.
Religiosity: Whatever your personal religious views, you need to realize that about half of American philanthropy, volunteering and associational memberships is directly church-related, and that religious Americans also account for much more nonreligious social capital than their secular neighbors. In that context, it is worrisome for the culture that the U.S. as a whole has become markedly more secular since 1960, and especially worrisome that Fishtown has become much more secular than Belmont. It runs against the prevailing narrative of secular elites versus a working class still clinging to religion, but the evidence from the General Social Survey, the most widely used database on American attitudes and values, does not leave much room for argument.
For example, suppose we define "de facto secular" as someone who either professes no religion at all or who attends a worship service no more than once a year. For the early GSS surveys conducted from 1972 to 1976, 29% of Belmont and 38% of Fishtown fell into that category. Over the next three decades, secularization did indeed grow in Belmont, from 29% in the 1970s to 40% in the GSS surveys taken from 2006 to 2010. But it grew even more in Fishtown, from 38% to 59%.
The statistics are staggering and they defy most of the conventional examples and explanations of how America has become divided. It’s not something that you’ll politicians or pundits talking about, but it’s one of the greatest challenges facing the country in the years ahead. Murray assigns most of the blame for the divide on the expansion of the welfare state beginning with The Great Society and the increasing reluctance of those at the top end of the divide to pass any sort of judgment on those at the bottom. While the residents of Belmont know that it’s better to get married, to not have children out of wedlock, to invest in educating their children, and even to go the church, they’re no longer willing to say so and instead are all too ready to accept and approve the choices made by the working poor that they know are wrong. One of Murray’s prescriptions for closing this divide is for these folks to actually preach what they practice. As a conservative, he recognizes how difficult it is to transform cultural conditions and the limits of what can be accomplished.
David Brooks meanwhile has read Murray’s book and says that he’d be shocked if there was to be another book as important to come out this year. However, while Brooks agrees with Murray’s analysis of the extent of the problem, he offers alternative solutions. The Great Divorce:
The truth is, members of the upper tribe have made themselves phenomenally productive. They may mimic bohemian manners, but they have returned to 1950s traditionalist values and practices. They have low divorce rates, arduous work ethics and strict codes to regulate their kids.
Members of the lower tribe work hard and dream big, but are more removed from traditional bourgeois norms. They live in disorganized, postmodern neighborhoods in which it is much harder to be self-disciplined and productive.
I doubt Murray would agree, but we need a National Service Program. We need a program that would force members of the upper tribe and the lower tribe to live together, if only for a few years. We need a program in which people from both tribes work together to spread out the values, practices and institutions that lead to achievement.
If we could jam the tribes together, we’d have a better elite and a better mass.
Words like “need,” “program,” “force,” and “jam” instinctively send shivers up my spine. While the problem that Murray describes is indeed real and quite serious, I’m not sure that Brooks’ National Service Program cure wouldn’t be worse. To give the government such powers to compel such “service” would open the doors to all sorts of potential abuse. I’d also question the effectiveness of “jamming the tribes together” for a couple of years in their late-teens early-twenties. By that time in life, a lot of the virtues and values that help ensure success have already been adopted or they have not. Would it really change their life trajectory if people from Fishtown spent a couple of years working alongside those from Belmont performing some sort of government service?
Perhaps. The one great example we have of this in American history was the military draft. While there were always those who were able to exempt themselves from serving in the armed forces, it did force people from different backgrounds to live and work together in a shared cultural setting. It seems hard to believe that the military is what Brooks or other proponents of “national service” today have in mind, but it’s the one such program that actually seems to have worked.
There was a review in today’s WSJ by W. Bradford Wilcox (sub req):
So much for the idea that the white working class remains the guardian of core American values like religious faith, hard work and marriage. Today the denizens of upscale communities like McLean, Va., New Canaan, Conn., and Palo Alto, Calif., according to Charles Murray in "Coming Apart," are now much more likely than their fellow citizens to embrace these core American values. In studying, as his subtitle has it, "the state of white America, 1960-2010," Mr. Murray turns on its head the conservative belief that bicoastal elites are dissolute and ordinary Americans are virtuous.
Focusing on whites to avoid conflating race with class, Mr. Murray contends instead that a large swath of white America—poor and working-class whites, who make up approximately 30% of the white population—is turning away from the core values that have sustained the American experiment. At the same time, the top 20% of the white population has quietly been recovering its cultural moorings after a flirtation with the counterculture in the 1960s and 1970s. Thus, argues Mr. Murray in his elegiac book, the greatest source of inequality in America now is not economic; it is cultural.
He is particularly concerned with the ways in which working-class whites are losing touch with what he calls the four "founding virtues"—industriousness, honesty (including abiding by the law), marriage and religion, all of which have played a vital role in the life of the republic.
The January 21st edition of the WSJ featured an excerpt from Murray’s book which detailed this divide in virtues and values. To clarify the gulf that has developed, Murray employs two fictional neighborhoods. Belmont (after an archetypal upper-middle-class suburb near Boston) and Fishtown (after a neighborhood in Philadelphia that has been home to the white working class since the Revolution).
Marriage: In 1960, extremely high proportions of whites in both Belmont and Fishtown were married—94% in Belmont and 84% in Fishtown. In the 1970s, those percentages declined about equally in both places. Then came the great divergence. In Belmont, marriage stabilized during the mid-1980s, standing at 83% in 2010. In Fishtown, however, marriage continued to slide; as of 2010, a minority (just 48%) were married. The gap in marriage between Belmont and Fishtown grew to 35 percentage points, from just 10.
Single parenthood: Another aspect of marriage—the percentage of children born to unmarried women—showed just as great a divergence. Though politicians and media eminences are too frightened to say so, nonmarital births are problematic. On just about any measure of development you can think of, children who are born to unmarried women fare worse than the children of divorce and far worse than children raised in intact families. This unwelcome reality persists even after controlling for the income and education of the parents.
In 1960, just 2% of all white births were nonmarital. When we first started recording the education level of mothers in 1970, 6% of births to white women with no more than a high-school education—women, that is, with a Fishtown education—were out of wedlock. By 2008, 44% were nonmarital. Among the college-educated women of Belmont, less than 6% of all births were out of wedlock as of 2008, up from 1% in 1970.
Industriousness: The norms for work and women were revolutionized after 1960, but the norm for men putatively has remained the same: Healthy men are supposed to work. In practice, though, that norm has eroded everywhere. In Fishtown, the change has been drastic. (To avoid conflating this phenomenon with the latest recession, I use data collected in March 2008 as the end point for the trends.)
The primary indicator of the erosion of industriousness in the working class is the increase of prime-age males with no more than a high school education who say they are not available for work—they are "out of the labor force." That percentage went from a low of 3% in 1968 to 12% in 2008. Twelve percent may not sound like much until you think about the men we're talking about: in the prime of their working lives, their 30s and 40s, when, according to hallowed American tradition, every American man is working or looking for work. Almost one out of eight now aren't. Meanwhile, not much has changed among males with college educations. Only 3% were out of the labor force in 2008.
There's also been a notable change in the rates of less-than-full-time work. Of the men in Fishtown who had jobs, 10% worked fewer than 40 hours a week in 1960, a figure that grew to 20% by 2008. In Belmont, the number rose from 9% in 1960 to 12% in 2008.
Crime: The surge in crime that began in the mid-1960s and continued through the 1980s left Belmont almost untouched and ravaged Fishtown. From 1960 to 1995, the violent crime rate in Fishtown more than sextupled while remaining nearly flat in Belmont. The reductions in crime since the mid-1990s that have benefited the nation as a whole have been smaller in Fishtown, leaving it today with a violent crime rate that is still 4.7 times the 1960 rate.
Religiosity: Whatever your personal religious views, you need to realize that about half of American philanthropy, volunteering and associational memberships is directly church-related, and that religious Americans also account for much more nonreligious social capital than their secular neighbors. In that context, it is worrisome for the culture that the U.S. as a whole has become markedly more secular since 1960, and especially worrisome that Fishtown has become much more secular than Belmont. It runs against the prevailing narrative of secular elites versus a working class still clinging to religion, but the evidence from the General Social Survey, the most widely used database on American attitudes and values, does not leave much room for argument.
For example, suppose we define "de facto secular" as someone who either professes no religion at all or who attends a worship service no more than once a year. For the early GSS surveys conducted from 1972 to 1976, 29% of Belmont and 38% of Fishtown fell into that category. Over the next three decades, secularization did indeed grow in Belmont, from 29% in the 1970s to 40% in the GSS surveys taken from 2006 to 2010. But it grew even more in Fishtown, from 38% to 59%.
The statistics are staggering and they defy most of the conventional examples and explanations of how America has become divided. It’s not something that you’ll politicians or pundits talking about, but it’s one of the greatest challenges facing the country in the years ahead. Murray assigns most of the blame for the divide on the expansion of the welfare state beginning with The Great Society and the increasing reluctance of those at the top end of the divide to pass any sort of judgment on those at the bottom. While the residents of Belmont know that it’s better to get married, to not have children out of wedlock, to invest in educating their children, and even to go the church, they’re no longer willing to say so and instead are all too ready to accept and approve the choices made by the working poor that they know are wrong. One of Murray’s prescriptions for closing this divide is for these folks to actually preach what they practice. As a conservative, he recognizes how difficult it is to transform cultural conditions and the limits of what can be accomplished.
David Brooks meanwhile has read Murray’s book and says that he’d be shocked if there was to be another book as important to come out this year. However, while Brooks agrees with Murray’s analysis of the extent of the problem, he offers alternative solutions. The Great Divorce:
The truth is, members of the upper tribe have made themselves phenomenally productive. They may mimic bohemian manners, but they have returned to 1950s traditionalist values and practices. They have low divorce rates, arduous work ethics and strict codes to regulate their kids.
Members of the lower tribe work hard and dream big, but are more removed from traditional bourgeois norms. They live in disorganized, postmodern neighborhoods in which it is much harder to be self-disciplined and productive.
I doubt Murray would agree, but we need a National Service Program. We need a program that would force members of the upper tribe and the lower tribe to live together, if only for a few years. We need a program in which people from both tribes work together to spread out the values, practices and institutions that lead to achievement.
If we could jam the tribes together, we’d have a better elite and a better mass.
Words like “need,” “program,” “force,” and “jam” instinctively send shivers up my spine. While the problem that Murray describes is indeed real and quite serious, I’m not sure that Brooks’ National Service Program cure wouldn’t be worse. To give the government such powers to compel such “service” would open the doors to all sorts of potential abuse. I’d also question the effectiveness of “jamming the tribes together” for a couple of years in their late-teens early-twenties. By that time in life, a lot of the virtues and values that help ensure success have already been adopted or they have not. Would it really change their life trajectory if people from Fishtown spent a couple of years working alongside those from Belmont performing some sort of government service?
Perhaps. The one great example we have of this in American history was the military draft. While there were always those who were able to exempt themselves from serving in the armed forces, it did force people from different backgrounds to live and work together in a shared cultural setting. It seems hard to believe that the military is what Brooks or other proponents of “national service” today have in mind, but it’s the one such program that actually seems to have worked.
Categories: Dominated
The Party's Over
Ben Domenech has a Conversation With a Florida Tea Partier That Should Scare Every Republican:
So, Rebecca, about Mitt: why not Romney this time?
"I don't trust him, and I don't think he can win. He is utterly unaware of how offensive his disconnect with the average American is. He drops $10K bets like it's nothing. He thinks $342,000 isn't very much to make in a year," Rebecca said. "I don't begrudge him his wealth - he worked for it and earned it and that is admirable. But I hate his lack of awareness of how super-wealthy he is. His flip-flops are legendary."
"Oh, and he invented Obamacare."
"I see a Romney nomination causing Tea Partiers like me to tune out. We are already disheartened by the congressional leadership. Romney will be the final nail in the coffin. He is completely uninspiring, and is everything we have been working so hard to defeat within the GOP," Rebecca said. "Don't even get me started on that Bain Capital picture. Ugh. There is no way he can win. And I don't want to have to defend him while he tries."
"What is the point in becoming educated on candidates and politics, arguing with my friends, taking the time away from my family - to end up with the guy McCain can't even look in the eye. Why bother?" Rebecca says. "Obviously the "establishment" has already decided it's Romney's turn, and to hell with what we want. I feel like I'm being patted on the head and told "Now go vote for Romney like a good little girl. We know what's best."... I don't even do that to my 3-year-old. It's insulting. It doesn't make me want to campaign for him."
"It honestly makes we want to skip the election, but Obama scares me too much to do that. I do think a Romney presidency will hurt the GOP brand though, and make it hard for a real conservative to have a shot," Rebecca said. "I feel like this is so similar to our 2010 Senate race. Romney is the Crist candidate, loved by many and backed by the establishment. But we have no Rubio. Crist would have been an easy win. He was a liked governor. Without Rubio, he would have easily won the seat. Just because we don't have a Rubio in this race doesn't mean we need to settle for a Crist."
The key to the Republican victories in 2010 was in getting people like Rebecca engaged, energized, and active in politics, many for the first time in their lives. One of the dangers of Romney as the Republican nominee at the top of the ticket is that all that may fade away in 2012.
So, Rebecca, about Mitt: why not Romney this time?
"I don't trust him, and I don't think he can win. He is utterly unaware of how offensive his disconnect with the average American is. He drops $10K bets like it's nothing. He thinks $342,000 isn't very much to make in a year," Rebecca said. "I don't begrudge him his wealth - he worked for it and earned it and that is admirable. But I hate his lack of awareness of how super-wealthy he is. His flip-flops are legendary."
"Oh, and he invented Obamacare."
"I see a Romney nomination causing Tea Partiers like me to tune out. We are already disheartened by the congressional leadership. Romney will be the final nail in the coffin. He is completely uninspiring, and is everything we have been working so hard to defeat within the GOP," Rebecca said. "Don't even get me started on that Bain Capital picture. Ugh. There is no way he can win. And I don't want to have to defend him while he tries."
"What is the point in becoming educated on candidates and politics, arguing with my friends, taking the time away from my family - to end up with the guy McCain can't even look in the eye. Why bother?" Rebecca says. "Obviously the "establishment" has already decided it's Romney's turn, and to hell with what we want. I feel like I'm being patted on the head and told "Now go vote for Romney like a good little girl. We know what's best."... I don't even do that to my 3-year-old. It's insulting. It doesn't make me want to campaign for him."
"It honestly makes we want to skip the election, but Obama scares me too much to do that. I do think a Romney presidency will hurt the GOP brand though, and make it hard for a real conservative to have a shot," Rebecca said. "I feel like this is so similar to our 2010 Senate race. Romney is the Crist candidate, loved by many and backed by the establishment. But we have no Rubio. Crist would have been an easy win. He was a liked governor. Without Rubio, he would have easily won the seat. Just because we don't have a Rubio in this race doesn't mean we need to settle for a Crist."
The key to the Republican victories in 2010 was in getting people like Rebecca engaged, energized, and active in politics, many for the first time in their lives. One of the dangers of Romney as the Republican nominee at the top of the ticket is that all that may fade away in 2012.
Categories: Dominated
Traps Among The Sand
It’s not often that we pause to take pity on the politicians who are shilling for our votes and money in hopes of becoming the next president of the United States. However, when think about what it must be like to try to plead and pander for votes in a state like Florida it’s hard not to feel at least a bit of sympathy for these poor saps. While trudging around Iowa or tramping through New Hampshire is by no means a picnic, compared to Florida these smaller, relatively homogeneous states have fewer of the potential pitfalls and challenges to candidate consistency poised by the Sunshine State.
Take Iowa (please) for instance. Who do you have to appeal to Iowa? Farmers and maybe three different groups of Christians (Catholics, mainline Protestants, and Evangelicals). I mean really what else is there? Sure there’s a few thousand votes to be had in Maharishi Vedic City, but I don’t think any serious candidate is going to spend a lot of time tailoring their pitch to that particular demographic.
Then you have Florida. Start with all the groups that have ended up there after starting someplace else. Snowbirds from the Midwest. Jews from the Northeast. Cubans from Cuba. Others from pretty much every other country in Latin America. To say nothing of a fair amount of Speedo-clad Euros and friendly Canadians who have sought exile in the state’s warmer climes. And you have the natives. Rednecks in the panhandle. Born again Christians in the lengthy mid-section. Laid back layabouts throughout The Keys. Urban organizers in Miami.
And the industries (at least the legal ones). Tourism, fishing, military contractors, NASA, theme parks, citrus growers, sugar famers, swamp boat manufacturers, etc. Throw in the facts that a fair number of Florida homeowners are underwater on their mortgages, that the state’s usually months away from the next natural disaster, and that there are more Del Boca Vista-like retirement communities per capita than anywhere on earth and the challenges facing any candidate are daunting. Who do you pander to first, next, and last? How do you possibly reconcile all the promises you make, which at some point inevitably have to come into conflict with each other? How do you avoid stepping on any of the dozens of land mines strewn throughout the state that can be set off by the slightest slip of the tongue? Campaigning in Florida means keeping your head on a swivel at all times.
Based on the latest polling, it appears as if Mitt Romney has managed to find the right balance of pandering in Florida and will win tomorrow’s GOP primary. But Newt Gingrich’s last minute proposal to use the moon as a military base to overthrow Castro and defend Israel and also as a research facility to study ways to combat the effects of aging is intriguing for its potential to sway last minute voters.
Take Iowa (please) for instance. Who do you have to appeal to Iowa? Farmers and maybe three different groups of Christians (Catholics, mainline Protestants, and Evangelicals). I mean really what else is there? Sure there’s a few thousand votes to be had in Maharishi Vedic City, but I don’t think any serious candidate is going to spend a lot of time tailoring their pitch to that particular demographic.
Then you have Florida. Start with all the groups that have ended up there after starting someplace else. Snowbirds from the Midwest. Jews from the Northeast. Cubans from Cuba. Others from pretty much every other country in Latin America. To say nothing of a fair amount of Speedo-clad Euros and friendly Canadians who have sought exile in the state’s warmer climes. And you have the natives. Rednecks in the panhandle. Born again Christians in the lengthy mid-section. Laid back layabouts throughout The Keys. Urban organizers in Miami.
And the industries (at least the legal ones). Tourism, fishing, military contractors, NASA, theme parks, citrus growers, sugar famers, swamp boat manufacturers, etc. Throw in the facts that a fair number of Florida homeowners are underwater on their mortgages, that the state’s usually months away from the next natural disaster, and that there are more Del Boca Vista-like retirement communities per capita than anywhere on earth and the challenges facing any candidate are daunting. Who do you pander to first, next, and last? How do you possibly reconcile all the promises you make, which at some point inevitably have to come into conflict with each other? How do you avoid stepping on any of the dozens of land mines strewn throughout the state that can be set off by the slightest slip of the tongue? Campaigning in Florida means keeping your head on a swivel at all times.
Based on the latest polling, it appears as if Mitt Romney has managed to find the right balance of pandering in Florida and will win tomorrow’s GOP primary. But Newt Gingrich’s last minute proposal to use the moon as a military base to overthrow Castro and defend Israel and also as a research facility to study ways to combat the effects of aging is intriguing for its potential to sway last minute voters.
Categories: Dominated
Beer of the Week (Vol. CXXXII)
Another edition of Beer of the Week sponsored as always by the stout-hearted folks at Glen Lake Wine & Spirits who can help supply you with the wine, whiskey, and beer you need for your daily fortification.
We continue our series on beers Our featured beer this week comes from Brau Brothers Brewing Company located in the greater Lucan metro area in southwestern Minnesota. It’s their Moo Joos Oatmeal Milk Stout. That’s a particular combination of th stout style that has a particularly rich history:
Milk stout (also called sweet stout or cream stout) is a stout containing lactose, a sugar derived from milk. Because lactose is unfermentable by beer yeast, it adds sweetness, body, and calories to the finished beer. Milk stout was claimed to be nutritious, and was given to nursing mothers.
***
There was a revival of interest in using oats during the end of the 19th century, when (supposedly) restorative, nourishing and invalid beers, such as the later milk stout, were popular, because of the association of porridge with health.
Tastes good and it’s good for you. Hard to beat that.
12oz brown bottle. The label is a bit of a mess with a design featuring four squares with various shades of brown.
STYLE: Stout
ALCOHOL BY VOLUME: 5.8%
COLOR (0-2): Dark, rich black. 2
AROMA (0-2): Cocoa and vanilla. 2
HEAD (0-2): Tan color, not much volume, fades quickly, but laces the glass well. 2
TASTE (0-5): Sweet malts, chocolate, vanilla, a touch of smoke with bitter coffee at the finish. The mouthfeel is a bit thin, but smooth. Medium-bodied with noticeable carbonation. Surprisingly drinkable. 4
AFTERTASTE (0-2): Long and lingering. 2
OVERALL (0-6): This is a tasty example of the stout style with the combination of milk and oatmeal flavors playing quite nicely together. It’s rich and complex, but not overly so and maintains a fair amount of refreshing drinkability. Definitely a good comfort beer for the season. Hoist one tonight for your health. 4
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 16
We continue our series on beers Our featured beer this week comes from Brau Brothers Brewing Company located in the greater Lucan metro area in southwestern Minnesota. It’s their Moo Joos Oatmeal Milk Stout. That’s a particular combination of th stout style that has a particularly rich history:
Milk stout (also called sweet stout or cream stout) is a stout containing lactose, a sugar derived from milk. Because lactose is unfermentable by beer yeast, it adds sweetness, body, and calories to the finished beer. Milk stout was claimed to be nutritious, and was given to nursing mothers.
***
There was a revival of interest in using oats during the end of the 19th century, when (supposedly) restorative, nourishing and invalid beers, such as the later milk stout, were popular, because of the association of porridge with health.
Tastes good and it’s good for you. Hard to beat that.
12oz brown bottle. The label is a bit of a mess with a design featuring four squares with various shades of brown.
STYLE: Stout
ALCOHOL BY VOLUME: 5.8%
COLOR (0-2): Dark, rich black. 2
AROMA (0-2): Cocoa and vanilla. 2
HEAD (0-2): Tan color, not much volume, fades quickly, but laces the glass well. 2
TASTE (0-5): Sweet malts, chocolate, vanilla, a touch of smoke with bitter coffee at the finish. The mouthfeel is a bit thin, but smooth. Medium-bodied with noticeable carbonation. Surprisingly drinkable. 4
AFTERTASTE (0-2): Long and lingering. 2
OVERALL (0-6): This is a tasty example of the stout style with the combination of milk and oatmeal flavors playing quite nicely together. It’s rich and complex, but not overly so and maintains a fair amount of refreshing drinkability. Definitely a good comfort beer for the season. Hoist one tonight for your health. 4
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 16
Categories: Dominated
Core Values
George Weigel had a lengthy, but well worth the read article in the December edition of First Things on what the proper role of the Catholic Church should be when it comes to the public square:
The postconciliar tendency of Catholic public policy agencies to take a position on almost everything also distorts the social doctrine of the Church. The Church does not have plenary competence in the public sphere. She cannot state that the American presidential-congressional system is preferable to the Westminster parliamentary system, or that a bicameral legislature is superior to a unicameral legislature. The Church has no competence to declare that legislative action should or should not be subject to judicial review, or that there are “implied powers” in any executive office, or where the prime rate should be set, or on which side of the road driving should occur.
The Church does have the competence to teach that taxation is just, for to pay taxes is a matter of exercising one’s responsibility to the common good. The Church has no competence to suggest that its social doctrine contains clear instructions on what constitute just rates of taxation, and it demeans its social witness (and misapplies its own social doctrine) when it does so through agencies of its pastors.
The Church has the right and the duty to teach that a just society makes provision for the elderly, the sick, and the severely handicapped who, for reasons beyond their control, cannot care for themselves. The Church has no competence to pronounce on whether that societal obligation is best met by state-mandated and tax-funded programs, by private- and independent-sector programs, or by some mix of the two.
To suggest otherwise not only overestimates the Church’s competence; it also tends to obscure her priorities. When the Church’s chief pastors or their public policy agencies intervene in the public policy-process on a vast array of matters that do not, except in the remotest sense, touch on questions of first principles or on areas of the Church’s special competence, they inevitably suggest that all issues are equal in the eyes of the Catholic Church. This lack of discipline dissipates energies that could be better applied in a more focused way.
Weigel’s effort to set boundaries and limits to what the Church’s role should be is admirable and long overdue. He’s exactly right that while the Church can and should teach about obligations and duties that its members have when it comes to things like taxes and caring for the elderly, disabled, and poor, the Church should not get involved in the exacting details about how these obligations and duties should be exercised. Whether the marginal tax rate of individuals earning over $250,000 a year should be increased by 2% is not something the Church needs to weigh in on. Or whether the biennial budget for the state of Minnesota should be $37.5 billion or $39 billion dollars. As Weigel notes, the Church needs to stick to the first principles lest it get bogged down in trying to influence everything and thus end up influencing nothing.
Another key suggestion from Weigel is that the Church and its leaders stop trying to play the role of a special interest group that seeks a place at the table in the political process. Instead, he believes that the Church should seek to educate, inform, and engage with the folks in the pews on what the Church’s teaching is on these first principles and what those teachings mean to the pertinent issues of the day. The power of the Church is indeed with its people and they are the ones-if given proper guidance-who can most effect the public policy changes the Church would like to see take place.
The postconciliar tendency of Catholic public policy agencies to take a position on almost everything also distorts the social doctrine of the Church. The Church does not have plenary competence in the public sphere. She cannot state that the American presidential-congressional system is preferable to the Westminster parliamentary system, or that a bicameral legislature is superior to a unicameral legislature. The Church has no competence to declare that legislative action should or should not be subject to judicial review, or that there are “implied powers” in any executive office, or where the prime rate should be set, or on which side of the road driving should occur.
The Church does have the competence to teach that taxation is just, for to pay taxes is a matter of exercising one’s responsibility to the common good. The Church has no competence to suggest that its social doctrine contains clear instructions on what constitute just rates of taxation, and it demeans its social witness (and misapplies its own social doctrine) when it does so through agencies of its pastors.
The Church has the right and the duty to teach that a just society makes provision for the elderly, the sick, and the severely handicapped who, for reasons beyond their control, cannot care for themselves. The Church has no competence to pronounce on whether that societal obligation is best met by state-mandated and tax-funded programs, by private- and independent-sector programs, or by some mix of the two.
To suggest otherwise not only overestimates the Church’s competence; it also tends to obscure her priorities. When the Church’s chief pastors or their public policy agencies intervene in the public policy-process on a vast array of matters that do not, except in the remotest sense, touch on questions of first principles or on areas of the Church’s special competence, they inevitably suggest that all issues are equal in the eyes of the Catholic Church. This lack of discipline dissipates energies that could be better applied in a more focused way.
Weigel’s effort to set boundaries and limits to what the Church’s role should be is admirable and long overdue. He’s exactly right that while the Church can and should teach about obligations and duties that its members have when it comes to things like taxes and caring for the elderly, disabled, and poor, the Church should not get involved in the exacting details about how these obligations and duties should be exercised. Whether the marginal tax rate of individuals earning over $250,000 a year should be increased by 2% is not something the Church needs to weigh in on. Or whether the biennial budget for the state of Minnesota should be $37.5 billion or $39 billion dollars. As Weigel notes, the Church needs to stick to the first principles lest it get bogged down in trying to influence everything and thus end up influencing nothing.
Another key suggestion from Weigel is that the Church and its leaders stop trying to play the role of a special interest group that seeks a place at the table in the political process. Instead, he believes that the Church should seek to educate, inform, and engage with the folks in the pews on what the Church’s teaching is on these first principles and what those teachings mean to the pertinent issues of the day. The power of the Church is indeed with its people and they are the ones-if given proper guidance-who can most effect the public policy changes the Church would like to see take place.
Categories: Dominated
Ours Not To Reason Why
Tim from Colorado e-mails to comment on a variety of subjects:
I read your post about not being able to use your “portable electronic devices” while waiting to be de-iced, which can often take a half-hour or so. I’m sure it isn’t lost on you that as soon as you land, AS SOON AS YOU LAND, the same flight crew will get on the PA to inform you that you may then use your “portable electronic devices” WHILE YOU’RE STIL ON THE RUNWAY!!!
Second, when I heard one of the talk shows mention the Reasonable Profits Board, it made me think that the likes of Kucinich, Wasserman-Schultz, Pelosi, et al, must have read Atlas Shrugged and think it’s one of Michael Moore’s documentaries. The folly of such ideas is obviously lost on them.
Lastly, I was recently in Kentucky and a couple local micro-breweries make a beer that is shortly stored in old bourbon barrels, where it picks up a bourbon flavor, not to mention a couple points on the alcohol meter. It makes for an interesting taste. Not something I want to have every time, but an interesting change of pace. If you’re ever in Louisville, check out the version served by the Troll Pub Under The Bridge.
I have not been to Louisville yet, but if I ever do visit the Derby City I shall seek out said delicious sounding brew. Hard to see how any combination of bourbon and beer couldn't work well together.
I read your post about not being able to use your “portable electronic devices” while waiting to be de-iced, which can often take a half-hour or so. I’m sure it isn’t lost on you that as soon as you land, AS SOON AS YOU LAND, the same flight crew will get on the PA to inform you that you may then use your “portable electronic devices” WHILE YOU’RE STIL ON THE RUNWAY!!!
Second, when I heard one of the talk shows mention the Reasonable Profits Board, it made me think that the likes of Kucinich, Wasserman-Schultz, Pelosi, et al, must have read Atlas Shrugged and think it’s one of Michael Moore’s documentaries. The folly of such ideas is obviously lost on them.
Lastly, I was recently in Kentucky and a couple local micro-breweries make a beer that is shortly stored in old bourbon barrels, where it picks up a bourbon flavor, not to mention a couple points on the alcohol meter. It makes for an interesting taste. Not something I want to have every time, but an interesting change of pace. If you’re ever in Louisville, check out the version served by the Troll Pub Under The Bridge.
I have not been to Louisville yet, but if I ever do visit the Derby City I shall seek out said delicious sounding brew. Hard to see how any combination of bourbon and beer couldn't work well together.
Categories: Dominated
The Wrong Crowd
An editorial in today's WSJ took Norm Coleman to task for his recent comments about repealing ObamaCare and hit the former Senator where it hurts:
Over the weekend the former Minnesota Senator resurfaced for some reason on a panel on the public-affairs program "BioCentury This Week," which airs in the D.C. market. "I'm saying you're not going to repeal the act in its entirety but you will see major changes—particularly, by the way, if there's a Republican President, you will see major changes," Mr. Coleman said. "So you can't whole cloth throw it out, but you can substantially change what's been done."
Judy Feder, a Georgetown health policy professor, chimed in to say that "I'm happy to hear Senator Coleman say, essentially, health-care reform is going to stick."
It was a remarkable admission, especially given the aspiring Republican President whose ear Mr. Coleman happens to have. Then again, it may also be evidence of his kind of crack political thinking that couldn't outwit Al Franken of all people in the 2008 race and again in the 2009 recount and thus provided the 60th Senate vote for ObamaCare.
You can't really argue with the editorial's logic: losing to Franken (and previously to Jesse Ventura) should disqualify Coleman's opinion on matters political for pretty much forever. And it does call Mitt Romney's judgment into question as well for seeking counsel from the credibility challenged Coleman.
SISYPHUS COMES TO NORM'S DEFENSE: The Elder conveniently forgets to mention that Norm Coleman did defeat Walter Mondale ... er, nevermind.
Over the weekend the former Minnesota Senator resurfaced for some reason on a panel on the public-affairs program "BioCentury This Week," which airs in the D.C. market. "I'm saying you're not going to repeal the act in its entirety but you will see major changes—particularly, by the way, if there's a Republican President, you will see major changes," Mr. Coleman said. "So you can't whole cloth throw it out, but you can substantially change what's been done."
Judy Feder, a Georgetown health policy professor, chimed in to say that "I'm happy to hear Senator Coleman say, essentially, health-care reform is going to stick."
It was a remarkable admission, especially given the aspiring Republican President whose ear Mr. Coleman happens to have. Then again, it may also be evidence of his kind of crack political thinking that couldn't outwit Al Franken of all people in the 2008 race and again in the 2009 recount and thus provided the 60th Senate vote for ObamaCare.
You can't really argue with the editorial's logic: losing to Franken (and previously to Jesse Ventura) should disqualify Coleman's opinion on matters political for pretty much forever. And it does call Mitt Romney's judgment into question as well for seeking counsel from the credibility challenged Coleman.
SISYPHUS COMES TO NORM'S DEFENSE: The Elder conveniently forgets to mention that Norm Coleman did defeat Walter Mondale ... er, nevermind.
Categories: Dominated
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Monitoring Cato
Monitoring Heritage
Monitoring Townhall
Monitoring Club For Growth
Monitoring Dominated Sites
- I Agree With Keith Ellison
- Love the One You're With?
- The Best Election System Anywhere. The Best Election System Anywhere. The Best Election System Anywhere.
- Where Used Car Salespeople Fear To Tread
- Time To Stand Up For Stand Your Ground
- The Ice We Skate
- Why I’m Caucusing For Santorum
- Vikings to Amorphous Parcel of Land Somewhere East of the Metrodome?
- Will The Circle Be Unbroken
- Into The Vortex
Monitoring Foes
Monitoring He Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken
- Newt Gingrich's claim that George Soros 'approved' Mitt Romney - Washington Post (blog)
- Newt Gingrich’s claim that George Soros ‘approved’ Mitt Romney
- Mike donated $311M in 11 - New York Post
- Soros Warns Of Chaos, But Supports People Creating It - Investor's Business Daily
- This Year's Most Generous Billionaire Philanthropist Has Been Dead Since 2006 - Forbes
Syndicate
User login
Fearless Leaders
Richard Mellon Scaife
Rush Limbaugh
Ann Coulter
Iowahawk
"I'm leading who, now? I have no idea who or what you're talking about."
Inspirations
Milton Friedman
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Ronald Reagan
"Yeah, we have a lot of fans. So what?"
Implacable Foes
Flash
Penigma
AngryClown
"Of course they're real! And they're in cahoots with the aliens, too!"
Apply To ScaifeNet
Do you want to be the next ScaifeNet leader or foe?
Or, do you want to see if ScaifeNet can fulfill your need to be controlled?
Apply today!