For me, the most touching moment of Pope Benedict XVI's recent visit to the United States came at St Patrick's Cathedral. After being congratulated on the occasion of his third anniversary as Pope, he turned to the assembled group of priests and religious. In his own words, without a written script, and in a language not his own, he haltingly said something like this - I am sorry that I am not a better person, that I am a sinner, that I am not a better pope. But Peter was also a sinner, and Jesus chose him to lead his Church, so he can use even me to serve his Church as the successor of Peter. Those are not quotes, but I believe they do reflect the sincere and genuine message he was trying to convey.
It is ironic, I suppose, that after years of strong disagreement with the direction the Church has taken, I should be thinking and saying nice things about Benedict at the very time I decide to put pen to paper and write about my ideas for the future of the Church. Yet I cannot but be moved by the Pope bringing a message of Christianity as hope and joy to our country. His failure to condemn every person or activity not in conformity to rigid orthodoxy suggests that he "gets it". The Curch is a community of pilgrim people and their hopes, joys. sorrows, and aspirations. It is not about looking for every chance to condemn anyone who steps out of line, and it is not about blind adherence to a narrow point of view.
Despite these positive dimensions, or perhaps because of them it is important to note that dissent is also a critical part of loyalty. I believe we can and must in a respectful manner, as Benedict has shown us, make our case, and perhaps he will listen. For today, I would comment only on his frequent return to the issue of truth. I don't object to his insistence on the existence of abosolute truth. I believe we see that in his emphasis on human rights and even his reference to our own country founded on the inalienable rights of all human beings. I simply point out that he takes the notion of truth too far. The very concept of religious liberty which he seems particularly enamored of when speaking of Islam, implies, no requires, the recognition that everyone does not share the same truth in all matters, even important ones. Furthermore, I believe it is our responsiblility to do all that we can to learn aspects of the truth from everyone, as there is much we can be taught even from those who disagree with us.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
About Me
I would just like to refer you to my profile which I just updated. It suggests what I hope to do with this blog over time. I am a political junkie and so my interest in politics will continue. I am also a committed Roman Catholic who believes we need to find a way to stop the backward drift in the Church, and find a way to make meaningful and sensible changes that will provide a bigger tent for all Catholics.
Thus I hope to continue commenting on both of these issues in the coming weeks and months.
Thus I hope to continue commenting on both of these issues in the coming weeks and months.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Making History
There can be no question that this election is like no other. The level of interest is enormous at a time when the apathy of voters is usually the major concern. The number of individuals registering and voting in these primary elections can only be inspiring to all those who believe in the Democratic process. Since early in the campaign it has been refreshing to see and hear analogies to the campaign on the sports pages, on late night television, and around the water cooler. People are paying attention. The opportunity to consider serious candidates that include a female and an African American is truly historic.
It is unfortunate that the main strean media has felt the need to take sides in such a race. If we truly believe in our democracy then we should believe that the voters can and should make up their own minds without media coercion. Why has the mainstram media failed to take an evenhanded approach to this race? Do they hate the Clintons that much? Do they feel that the chance to elect an African American is so important that anything goes? Are they biased against a woman president? Or has the media changed so much because of talk radio and Fox News, that the standards of at least attempting to remain unbiased no longer apply? Maybe it's just because they have so much time to kill on 24 hour cable that this is the best way they can make a buck. It just seems strange that in order to find fair and balanced reporting on Hillary Clinton you have to go to Fox News.
Hillary Clinton made an inappropriate remark that was duly reported. She has apologized and the Obama campaign has accepted it. Why then would Meet the Press put together a panel for the purpose of trashing Hillary for a full hour? This is only one example of the over the top coverage of this particular incident, as well as a lot of other coverage excesses. A few weeks ago I listened to a news show in which another panel of experts was fielding questions from callers. The listeners brought up a number of issues in which they expressed concerns about Senator Obama. For the next ten minutes, these experts proceded to defend Senator Obama from each issue, explaining in detail why the callers were incorrect. Were they on the Obama payroll? Is that the role of pundits these days - to choose a candidate and be prepared to recite his talking points at all times? I think journalism, even TV journalism, should be better than that.
It is unfortunate that the main strean media has felt the need to take sides in such a race. If we truly believe in our democracy then we should believe that the voters can and should make up their own minds without media coercion. Why has the mainstram media failed to take an evenhanded approach to this race? Do they hate the Clintons that much? Do they feel that the chance to elect an African American is so important that anything goes? Are they biased against a woman president? Or has the media changed so much because of talk radio and Fox News, that the standards of at least attempting to remain unbiased no longer apply? Maybe it's just because they have so much time to kill on 24 hour cable that this is the best way they can make a buck. It just seems strange that in order to find fair and balanced reporting on Hillary Clinton you have to go to Fox News.
Hillary Clinton made an inappropriate remark that was duly reported. She has apologized and the Obama campaign has accepted it. Why then would Meet the Press put together a panel for the purpose of trashing Hillary for a full hour? This is only one example of the over the top coverage of this particular incident, as well as a lot of other coverage excesses. A few weeks ago I listened to a news show in which another panel of experts was fielding questions from callers. The listeners brought up a number of issues in which they expressed concerns about Senator Obama. For the next ten minutes, these experts proceded to defend Senator Obama from each issue, explaining in detail why the callers were incorrect. Were they on the Obama payroll? Is that the role of pundits these days - to choose a candidate and be prepared to recite his talking points at all times? I think journalism, even TV journalism, should be better than that.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Lakers and Celtics
A slight change of pace for my blog entry, but I'm told there are no rules when it comes to blogging so here goes.
It looks like we are moving inexorably to a Lakers/Celtics NBA final. For me this is a scary proposition. I hate the Celtics. As a loyal West Virginian I have followed the expliits of Jerry West and the Lakers through their many battles with the Celtics, the vast mojority of which they lost. Although my incipient Alzheimers makes it difficult to remember exactly, I believe there was only one year in the Jerry West, Elgin Baylor era where they actually beat the Celtics. Maybe someone can refresh my memory on that point.
At any rate I am hoping that this will be the year the Lakers crush the Celtics.
It looks like we are moving inexorably to a Lakers/Celtics NBA final. For me this is a scary proposition. I hate the Celtics. As a loyal West Virginian I have followed the expliits of Jerry West and the Lakers through their many battles with the Celtics, the vast mojority of which they lost. Although my incipient Alzheimers makes it difficult to remember exactly, I believe there was only one year in the Jerry West, Elgin Baylor era where they actually beat the Celtics. Maybe someone can refresh my memory on that point.
At any rate I am hoping that this will be the year the Lakers crush the Celtics.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Michigan and Florida
One thing is clear. Michigan and Florida will not be decided until it doesn't matter as far as the outcome of the race is concerned. If the Democratic Rules Committee meets on May 31, and there is still any doubt as to whether Michigan and Florida could change the outcome of the race, they will delay their decision. Once Obama has gone over the top regardless of Michigan and Florida all delegates will be seated just as they voted. This will probably happen around June 4th or 5th.
What I have described, I believe, is political reality, and indicates that quite frankly, the rules are whatever the Democratic party say they are whenever they say they are. The rhetoric we have been hearing for months on this issue is also politics. The Obama camp saying that the Clinton camp is trying to change the rules, and the Clinton camp saying that every vote should count. What is disquieting is that much of the mainstram media has taken the side of the Obama camp on this issue. Why is CNN and MSNBC so determined that the Democratic Party follow its rules? Do they have a stake in this race? Everytime the issue comes up the commentator will gratuitously end the discussion by saying that Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan as if some terrible wrong has been done to him, even though he chose to remove his name from the ballot - the Democratic rules did not require it. I have never heard one of them say, oh, by the way, neither Clinton or Obama campaigned in Florida, both of them were on the ballot, and she defeated him in a fair fight. In fact it was Obama who actually ran campaign adds in Florida. Interestingly, current polling indicates that Clinton would defeat McCain in Florida, while Obama would lose to McCain. So, even if there had been a do over it appears Clinton would have defeated Obama in Florida. Another reason why Hillary should be on the ticket with Obama.
What I have described, I believe, is political reality, and indicates that quite frankly, the rules are whatever the Democratic party say they are whenever they say they are. The rhetoric we have been hearing for months on this issue is also politics. The Obama camp saying that the Clinton camp is trying to change the rules, and the Clinton camp saying that every vote should count. What is disquieting is that much of the mainstram media has taken the side of the Obama camp on this issue. Why is CNN and MSNBC so determined that the Democratic Party follow its rules? Do they have a stake in this race? Everytime the issue comes up the commentator will gratuitously end the discussion by saying that Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan as if some terrible wrong has been done to him, even though he chose to remove his name from the ballot - the Democratic rules did not require it. I have never heard one of them say, oh, by the way, neither Clinton or Obama campaigned in Florida, both of them were on the ballot, and she defeated him in a fair fight. In fact it was Obama who actually ran campaign adds in Florida. Interestingly, current polling indicates that Clinton would defeat McCain in Florida, while Obama would lose to McCain. So, even if there had been a do over it appears Clinton would have defeated Obama in Florida. Another reason why Hillary should be on the ticket with Obama.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Gas Tax Suspension
After writing the Epistle to the Romans yesterday, today definitely seems like a day for a brief entry. Therefore, the gas tax suspension seems like a topic that probably only warrants a few words.
Everybody knows the suspension of the gas tax for the summer is not a long term answer for the energy crisis. The inflamed rhetoric about how it will destroy our country seems a bit over heated. Once again, it appears that the Democratic elites and their media friends are proving Hillary Clinton's point. They simply do not understand and therefore cannot connect with ordinary people who are struggling day to day. Providing a tiny bit of relief to people who need every break they can get, doesn't seem so terrible to folks who can use a helping hand. It might just seem like someone cares about them.
Also, if we had mapped out an energy strategy that we could point to, that would essentially solve this problem in two, five, or even ten years, then maybe we shouldn't do the gas tax suspension. We don't yet even know which alternative fuels are going to help solve this problem, and we certainly don't know what legislation the Congress will ultimately pass.
So is it pandering - probably. Is it not a good idea - probably. Is it a terrible idea that is going to cause huge problems - No it's not. It is not a bad idea to try to do something to help the poor (check out the Sermon on the Mount). We never seem to have a problem spending billions to help the rich. Three months without the federal gas tax will not destroy this country, but if it helps a few people get back and forth to work for the summer maybe it's not such a bad idea.
Hillary for vice-president!
Everybody knows the suspension of the gas tax for the summer is not a long term answer for the energy crisis. The inflamed rhetoric about how it will destroy our country seems a bit over heated. Once again, it appears that the Democratic elites and their media friends are proving Hillary Clinton's point. They simply do not understand and therefore cannot connect with ordinary people who are struggling day to day. Providing a tiny bit of relief to people who need every break they can get, doesn't seem so terrible to folks who can use a helping hand. It might just seem like someone cares about them.
Also, if we had mapped out an energy strategy that we could point to, that would essentially solve this problem in two, five, or even ten years, then maybe we shouldn't do the gas tax suspension. We don't yet even know which alternative fuels are going to help solve this problem, and we certainly don't know what legislation the Congress will ultimately pass.
So is it pandering - probably. Is it not a good idea - probably. Is it a terrible idea that is going to cause huge problems - No it's not. It is not a bad idea to try to do something to help the poor (check out the Sermon on the Mount). We never seem to have a problem spending billions to help the rich. Three months without the federal gas tax will not destroy this country, but if it helps a few people get back and forth to work for the summer maybe it's not such a bad idea.
Hillary for vice-president!
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Go Hillary
I wanted to start my blog today whether I am ready or not. I don't know what I'm doing, but I love Hillary, and I wanted to say a few things while she is still in the race. Some things are just not being said clearly or strongly enough in the media as far as I know.
1. The Democratic Party rules for the primary elections suck, and no Democratic Party Official seems willing to say that. I'm not saying that Hillary is losing because of party rules, although she would be the nominee if they were using the more normal Republican rules. I am saying they have gone off the deep-end on proportionality and they need to change these rules for future elections. The notion that you can win a primary and the loser gets the same amount of delegates (and even sometimes more delegates based on certain districts) is just plain weird. It also explains why the race has gone on forever and nobody is able to win the race outright. Even if you win a primary by one vote, you ought to receive a minimum of 60% of the delegates. If you win by 10 or more points you ought to receive at least 70 to 75% of the delegates. Can you imagine winning a basketball game by one point in overtime and being told that the other team came so close that it counts just as much in the standings as your win?
Also, there is the Michigan/Florida debacle. Again the Republicans got it right. If the Democrats had said they would only seat half of the delegates from these two states we wouldn't be talking about this issue now. Who are the Democrat's punishing? The voters, who may well wind up punishing the Democrats in November. Now they will have to seat these delegates pretty much as Hillary suggests, or they will probably pay a price. Does anyone recognize how important Michigan and Florida are to Democrats in November?
2. I voted for Hillary Clinton in the Maryland primary several weeks ago, and guess what, I am not a racist. I was born and raised in West Virginia, and I find it offensive that the media has inferred that West Virginians are different from other Americans (except for maybe some in Kentucky). They are bigots, ignorant, or just don't understand what is going on in this country. They must be stupid to think the gas tax suspension might be a good idea, after all, every known economist thinks its a bad idea. If I know one thing about West Virginians, it is that they are eminently fair. In 1960, when I was a high school junior, Jack Kennedy came to our state and talked to people and listened to them and West Virginia helped elect the first Catholic President in our history. Barack Obama could have done the same thing. He chose not to. West Virginians feel he wasn't interested in their vote and therefore didn't care about them. It's still not too late for Obama, but that brings me to point three.
3. Finally, some pundits are now suggesting that Hillary has done such a good job that Obama may need to pick someone from her campaign as vice-president. Someone maybe like Ted Strickland. In case your'e wondering, I'm not sure, but I think he may be the Governor of Ohio. Maybe that will make some Hillary campaign worker in Ohio happy, but that's about it. Again, no one seems to want to say it, but you can look long and hard and cannot come up with a name of someone who can help Obama win in November except one. Who would that be - Hillary Clinton. It is true that the vice presidential candidate is only marginally important in any case, but look what Hillary brings to the table. She brings seventeen million plus loyal supporters who have pulled the lever for her, essentially one-half of those who voted in the Democratic primaries, You know what. It is a dream ticket.
GO HILLARY!
1. The Democratic Party rules for the primary elections suck, and no Democratic Party Official seems willing to say that. I'm not saying that Hillary is losing because of party rules, although she would be the nominee if they were using the more normal Republican rules. I am saying they have gone off the deep-end on proportionality and they need to change these rules for future elections. The notion that you can win a primary and the loser gets the same amount of delegates (and even sometimes more delegates based on certain districts) is just plain weird. It also explains why the race has gone on forever and nobody is able to win the race outright. Even if you win a primary by one vote, you ought to receive a minimum of 60% of the delegates. If you win by 10 or more points you ought to receive at least 70 to 75% of the delegates. Can you imagine winning a basketball game by one point in overtime and being told that the other team came so close that it counts just as much in the standings as your win?
Also, there is the Michigan/Florida debacle. Again the Republicans got it right. If the Democrats had said they would only seat half of the delegates from these two states we wouldn't be talking about this issue now. Who are the Democrat's punishing? The voters, who may well wind up punishing the Democrats in November. Now they will have to seat these delegates pretty much as Hillary suggests, or they will probably pay a price. Does anyone recognize how important Michigan and Florida are to Democrats in November?
2. I voted for Hillary Clinton in the Maryland primary several weeks ago, and guess what, I am not a racist. I was born and raised in West Virginia, and I find it offensive that the media has inferred that West Virginians are different from other Americans (except for maybe some in Kentucky). They are bigots, ignorant, or just don't understand what is going on in this country. They must be stupid to think the gas tax suspension might be a good idea, after all, every known economist thinks its a bad idea. If I know one thing about West Virginians, it is that they are eminently fair. In 1960, when I was a high school junior, Jack Kennedy came to our state and talked to people and listened to them and West Virginia helped elect the first Catholic President in our history. Barack Obama could have done the same thing. He chose not to. West Virginians feel he wasn't interested in their vote and therefore didn't care about them. It's still not too late for Obama, but that brings me to point three.
3. Finally, some pundits are now suggesting that Hillary has done such a good job that Obama may need to pick someone from her campaign as vice-president. Someone maybe like Ted Strickland. In case your'e wondering, I'm not sure, but I think he may be the Governor of Ohio. Maybe that will make some Hillary campaign worker in Ohio happy, but that's about it. Again, no one seems to want to say it, but you can look long and hard and cannot come up with a name of someone who can help Obama win in November except one. Who would that be - Hillary Clinton. It is true that the vice presidential candidate is only marginally important in any case, but look what Hillary brings to the table. She brings seventeen million plus loyal supporters who have pulled the lever for her, essentially one-half of those who voted in the Democratic primaries, You know what. It is a dream ticket.
GO HILLARY!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
