Pizza with a Side of Carbon

Normally, I don't care much about such things, especially since I can pretend that the Vatican has my back through its politically correct publicity stunt in Hungary. But since the current administration is so concerned about energy and the environment, I can't help but wonder how much global damage the President has wrecked with just one pizza (h/t: Drudge).

Letter from the Cafeteria

Dear God,

Since down here we are finishing up our penances and renunciations of sins past, I thought that I would check in and make sure that You are not a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do sort of guy. To wit, I have decided that it is important that You rethink your whole opposition to homosexuality. And by "rethink" I mean, of course, that you renounce your old thoughts and adopt mine. (I'll leave it to Your own judgment what type of penance you should do for Your sins.)

We British are simply more liberal minded that You. We are young and full of sap while you are the Ancient of Days. No wonder "there is a huge generational difference" about this.

I'm not saying that You, Yourself, should go and get buggered. But since your vicars are now tripping all over themselves to embrace evolution, I think that "we need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith."

Since evolution is necessary, and we British have already evolved, it is time for You to do so, too. You might think that, neophyte that I am, I just haven't quite grasped this whole "infallible truth" business that I claimed to accept when I joined Your Church. On the contrary, let me assure you that I absolutely accept every single one of Your teachings as infallibly true when it is in accord with my own enlightened opinions.

That's it for now (though I'll soon be sending you a list of other things needing rethinking). Give your Boy and His Mother a kiss for me.

Cheerio,
-Tony

Institutional Splinter

I've been toying for some time with the idea of writing an essay on how the Church has, in recent times, squandered its moral authority. Long thought about the events surrounding the Notre Dame invitation to President Obama have rekindled the idea. Whether what follows will ever make it into such an essay are impossible to say. They do, nevertheless, fit all too well with my earlier thinking.

-----

The recent case of the President and Notre Dame offers an unexpected glimpse into the nature of the current problem with the Church hierarchy’s moral authority. The situation is pretty simple: Notre Dame, as it is wont to do, invited the President of the United States to give the 2009 graduation address and to receive an honorary degree. Once the President’s acceptance was publicized, objections by Catholic alumni and bishops rang out. Obama’s direct and active support for abortion and embryonic stem cell research puts him in opposition to an infallible teaching of the Church. If anyone does, Obama meets the U.S. Bishops’ ban on honoring pro-abortion politicians:

The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

Washington’s Cardinal McCarrick, then chairman of the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, said in November, 2004, that

[t]he Task Force plans to consult with leaders in Catholic education, Catholic health care, and Catholic social services to discuss how we can together best carry out this guidance.

If we don’t presume that, four and a half years later, the Task Force has yet to consult with such a preeminent member of Catholic education, we are left with only two possible conclusions: either this invitation and honor are in accord with the instruction (which is implausible) or Notre Dame has simply rejected it. Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix clearly thinks that the latter is the case, calling the invitation "a public act of disobedience to the Bishops of the United States" in his March 25th letter to Notre Dame’s president, Fr. Jenkins.

But here’s the rub: where are the bishops who oppose Notre Dame’s invitation - or any other bishops, for that matter - who unambiguously correct the members of their own flock that voted to elect Obama in spite (or, because) of his manifest intent to "act in defiance of [the Church’s] fundamental moral principles"? Ultimately, criticizing the collective, Notre Dame, is easy. Francis Cardinal George has said that "Notre Dame didn't understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation". Harder to say is, "Fr. Jenkins didn’t understand what it means to be Catholic…". Harder, still, for a bishop to say is, "My own flock didn’t understand what it means to be Catholic when it voted."

To blame Notre Dame or, even, Fr. Jenkins ultimately means that the criticizing bishop lacks any share of responsibility. On the other hand, for him to chastise his own flock for failing to distinguish itself on this essential matter is reflexive, pointing to his lack of success as an effective teacher of the Good News. Ironic that, in this season of conversion and penance, our bishops are focusing on the splinter in the institutional eye of someone else’s flock.

Not One Dime; ... Six

It's blatantly unfair to argue that President Obama is trying to start class warfare through his tax policies. Sure, he talks a lot about making the rich - who already pay most of the taxes - pay even more. And he talks a lot about reducing taxes for 95% of Americans.

Classic rich v. poor propaganda? Maybe in speech; but not in action. When it comes to getting his hands on our money, the administration isn't afraid to be audacious, even if it doesn't exactly square with his explicit promises.

Today, for example, taxes on tobacco - whether used by cigar & pipe smoking snobs or decent, hardworking cigarette smokers - rose dramatically. Yesterday, the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes was 39 cents. Today, it's $1.01. That's an increase of 159%. Or, since candidate Obama regularly promised most of us that we "will not see any of [our] taxes increase one single dime", that's an increase of more than 6 dimes. Proof positive that the President doesn't want to soak just the rich.

Game On!

There are almost too many good analogies from which to choose. Pinball machine. Headless chicken. Feckless mob. Keystone cops. Whichever you choose, Congress is showing itself in a very bad light. This deliberative body is anything but deliberative these days. Rushing around left and right (or, at least, left) without any real idea what they are actually doing, our representatives are thoughtlessly voting things into law sight unseen.

Claiming to avert supposed catastrophe, we got a mystery stimulus package which, upon reading, revealed specific protection for the now-maligned AIG bonuses. In fevered response to their own actions, our pitchfork wielding leaders moved to skewer their former beneficiaries. Says a member of the mob:

"You rush this thing to the floor. Nobody had time to review it," [Wisconsin Rep. Paul] Ryan said ..., adding that lawmakers "got conflicting advice on it" before the vote.

Vote! Quick! No! Time! To! Think! Aaaarrrggghhh!

And so it goes. But it's not over just yet. Reversing course yet again, our hapless supporter is having second thoughts (if we charitably presume - against all evidence - that there was ever a first thought):

"Now, that I know — which I didn't at the time — that this is unconstitutional, I wouldn't have voted the same way," Ryan said... .

At least he admits that he was acting like an idiot. Which would be reassuring, if it weren't for the realization that 1) the damage is done, 2) he is only one of many pin heads balls and 3) there is no shortage of quarters to be pumped into the machine.

Game on!

To Read or Not to Read?

We know that he can read, whether it's from the omnipresent teleprompter or, as last night, a TV large enough to be a jumbo tron. The real question is whether he does read, at least when it comes to text that becomes the law of the land.

The whole AIG thing is a case in point. Last night, in his prepared remarks, the President said:

You know, there was a lot of outrage and finger-pointing last week, and much of it is understandable. I’m as angry as anybody about those bonuses that went to some of the very same individuals who brought our financial system to its knees -- partly because it's yet another symptom of the culture that led us to this point.

Fair enough, that is part of the reason he's angry. But there should be another part to the reason; namely, that he promoted and signed legislation just a few weeks ago that specifically protected those bonuses. He should be angry at himself for not taking the time to read what he was signing (line-by-line, as he promised) when the political fallout was so easily predictable.

The same concern for his reading habits also came up last night regarding a completely different issue, federal stem cell research funding. When asked about his controversial executive order, he piously said:

"Now, I am glad to see progress is being made in adult stem cells. And if the science determines that we can completely avoid a set of ethical questions or political disputes, then that's great. I have -- I have no investment in causing controversy. I'm happy to avoid it, if that's where the science leads us. But what I don't want to do is predetermine this based on a very rigid, ideological approach, and that's what I think is reflected in the executive order that I signed."

There's (at least) one major problem with this claim: it contradicts his actions. As we noted before, his order specifically withdraws federal funding for adult stem cell research. His order was, in other words, the "very rigid, ideological approach" that he claims to want to avoid.

How can we reconcile last night's words with his earlier deeds? It would be harsh and disrespectful to call him a liar. The alternative, however, is pretty pathetic. The only way that he can be cleared of deliberately lying is if we presume that he doesn't know what was actually in his executive order. He clearly didn't get around to reading the behemoth stimulus bill before adding his signature; perhaps he didn't bother reading his own one-page executive order, either. Pathetic, to be sure; but at least it gets him off the hook.

Perhaps we ought to institute a new rule governing presidential signing ceremonies: nothing can be signed into law until after it has been posted on the teleprompter. That way, at least , we can be sure that the President has read what he is signing into law.

Old Europe Balks

Europe's socialists made it clear on Friday (h/t: Lucianne) that they would not follow the Obama administration's lead to move even further to the left. What's to the left of socialism? And what does Old Europe know about it that has escaped the wisdom and experience of the 8-week old administration?