Recent comments

I would prefer to do away with recall election provisions entirely; they simply aren't necessary for offices that are subject to frequent and regular elections, a fortiori if the occupant is also subjcet to impeachment for true cases of malfeasance. All they do is discourage precisely the kind of strategic action that we want politicians to engage in; policies that produce long-term gain are right out if they cause short-term pain (Wisconsin, case in point).

Projecting from amorphous categories created by a handful of poll questions is a silly game. What we know when we probe deeper is that outside the hardcore prolife set, folks are for the most part satisfied. Where they favor restrictions, they're ones which would not affect the vast majority of abortions now being performed.

What some folks favor is limiting or ending the rare practice of 3rd trimester abortions, and parental input on the decisions on pregnant minors. That's about it.

It's important for advocates to paint a picture of a promising trend. But the truth is that views are pretty stable a majority wants women to continue to be able to end a pregnancy is that's their choice.

The creation story in Genesis offers no support for the notion that self-appointed climate alarmists are to lord over our economic activity until they have "saved the planet" to their satisfaction. Why introduce Genesis as a moral basis for environmental policy, and then balk at the fact that Genesis does not suggest any ability by man to have dominion over climate or over other men? The straw man in the argument is the IPCC. An honest assessment is that the IPCC models are seriously flawed and do not correlate with statistics on ocean temperature or temperature readings from satellites. The readings on increasing CO2 concentrations are a concern, but it is not at all clear that attempting to suppress CO2 emissions by suppressing Western economies translates to anything useful, particularly when North America is a net scrubber of CO2. Asia and Africa appear to be the primary land masses acting as net producers of CO2.
.
Further, CO2 remains a relatively minor greenhouse gas, it is pale in comparison to the greenhousing effect of water vapor. The carbon credit people don't know what to do about water vapor, so they ignore it and foolishly double-down on CO2 being the primary concern. Given the scientific uncertainties and the property values at stake, a path of least intrusion seems most appropriate. Since trees are monumental scrubbers of CO2, let's create incentives to plant trees and stop world-wide deforestation -- and keep the EPA carbon police away from our power grid, our transportation system and our economic lives. This is not because I don't care, it is because the green movement thinks that the solution is to have all the power and they'll figure out the details later. Nobody knows how to manage climate, and only fools can be persuaded to entrust economic decision-making to "Save the Planet" bureaucrats. The incredible over-reach by climate alarmists is offering us The Road to Serfdom.

In many respects, the Genesis line about human dominion over plant and animal life states the obvious. The scripture's purpose is to distinguish the human creation as exceptionally special in comparison to the remarkably awesome and beautiful spectrum of flora and fauna. Note further that the creation scripture provides no line in which man is to have dominion over another man (or over weather, or water vapor or even CO2 concentrations). While it may be a fact that humans are predisposed to dominate plants and animals, it does not follow that we should presume to be anything more than feeble actors with respect to the sun's radiant heat, the planet's weather and atmospheric greenhouse balances that are essential to life.

I see nothing in Genesis that lends support to surrendering our economic activities to review, modification and approval (or confiscation) by a new climate police presuming to possess the power to save the planet. Put another way, I don't see how can we use Genesis to support man's dominion over other men. I am concerned about an imbalance in carbon releases, but I suggest we stop deforestation and plant a lot more trees. But the Left prefers to shove a Chevy Volt up our posteriors, and then tells us to like it.

I think people are creating a gulf between Santorum's views and the Vatican's that doesn't exist --

"There exists a certain reciprocity: as we care for creation, we realize that God, through creation, cares for us. On the other hand, a correct understanding of the relationship between man and the environment will not end by absolutizing nature or by considering it more important than the human person. If the Church's magisterium expresses grave misgivings about notions of the environment inspired by ecocentrism and biocentrism, it is because such notions eliminate the difference of identity and worth between the human person and other living things. In the name of a supposedly egalitarian vision of the "dignity" of all living creatures, such notions end up abolishing the distinctiveness and superior role of human beings. They also open the way to a new pantheism tinged with neo-paganism, which would see the source of man's salvation in nature alone, understood in purely naturalistic terms." -- Pope Benedict XVI ( http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=35044 )

"Well, it's perfectly clear. I mean, let's be honest. This is standard fare. I mean, I'm not saying anything particularly new here. I mean, what we have been talking about, the radical environmental agenda that puts the earth over the needs of man, that, you know, doesn't understand that the best way to create a sound environment is for people to be doing well and to have prosperity. Because you go to countries where in fact the mankind is not doing well. And let me assure you, the last thing they worry about is the environment. It depends on America's growth and prosperity, so we can in fact be good -- husband to the environment as the way we should." -- Rick Santorum ( http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/02/21/santorum-theology-comments-about-obamas-radical-energy-agenda-not-faith )

No, he did not "make peace with god", and for you to insinuate that he would consider it, is offensive.

LifeSiteNews has a nice piece on PP trying to dupe and then bully a St. Vincent de Paul food pantry. The PP racketeering is in full swing, what a coincidence that HHS is issuing its anti-life mandates now. hat tip: The Anchoress.

has been fixed with the new compromise. In fact, as I see it, the solution seems so simple that one wonders why they didn't start with this in the first place. Of course, those against the health care law and contraception before this brouhaha won;t be satisfied, but as for me, the religious liberty issues have been settled.

stopped funding it, that solves that problem, but what if you're a Catholic or Protestant organization, that has a large number of secular employees, but is nonetheless guided by church teachings? I mean, I hear what you're saying, but if a church organization that deals with the unchurched, let's say a Christian bookstore--if you're forcing them to choose between their beliefs and providing health insurance, that's just a troubling thing for me. Why not the opt out, like the California system?

The way I read it, the Catholic institutions only have to fund birth control for their employees if a) there are more non-Catholic workers than non-Catholic workers at the place and b) if they are already funding similar medicine for male employees. Thus, if you're a Catholic hospital that has 53% non-Catholic employees, and funds Viagra for your male employees, then you're duty bound to fund birth control for your female employees as well. If you're a Catholic school which employs only Catholic workers, then there's nothing to worry about.

Of course, there could be a painless way around this; simply stop funding Viagra. Nobody's discriminated against, everybody's treated equally, and you save money as well. And they can't do that because...?

Frost calls it a trainwreck scenario. That begs virtually the same question John Anderson asked 30 years ago. What's to wreck?

Fantasy. Now could Ron Paul muck the nomination into a free for all at the convention? Possibly. But still unlikely. I'm not happy with the choices that the two-party system has given me for the last three decades but i don't see it changing anytime soon.