The Motley Monk's Omnibus

"Eggs Benedict": I didn't intend to offend...

6/30/2015

Artist Niki Johnson of Shorewood, Wisconsin, has crafted a portrait she entitled "Eggs Benedict." Measuring ~7’ X 5’ and viewable from the front and the back, Johnson's choice of artistic medium? 17k non-lubricated condoms inter-stuffed and folded to create the necessary tonal range to depict Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

So impressed were leaders of the Milwaukee Art Museum (MAM) that they purchased the portrait. It will be displayed this fall once renovations to the MAM are completed.

"Eggs Benedict" property of the Milwaukee Art Museum

Johnson decided to make the “latex mosaic” after Pope Benedict's 2009 visit to Africa during which he said that condoms would not resolve but would increase the AIDS epidemic. In a WITI-TV interview, Johnson said:

I was just dumbfounded. I mean, I couldn't make any sense of
that statement. And so I figured I needed to do something.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel quoted MAM’s Board of Trustees’ President, Don Layden, as stating:

This was never intended to be derisive, mocking or disrespectful
of the pope. It was to have a conversation about AIDS and AIDS
education. And my hope is when the piece appears in the
museum that will be the focus of the discussion.

There’s that word word again...“intend”...as in “intent” or “intention.” That is, it was nobody’s intent to offend Catholics or anyone else, for that matter.

Intend…intent…intention…

Translation: “If it wasn’t my intention to offend, then the offense taken can’t be attributed to me.”

So, if that conditional statement is true and if Pope Emeritus Benedict didn’t intend to offend either Ms. Johnson or Mr. Layden, then they shouldn’t attribute to him any offense they took from the Pope's statement. After all, fair is fair.

More importantly: What happens when the truth offends? After all, as Edward Green--a self-professed liberal who work in the fields of global HIV/AIDS and family planning for the Harvard School of Public Health--noted in a Washington Post op-ed concerning Pope Benedict's statement: "Yet, in truth, current empirical evidence supports him."

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal, click on the following link:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/milwaukee-art-museums-embrace-of-condom-portrait-of-pope-draws-disgust-b99527618z1-310570591.html

To read Edward Green's op-ed in the Washington Post, click on the following link:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

1 Comment

Let's be civil: The "Litany for the Conversion of Internet thugs"...

6/30/2015

0 Comments

Over at Fr. Z's blog, super priest-blogger Fr. John Zuhlsdorf has posted his "Litany for the Conversion of Internet thugs" (version 2.0) which he advertizes as "for private use only, when truly irritated, and when the alternative is foul language":

Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.
Christ, graciously hear us.
God, the Father of Heaven, have mercy on us.
God, the Son, Redeemer of the World, have mercy on us.
God, the Holy Ghost, have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us.

Lest internet thugs be eternally tormented by all the fiends of hell, convert them, O Lord.
Lest they pass eternity in utter despair, convert them, O Lord.
Lest they come to be damned for the harm they cause, convert them, O Lord.
Lest they roast forever in the deepest cinders of hell, convert them, O Lord.
Lest they suffer the unceasing pain of loss, convert them, O Lord.

Lest devils endlessly increase their physical agony, convert them, O Lord.
Lest devils twist their bowels and boil their blood in hell, convert them, O Lord.
Lest devils use them as toys and tools, convert them, O Lord.
Lest devils forever gnaw upon their skulls, convert them, O Lord.

Lest the innocent be harmed by the sins of thugs, convert them, O Lord.
Lest the innocent yield to thugs in weakness, convert them, O Lord.
Lest the innocent be drawn into thuggish traps, convert them, O Lord.

From faceless Facebook admin drones, spare us O Lord.
From tweeting Twitter idiots, spare us O Lord.
From loony Wikipedia liars, spare us O Lord.
From from heart-hardened spammers, spare us O Lord.
From liberal nut-case smear-blogging hacks, spare us O Lord.
From thread-dominating combox trolls, spare us, O Lord.
From sophomoric drive-by commentators, spare us, O Lord.

From server memory resource difficulties, spare us O Lord.
From rss feed problems, spare us O Lord.
From DOS attacks, spare us O Lord.
From power outages and surges, spare us O Lord.
From viruses, trojan horses, and all manner of snares, Lord save us.
From wasting our time, Lord save us.
From our own stupidity, Lord save us.

St. Michael, defend us.
St. Gabriel, defend us.
Holy Guardian Angels, defend us.
St. Isidore of Seville, defend us.
St. Francis de Sales, defend us.
St. Maximilian Kolbe, defend us.
All ye angels and saints….. GRRRRR.

Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, spare us, O Lord.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, graciously hear us, O Lord,
Lamb of God who takest away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.

V. Christ, Jesus who died for our sins.
R. Please return, and return swiftly.

Let us pray.

Almighty and merciful God, who according to Thy ineffable plan hast called us into existence to do Thy will amid the vicissitudes and contagion of this world grant, we beseech Thee, both protection for Thy servants who use the tools of this digital age and confusion for evil-doers who abuse their neighbors and Thy gifts.

Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

While Fr. Z may have produced this litany with no small amount of "tongue in cheek" that may otherwise cause him to rant, anyone who posts to the Internet is sure to realize that his is a prayerful response to a very real phenomenon. Namely, some commentors believe they possess the unadulterated right to vent their spleen in a comment using the most uncivil language possible. In their opinion, no one has the right to express an opinion that's contrary to theirs, especially when that contrarian opinion is supported by thoughtful analysis and fact.

When The Motley Monk receives comments of this nature, he's reminded of what Jesus said to his disciples:

"An evil spirit of this kind," He answered, "can only be driven out by
prayer and fasting." (Mark 9:29, Weymouth New Testament translation)

Just because an individual may express an opinion contrary to the Magisterium of Popular Opinion that's supported by thoughtful analysis and fact doesn't endow those who disagree with a personal "right" to respond in an uncivil manner.

Those who do so certainly deserve prayer. But,The Motley Monk isn't quite sure about that fasting part!

Let the discussion begin...

To read Fr. Z's post, click on the following link:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/fr-z%E2%80%99s-litany-for-the-conversion-of-internet-thugs-2-0/

0 Comments

The Left does overplays its hand once again: Politicizing the nation's currency...

6/29/2015

0 Comments

The political Left's desire to have a female's visage printed on the front of U.S. currency has its defender in The Motley Monk. Yes, it would be good to have a female's visage placed on the front of U.S. currency. There should be no argument here. The relevant question is "Whose visage?"

Let's lay down one principle in this argument: The female visage selected should have, at a minumum, the kind of historical/cultural stature accorded those males whose visages are currently placed on the front of U.S. curency.

In its clamoring to "get 'r done," the political Left once again has failed to do its homework and gather the relevant facts. And, they embarrass themselves as they celebrate the U.S. Treasury Department's decision to remove Alexander Hamilton's visage from the $10 bill.

Care of John Mauldin over at "Thoughts from the Frontline":

In Defense of Alexander Hamilton

Just a quick note on the plan to remove Alexander Hamilton
from our currency. I am despondent, if not outraged, over this
decision. Hamilton was arguably one of the most important of
our founding fathers. He wrote almost two thirds of The
Federalist Papers, which were the basis for our Constitution.
He was instrumental in the achievement George Washington's
most important policies and in establishing a sound system for
our government. He would have been president if he had not
been killed in a duel. (I was in a museum last year here in New
York that is part of the JP Morgan Chase collection and that has
the actual pistols used in the duel.)

To choose to remove Jackson and leave Grant (who at one
time owned slaves and who ran one of the most corrupt
administrations in American history) or the populist Jackson
(who was an avowed slave owner) is simply staggering.
Granted, Hamilton is not a favorite among the liberal left, but
to now denigrate his importance in favor of the other gentlemen
mentioned above is an affront. Not that they were not also great
Americans, but they simply weren’t in Hamilton’s league. This
is the crassest of politics. I should note that even Ben Bernanke
agrees with me, as well as many others who would not normally
align with my views. I don’t know if this move can be changed,
but it should be.

Yet once again, those on the political Left have shown their hand. Instead of doing some careful investigation, they ran with whatever they could as fast as they could to advance their cause. They're so eager to achieve victory in this battle that they're willing to keep male visages of highly questionable characters on other bills, all fueled by their lust to put a female visage...on a $10 bill.

Until he read Mauldin, The Motley Monk thought the political Left had erred in selling the nation's females out for a $10 bill. Why not the $50 or $100 bill? Thank goodness John Mauldin did his homework.

Let the discussion begin...

To read John Mauldin's "Thoughts from the Frontline," click on the following link:
http://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/pdf/150627_TFTF.pdf

0 Comments

Obergefell et al. v. Hodges: The denunciations of Church teaching betray a malign intent...

6/28/2015

0 Comments

Over at his canon law blog, Dr. Ed Peters (a civil and canon lawyer), has posted a thoughtful and sensitive assessment concerning Friday's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell et al. v. Hodges. Dr. Peters writes:

Catholic doctrine and discipline can never, ever, recognize as married two persons of the same sex, and any Catholic who regards "same-sex marriage" as marriage is, beyond question, "opposed to the doctrine for the Church" (Canon 750 § 2). I am sorry so many Catholics apparently think otherwise and I recognize that many who think that Church teaching on marriage can and should change, do so in good faith. But they are still wrong and their error leads them, among other things, to underestimate how non-negotiable is the Church's opposition to the recognition of same-sex unions as marriage.

The Church (and for that matter our nation) will have great need of Catholics who understand and accept the teaching of Christ and his Church on marriage if the damage done by the Supreme Court today is ever to be repaired. Appreciating the infallible character of this teaching on marriage is the first step.

As for whether we succeed in righting this wrong, that’s not our concern. The question we will be asked at Judgment will be, Did we try?

Many so-called "progressives" will find fault with Dr. Peters' assessment, among them many Roman Catholics whose interest lies in "reforming" the Church. They dismiss this teaching of the Church for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is they believe its character is everything but infallible.

The more virulent among the detractors profess themselves to be focused upon the critical importance of "care," "love," and "justice" for all Americans. But their caustic denunciations of those who believe in the sanctity and/or traditional definition of marriage based upon Scripture and Church teaching betrays a more malign intent, one appearing to be that of abridging freedom of religion.

If that assessment is correct, that's a political battle yet to unfold.

In the interim, it would be good if those making such denunciations held themselves to the same standard to which the Church holds its members with regard to those persons for whom the detractors have battled for "equal rights under the law":

2358 They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and
sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard
should be avoided.

Let the discussion begin...

To read Dr. Peters' blog, click on the followingl ink:
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/

To read Dr. Peters' post, click on the following link:
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/06/26/two-thoughts-re-the-supreme-court-decision-on-same-sex-marriage/

To read the U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion in Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, click on the following link:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

To read the Catechism of the Catholic Church's contents about the sixth commandment, click on the following link:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

0 Comments

From the "Obamacare file": Be careful about what you're toasting...

6/27/2015

0 Comments

While many of The Motley Monk's friends have been popping champagne corks and clinking the champagne flutes to celebrate their "victory" with this week's U.S. Supreme Court decision in King et al. v. Burwell, here's what they may really be toasting: Higher taxes.

Data reported by the American Action Forum indicate that between 2013 and 2014:

spending on physician and clinical services declined by ~1%, despite an increase in physician prices (suggesting a net decrease in the utilization of physician services); and,
spending on hospital services increased <1% even though the growth in hospital prices decreased ~1% (suggesting more individuals are using ER's for primary care).

To wit:

in California, Medicaid expansion demonstrated a direct correlation in increased visits to the ER; and,
new-patient visits to primary care providers accounted for only 22.9% of all primary care visits in 2014, an increase of only 0.3% from 2013.

Taken in aggregate, what do those data indicate?

One of Obamacare's primary goals of was to expand access to affordable healthcare. To pay for the subsidies that would facilitate expanding healthcare insurance coverage, many recipients of federal funds (e.g., hospitals and MDs) were forced to accept payment reductions. Hospitals were cut $260B over 10 years.
A large portion of the newly-insured were utilizing the ER at higher rates than both the uninsured and the commercially insured. The assumption that fewer individuals would be going to the ER to receive primary care by increasing insurance coverage to millions has demonstrated itself to be patently false.

With 5 years of experience, Obamacare has demonstrated that it has failed to fulfill two of its promises: It has not reduced the cost of providing healthcare care or to provide individuals access to affordable care. Instead, individuals continue to delay treatment or seek primary care in the ER, both of which have increased the cost of providing healthcare to these individuals.

With what outcome? The King et al. v. Burwell decision now allows the federal goverment's exchange to provide healthcare insurance in those states that have not established exchanges or whose exchanges have gone or are going bankrupt, thus putting into place a single-payer system. Those rising costs--Obamacare has not bent the "cost curve" down--will be spread across the nation and not borne by the states where those costs are highest. This "spreading the wealth around a bit" will translate into even higher and higher taxes across the nation for the 48% of those who pay the taxes.

Given what "hope and change" really means--spreading the costs of healthcare around to all of the nation's taxpayers--hopefully that's why The Motley Monk's friends are clinking their champagne flutes. After all, they're the ones who will be footing the bill.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the report by the American Action Forum, click on the following link:
"Obamacare Failed to Address ER Overcrowding."

0 Comments

Some musings: King et al., v. Burwell, Laudato si, and ideologues...

6/26/2015

0 Comments

WARNING: Don't read any further if: a) reading another side of an argument isn't worth your time because your mind is already made up; b) the data confirm that humanoids are largely responsible for the degradation of the biosphere; c) carbon dioxide is evil; d) you believe Pope Francis is above politics; and e) the Supreme Court got it exactly right in King et al., v. Burwell.

If you're willing to cut beyond ideology, consider other points of view, and have read thus far, that's great! As Socrates famously noted, most of what people believe is fact actually is a "wrong opinion tied down." People don't like having their wrong opinions exposed. Some retalliate with all sorts of name calling, insulting comments, and even offering a cup of hemlock. But, examining other points of view critically is crucial, as they may just tie down right opinion.

Consider the posting over at TheFederalist.com written by the arts, culture, religion blogger for First Things, Maureen Mullarkey. In this particular post, Mullarkey offers a critic's clear-eyed analysis of Pope Francis' recent encyclical, Laudato si, asking "Where Did Pope Francis' Exquisite Rant Come From?"

That's quite a title...one that's sure to offend some ideologues! Having read thus far, they've decided that they should have heeded the WARNING above. They've clicked away from The Motley Monk thinking "What a bunch of Mullarkey!" Not quite the liberal thinkers they believe themselves to be. Worse yet, they launch a clever, play-on-words ad hominem attack without having even considered the facts. Who's to be lamented more: An ideologue or someone articulating a wrong idea tied down?

Mullarkey's thesis is that Pope Francis has diverted the gospel into a series of ill-supported political pronouncements. Here's one snippet:

Propelled by the cult of feeling and Golden Age nostalgia--
enshrined in the myth of indigenous peoples as peaceable
ecologists—that elusive something picked up a tincture of
Teilhardian gnosticism as it grew. It bursts on us now as
“Laudato Si,” a malignant jumble of dubious science, policy
prescriptions, doomsday rhetoric, and what students of
Wordsworthian poetics call, in Keats’ derisive phrase, “the
egotistical sublime.”

The document’s catalogue of distortions and factual errors are
those of the climate-change establishment swallowed whole.
There is no scientific consensus on man-made global warming,
no consensus on the role of human activity in any of the
environmental phenomena cited.

Read the rest here where Mullarkey offers readers her "Short List of What’s Wrong with 'Laudato Si'."

More significant in The Motley Monk's opinion is Mullarkey's conclusion:

Intellectual and moral confusion of such magnitude is a
judgment on the ecclesial culture that produced it and the
popular culture that consents to it.

While Mullarkey has marshalled facts to support her conclusion, there's something more troubling that's going on with today's Zeitgeist. Both cultures about which Mularkey writes don't believe that words have meaning. Instead, they base their arguments upon the false premise--a wrong opinion tied down--that words are mere social constructs and whose meanings are both time-bound and multiple. What's important is not what's stated or written--what the one speaking or writing actually intends. No, what's absolutely crucial is how those who are hearing or reading those words feel about and interpret them today.

In short, there is no truth, just words uttered or written at some previous moment in time, all possessing a multiciplity of meanings.

For example, when Jesus said "Whoever would divorce his wife, except in the case of fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery. And whoever marries her who has been divorced commits adultery." This teaching--the truth, as in "right opinion tied down"--prohibiting divorce seems pretty clear. Unless, of course, Jesus was misinformed and needs to be understood differently, given post-enlightenment critical analysis which reveals that his was a "wrong opinion tied down." If that's true, like most human beings, even Jesus didn't get it correct all of the time. Oh well, some much for Jesus being the Son of God, "the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Then, too, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a majority opinion yesterday in King et al., v. Burwell. In that opinion, John Roberts noted that the word "state" as it was used in the contested statuted could mean either "the federal goverment" or the 50 "state" governments. To understand congressional intent, he opined, requires stepping back and reading the word as it's situated "in the larger context of the law." If that's true, any law and even the U.S. Constitution can be construed to mean just about anything. After all, what's being contested are time-bound words that have multiple meanings and need to be judged using today's standards.

What interests The Motley Monk is what the commentatoriate class on cable television has yet to opine about concerning Roberts' opinion: It turns Civics 101 completely on its head or, as Associate Justice Antonin Scalia opined in his dissent, "somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed...."

"Interpretive jiggery-pokery," Scalia called it. After all, when statutorial law is ambiguous, the Supreme Court isn't constitutionally charged with rewriting it. No, the Supreme Court must strike that statute down and refer the matter back to Congress for rewriting. Why? That power is constitutionally delegated to the Congress unless the phrase "delegation of powers" doesn't mean according powers to different branches of the federal government.

But then, Scalia's opinion must be a bunch of malarkey because words don't mean anything in a culture where "Intellectual and moral confusion of such magnitude is a judgment on the [educational] culture that produced it and the popular culture that consents to it."

For those of the political left or independents who have read thus far, you needn't agree. But, intellectual honesty does require being open minded enough to consider another point of view in its entirety. Namely, words have meaning in their original context. What's important is that the nation's educational system has been teaching the contrary for almost two generations.

"Interpretive jiggery-pokery" to subvert what words mean doesn't make for a more perfect union. Sort of like "It all depends upon what the word 'is' means."

Let the discussion begin...

To read Maureen Mullarkey's post, click on the following link:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/24/where-did-pope-franciss-extravagant-rant-come-from/

To follow Maureen Mullarkey's excellent weblog over at First Things, click on the following link:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/mullarkey

0 Comments

Inside the OR: Better be careful about what you say...

6/25/2015

0 Comments

Anyone who has had a colonoscopy knows the drill.

Go into the cubicle. Take everything off. Don the surgical gown. Get on the cart. The MD comes for a 1-minute visit. Orderlies wheel the cart to the OR. The anesthesiologist puts some happy juice into the blood. Within what seems the flash of an instant, the MD shows up in the cubicle with some pictures to describe what has been found. Then, it's all over as a volunteer driver takes the patient home.

Whew! Thank goodness that's done!

But, what if the patient was to press the record button on his smartphone to be sure to capture any instructions his doctor would give him after the procedure?

That's what "D.B." did on April 18, 2013.

According to the Washington Post, DB was shocked on his way home when he replayed the recording. Not only had the surgical team had mocked and insulted DB as soon as he drifted off to sleep but discussed avoiding DB after the colonoscopy, instructed an assistant to lie to him, and placed a false diagnosis on DB's chart.

Dr. Soloman Shah, the gastroenterologist who performed DB's colonoscopy, made some insulting remarks and did not discourage the anesthesiologist, Tiffany M. Ingham, from her comments or conduct, which included writing a false diagnosis on DB's chart.

DB sued Shah and Ingham for being "verbally brutalized" as well as the anxiety, embarrassment, and loss of sleep for several months that ensued upon listening to the recording. The jury awarded DB $100k for defamation ($50k each for their comments), $200k for medical malpractice, and $200k in punitive damages.

What MDs did was offensive and stupid. But, even more outrageous was the expert testimony at of the former President of the Academy of Anesthesiology, Kathryn E. McGoldrick at the trial:

These types of conversations, are not only offensive but frankly
stupid, because we can never be certain that our patients are
asleep and wouldn't have recall.

"...we can never be certain that are patients are asleep"?

Now, that's really offensive and frankly stupid.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Washington Post article, click on the following link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/anesthesiologist-trashes-sedated-patient-jury-orders-her-to-pay-500000/2015/06/23/cae05c00-18f3-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html

0 Comments

From the "Fr. Pfleger File": An empowering approach to solving inner city poverty...

6/24/2015

1 Comment

A couple of weeks back, National Public Radio’s “Weekend Edition” host Scott Simon interviewed Corey Brooks—pastor of Chicago’s New Beginnings Church, located on the city's South Side otherwise known as "Fr. Pfleger's stomping grounds."

Welcome Message from New Beginnings Church of Chicago on Vimeo.

Simon was interested in understanding why Pastor Brooks wants Republican presidential candidates to speak to his congregation. A Republican in a Democratic stronghold, Brooks said:

     Well for far too long, Democrats have taken advantage of our community
and just always felt as if we're just going to be there for them without
having to do the things that are necessary in our community.

     The Republican Party has overlooked this, simply because they thought
that—out of tradition and out of culture—that that we’re going to continue
to just vote the same way all the time, but that is definitely not true.

     And if the Republican Party would be so kind to reach out, I’m sure that
they will find a group of people who are interested in their policies and
their practices.

Skeptical, Simon—a pure-bred, unabashed liberal—inquired of Brooks whether Republicans had “policies that would interest you more?” The pastor replied:

Absolutely. I think school choice is a big thing, and I think, educationally,
that African-American children should have the same privilege that all
other children that come from well-to-do families have, and that is they
should be able to go to any school that is a good school, and they should
not be regulated to poor-performing schools in their community just
because they live in a certain ZIP code or certain area code.

That was a bit over the top for Simon, who asked:

     What about employment, because I think a lot of Democratic candidates--
including, certainly, the ones who’ve run for office there in Chicago--
would argue that they have dedicated a lot of federal, state and city
money to the interests of African-Americans in the South Side?

Yes. The Democrats have poured billions of dollars into the nation’s inner cities, including Chicago. But, Simon wasn’t prepared for Brooks four-word response:

     Show us some jobs.

To which Brooks added:

     They’re going to say they pumped in a lot of money to the South Side
of Chicago and I’m going to say, you pumped in a lot of money, but
show us some jobs.

     We need economic empowerment, and we need to have tax incentives
and tax breaks for corporations that decide to come to places like the
South Side of Chicago and hire individuals on the South Side of Chicago,
and we need to have those areas built up and the only way we’re going
to be—get them built up, is that we have to create a way for an economic
base to be put in place.

With that tactic not producing the expected results, Simon asked Brooks whether his congregation was merely “indulging” him or were actually receptive to hearing the GOP’s message? Brooks answered:

     I think—not just my congregation—but people in the city of Chicago
are being more receptive. I was talking to a lady at Starbucks, and she
was saying, “Pastor, thank you, because all my life I’ve voted Democrat,
and I’ve always thought that we should vote different ways and just
never spoke out.”

     And she was saying that she’s going to have—start having that type
of conversation with her family about voting differently and this lady is
tied to a Democratic political figure in the city of Chicago.

     So I think it’s a matter of showing people the various views and then
letting them decide for themselves.

Want to hear more? Here's the entire interview:

Amen, Pastor Brooks!

In 1964, the out-of-wedlock birth rate among Blacks was 24%. Today, it's ~70%. This isn't due to a lack of funding programs to amelioate poverty in the nation's inner cities but funding that enriched Democratic pols for the past 5 decades. "Crony socialism," it's called.

Social programs are not the solution to poverty. Intact families where biological fathers are present, good schools with demonstrably good teachers, and churches whose pastors teach sound morality--like Pastor Corey Brooks--provide the solution. These empower human beings.

As Baroness Margaret Thatcher famously observed:

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money.

Let the discussion begin...

1 Comment

"The United States of Regulation": The hidden cost to U.S. taxpayers...

6/23/2015

1 Comment

This kind of stuff should make taxpayers' blood boil.

According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute's "Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State," here's what each household in the United States paid in 2014 for the "cost of regulation": ~$15k (or ~29% of an average family budget of $51.1k). That's more than the average family spends annually on healthcare, food, and transportation...all going to feed an ever-expanding, unelected federal government bureaucracy whose members are keenly intent on regulating more and more aspects of life in these United States of America.

Why the high cost? In short: Lost economic productivity and higher prices. In 2014, federal regulations cost American consumers and businesses an estimated $1.88T (or 50%+ of total federal government spending).

Some factoids form the report:

If U.S. federal regulations were a nation, "The United States of Regulation" would be the world's 10th largest economy...sandwiched behind Russia (#9) and ahead of India (#11).
In 2014, Congress passed 224 new laws. But, federal agencies issued 3,554 new regulations (or an average of 16 new regulations for each law).
Compliance costs in 2014 exceeded what the Internal Revenue Service collected in individual and corporate income taxes by $160B+.

Given these facts, one would think there'd be a taxpayers' rebellion.

Yet, despite these facts, taxpayers don't seem to care much that they're paying mightily to be hyper-regulated by unelected federal bureaucrats. They're consuming an increasing share of U.S. taxpayers' hard-earned $$$s simply to tell them how to live their lives like middle class people living somewhere between Russia and India.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Competitive Enterprise Institute's report, click on the following link:
"Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State"

1 Comment

The other side of the story: What Egypt thinks about U.S. Middle East policy...

6/22/2015

0 Comments

Courtesy of Second City, The Motley Monk was treated to the other side of the story concerning the most immediate threat to the security interests of the United States: Climate change.

In this video, members of the Egyptian cable t.v. commentatorship class opine what they think about President Obama's address to the 2015 graduating class of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.

While the retired general clearly enjoys pounding on his bully pulpit, one can't help but laugh out loud about the comparison the fellow on the right-hand side makes between his 8-year-old daughter and POTUS.

Let the discussion begin...

0 Comments

From the "this is pretty cool" file: A "shield of invisibility"...

6/22/2015

0 Comments

Last year, the U.S. Army issued a request for proposals for a uniform made of wearable camouflage that would make soldiers virtually invisible. Companies were given 6 months to submit the feasibility of their concept along with 10 prototypes that the Army would test for 1 year.

A New Science post reports that the camouflage will likely be comprised of microscopic engineered structures that bend light around the object, in this case, a soldier. One Karlsruhe Institute of Technology professor, Martin Wegener, and his team have created cloaks made from photonic crystals which work for certain wavelengths. But, as bending light over the entire spectrum would violate Einstein's theory of relativity, Wegener said the technology would make the soldier appear more like a ghost or colored shadow than completely invisible.

Another professor, John Pendry of the Imperial College London who has pioneered metamaterials, wrote in a New Scientist article, "The Invisible Soldier," that metamaterials expand beyond chemical composition by using artificial structures that might only be nanometers in diameter for visible light.

Pretty cool, no? Here's what it might look like:

Those pictures are from a Canadian firm, HyperStealth Biotechnology (HSB), which claims to have demonstrated metamaterial camouflage to US military scientists last year.

Even better, no?

Well, maybe not. New Science apparently didn't know about or read the HSB webpage. Evidently, federal regulators are involved.

HSB reported on May 18, 2015, that the Army canceled HSB's RFP for light weight, passive (non-powered) adaptive camouflage. Why? HSB couldn't submit its material under the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) rules. Why? Any firm submitting the proof of concept under SBIR rules must be US-based and the majority of owners must be U.S. citizens.

Go and figure.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the New Scientist posting, click on the following link:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630202.200-us-army-calls-for-ideas-on-invisible-uniforms-for-soldiers.html#.VYf6e_lViko

0 Comments

From the "those who worship at the altar of environmentalism" file: The five horsemen of the Apocalypse...

6/21/2015

1 Comment

Upon reading Pope Francis' encyclical concerning the environment (and much more!), the folks over at ThePeoplesCube.com came to the realization that St. John the Evangelist had it all wrong. Like the early prophets of climate change during his day--the forerunners of those today who worship at the altar of environmentalism--St. John believed there were only four horsemen of the Apocalypse: Conquest, War, Famine, and Death.

However, with the publication of Laudato si, Pope Francis is

courting a younger, progressive generation of Mother Earth worshippers
by adding a cool new "Horseman of Global Warming" to the existing
Doomsday scenario, bringing the total number of Horsemen of the
Apocalypse to five.

Here the Five Horsemen of the Apocalypse as Pope Francis inserts the new, fifth horseman:

The explanation? According to the article:

It may seem odd to suggest that St. John, author of the Book of
Revelation, shared a common failing with the early prophets of Climate
Change, but it's true. In his eagerness to steer readers to God, John
wrote as though it was essential that people immediately embrace
holy living so as to avoid the fast-approaching horrors of Armageddon.
Likewise, until recently, the harbingers of carbon-based annihilation
demanded drastic lifestyle changes among the world's consumers to
prevent climate cataclysm.

Their mutual mistake was the specificity of predictions and deadlines
for action, which have all passed without any noticeable impact. New
York remains above water and natural disasters have not increased,
while the seven seals remain unbroken and the stars are still attached
to the firmament.

Thank goodness all of that's been clarified. Devotees of the Book of Revelations can sleep better tonight.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the article at ThePeoplesCube.com, click on the following link:
http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/pope-improves-armageddon-with-climate-change-prophecy-t16479.html

1 Comment

Pursuing the parochial truth: Dominican University (River Forest, IL)...

6/20/2015

1 Comment

The Motley Monk has posted a commentary over at The American Catholic titled "Pursuing the parochial truth: Dominican University (River Forest, IL)..."

In that post, The Motley Monk discusses what the mission of Dominican University (River Forest, Illinois) means in actual practice. Noting the word “Catholic” by its absence in its mission statement, preparing students "to pursue truth" actually means sponsoring speakers whose shared desire is to shape the Roman Catholic Church in their “American Catholic” image, as that’s defined by the contents of their lectures.

Check it out...

To access The Motley Monk's post at The American Catholic, click on the following link:http://the-american-catholic.com/2015/06/20/pursuing-the-parochial-truth-dominican-university-river-forest-il/

1 Comment

Something Pope Francis overlooked when formulating "Laudato si"...

6/19/2015

1 Comment

It's really too bad that the Ecology Minister of France, Segolene Royal, didn't have the opportunity to visit with and lobby Pope Francis prior to writing and releasing his encyclical on the environment, Laudato si. Had Ms. Royal--a stormy petrel who worships at the altar of environmentalism--had the opportunity to bend the Pope's ear, perhaps a much different encyclical might have emerged.

How so? According to BBC News, Ms. Royal is on the stump demanding that people stop eating Nutella.

The problem? Palm oil is used to make the chocolate-hazelnut spread and that particular ingredient contributes to what Ms. Royal calls "massive deforestation." Worse yet, Nutella is also "dangerously fattening." In sum, those who consume Nutella are not only getting too hefty but also allowing their desire for Nutella to damage the fragile ecosystem. (READ: "Greedy capitalists" are destroying indigenous trees and replacing them with oil palms to reap greater and greater profits.)

In France, debate about the use of palm oil issue has been swirling since 2011, when French senators proved unsuccessful in their attempts to impose a 300% tax on the product. (READ: Those senators tried to impose confiscatory taxes on a consumer good--like tobacco and soda in the United States--to curb politically undesirable conduct.)

Certainly, had Ms. Royal been able to intervene with Pope Francis, as the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon did, she could have ginned up papal concern about the dangers that Nutella presents not only to the human race but also to the fragile environment.

Palm tree seeds from which palm oil is extracted.

More importantly, Ms. Royal's intervention would have also raised concerns about yet another of Pope Francis' particular interests: Global inequality.

The chocolate firm which owns Nutella, Ferro, is based in Italy and, contrary to what Ms. Royal claims, Ferro's leadership has made commitments to source palm oil in a responsible way. For example, Nutella leadership announced last February that all of its products were produced with palm fruit oil that was certified as 100% sustainable according to the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) supply chain.

However, that really doesn't matter when the issue for the stormy petrels who worship at the altar of environmentalism also involves global inequality. For them, the real problem of social justice is that Nutella imports ~80% of its palm oil from one developing nation: Malaysia. The other ~20% comes from three other developing nations: Brazil, Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea. Ferro is purchasing palm oil at a low price by exploiting laborers in the developing world. (READ: "Those greedy, Italian capitalists are fueling global inequality by pillaging forests of developing nations in order to make people in the First World fat and happy.)

Along with automobiles, air conditioners, batteries, and a whole host of other environmentally "unfriendly" consumer products that are alleged damage the environment, perhaps Ms. Royal could have lobbied Pope Francis to add Nutella to the list. Banning the product would be a sure sign of solidarity with the poor.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the BBC News article, click on the following link:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33163534

1 Comment

A question for the Left: Is Pope Francis "friend" or "foe"?

6/18/2015

0 Comments

While many people today are focused upon Pope Francis' encyclical on the environment, Laudato si, the folks over at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Foundation aren't. Why? They're still smarting from the papal slapdown they received last Sunday, the day following Rome's homosexual pride march outside the Vatican walls that annually seeks to highlight changing attitudes toward homosexual couples.

The educational arm of the largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, the folks over at the HRC Foundation took great umbrage when Pope Francis said that only opposite-sex couple can provide good parenting.

Imagine that!

Likening a long-lasting marriage to a good wine--one in which a husband and wife make the most of their gender differences--the Pope said:

They're not scared of the differences! What great richness this diversity
is, a diversity which becomes complementary, but also reciprocal. It binds
them, one to the other....Children mature seeing their father and mother
like this; their identity matures being confronted with the love their father
and mother have, confronted with this difference.

In response, the Director of Latino/a and Catholic Initiatives for the HRC Foundation’s Religion and Faith Program, Lisbeth Melendez Rivera, released the following statement:

At a time when so many children across our world lack loving, welcoming
homes, it is heartbreaking to hear Pope Francis dismiss a whole swath of
potential LGBT parents who continue to prove that they are fully capable
of providing safe and nurturing environments, just like many of their
non-LGBT counterparts.

We ask that Pope Francis, is making headlines now as pro-science,
follow the lead of scientists where LGBT families are concerned. Take
the words of the American Psychological Association, for example,
which has concluded that "parenting practices around the world share
three major goals: ensuring children’s health and safety, preparing
children for lifeas productive adults and transmitting cultural values.
A high-quality parent-child relationship is critical for healthy development."

LGBT families--including LGBT Catholic families--affirm these goals and
practice them everyday, advancing our belief that inclusion and acceptance
are core values of our faith.

We call on the Pope and leaders of the Roman Catholic Church to
reconsider their harmful statements and renounce the message of
exclusion that only serves to hurt all families.

Let's hypothesize that the folks on the political, economic, social, and moral Left very much like and tout Pope Francis when his statements appear to suggest that he's a fellow traveller. But, when the Pope doesn't espouse their ideology or indicates that he's not a fellow traveller, suddenly he's anti-science and exclusionary.

To test this hypothesis, keep a careful ear open over the next week to determine how the mainstream media deconstructs Laudato si. Ask:

How many are treating the document as if it's infallible Church teaching? (Thus, attempting to raise the secular ideology of those who worship at the altar of environmentalism to the level of a divinely revealed Truth.)
How many are discussing paragraphs 120 and 155? (Which is divinely revealed truth.)

Let the discussion begin...

To read the National Catholic Reporter article concerning the Pope's remarks, click on the following link:
http://ncronline.org/news/global/children-need-heterosexual-parents-pope-francis-says-after-gay-pride-march

To read Pope Francis' encyclical Laudato si, click on the following link:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si_en.pdf

To read the American Psychological Association's topic and tips about parenting, click on the following link:
http://apa.org/topics/parenting/

0 Comments

Just when you think you've heard it all: "Sexorship" at Northwestern...

6/17/2015

1 Comment

Call it "The Case of the Disappearing and Reappearing Academic Article and Journal."

The article is titled "Head Nurses" and the journal is "Atrium," a faculty-produced bioethics journal published by Northwestern University's (NU) Feinberg School of Medicine.

What's not in dispute is that article suddenly disappeared from NU's website last year, as did the archived issue of the journal. What had been cloaked in secrecy for the past year is who took the article down and why.

Of course, that silence caused the stormy petrels to protest that NU administrators had violated academic freedom.

How so?

According to Inside Higher Ed, the essay--written by the then-Jeannette K. Watson Distinguished Visiting Professor in the Humanities at Syracuse University, William J. Peace--described the nursing care that Peace received after being paralyzed at the age of 18, in 1978. In the article, Peace identified two groups of nurses and the distinctive type of healthcare the members of each group provided to patients.

While Peace believed he was illuminating the taboo of disability and sex and chronicling a part of medical history circa 1978, his scholarship appears to have illuminated a bit too much about the taboo, at least in the judgment of NU Medical School's administrators.

The guest editor of the issue was NU professor of Medical Education and Medical Humanities and Bioethics Alice D. Dreger. Soon after the issue's publication, Dreger said, NU Medical School administrators asked the journal's editorial team to expunge parts of the essay from the web. Why? The content was considered inflammatory and too damaging to the new Northwestern Medicine "brand."

Although the editorial team objected to the administration’s request, the team expressed its displeasure by removing not only Peace's essay and the issue in which it appeared but also the entire Atrium archive.

It took more than one year for NU Medical School officials to relent and repost the article and Atrium archives. However, Dreger notes, NU Medical School officials still proposed an editorial review committee for future Atrium content.

Just when you think you've heard it all! This was all about "branding."

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Inside Higher Ed article, click on the following link:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/17/faculty-members-claim-university-made-them-remove-controversial-journal-issue-its

To read the controversial issue of Atrium, click on the following link:
http://bioethics.northwestern.edu/docs/atrium/atrium-issue12.pdf

1 Comment

"Leading from behind": Where's the outrage...

6/16/2015

1 Comment

It's been quite a while since the phrases "A shining city on the hill whose beacon light guide freedom-loving people everywhere" and "the last best hope of man on earth" were uttered by President Ronald Wilson Reagan. In those two phrases, the "Gipper" basically summed up not just America's "manifest destiny" but how many--if not most--Americans viewed themselves and the nation's role in the world.

When foreign political regimes and dictators were discovered to be denying citizens their basic rights--like universal suffrage--American political leaders would take to their bully pulpits, condemning the culprits and demanding democratic reforms. It was called "political and social justice."

Think Tiananmen Square.

But, that was then and this is now, the era of "leading from behind." As President Obama told West Point cadets last year, the United States can't be the world's policeman.

According to Lily Quo, writing for Quartz.com, voters in Hong Kong have been fighting for the past 18 months about how to introduce popular elections, Pro-democracy demonstrators have occupied areas of downtown Hong Kong and have clashed with pro-Beijing groups.

This Friday, lawmakers are expected to vote down a Beijing-sanctioned plan that allows only pre-screened candidates to run for Hong Kong’s top office. For the vote to pass, two-thirds of Hong Kong's 70 legislative council members must approve it. However, 27 pro-democracy lawmakers have promised to reject it. The difference between failure and passing is just 3 votes.

Tensions are high. Police have already arrested 10 people and may detain more over an alleged plan to detonate explosives around Hong Kong when the legislative council convenes. Some activists believe the arrests are part of a conspiracy to smear the pro-democracy movement, according to Quo. It is expected that the police will dispatch 5k officers to surround the legislative chambers on the day of the vote.

So, it appears that democracy--at least in the form of open and free elections--is DOA in Hong Kong.

One pro-democracy student leader, Joshua Wong, is focused upon universal suffrage. But the real question, he says, is what happens in 2047 when the 50 years of "a high degree of autonomy" that Beijing promised Hong Kong is set to expire. Wong said:

We still need to fight for democracy and true universal suffrage. We
need to think about what is the final aim for the democracy movement.
If we fight for democracy it’s not only to fight for universal suffrage,
we also need to use the vote…to fight for the future of Hong kong after
2047.

In the days following World War II, when the economic strength and power of the United States was all that stood between the world and the return to the Dark Ages, Pope Pius XII said, "The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish actions. Into the hands of America God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind."

"A shining city on the hill whose beacon light guide freedom-loving people everywhere" and "the last best hope of man on earth."

The silence from the nation's political leaders about the threat to democracy in Hong Kong is deafening. So is the silence about the torture and execution of Christians by Muslim extremists in the Middle East and Africa.

"Throw 'em under the tank!" Is that leading from behind really means?

Let the discussion begin...

To read Lily Quo's article in Quartz.com, click on the following link:
http://qz.com/428901/either-way-hong-kong-votes-this-week-democracy-loses/

1 Comment

From the "Fr. Pfleger" file: He's back...

6/15/2015

4 Comments

Fr. Michael Pfleger, a priest in good standing in the Archdiocese of Chicago, has always been somewhat of a firebrand. In his younger years, Fr. Pfleger had serious disagreements with Cardinal Cody. Pfleger seemed to fare much better with Cody's successor, Cardinal Bernardin. Then came Cardinal George and serious disagreements flared anew. With George's successor, Archbishop Blase Cupich, having arrived recently on the scene in the Windy City, it appears Fr. Pfleger is back.

No doubt about it, Fr. Pfleger is as passionate as ever about his ministry on Chicago's south and west sides. His original focus, social and economic justice for inner-city Black Americans, has now expanded into attacking head on the plague of violence--especially gun violence--affecting the people Fr. Pfleger serves.

Chicago boasts some of the nation's toughest gun laws. Yet, the Windy City also boasts some of highest gun violence statistics in the nation. All of this has led Fr. Pfleger to conclude that even more restrictive gun laws are needed. To wit: Fr. Pfleger appeared in a television advertisement endorsing Rham Emanuel who was running at the time for a second term as Chicago's Mayor.

That was nearly 1 year ago. More recently, an advertisement paid for by a Texas firearm parts manufacturer, Slide Fire, seems to have provided Fr. Pfleger a new target:The National Rifle Association (NRA).

Speaking last week with Philadelphia talk radio show host, Dom Giordano, Fr. Pfleger said:

I respect that people have the right to own guns. What I don’t respect is
the fact you’ve now made this a symbol of America. I just don’t really think
we want to make assault weapons on a billboard with an apple pie,
American baseball and a symbol of Christianity, calling that pure American.
I find that offensive. I find it offensive that they’ve said that they chose
Chicago because of the murder rate. This should be stopped…I strongly
disagree as an individual, as an American citizen, and as a pastor that
we want an assault weapon as a symbol of American life.

In Fr. Pfleger's estimation, the bogeyman in this particular story is the NRA which, he believes, is behind a push against what Pfleger calls "reasonable gun restrictions." Moreover, Pfleger argues that the NRA "is not concerned with the damage associated with gun violence." He said:

There’s no responsibility. The N.R.A. has fought even universal
background checks to make sure the mentally ill don’t get a gun.
The N.R.A. is paid for by gun manufacturers and gun manufacturers
have one thing in concern: making money.”

Those are inflamatory judgments, with Fr. Pfleger providing no supportive evidence.

Not one to step back from a food fight of this type, Fr. Pfleger took his crusade last week to St. George's Church on Chicago's southwest side. Calling out the NRA once again, Pfleger told the audience that the NRA had blood on its hands because of the violence in Chicago and elsewhere.

FOX 29 News Philadelphia | WTXF-TV

Obviously, not everyone concurs with Fr. Plfeger's assessment, especially "constitutionalists" who cite the 2nd amendment.

But, there's another, perhaps more substantive problem with Pfleger's assessment. His calls to remove the Slide Fire advertisment on the Stevenson Expressway because he finds it "offensive" would violate the 1st amendment's protection of free speech. Just because something said is "offensive" doesn't mean it can't be said. Should Fr. Pfleger be muzzled because people find what he says "offensive"?

Fr. Pfleger's feelings about social and economic injustice as well as violence--especially gun violence--are not only to be commended but they are also on target. Pfleger is also correct to call Catholics to task for sitting back and praying that things will get better, but not getting involved and doing their part to stand up against social and economic injustice as well as violence.

However, Fr. Pfleger might consider boning up a bit on the Constitution before arguing that its contents be violated to promote his social, political, economic, and ministerial agenda.

Let the discussion begin...

4 Comments

From the "those who worship at the altar of environmentalism" file: Pope Francis' encyclical Laudato Sii...

6/14/2015

1 Comment

As the date of the release of Pope Francis' encyclical concerning the environment--Laudato Sii--draws nigh on (it's scheduled to be released this Thursday, June 18), the rhetoric on both sides is heating up.

For those who worship at the altar of environmentalism, the encyclical is expected to be a "game changer." They're hoping it will generate a more broadly-held consensus about their sacred tenets concerning ecology, environmental destruction, and climate change. At least, that's what the National Catholic Reporter is suggesting.

For those who contest the hypothesis, that's the outcome they fear most. For example, one so-called "climate change denier"--known for his blog that attacks the so-called "scientific consensus"--Marc Morano, is quoted in The Guardian as stating:

I think sceptics have their work cut out for them to overpower the pope’s
influence. The pope being involved in this is a huge coup for promoters
of manmade global warming.

Morano's assessment will prove to be correct if the encyclical's contents veer away from theological matters and steer into political, social, economic, and scientific matters. Consider these potential outcomes:

Pope Francis will address Congress in September. Even if the Pope advocates the UN's climate change agenda, efforts to discredit his message on the part of those who deny the "scientific consensus" won't work. Why? This Pope appeals to a broad spectrum of people across the globe, not just Catholics. That's why the UN Secretary General used his visit with Pope Francis earlier this year to advocate including the UN's agenda regarding climate change in Laudate Sii.
Catholic schools and universities will teach to the encyclical's contents, elevating climate change to a moral imperative that, it will be said, rated high on Jesus' agenda and should be high on the agenda of every student graduating from those institutions. (An observation: Would that those institutions were equally assiduous in promoting Humanae Vitae for the past 5 decades.)
Many priests in the nation's 17k+ Catholic parishes will preach about it--like they did when the USCCB issued pastoral letters about nuclear weapons and the economy in the second half of the 20th century--perhaps drawing undue attention to climate change. Why? These priests will feel more comfortable discussing that more timely and relevant topic, thus avoiding scripture and Church teaching concerning other moral issues--like life, marriage, and family--which these priests view as "divisive" and "unwelcoming."

Contesting the Pope in the particular matter of climate change will position those individuals--labeled "Catholic climate change deniers"--as opposing Church teaching. That's what conservative Catholics fear most.

But that's nothing new. For decades, liberal Catholics have accused conservative Catholics of opposing the left's much-cherised "social justice" agenda. Likewise for conservative Catholics who for decades have accused liberal Catholics for opposing the right's much-cherished "pro-life" agenda.

All of today's rhetoric and potential outcomes are predicated upon the assumption that Pope Francis will stun the world with an encyclical that unconditionally accepts the sacred tenets of those who worship at the altar of environmentalism and have co-opted the United Nations to do their bidding. Having the Pope on their side would definitely be a "game changer."

That won't happen.

What Pope Francis is likely to do is to root his discussion in scripture and tradition. After all, there is no argument when it comes to the notion that God has entrusted the Earth to humanity to "rule over" and to "care for." There also is an expanding body of Church tradition concerning what this biblical mandate means and requires. And it is broader than the single issue of climate change. This tradition begins with scripture--namely, God and the dignity of every human beginning from conception until natural death--and expands into responsible stewardship for God's gifts. St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI both discussed these matters, the latter being dubbed "the Green Pope."

Expect Pope Francis to extend this discussion, perhaps invoking the term "integral ecology" to synthesize human, social, and natural ecology in a way that avoids focusing upon just one or two elements and distorts what God wants, as defined by scripture and Church teaching. After all, the Church already uses the term "integral education" to synthesize the intellectual, physical, psychological, moral, and religious dimensions of forming young people, one that is intentionally directed to the growth of the whole person.

Also expect Catholics who believe in climate change to cherry pick the encyclical for quotes that will favor their position. Conservative Catholics who are skeptical will do the same.

In the end, both will demonstrate that they're really not interested in what scripture or tradition teach and mandate for humanity. No, what they're really interested in is vindicating their this-worldly political, social, economic, and scientific viewpoints. And, they're more than willing to use Pope Francis and his encyclical to champion those viewpoints.

Pope Francis knows that. Hopefully, he won't step into that trap.

Let the discussion begin...

1 Comment

Lou Holtz: "Everyone is becoming flat, faithless, boring and obscene"...

6/13/2015

0 Comments

Legendary coach, Lou Holtz, delivered a "no holds barred" commencement speech at the Franciscan University of Stubenville recently. In his address, Holtz discussed his view about being Catholic, in general, and pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II Catholic men, in particular.

The pre-Vatican II men--what broadcaster Tom Brokaw alled the "greatest generation"--possessed humor, faith, humility, good grace, common sense, and a little brass, making them interesting. How so? According to Holtz, they possessed character" as well as something to say besides "Look at me, aren't I great?"

Many won't much care fore Holtz's assessment, as he described his fears about what will happen when this generation is gone. For example:

In their wake, cold atheists and apostates will be called in to give the commencement addresses, coach the teams, hold the offices. What will they say? What will make them interesting? What will give them character? Why will we want to listen when what formed them is so uninteresting compared to what came before?
The old Catholic Church before it became “relevant and modernized” had such a powerful impact on society, not only on souls but on character, on right living, on humor, on faith, on neighborhoods, on sports, on LIFE!
The great Jesuit schools all across the country, named for the missionaries who first brought Christ to the New World. And all the Catholic high schools and universities, such as Notre Dame, before it lost the faith after Vatican II, formed the movers and shakers of industry, academia, finance, sports, development, the arts, you name it.
The priests, the orphanages, the soup kitchens, the rest homes, the neighborhoods, the big Catholic families, the people—the Catholic thing formed the bedrock of what was right and good and happy and fun about America. But where has it gone? Why is it dying? What will replace it when it’s gone? Atheism? GLAAD? Theology of the Body? Puh-leeze!

All of this, Holtz observed, has lead to a "progressive new age where everyone is becoming flat, faithless, boring and obscene."

Holtz's viewpoint--which is inspirational but also looks at that era of U.S. Catholic history through "rose-colored glases"--reminded The Motley Monk of many of the sisters and priests who educated him: Wholesome innocence, full of faith, a good sense of self-effacing humor, and possessing practical wisdom that more oftentimes reinforced what was first taught at home. Those sisters and priests were also flawed, which made them human and approachable. Most were very interesting. And most have died.

Holtz is correct, on at least one count. Many--if not most--young Catholic males don't have it as good as their counterparts did 50-80 years ago. Hopefully, they will avail themselves of and find in the Church's teaching the Truth that will make them very interesting men, husbands, and fathers...like Coach Holtz. Men who speak their minds with courage of character and not "flat, faithless, boring, and obscene" men whose sole interest is themselves.

Let the discussion begin...

0 Comments

"Blackrobe" at St. Louis University: Cowering before politically correct authoritarianism...

6/12/2015

1 Comment

Over at The Wanderer, Patrick J. Buchanan provides an object lesson in just how far at least one Catholic university is willing to bend to the winds of politically correct authoritarianism.

This particular story focuses upon a Jesuit institution of U.S. higher education, St. Louis University (SLU). Officials there have announced that the heroic-sized statue of Fr. Pierre-Jean De Smet, SJ, will be removed from the front of Fusz Hall. The omnipresent statue has stood in that place for 6 decades. It depicts the 19th-century Jesuit missionary holding a crucifix alot as he preaches to 2 American Indians, one of whom is kneeling.

Why the decision to expunge Fr. De Smet from public view and to move him into SLU's art museum? Presumably, because few people will see it and for those who do, the statute can be explained in a more "appropriate" and "nuanced" context.

"Blackrobe," as Fr. De Smet was called, is reputed to have converted thousands of American Indians. A friend of Sitting Bull, Fr. De Smet spent his final years in St. Louis.

SLU Assistant Vice President for Communications Clayton Berry observed that "some faculty and staff…raised questions about whether the sculpture is culturally sensitive." One student, senior Ryan McKinley, didn't use such dlplospeaque: "The statue of De Smet depicts a history of colonialism, imperialism, racism, and of Christian and white supremacy."

The politically correct class now exercises undue authoritarianism and its members have decided that Fr. De Smet's mission of bringing the gospel to nonbelievers and converting them reveals a deep-seated pathology, at least accouring to "some faculty and staff" as well as some students.

Cowed into submission, SLU administrators have decided to expunge from promience what makes some people feel uncomfortable and, in turn, they have made SLU administrators feel very uncomfortable.

Their decision raises a fundamental question of institutional identity: What does it mean to be a Catholic and Jesuit university when its authentic history is relegated to a museum to assuage those whom that history makes feel uncomfortable?

Isn't that what exactly what the people did to Jesus? His teaching made them very feel uncomfortable, so much so they expunged him form their midst...and not to a museum.

Buchannan asks:"Why should not they themselves depart for another institution where their sensitivities will not be assaulted by artistic expressions of religious truths?"

He then concludes:

The message the SLU president should have given the dissenters is simple:
We are a Catholic university that welcomes students and faculty not of the
faith. But if you find our identity objectionable, then go somewhere else.
We are not changing who we are.

Let the discussion begin...

To read Patrick J. Buchannan's article, click on the following link:
http://thewandererpress.com/featured-today/cultural-cleansing-of-christian-males/

1 Comment

Give the President credit for being factual: Then look at what that really means...

6/11/2015

1 Comment

The President of the United States (POTUS) has been pounding the bully pulpit recently touting how his signature program, Obamacare, has slowed the growth in healthcare spending.

Give POTUS credit for stating what is factually accurate. Healthcare spending is down. Whether that correlates with Obamacare or not is debatable. But, what the heck? At least, POTUS is stating a fact.

What POTUS isn't saying, however, is far more significant and consumers know exactly what's up without know why: Out-of-pocket expenses for healthcare have been skyrocketting!

Some facts, care of the Institute for Policy Innovation:

In 1961, Americans spent 43 cents of every $1 out of pocket on healthcare. That out-of-pocket spending steadily declined so that, by 2010, consumers were spending 12 cents out of pocket. During the same period, third-party payers went from spending 57 cents out of every dollar to 88 cents.
When Obamacare was introduced in 2010, this 5-decades old trajectory of out-of-pocket spending reversed. By 2012, the out-of-pocket cost curve rose to 14.8% of total healthcare spending. In 2013, it was up to 15.2%, according to the Health Care Cost Institute.

Guess what? The new trajectory of the out-of-pocket cost curve isn't going to change. In fact, it will continue rising. Consumers will be stuck paying more and more of the cost of healthcare.

One very delicious irony: POTUS never intended any of this. Not understanding free market economics, POTUS and his Wizards of Smart thought Obamacare would reduce out-of-pocket spending by "spreading the wealth around."

So, it is true: The healthcare cost curve is bending down. But, consumers are also bending over because Obamacare is forcing them to grab their ankles, as deductibles under Obamacare have never been so high.

As the cover of the Economist noted so presciently, "This is going to hurt!"

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Institute for Policy Innovation study, click on the folowing link:
"Health Care Costs Are Declining Because You Are Paying More."

1 Comment

The time for USAs has come...

6/10/2015

1 Comment

Many economists complain that Americans don't "save" enough. Apparently, those economists don't believe that contributing to IRAs is a form of savings, despite the fact that most of those $$$s will provide retirement "savings" to those with IRAs.

Britian and Canada have experimented with, implemented, and are now expanding universal savings vehicles, according to the Cato Institute. Contributing after-tax $$$s, individuals can withdraw from these accounts at any time and for any reason. However, the incentive is NOT to withdraw needlessly because earnings (capital gains) are tax free.

In Britain, the contribution limit on Individual savings accounts has been raised to ~$23k.
Canada has doubled the annual contribution on its Tax-Free Savings Accounts to $10k.

Think about it: No need for college savings accounts, health savings accounts, and the like. A "one stop" place to save, tax free.

It's time for Congress to create "Universal Savings Accounts" (USAs). Using after-tax $$$s, earnings and withdrawals could be made at any time and for and reason. In addition, USAs would be tax-free. Simple. Flexible. Liquid.

Best of all, and as the Founding Fathers intended, USAs are pro-freedom, pro-family, and pro-growth.

Let the discussion begin...

To read about USAs, click on the following account:
"Universal Savings Accounts (USAs)."

1 Comment

"Don't let a good crisis go to waste": The feds are beginning college tuition "debt relief"...

6/9/2015

0 Comments

What better a way to build political good will among--and garner votes from--young adults who are carrying the burden of college debt than to provide them "debt relief"?

It's a great political strategy.

Gin up anxiety that without a college degree, no one will be able to survive in the new economy.
Provide the loans upfront especially those who have no visible means of paying the loans off.
With the economy in the tank and showing now signs of improving, there'll be no high-paying jobs for over-qualified graduates.
Awash in debt, they need relief.
Swoop in and come to the rescue by relieving their debt.

That's sure to win more than a few votes because those politicians are so "compasisonate."

As Rahm Emanuel famously observed, "Don't let a good crisis go to waste!"

The crisis the feds have decided to seize upon is the for-profit enterprise, Corinthian Colleges. The firm recently went into bankruptcy.

According to U.S. News and World Report, the crisis became a good crisis yesterday as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, Arne Duncan, announced a scheme that will forgive the debt of thousands of former students of Corinthian Colleges. But, don't be fooled. The spigot is merely being opened, sort of "slow drip" approach to work out the kinks. How so? The scheme is actually intended to extend loan forgivenesss to all federal borrowers who can prove they were defrauded by their college.

This scheme isn't just about Corinthian Colleges. It's about opening up debt relief to a vast pool of students soliciting statements from borrowers at other for-profit colleges to prove those institutions have engaged in predatory practices.

It just so happens that The Motley Monk believes that shutting down for-profit, higher education scam artists is an excellent idea. But, this approach to solving the problem isn't about a "White Knight" riding in on his high horse to save all of those students who didn't know any better and find themselves mired in debt, have no job, and they have no other means to pay off the debt incurred.

Q: Why have those for-profit colleges been thriving? Almost from out
of nowhere, they sprung up like weeds.
A: The federal government's college tuition loan program.

What's the White Knight's program going to cost taxpayers?

The ~40k students who took out loans to attend certain programs at the Corinthian-owned Heald College are eligible to have their debts erased. If all those former students applied, it would cost about ~$544M.
If all of the ~350k Corinthian students who took out federal loans in the past 5 years were successful in applying for debt relief, the cost to taxpayers would $3.5B.

And that's only 1 for-profit institution. What about all of the other students this scheme is intended to cover?

The real scam is that the feds act surprised. It's all an act, of course. They knew this crisis was coming down the pike from the very moment they expanded the number of students who would be loaned money to pay for college, just like the feds did when fueling the housing bubble. It was just a matter of time before the first domino fell. Now that the crisis they fueled has arrived, it's time not to let a good crisis go to waste.

The poor sheeple. They're getting scammed and aren't even aware.

Better yet: Guess who's ultimately going to foot the bill? The taxpayers, yes. However, not today...or tomorrow...or next year...or in five years. Just add those costs to the nation's debt. The irony is that when the U.S. debt comes due in 10 or 20 years, those who will be footing the bill will be all of those whose debt was forgiven.

Rule #1 in Life: There is no such thing as a "free lunch."

Let the discussion begin...

To read the U.S. News and World Report article, click on the following link:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/08/corinthian-colleges-students-get-expanded-debt-relief-options

0 Comments

The "Great Migration," the promised "Great Inversion," and the nation's troubled urban centers...

6/8/2015

New Geography has an interesting "take" on the recent riots in Baltimore, MD.

Some background to set the table:

The 6 most dangerous U.S. cities (in order):

Detroit
Oakland
Memphis
St. Louis
Cleveland
Baltimore

Common characteristics:

High %'age Black population.
Industrial era jobs gone.
Violent crime.

While many have focused upon the Black-White divide in these cities,
there's another divide that doesn't receive much attention. It's a Black-Black
divide:

Black suburbanites in Baltimore have higher incomes than their urban counterparts.
The life expectancy of Black suburbanites in Baltimore is 8 years-plus longer than their urban counterparts.

The "Great Migration"--Blacks moving from the South to northern industrial cities in search of jobs in the late-19th century and first half of the 20th century--worked economically and socially, in the sense that those jobs were available, the migrating Blacks filled them, and many of their children and grandchildren have left poverty behind. However, the Great Migration failed in the sense that the social sins of racism and segregation--culminating in the riots of the 1960s and the social and economic collapse that unfolded over the next 4 decades--has brought those urban centers and many of those residing in them to place where they are at today.

The assessment?

Not much has changed in the nation's urban centers.
A subtle form of "ethnic cleansing" has transpired.
Class, racial, and intra-racial divisions have hardened.
The "great inversion" positively impacted only a small percentage of the nation's urban population.
Poor people and/or minorities aren't prepared to find work in today's growth industries, namely, education, technology, and medical service.
The geography of fear in those urban centers remains very much what it was 50 years ago, as is evident in the 2015 Baltimore riots.

This outcome, despite the trillions of taxpayer $$$s spent on federal urban renewal programs over the past 50 years. More taxpayer $$$s and federal programs didn't and won't solve this social and economic problem.

So, the table is now set.

The solution?

Education.

Yes. Quality education. Real education. Solid education. Knowledge and content-based education. Demonstrated achievement education.

But, that's the problem. The kind of education that many poor parents and/or minority parents want for their childen--one that would get their children out of the current social and economic circumstances in which they find themselves--hasn't been and currently isn't being provided to their children.

Why? The urban public school monopoly and its teachers' unions certainly bear their share of the blame. But, the finger of blame must be pointed directly at the political party that has controlled those schools, the apparatus of apparatchiks asssociated with them, as well as the vast majority of voters in the nation's troubled urban centers. That political party--and those blindly supporting it--bears the lion's share of the blame.

In the end, who's better off? Certainly not the poor and/or minorities left behind. No. It's the leaders of that party who have been the winners of this lottery and need the poor and/or minorities to remain in power.

Sad to say, that situation hasn't changed for the past 50 years.

So much for "empowering" people.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the New Geography article, click on the following link:
"America's Cities Mirror Baltimore's Woes."

<<Previous

Meanwhile: The intergenerational theft continues:

national debt