Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Here is a perfect example of what I'm referring to below.

Problem: In this country 1.5 million unborn children are killed each year by abortion.
Solution ???? Pound the pope and the Vatican for giving an honor to a politician form an island nation who once voted to legalize abortion in cases of rape and incest.

From here on out, my standard response when asked to be outraged about things like this will be, "and how many unborn children will this save?"

And we wonder why people think we're not really serious about ending abortion...

UPDATE: For those coming from Mark Shea's blog, I should add that while the bill Hunte voted for did only allow abortion is cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, I should add that he was also quoted as saying, "I think every woman must have a choice. I am a pro-choice man." I don't know if that means the same thing in St. Lucia as in the US, but it would be an additional reason to question the knighthood.

I've apologized to Mark, and I apologize to any I've misled.

Monday, September 27, 2004


I'll help movements that aid women with unexpected pregnancies, and give them the resources to help them choose life.
I will support pro-life legislation, including bans on research that destroys embryos.
I will make abortion the first and most important issue when choosing which candidates to support and vote for.
I will support my bishop if he judges it appropriate to deny communion to pro-choice politicians (a mine has).

I will not badger my bishop (or any other bishop) if he does not judge it appropriate to deny communion to pro-choice politicians.
I will not protest Catholic insitutions that honor pro-choice politicians or host pro-choice speakers.
I will not blast bishops for meeting with pro-choice politicians.
I will not work to drive people who support pro-choice politicians out of the Church.

Basically, if it's more than one degree removed from either preventing an actual abortion or providing justice for its victims, I'm out.

I think the problem that the pro-life movement faces right now isn't that people don't think we're not serious about it or think it's important; but they see us as self-rightous prigs, and don't really want to be associated with us.

The facts are on our side. 3-D ultrasound, and the experiences of women who have had abortion are making it more and more difficult to deny the great tragedy of abortion.

This is an opportunity for us to reach out and pull more people onto our side. But I fear that when they come to check us out, they see us spending more time making sure everyone is absolutely pure than in stopping the killing. And they're turned off. They think we're not serious about saving unborn lives. And they go away.

If you're interested in stopping abortion, I'm with you. If you're interested in taking this pro-choice politician down a peg so that you can take his spot, then you best move along.

And the same goes for marriage.

Thursday, September 16, 2004

What if analysis of the Linda Tripp / Monica Lewinsky tape were strongly suspected to be fakes, say, because Lewinskly referred to events she would likely have no knowledge of? And what if the conservative press had released those tapes to break the Lewinsky story, and then stood by it becuase nobody was confronting the larger truth that Clinton has a wandering eye? Do you think they'd get away with it?

That seems to be what Dan Rather and CBS are trying to do here:

Having said that, 60 Minutes feels that it's important to underscore this point: Those who have criticized aspects of our story have never criticized the major thrust of our report -- that George Bush received preferential treatment to get into the National Guard, and once accepted, failed to satisfy the requirements of his service. If we uncover any information to the contrary, that information will also be reported.

Of course, it's impossible to prove that Bush never received preferential treatment. What would be damaging in my mind would be if his family applied pressure for preferential treatment, or if he disobeyted direct orders. That's what the documents showed. Without them, CBS doesn't have much that we didn't know before.

And the "information to the contrary" would be Bush's honorable discharge forom the gurad, wouldn't it?

With this statement, CBS has pretty much declared that it's out of the news business and into the agenda business. What they're saying is it's OK (or at least not terribly bad) to use fabricated evidence so long as it is in service of a point that we all know is true.

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Given three candidates, one totally in line with the Church's teachings, one a typical liberal Democrat, pro-choice, but for a variety of social services for the poor and generally disposed against war, and a typical conservative Republican, pro-life, but more inclined to war and against social services for the poor, I wonder which one would get the most Catholic votes.

Friday, September 03, 2004

Becuase, if this post is a guide, you could easily sell him a used car telling him that the previous owner was a socail conservative who only dorve it to church on Sunday.

While we're here, it's intersting to see how this champion of privacy took glee in the revelation of a political adversary's semi-private sins. I think a lot of those who all of a sudden discovered detraction was sin when a poltical ally was the target are off-base, but I also don't have a record of believing that the privacy of an adulterous affair is more important than a missing person investigation.

UPDATE: Sullivan has now posted another version of every reader letter he ever posted.

Thursday, September 02, 2004

Watching Cheney's speech last night, and more precisely the crowd's reaction to it, I can't get past the feeling that this is a party that loves war, rejoices in the opportunity to fight war, and can't wait for the next chance to fight another war.

"Ladies and gentlemen, we already have been attacked" was delivered as an applause line. There's something sick and perverse about whooping it up over the loss of 3,000 lives, regardless of the political advantage it may give your party. Yes, the delegates would say they were applauding that Cheney recognizes that we were attacked, but it's still an odd thing to celebrate.

The big winning line seems to be that the US won't defer to the UN in determining whether to pursue war. Well, excuse me, but who was right and who was wrong about Iraq's WMD's? Yes, maybe the UN was right for the wrong reasons, but it seems odd to me that the Republicans would be bragging about eschewing the UN when the one time it did so it was proven wrong.

The message seemed to be that a vote for the Republicans is a vote for continuous war. The delegates seemed to like that. I don't.

I know this will piss off a lot of the Catholic bloggers out here, but I'm going to have a very hard time voting to keep these people in power. It seems to me that the tendency of the government to see war as an option is as important an abortion policy, and is very much in play in this election.

The worldview espoused last night is almost the antithesis of the world view espoused by the Holy Father. It's hard for me to overlook that just because they mouth some pro-life platitudes in the middle of the afternoon when nobody's listening.