A Priest, A Minister, and a Rabbi...

A Catholic, a Protestant, and a Jew stand united for religious freedom in today’s WSJ:

Coverage of this story has almost invariably been framed as a conflict between the federal government and the Catholic bishops. Zeroing in on the word "contraception," many commentators have taken delight in pointing to surveys about the use of contraceptives among Catholics, the message being that any infringement of religious freedom involves an idiosyncratic position that doesn't affect that many people.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Catholic Church's teaching on contraception (not to mention abortion and surgical sterilization) has been clear, consistent and public. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's decision would force Catholic institutions either to violate the moral teachings of the Catholic Church or abandon the health-care, education and social services they provide the needy. This is intolerable.

And while most evangelicals take a more permissive view of contraception, they share with Catholics the moral conviction that the taking of human life in utero, whether surgically or by abortifacient drugs, violates the basic human right to life. Evangelical nonprofits such as Prison Fellowship would therefore also have to choose between violating their consciences or paying fines that would ultimately destroy their ability to help the people they are committed to helping.

Even worse than the financial impact is the breach of faith represented by Ms. Sebelius's decision. Her notion of an "appropriate balance" between religious freedom and "increasing access" to "important preventive services" stands the First Amendment on its head.

Meanwhile, the Nihilist in Golf Pants is more sanguine about the prospects of lay Catholics recognizing the importance of the matter and responding appropriately:

I know you're skeptical of the typical Catholic reaction to the HHS mandate. I've got a few data points to consider:

- My parents attend a fairly conservative Church in Florida; their pastor told the congregation in no uncertain terms last week that they couldn't vote for Obama in good conscience. I'm sure the issue will come up again as November nears (the best part about this is it came one day after my mom accused me of exaggerating the impact of the decision).

- Two liberal Catholic Washington Post columnists, EJ Dionne and Melinda Henneberger have been critical of the decision to the point that they said it must be reversed for them to support Obama in November

- (I hesitate to mention this because it's internet hearsay but) on NDNation's political board, a well known poster who claims an ND BA and a Harvard JD and bragged all 2008 about his high place in the East Coast Obama campaign staff publicly denounced Obama, admitted that he was played for a fool and started that he won't vote for O even if he reverses his decision. Previously, he's espoused the position that a vote for Obama was completely consistent with the Catholic view of morality.

I predict a comfortable Republican victory in November.

I wish I could be so comfortable.

Keep Bailing

Tim from Colorado e-mails on the Chrysler ad kerfuffle:

The Chrysler Super Bowl ad has created a lot of talk. Some of it warranted and some of it a little silly, if you ask me. This on thearticle FoxNews website misses the major point, I think; I couldn't care less if the advertising firm that created the spot had a couple people who created stuff for Obama's campaign; it could be full of Obama relatives for all I care.

I will preface my remarks from here on by disclosing that I was born and raised in a GM town in Michigan; in my home town a Ford is a foreign car, ok? Many in my family have retired from or currently work for GM.

The part of this story that struck me was at the end of the article where Jay Carney attempts to defend the administration's decision to bail out the auto makers. Mr. Carney states that the president's decision to bail out GM and Chrysler saved 1 million jobs.

No, it didn't.

Ther bail-out smells at many levels.

GM and Chrysler weren't ever in a position where they would have been forced to close their doors. Each might have been forced into one form or another of bankruptcy; as a worst-case scenario, one or both would have been sold, but neither would have been liquidated in its entirety. Might some workers have been laid off? Sure; it's a bloated industry where union landscapers get paid $60,000+ a year to mow the grass. As it ended up, a lot of people who worked at dealerships were let go as the Obama Administration dictated that some dealerships be closed; those folks were not UAW members, so tough luck for them I guess.

Bankruptcy would have allowed each to renegociate labor contracts and retirement benefits. Built-in to the sticker price of each car produced in Detroit is a few thousand dollars to pay benefits to people who no longer work for the company. Bankruptcy would have allowed GM and Chrysler to be more competitive the minute they walked out of the bankruptcy proceedings, making them competitive stateside as well as globally. As it turned out TARP money went into the underfunded pension funds for UAW retirees. I worked for ENRON up until the end; where's my federally-backed pension?

What did happen and shouldn't have been allowed to happen was the Administration pushing an unsecured creditor, the UAW, ahead of secured creditors. What does this say to potential foreign investors? What it says is "Whatever you do, don't invest in US companies; the US Govt. may decide to overlook your secured credit and reward its political cronies first."

As a side note, the Chrysler commercial was filmed in New Orleans, not Detroit. I get that New Orleans is still recovering from Hurricane Katrina, but when is the Hollywood Welfare for Louisiana going to slow down? On cable TV we have "Swamp People", "Swamp Loggers", "Cajun Pawn Stars", "Sons of Guns", ad nauseum. Couldn't the Chrysler commercial's producers throw a bone to a few Detroit neighborhoods? And if Chrysler was complicit in the decision to film the copmmercial in New Orleans, then shame on them.

If I owned a Dodge..., well, never mind, that's just crazy talk.

Down With the Ship

For the record, I stuck to my guns last night at the precinct caucuses and cast my straw poll vote for Newt Gingrich (he actually won 21% of the votes in our precinct which went 9 Paul 7 Santorum 7 Romney and 6 Gingrich). Given the way things played out in our state and Colorado and Missouri, it seems increasingly likely that the final nail has been put into the Gingrich campaign's coffin. Newt's been written off for dead before of course, but its hard to see how he possibly can recover at this stage.

While I didn't join many of my fellow Anybody But Romney travelers and support Rick Santorum, I'm encouraged that Minnesota caucus goers put him at the top of the straw poll (unbinding of course). It would have been easy to roll over and accept the inevitability of Mitt Romney. The fact that voters in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado did not shows that there are still have serious concerns about Romney's candidacy among hardcore Republicans and Romney is going to have do a much better job alleviating them than he has so far.

One thing that should be noted from last night's results in Minnesota is that it's likely that Paul and Romney support among delegates elected to the local BPOU conventions is much stronger than their showing in the straw poll. It remains to be seen whether this will matter or not in the long run, but if the race stays close and isn't concluded in the near future, it certainly could.

Love the One You're With?

Tonight’s precinct caucuses give Minnesota Republicans a chance to have a say in which candidate is best-suited to face President Obama in November. Well, not really. The results of tonight’s vote are non-binding, which means no delegates will be awarded based on them. Which is the same way it works in a certain neighboring state whose caucus attract a great deal more attention. At least we should be able to conduct an accurate and timely count of the vote.

At this point, I’m torn about which way I should vote. I followed fellow Frater Saint Paul in jumping on the Gingrich bandwagon after he appeared to be the best and most viable alternative to Romney. While I still like a lot about Newt, his viability as the non-Romney candidate has now come into serious question. While I definitely think Ron Paul and his paleo-libertarian views have a place in the Republican Party, he is simply not a serious consideration for CIC. That leaves us with Rick Santorum. While Santorum raises concerns in a number of areas, it seems like he may now be best positioned to emerge as the chief contender to Romney. Wins in Minnesota and Missouri could help his campaign regain the momentum they briefly had (and lost) after the Iowa caucus. And a late switch to Santorum wouldn’t violate the Buckley Rule: “Support the most conservative Catholic candidate who is electable.” Okay, I may have added a little corollary there.

Pondering who to support tonight also lead to the realization that when it comes to GOP presidential primary endorsements (at least the contested ones), I’ve rarely had the privilege of been able to support a candidate from start to finish.

It started way back in 1980. Believe it or not, I was actually backing George H.W. Bush at the beginning of the primary campaign. Once it became obvious that Reagan was the man of the hour, I realized the error of my ways and became a confirmed Reaganite. Keep in mind that I was all of eleven at the time.

I don’t really consider 1988 to be much of a contest as Bush was the sitting VP and natural choice.

1996 was a different matter. Early on, I was actually intrigued by the candidacy of one Lamar Alexander. Yes, that Lamar Alexander. Anyway, once Lamarmentum failed to catch hold, I reluctantly came over to support the sacrificial lamb known as Bob Dole.

In 2000, I started out as a tepid supporter of George W. Bush. The media’s infatuation with “maverick” John McCain eliminated him from consideration and although I liked Steve Forbes’ policies, I just couldn’t see him winning a national election.

Going in to 2008, I was excited about having Rudy Giuliani in the hunt. Then there was the Fred Thompson bubble. Remember Sam Brownback? Finally, I settled (again) with John McCain.

Then there were the ones who never ran like Tommy Thompson or that former South Carolina governor who I was at one point convinced would make a fine candidate for president. Sigh. I’m not sure if this history is a indictment of my judgment or that of my fellow Republicans.

One thing is certain. No matter who I decide to vote for tonight, they won’t be the one I really want.

The Ice We Skate

This year has been a trying one for those of us in the business of building and maintaining backyard rinks. The weather has been mostly uncooperative for the period of time when it’s usually possible to support decent outdoor ice here in Minnesota (sometime from early-December to mid-to-late February depending on the year). Too many warm days and far too few cold ones made it difficult to first get that initial base you need to build on and then to refreeze and enjoy the ice regularly afterward.

It wasn’t until after Christmas that I was finally able to get said base established and it’s been a struggle since then to find days when the ice was suitable for skating. The weekend before last was one of the few all winter that had two decent days ice wise and we were lucky enough to be able to get out on both of them. Yesterday, we laced ‘em up for a quick skate before the Super Bowl and considering how mild the temps have been lately, the ice was actually surprisingly decent. But overall this year, the payoff that you get from being able to play on the rink has not been up to expectations given the effort involved in setting it up.

Which is part of the bargain of course. Backyard rink builders are like farmers in that we’re at the mercy of the weather when it comes to the quality of the product that we’ll be able to deliver. At least for us, it’s just a hobby and not a livelihood. And as disappointing as the results have been this year, it’s still an experience that I’m glad to have gone through. This is my second year working on a backyard rink and the weather, and associated challenges that come with it, has been almost entirely different from the inaugural season. Cold wasn’t as much of an issue last year as trying to keep the rink clear of snow. Hopefully, dealing with those differences has helped prepare me for further unpredictable conditions in future seasons.

This year’s rink was also a bit bigger than last year’s and that expansion, while not significant, presented its own challenges. I’ve probably reached the point where any further growth in the rink’s size would require some leveling of the yard. I’d have to weigh the cost/benefits of that carefully. I have already given thought to adding boards to next year’s edition. I considered it for a while this year, but the delays brought about by the mild temps diminished my enthusiasm for that additional effort. Besides at this point, the kids don’t have much of a problem keeping the puck or tennis ball within the current confines of the rink’s short walls. But next year...

One of the pleasures of the backyard rink is the feeling of satisfaction-however fleeting it may have been this year-of putting together and then enjoying something all of your own doing. And for those of us who sit in offices and bang on keyboards or talk on telephones all day long there is also the physical element required in it and working with (and sometimes against) nature and the elements. Not the things you get to experience when you’re putting together a PowerPoint presentation. So even in a year such as this when the rewards are small, the effort is still worthwhile.

It’s almost ironic that as we approach what would normally be the beginning of the end of the outdoor ice season, the forecast for the rest of this week actually calls for weather suitable for ice making (with a high of thirteen and low of six on Friday for example). And it’s also the week where we depart for a family vacation to Florida. Upon our return home, it’s highly unlikely that we’ll see such cooperative conditions again which means that the useful season for our rink probably ends this week. The kids will still have fun enough playing on the ice and breaking it apart as it melts with the coming of spring, but the skating days are over. Until next year.

Where Are All the People?

There seems to be a widespread assumption that the Obama administration’s recent assault on religious liberty and freedom of conscience will be met with widespread resistance by American Catholics. While it appears that some Catholic leaders are responding thusly, I remain skeptical that there will any kind of mass Catholic backlash against President Obama because of this. For if the laity is to become engaged in the battle in a meaningful way, the people in the pews must be shaken out of their current passivity.

Many Catholics seem all too willing to erect their own wall between church and state and like to pretend that their politics has nothing to do with the Catholic Church and vice versa. The problem is that when the government breaks through that barrier and injects itself into the affairs of the Church by attempting to force it to accept policies that violate core tenants of its beliefs, the illusion of this happy little coexistence is shattered. Well, at least it would be if the Church were more consistent and forceful in explaining exactly what is taking place and why it matters to American Catholics.

My experience may not be typical, but so far little word of this current controversy has surfaced in our parish on any given Sunday. A few months ago, there was an insert in the bulletin that touched on it. Since then, nothing. No homilies, no presentations, no mention in the weekly bulletin. The only thing related to politics that has merited attention has been on the marriage front, with updates on the Minnesota Marriage Amendment appearing in the last few bulletins. But nothing on the Obamacare rules which are a direct threat to the freedom of the Catholic Church to exercise its religious beliefs.

In order for there to be action, there needs to be a call for it first. I fear that too many Catholic leaders are still reluctant to sound it.

The Bellweather Next Door

Gary Larson on what the effort to recall Governor Walker means to Wisconsin and how it could serve as a prelude to November's national election:

Pouring untold millions in recall elections effort, state and national unions seek now to overturn the results of the last real election. Recall looms for Gov. Walker and four Republicans legislators similarly targeted for their reformist ways.

Unions seek a form of jury disqualification on a massive, statewide scale. Facts are immaterial in labor-induced wars to get their way. Unions' collective wish here in Wisconsin is to restore a pushover state government which labor can “bargain” with (a-ha!) for members' privileges, a.k.a. entitlements, with payoffs at the end to legislators falling in line with their demand.

Frequently referred to — both by union biggies and their allies in news media, as “union rights,” somehow immutable, or Heaven-sent. They are not; rather these are man-made revocable labor contracts masquerading as “rights.”

Outcomes of the recall elections will cast a shadow on national elections in November. In essence, one central issue – unrestrained government spending – dominates. And then, the $15-plus trillion dollar question will be answered: Do Americans really care about budget restraints, about shared sacrifices, about living within means, about bloated labor contracts, etc.? Or opt to continue to saddle their grandkids with massive, unsustainable debt loads?