George Weigel had a lengthy, but well worth the read article in the December edition of First Things on what the proper role of the Catholic Church should be when it comes to the public square:
The postconciliar tendency of Catholic public policy agencies to take a position on almost everything also distorts the social doctrine of the Church. The Church does not have plenary competence in the public sphere. She cannot state that the American presidential-congressional system is preferable to the Westminster parliamentary system, or that a bicameral legislature is superior to a unicameral legislature. The Church has no competence to declare that legislative action should or should not be subject to judicial review, or that there are “implied powers” in any executive office, or where the prime rate should be set, or on which side of the road driving should occur.
The Church does have the competence to teach that taxation is just, for to pay taxes is a matter of exercising one’s responsibility to the common good. The Church has no competence to suggest that its social doctrine contains clear instructions on what constitute just rates of taxation, and it demeans its social witness (and misapplies its own social doctrine) when it does so through agencies of its pastors.
The Church has the right and the duty to teach that a just society makes provision for the elderly, the sick, and the severely handicapped who, for reasons beyond their control, cannot care for themselves. The Church has no competence to pronounce on whether that societal obligation is best met by state-mandated and tax-funded programs, by private- and independent-sector programs, or by some mix of the two.
To suggest otherwise not only overestimates the Church’s competence; it also tends to obscure her priorities. When the Church’s chief pastors or their public policy agencies intervene in the public policy-process on a vast array of matters that do not, except in the remotest sense, touch on questions of first principles or on areas of the Church’s special competence, they inevitably suggest that all issues are equal in the eyes of the Catholic Church. This lack of discipline dissipates energies that could be better applied in a more focused way.
Weigel’s effort to set boundaries and limits to what the Church’s role should be is admirable and long overdue. He’s exactly right that while the Church can and should teach about obligations and duties that its members have when it comes to things like taxes and caring for the elderly, disabled, and poor, the Church should not get involved in the exacting details about how these obligations and duties should be exercised. Whether the marginal tax rate of individuals earning over $250,000 a year should be increased by 2% is not something the Church needs to weigh in on. Or whether the biennial budget for the state of Minnesota should be $37.5 billion or $39 billion dollars. As Weigel notes, the Church needs to stick to the first principles lest it get bogged down in trying to influence everything and thus end up influencing nothing.
Another key suggestion from Weigel is that the Church and its leaders stop trying to play the role of a special interest group that seeks a place at the table in the political process. Instead, he believes that the Church should seek to educate, inform, and engage with the folks in the pews on what the Church’s teaching is on these first principles and what those teachings mean to the pertinent issues of the day. The power of the Church is indeed with its people and they are the ones-if given proper guidance-who can most effect the public policy changes the Church would like to see take place.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Ours Not To Reason Why
Tim from Colorado e-mails to comment on a variety of subjects:
I read your post about not being able to use your “portable electronic devices” while waiting to be de-iced, which can often take a half-hour or so. I’m sure it isn’t lost on you that as soon as you land, AS SOON AS YOU LAND, the same flight crew will get on the PA to inform you that you may then use your “portable electronic devices” WHILE YOU’RE STIL ON THE RUNWAY!!!
Second, when I heard one of the talk shows mention the Reasonable Profits Board, it made me think that the likes of Kucinich, Wasserman-Schultz, Pelosi, et al, must have read Atlas Shrugged and think it’s one of Michael Moore’s documentaries. The folly of such ideas is obviously lost on them.
Lastly, I was recently in Kentucky and a couple local micro-breweries make a beer that is shortly stored in old bourbon barrels, where it picks up a bourbon flavor, not to mention a couple points on the alcohol meter. It makes for an interesting taste. Not something I want to have every time, but an interesting change of pace. If you’re ever in Louisville, check out the version served by the Troll Pub Under The Bridge.
I have not been to Louisville yet, but if I ever do visit the Derby City I shall seek out said delicious sounding brew. Hard to see how any combination of bourbon and beer couldn't work well together.
I read your post about not being able to use your “portable electronic devices” while waiting to be de-iced, which can often take a half-hour or so. I’m sure it isn’t lost on you that as soon as you land, AS SOON AS YOU LAND, the same flight crew will get on the PA to inform you that you may then use your “portable electronic devices” WHILE YOU’RE STIL ON THE RUNWAY!!!
Second, when I heard one of the talk shows mention the Reasonable Profits Board, it made me think that the likes of Kucinich, Wasserman-Schultz, Pelosi, et al, must have read Atlas Shrugged and think it’s one of Michael Moore’s documentaries. The folly of such ideas is obviously lost on them.
Lastly, I was recently in Kentucky and a couple local micro-breweries make a beer that is shortly stored in old bourbon barrels, where it picks up a bourbon flavor, not to mention a couple points on the alcohol meter. It makes for an interesting taste. Not something I want to have every time, but an interesting change of pace. If you’re ever in Louisville, check out the version served by the Troll Pub Under The Bridge.
I have not been to Louisville yet, but if I ever do visit the Derby City I shall seek out said delicious sounding brew. Hard to see how any combination of bourbon and beer couldn't work well together.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
The Wrong Crowd
An editorial in today's WSJ took Norm Coleman to task for his recent comments about repealing ObamaCare and hit the former Senator where it hurts:
Over the weekend the former Minnesota Senator resurfaced for some reason on a panel on the public-affairs program "BioCentury This Week," which airs in the D.C. market. "I'm saying you're not going to repeal the act in its entirety but you will see major changes—particularly, by the way, if there's a Republican President, you will see major changes," Mr. Coleman said. "So you can't whole cloth throw it out, but you can substantially change what's been done."
Judy Feder, a Georgetown health policy professor, chimed in to say that "I'm happy to hear Senator Coleman say, essentially, health-care reform is going to stick."
It was a remarkable admission, especially given the aspiring Republican President whose ear Mr. Coleman happens to have. Then again, it may also be evidence of his kind of crack political thinking that couldn't outwit Al Franken of all people in the 2008 race and again in the 2009 recount and thus provided the 60th Senate vote for ObamaCare.
You can't really argue with the editorial's logic: losing to Franken (and previously to Jesse Ventura) should disqualify Coleman's opinion on matters political for pretty much forever. And it does call Mitt Romney's judgment into question as well for seeking counsel from the credibility challenged Coleman.
SISYPHUS COMES TO NORM'S DEFENSE: The Elder conveniently forgets to mention that Norm Coleman did defeat Walter Mondale ... er, nevermind.
Over the weekend the former Minnesota Senator resurfaced for some reason on a panel on the public-affairs program "BioCentury This Week," which airs in the D.C. market. "I'm saying you're not going to repeal the act in its entirety but you will see major changes—particularly, by the way, if there's a Republican President, you will see major changes," Mr. Coleman said. "So you can't whole cloth throw it out, but you can substantially change what's been done."
Judy Feder, a Georgetown health policy professor, chimed in to say that "I'm happy to hear Senator Coleman say, essentially, health-care reform is going to stick."
It was a remarkable admission, especially given the aspiring Republican President whose ear Mr. Coleman happens to have. Then again, it may also be evidence of his kind of crack political thinking that couldn't outwit Al Franken of all people in the 2008 race and again in the 2009 recount and thus provided the 60th Senate vote for ObamaCare.
You can't really argue with the editorial's logic: losing to Franken (and previously to Jesse Ventura) should disqualify Coleman's opinion on matters political for pretty much forever. And it does call Mitt Romney's judgment into question as well for seeking counsel from the credibility challenged Coleman.
SISYPHUS COMES TO NORM'S DEFENSE: The Elder conveniently forgets to mention that Norm Coleman did defeat Walter Mondale ... er, nevermind.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
I Might Be Crazy But I Ain't Dumb
Byron York on what really happened in the Gingrich ethics case?:
Given all the attention to the ethics matter, it's worth asking what actually happened back in 1995, 1996, and 1997. The Gingrich case was extraordinarily complex, intensely partisan, and driven in no small way by a personal vendetta on the part of one of Gingrich's former political opponents. It received saturation coverage in the press; a database search of major media outlets revealed more than 10,000 references to Gingrich's ethics problems during the six months leading to his reprimand. It ended with a special counsel hired by the House Ethics Committee holding Gingrich to an astonishingly strict standard of behavior, after which Gingrich in essence pled guilty to two minor offenses. Afterwards, the case was referred to the Internal Revenue Service, which conducted an exhaustive investigation into the matter. And then, after it was all over and Gingrich was out of office, the IRS concluded that Gingrich did nothing wrong. After all the struggle, Gingrich was exonerated.
I wrote about the matter at the time, first in a 1995 article about Gingrich's accusers and then in a 1999 piece on the Internal Revenue Service report that cleared Gingrich. (Both pieces were for The American Spectator; I'm drawing on them extensively, but unfortunately neither is available online.)
At the center of the controversy was a course Gingrich taught from 1993 to 1995 at two small Georgia colleges. The wide-ranging class, called "Renewing American Civilization," was conceived by Gingrich and financed by a tax-exempt organization called the Progress and Freedom Foundation. Gingrich maintained that the course was a legitimate educational enterprise; his critics contended that it had little to do with learning and was in fact a political exercise in which Gingrich abused a tax-exempt foundation to spread his own partisan message.
The Gingrich case was driven in significant part by a man named Ben Jones. An actor and recovered alcoholic who became famous for playing the dim-witted Cooter in the popular 1980s TV show The Dukes of Hazzard, Jones ran for Congress as a Democrat from Georgia in 1988. He won and served two terms. He lost his bid for re-election after re-districting in 1992, and tried again with a run against Gingrich in 1994. Jones lost decisively, and after that, it is fair to say he became obsessed with bringing Gingrich down.
Cooter? Enough said.
Given all the attention to the ethics matter, it's worth asking what actually happened back in 1995, 1996, and 1997. The Gingrich case was extraordinarily complex, intensely partisan, and driven in no small way by a personal vendetta on the part of one of Gingrich's former political opponents. It received saturation coverage in the press; a database search of major media outlets revealed more than 10,000 references to Gingrich's ethics problems during the six months leading to his reprimand. It ended with a special counsel hired by the House Ethics Committee holding Gingrich to an astonishingly strict standard of behavior, after which Gingrich in essence pled guilty to two minor offenses. Afterwards, the case was referred to the Internal Revenue Service, which conducted an exhaustive investigation into the matter. And then, after it was all over and Gingrich was out of office, the IRS concluded that Gingrich did nothing wrong. After all the struggle, Gingrich was exonerated.
I wrote about the matter at the time, first in a 1995 article about Gingrich's accusers and then in a 1999 piece on the Internal Revenue Service report that cleared Gingrich. (Both pieces were for The American Spectator; I'm drawing on them extensively, but unfortunately neither is available online.)
At the center of the controversy was a course Gingrich taught from 1993 to 1995 at two small Georgia colleges. The wide-ranging class, called "Renewing American Civilization," was conceived by Gingrich and financed by a tax-exempt organization called the Progress and Freedom Foundation. Gingrich maintained that the course was a legitimate educational enterprise; his critics contended that it had little to do with learning and was in fact a political exercise in which Gingrich abused a tax-exempt foundation to spread his own partisan message.
The Gingrich case was driven in significant part by a man named Ben Jones. An actor and recovered alcoholic who became famous for playing the dim-witted Cooter in the popular 1980s TV show The Dukes of Hazzard, Jones ran for Congress as a Democrat from Georgia in 1988. He won and served two terms. He lost his bid for re-election after re-districting in 1992, and tried again with a run against Gingrich in 1994. Jones lost decisively, and after that, it is fair to say he became obsessed with bringing Gingrich down.
Cooter? Enough said.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Tongue-tied and Twisted Just an Earthbound Misfit
There should be a sign over the doorway of all commercial aircraft operating in the United States that reads "Abandon all hope of common sense all ye who enter here." The latest example that I personally observed of the ridicuous rigid and often ill-logical rules that govern the conduct of passengers in the skies over the nation that claims to be the land of the brave and the home of the free occurred yesterday morning.
My flight out of Minneapolis was delayed due to a sleety snowfall that was pelting the area. Before we even left the gate, the captain informed us that the flight would not depart as scheduled because the aircraft would have to be de-iced before takeoff. As we prepared to taxi to the area where the plane would be doused with chemicals to avoid icy buildup on the wings, the flight attendant came on to make the cursory announcement that we were preparing to depart and that ALL electronics devices MUST be turned off and stowed.
Mind you this was shortly after the captain had already told us that we wouldn't be departing anywhere anytime soon. So during the short taxi to the tarmac where the aircraft would be de-iced and during the time that said de-cing was taking place it was VERBOTEN for anyone on the plane to turn on their Kindle or cell phone or iPod. Because using such devices could, you know, cause yet to ever be clearly defined or explained dirruptions to FLIGHT operations. This despite the fact that everyone aboard knew there was no chance that our plane would be achieving said state of travel above the ground in the near term future.
Yeah, makes perfect sense to me.
My flight out of Minneapolis was delayed due to a sleety snowfall that was pelting the area. Before we even left the gate, the captain informed us that the flight would not depart as scheduled because the aircraft would have to be de-iced before takeoff. As we prepared to taxi to the area where the plane would be doused with chemicals to avoid icy buildup on the wings, the flight attendant came on to make the cursory announcement that we were preparing to depart and that ALL electronics devices MUST be turned off and stowed.
Mind you this was shortly after the captain had already told us that we wouldn't be departing anywhere anytime soon. So during the short taxi to the tarmac where the aircraft would be de-iced and during the time that said de-cing was taking place it was VERBOTEN for anyone on the plane to turn on their Kindle or cell phone or iPod. Because using such devices could, you know, cause yet to ever be clearly defined or explained dirruptions to FLIGHT operations. This despite the fact that everyone aboard knew there was no chance that our plane would be achieving said state of travel above the ground in the near term future.
Yeah, makes perfect sense to me.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Beer of the Week (Vol. CXXXI)
Another edition of Beer of the Week sponsored as always by the other worldly folks at Glen Lake Wine & Spirits who can help you explore the ever expanding universe of wine, whiskey, and beer.
This week, we turn our attention from the seasonal beers of winter to another style that’s well suited to the colder conditions. Porter:
Porter is a dark style of beer originating in London in the 18th Century. The name came about as a result of its popularity with street and river porters.
The history and development of stout and porter are intertwined. The name "stout" for a dark beer is believed to have come about because a strong porter may be called "Extra Porter" or "Double Porter" or "Stout Porter". The term "Stout Porter" would later be shortened to just "Stout". For example, Guinness Extra Stout was originally called "Extra Superior Porter" and was only given the name Extra Stout in 1840.
Despite their shared lineage, porters don’t seem to be as popular as stouts among craft brewers which is a shame because there’s nothing better than a good porter to provide comfort on a chilly night. Our beer this week is another offering from Flat Earth Brewing in Saint Paul. Flat Earth Cygnus X-1 Porter:
Named after a black hole and a song, this is a porter like no other. We took an old English porter recipe, added some rye malt, and our porter was born. This brew floods your palate with hints of chocolate, biscuit and all-around roasty goodness with just a touch of smoke that finishes dry but is not overpowering. Perfect with roasts or fowl. Enjoy by the fire, and it will certainly warm you on any cold evening in the Great White North.
A black hole, a song, and the Great White North? Not too difficult to connect the dots on that one.
22oz brown bomber bottle that goes for a very reasonable $3.99. Black label with namesake black hole on top and Flat Earth’s trademark man in a barrel on bottom and universe in background.
STYLE: Porter
ALCOHOL BY VOLUME: 6.5%
COLOR (0-2): Dark black. 2
AROMA (0-2): Roasted malt with a whiff of chocolate. 2
HEAD (0-2): Tan without much volume fades quickly. 1
TASTE (0-5): Mostly malty and biscuity with some flavors of coffee and chocolate. A slight touch of sour and bitter at the finish. It has a thin mouthfeel and a heavier body. Probably one that you’ll want to sip rather than slam. 3
AFTERTASTE (0-2): Rich flavors that linger. 2
OVERALL (0-6): Flat Earth’s Cygnus X-1 Porter is a good example of the porter style. The flavors are decent, but a bit underwhelming and I prefer more robustness in a porter. The flavors do come out more as it warms so you’ll want to be sure not to drink it straight from the fridge. Overall for a porter, I’d say it’s acceptable if unexciting. 4
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 14
This week, we turn our attention from the seasonal beers of winter to another style that’s well suited to the colder conditions. Porter:
Porter is a dark style of beer originating in London in the 18th Century. The name came about as a result of its popularity with street and river porters.
The history and development of stout and porter are intertwined. The name "stout" for a dark beer is believed to have come about because a strong porter may be called "Extra Porter" or "Double Porter" or "Stout Porter". The term "Stout Porter" would later be shortened to just "Stout". For example, Guinness Extra Stout was originally called "Extra Superior Porter" and was only given the name Extra Stout in 1840.
Despite their shared lineage, porters don’t seem to be as popular as stouts among craft brewers which is a shame because there’s nothing better than a good porter to provide comfort on a chilly night. Our beer this week is another offering from Flat Earth Brewing in Saint Paul. Flat Earth Cygnus X-1 Porter:
Named after a black hole and a song, this is a porter like no other. We took an old English porter recipe, added some rye malt, and our porter was born. This brew floods your palate with hints of chocolate, biscuit and all-around roasty goodness with just a touch of smoke that finishes dry but is not overpowering. Perfect with roasts or fowl. Enjoy by the fire, and it will certainly warm you on any cold evening in the Great White North.
A black hole, a song, and the Great White North? Not too difficult to connect the dots on that one.
22oz brown bomber bottle that goes for a very reasonable $3.99. Black label with namesake black hole on top and Flat Earth’s trademark man in a barrel on bottom and universe in background.
ALCOHOL BY VOLUME: 6.5%
COLOR (0-2): Dark black. 2
AROMA (0-2): Roasted malt with a whiff of chocolate. 2
HEAD (0-2): Tan without much volume fades quickly. 1
TASTE (0-5): Mostly malty and biscuity with some flavors of coffee and chocolate. A slight touch of sour and bitter at the finish. It has a thin mouthfeel and a heavier body. Probably one that you’ll want to sip rather than slam. 3
AFTERTASTE (0-2): Rich flavors that linger. 2
OVERALL (0-6): Flat Earth’s Cygnus X-1 Porter is a good example of the porter style. The flavors are decent, but a bit underwhelming and I prefer more robustness in a porter. The flavors do come out more as it warms so you’ll want to be sure not to drink it straight from the fridge. Overall for a porter, I’d say it’s acceptable if unexciting. 4
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 14
Nothing Reasonable About It
Dems propose Reasonable Profits Board:
Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), want to set up a "Reasonable Profits Board" to control gas profits.
The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a "windfall profit tax" as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit.
The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding "a reasonable profit." It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.
If the idea of a "Reasonable Profits Boards" run by unelected government bureaucrats doesn't make you recoil in horror, you must be ingnorant of the long history of such previous efforts by the state to dictate economic activities. But don't you dare call this socialism. 'Cause then, YOU would be the extremist.
Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), want to set up a "Reasonable Profits Board" to control gas profits.
The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a "windfall profit tax" as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit.
The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding "a reasonable profit." It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.
If the idea of a "Reasonable Profits Boards" run by unelected government bureaucrats doesn't make you recoil in horror, you must be ingnorant of the long history of such previous efforts by the state to dictate economic activities. But don't you dare call this socialism. 'Cause then, YOU would be the extremist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)