Powered by TypePad

« Converging On Dull | Main | So When Do We Reform Health Care? »

November 11, 2009

Comments

Assaulting the Big Muddy.

Shall we someday call this the 'Lost Congress'?
============================

anduril

i was going to do a long rant on some of this stuff yesterday, but i was afraid of annoying people, so i backed off.

i'm not crazy about seeing the bishops up to their necks in the nitty gritty business of the exact wording of any legislation. i'm not saying it's wrong, but i'd prefer it to be otherwise simply because this draws attention away from other aspects of the bill.

what other aspects? the fact that it's basically a bill to institutionalize socialism. if this bill passes constitutional muster, as i presume would happen, the sky would be the limit for socialism.

why do i dislike socialism from a catholic perspective?

take the standard socialist/communist rallying cry: from each according to his ability to each according to his need! sounds good, almost christian, at first. but it rests on government coercion when push comes to shove--who will decide about abilities and needs, who's really putting out commensurate with their abilities and who isn't, etc. of course all government has to have some degree of coercion at its disposal, but socialism extends from top down to the micro level. if for no other reason, catholics should oppose this because it violates the common sense principal of subsidiarity, which says everything should be done at the lowest level of societal organization as is possible. why common sense? look at our experience. it's not that socialism hasn't been tried, it's that it's basic principle leads it astray.

and there are other problems, too. fundamentally, the christian idea of human dignity seeks to empower individuals to take control of their own lives using their god-given reasoning powers, combined with a humility regarding man's ability to understand, manage and foresee results consistently at the micro level. socialism runs against that, too.

so, i would have been far happier if the bishops had been speaking out about socialism for the past several decades--on the level of principle, advocating the positive value of individual empowerment and dignity. unfortunately, many of the bishops come from that generation of catholics that was reflexively democratic (as can be seen from the way they've given money to many dubious, leftist causes). and so we came to this pass in which they had to get involved in power politics, to threaten closure of catholic hospitals, because they hadn't acted upon their proper role and responsibility to be teachers, to prepare the ground for these kinds of debates.

delendum est malum imperium fenestrarum!

Charlie (Colorado)

Anduril, what's not Christian about using government coercion to transfer wealth?

Serious question. It seems to me I see plenty of Christian scholars and leaders saying just the opposite, that it's the government's responsibility to take care of the poor and downtrodden; certainly places that have established churches seem to have no problem receiving tax money.

anduril

so nelson says he won't vote for either 1) a public option or 2) abortion funding.

kinda raises the bar for reid, doesn't it? is this part of the grand strategy to drag this out until sheer inertia takes its toll?

anduril

two different questions, charlie. i also see "christian scholars and leaders" advocating that. saying it's christian doesn't make it so, however, no matter who does the saying. scozzafava (sp?) claimed to be a republican, too.

anduril

as for established churches, look what that has done in europe. everywhere it's been implemented it's led to anti-clericalism and the marginalization of religion in public life. the bishops should be grateful they're not an established church.

steve sturm

Granted abortion and campaign finance aren't the same, but looking to the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional aspects of a bill they supported didn't work out to well for Bush and the GOP.

anduril

steve, i wasn't suggesting that the SC would declare the abortion aspects unconstitutional. i was thinking along the lines of this article at AT: To Hell with the Constitution?
By Jon N. Hall

clarice

Syl noted the Hyde bump in the road yesterday.

Reid's apparently put the P.O.S. on the Senate calendar per Drudge.

Pointed pikes acaiable right here in D.C. No need to carry them all the way cross country with you .. PikesRUs.com

Charlie (Colorado)

i also see "christian scholars and leaders" advocating that. saying it's christian doesn't make it so, however, no matter who does the saying.

Ah. Sorry, I didn't realize you were speaking ex cathedra.

Neo

So how is that budget for PY 2010 coming along ?
We're only 6 weeks into it now.

anduril

I always do. It's positioned directly in front of my keyboard and monitor.

matt

you know, we used to have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights in this country that our politicians did not use to wipe their backsides.

I have been going back and reading the Federalist Papers and some of the correspondence between our Founders, and the intent was pellucid. Ever since, we have seen lawyers (excuse me clarice) litigate issues into law, some good, a lot bad.

But the Founders were clear. On anything major it took a Constitutional Amendment. Cap & Trade, and now the health care bill would both fit the profile.

To paraphrase Pacino in And Justice for All, "they're all outta order!"

Jane

is this part of the grand strategy to drag this out until sheer inertia takes its toll?

The grand strategy is to strip the bill to get cloture and add everything back in in committee, release it when only 51 votes are needed.

anduril

i was referring to possible grand strategy AGAINST the bill. mcconnell has shown himself to be as adept a parliamentarian as there is in the game. if anyone can put together an effective counter to the grand strategy FOR the bill it'll be him. from "the hill" it sounds like he'll do his damndedst to keep this off the floor on tuesday.

Jane

I don't trust McConnell.

glasater

Trust him Jane--he's one of the brighter lightbulbs in the pack:)

Jane

from what I hear he is a Rhino backstabber.

Funny yeah.  Funny peculiar or funny haha?

Hah, hah, steve sturm @ 12:12. Told ya sos aren't nice.
===============================

Mush!  Mush, Mush!

Jane, they all have conflicted politics. I don't expect backstabbing from Sarah, and if Mitt can avoid the temptation they may well make a team yet.

You know the old bit about the view for all but lead dogs, right?
==========================

Harnessed side by side.

She should tell him right off the bat that he'll have practically Co-President role, as Chief Operating Officer, an apt and able replacement for Cheney.
============================

Frau Gänsebraten

Remember Jane's 1:24 prediction.. There are no watchdogs in the committees. BTW didn't we see McConnell when we watched the Senate in action (all *two* of them--zzzzzz) on Sept. 12?

Sorta OT - Happy St. Martin of Tours, the soldier saint who shares this day with American veterans.

MarkJ

Let me sum up the Democrats' dilemma:

If they actually manage to pass ObamaCare, they're f***ed. If they don't pass ObamaCare, they're still f***ed.

Imagine tens of millions of pro-life Americans being ordered by the government to fund state-sanctioned murder with their tax dollars. Imagine their anger. And then imagine civil disobedience and unrest dwarfing that seen in the 1960's.

Get my drift?

Thomas Collins

Harnessed side by side stated that:

She should tell him right off the bat that he'll have practically Co-President role, as Chief Operating Officer, an apt and able replacement for Cheney.

I don't think Co-Presidencies work. One Prez, one Commander in Chief. If a Prez wants to grant a lot of power to his or her Vice (such as GWB apparently granted Cheney), that's fine as long as the Prez makes clear the power can be yanked back pronto.

Besides, Palin doesn't need a Co. She needs the hired help to help her carry out her policies, which will be forcefully articulated and well thought out (as were Reagan's polocies, although he still doesn't get enough credit for setting the strategic tone for his Administration). If Romney behaves himself, maybe Palin will appoint him Car Czar to try to undo the mess that GovMotors will have become (well, it's already a mess, but it will have become more of a mess by January of 2013).

anduril

Long but worthwhile: Unholy Union
Why is the SEIU boss the White House’s most frequent visitor?

Thomas Collins

Reagan forcefully set forth not only his polocies, but also his policies.

I guess I am distracted by trying to figure out how to carry out daddy's assignment to bring a pot plant to Barney Frank in a bathhouse.

Jane

Phew TC - one Boston job I don't qualify for.

Thomas Collins

Jane, I'll give you and DV exclusive interview rights on how I pulled off the caper! :-))

clarice

Imagine how preposterous it is for the pro abortionists to approve all the govt intrusiveness in this bill but balk at the anti-abortion features because they don't want the govt coming between them and their doctors.

Life is getting so ridiculous it defies my capacity to parody it all.

matt

TC;

Reagan's experts disagreed strongly with him on his Russia policy. Turned out he was absolutely on the money.

jimmyk

If this went to the Supreme Court, it would be 5-4, and I'm not sure we could count on Kennedy to be the 5th to sink this pile of carp. Does anyone understand how he thinks? Does he?

Angry Dumbo

Where were all of these anti-abortion Dems on the embryonic stem cell research debate?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame