Month: September 2009

by Chris Bodenner

The Washington Post asked six "experts" if they think Afghanistan is still worth fighting. One of them, Danielle Pletka – who Andrew called a "neocon for Ahmadinejad" – oozes:

Poor Afghanistan, so lacking in succor for the self-righteous. No Jews oppressing Muslims, no apartheid, no Islamists starving Africans. Angelina Jolie doesn't seem to care. It isn't even Iraq. It's no longer the good war, the one worth winning, as it was during the elections. And when Cindy Sheehan and George Will agree it's time to get out, can a hasty retreat be far behind? Worse still, for those who believe victory is worth achieving in Afghanistan, it's not easy to pinpoint what victory looks like. It never has been. Nonetheless, Afghanistan has both strategic and moral value to the United States. […] We are progressing slowly, but we are progressing. And capitulating to the Taliban is unthinkable.

How does that response "def[y] even her low standards"? Michael Cohen counts the ways, adding:

I tend to believe [she] has a string attached to her back and when Washington Post editors pull it she spits out platitudes like "Capitulating to the Taliban is unthinkable." "We are progressing slowly, but we are progressing." "Cindy Sherman." "Angelina Jolie" "Cindy Sherman." "The price of failure is horribly high." By the way, you got to love the Washington Post. They have a debate on whether the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting and they get 5 people who think it is and 1 who doesn't. Way to keep it even-handed guys.

by Patrick Appel

I meant to mark the news yesterday but got distracted by other issues, so late last night I searched through the thousand or so blogs I read to see if I could find anyone making a substantive point about the first day of marriage equality in Vermont. Besides multiple sites remarking on Vermont natives Ben & Jerry changing Chubby Hubby to Hubby Hubby to celebrate the news, I couldn't find anything of interest: no braying about the downfall of civilization, no heralding the brink of true equality. Perhaps because Vermont was the first state in the nation to allow civil unions, the change was too unsurprising to pontificate on, but the collective yawn that the blogosphere let out yesterday was telling. There are still anti-gay fundamentalists out there, as this unhinged interview with Pastor Steven Anderson makes clear, but the tide has turned. When the marriage debate becomes too boring to write about on a slow summer news day, equality is winning.

(Image by Justin Sullivan/Getty)

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes a belated but very helpful email on annulments:

In my 20 years of work as a psychologist for Catholic Church, I have had many occasions get involved in the marriage annulment process as an evaluator, counselor and consultant. 

Local diocesan marriage tribunals decide on annulments, not the Vatican.  The Vatican only gets involved in the decision if one of the parties appeals to the Vatican for a reversal of the local decision.  During the 1980s and 1990s, the overwhelming majority (approaching 90%) of annulment requests were granted by diocesan tribunals in the US.

During the 1980s and 1990s, the overwhelming majority (approaching 90%) of annulment requests were granted by diocesan tribunals in the US. Annulments have become a bit more difficult to obtain in some American dioceses over the five years, but, still, most annulment requests are granted.  Furthermore, there is nothing unusual about the church blessing an existing marriage once both parties have been granted annulments.  Blessing the marriage simply means the couple exchanges vows in church with a priest presiding.  It's called a church blessing, but it is a church wedding.  It is usually a private ceremony because the couple has already been legally and publicly recognized as a married couple, though some couples opt for a traditional, public church ceremony.  It is perfectly acceptable to do it either way–as a public or a private ceremony.

The bottom line is that there was nothing unusual about the annulments granted to Ted and Vicki Kennedy and nothing unusual about the the church "blessing."  It would have been "double standard" if the church denied to Ted and Vicki Kennedy what the Church routinely grants to less famous Catholics.

Here is a summary of reasons that a marriage is considered invalid under canon law:

1) Refusal or inability to consummate the marriage
2) Incest or bigamy
3) Marriage occurred under duress:  significant external pressure such as a pregnancy
4) Mental incapacity at the time of the marriage
5) Lack of appreciation for the full implications of marriage as a life-long, faithful, loving commitment with priority given to spouse and children.
6) Psychological incapacity to live the commitment as described above.
7) The marriage wasn't performed according to Catholic canon law

8) At the time of the marriage, one or both partners  was under the influence of drugs or suffered from substance addiction.

After John Paul II promulgated the revised Code of Canon Law in 1983, annulments became significantly easier to obtain for psychological reasons (#5 & #6 above, based upon Canon 1095)

I don't mean to be snide, but isn't #5 just a euphemism for "I don't want to be married anymore"? A synonymous version of the secular "inconsolable difference" [it was late] "irreconcilable differences"? Or perhaps both husband and wife have to consent to #5, thus making it different that a no-fault divorce. Either way, it kinda defeats the whole purpose of "death do us part" in the eyes of the Church.

A Los Angeles County fire fighter monitors hot spots as he fights the Station Fire August 30, 2009 in Acton, California. The wildfire, which broke out Wednesday afternoon near a ranger station and the Angeles Crest Highway above La Canada Flintridge, has burned more than 105,000 acres and has forced thousands of evacuations as nearly 12,000 homes are threatened. The monster blaze raging above Los Angeles grew in size Tuesday as weary firefighters voiced hope that a break in searing temperatures would allow them to make inroads against the inferno. By Justin Sullivan/Getty.

by Patrick Appel

Orwell is posthumously live-blogging. History professor David Silbey marks the day.

by Patrick Appel

John Richardson runs some numbers:

We've heard a lot about the terrible death toll Mexico has suffered during the drug war — over 11,000 souls so far. This helps to account for the startling lack of controversy that greeted last week's news that Mexico had suddenly decriminalized drugs had suddenly decriminalized drugs — not just marijuana but also cocaine, LSD, and heroin. In place of the outrage and threats that U.S. officials expressed when Mexico tried to decriminalize in 2006 was a mild statement, from our new drug czar, that we are going to take a "wait and see" approach.

Still, we've heard nothing about the American death toll. Isn't that strange? So far as I can tell, nobody has even tried to come up with a number. Until now. I've done some rough math, and this is what I found:

6,487. To repeat, that's 6,487 dead Americans. Throw in overdoses and the cost of this country's paralyzing drug laws is closer to 15,000 lives.

Mark Kleiman is not impressed.

by Chris Bodenner

"This [health care reform] cannot pass…What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass," – Michele Bachman.

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

You wrote, “A huge pet peeve of mine is when people in the abortion debate refer to each other as “anti-choice” or “pro-abortion” (or even the noxious “anti-life”). People distort their own beliefs with labels enough as it is, as Rothkopf says, so it’s that much more corrosive to public discourse when people distort the beliefs of others.”

Would you explain, please, how ‘anti-choice’ is a misnomer? Can you point me to a pro-lifer who is also pro-choice?  Because I can easily cite any number of pro-choicers who’re anti-abortion. The raison d’être of the ‘pro-life’ lobby is to deny access to this procedure, or criminalize it if possible, thus making gestation ‘til birth the ONLY choice, regardless of circumstance.  How can one NOT be considered ‘anti-choice’ if the point is remove all but one option?

I see where you’re coming from (though “ONLY choice, regardless of circumstance” is incorrect, since the vast majority of pro-lifers are also pro-life-of-the-mother).

Perhaps I should have been more specific; while the “anti-choice” or “pro-abortion” labels can be technically correct – banning abortion does limit choice, and legalizing abortion does endorse the existence of abortions – they distort the primary concerns of people in the debate. For better or worse, an anti-legal person is primarily concerned with the life of the fetus, while a pro-legal person is primarily concerned with the mother deciding what is best for the child – and herself.

Thus, it is not intellectually honest to call people “anti-choice,” because those people certainly support other female choices; they just draw the line at destroying a fetus. And it’s not intellectually honest to call people “pro-abortion” (or “anti-life”), because plenty of pro-legal people find the procedure immoral (and certainly no sane person ever finds pleasure in it).

So the whole point of sticking with “pro-life” and “pro-choice” – the commonplace terms that people use to describe themselves – is to at least acknowledge where the other person is coming from. Or else no middle ground is even possible. If you’re not interested in middle ground, but merely polemic, then go right ahead. But you’re not helping your side.

by Patrick Appel

Politico profiles Frum and his website:

Some in the conservative cognoscente praise Frum’s intellect and efforts, but that’s where the anointing of the New Majority ends. You can count on a fingerless hand the big-name conservatives who have publicly joined the crusade. So far, Frum’s site has become an intellectual way station of college students, unknown politicos and anonymous scribes.

“Frum is smart, and the site is young,” says National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru, a former colleague. “But so far, it has not made much of a splash. He has gotten some attention from journalists, but the site isn’t yet a must-read for anyone.”

Lately, I've read NewMajority.com much more than I did when it launched. Many websites and blogs take awhile to mature. Frum's site feels like it is just starting to hit a stride.

by Chris Bodenner

This new ad out of Ireland is based on an old concept, but it’s so good that it’s worth repeating.

(Hat tip: Transracial)