Month: November 2009

E.D. Kain wishes the Catholic church would stop interfering with civil marriage law:

I am a decentralist at heart.  I believe in the decentralization of power, no matter what the organization.  If there is to be a hierarchy, I want it to be a hierarchy that is still very flat, with power spread as far and wide as possible.  The very Catholic notion of subsidiarity plays a very strong role in my thinking on this – and, paradoxically perhaps, a very weak role in the Church itself. I’m not against the papacy.  I’m just against the level of power the Pope seems to wield.

Larison counters Reihan.

NIAC explains this fascinating cultural exchange:

It shows Amb. John Limbert, at the time a hostage in the US Embassy, speaking with Ali Khamenei, then Iran’s president (and currently the Supreme Leader).  […] For non-Farsi speakers, the exchange between Limbert and Khamenei here is incredibly interesting. To paraphrase: Limbert politely welcomed Khamenei, who was being treated as a guest since he was visiting the hostages at their “residence” where they were being held.  Limbert remarked about the Iranian cultural quirk known as “taarof,” which characterizes the uniquely Iranian version of hospitality, saying: Iranians are too hospitable to guests in their country, when we insist that we must be going, you all tell us “no, no, you must stay.”

When Limbert pressed the matter further, Khamenei revealed that the real issue was the United States’ willingness to allow the deposed Shah to enter into the country for medical treatment.  When the US returns the Shah to Iran so the revolutionary government can prosecute him, Khamenei explained, then the hostages will be allowed to leave.

For those old enough to remember the hostage crisis as it happened, this will surely evoke strong memories from that period thirty years ago.  But for the rest of us, this is an amazingly personal glimpse into the ordeal that held the world’s attention for so long, and for which all of us are still dealing with the repercussions.

Leonhardt strikes an optimistic note:

[I]t’s a good time to remember that when an economy is just coming out of recession, its weaknesses are always more obvious than its potential strengths.

Free exchange interjects:

As things stand, the medium-term outlook for the American economy really isn't that bad. The problem is that the near-term outlook is awful. And the question is: faced with perhaps another year or two of unemployment near 10%, can the government avoid making any serious economic mistakes, which might jeopardise recovery over the long-term?

Justin Fox is not reassured.

Even non-college students are getting in the act:

Mowj Camp reports that students in several schools across Tehran are preparing for November 4 protests by starting to chant “Death to Dictator” early in the morning. Many middle school and high school students reportedly came to school wearing green wristbands.

(Hat tip: Pedestrian)

… by a rogue Afghan policeman:

Five British soldiers have been shot dead after a rogue Afghan policeman turned a heavy machinegun against a British training team inside a checkpoint in Helmand Province. The soldiers, three from the Grenadier Guards and two from the Royal Military Police, died in the village of Shin Kalay in Nad-e’Ali district of Helmand Province yesterday afternoon. Six British soldiers were injured in the same incident, several of them seriously.

One of the Grenadier Guards who died was named this afternoon as Sergeant Matthew Telford, from the Grimsby area. A veteran of several operational tours of duty, Sgt Telford had arrived in Afghanistan two weeks ago. He leaves a wife, Kerry, and two sons aged four and nine.

This is the kind of story that will further undermine public support for the war at home.

Explained by Elizabeth Pisani:

On this fantastic map, which comes from Yale University’s Dr. Russell Barbour by way of Stop the Drug War, the red areas are the parts of town where it would be illegal to operate a federally funded needle exchange  under new rules proposed by Congress.

The Drug War Chronicle provides an interesting history of the needle exchange shenannigans. Essentially, Obama did not remove the ban from a budget bill because he thinks policy shouldn’t be made through sub-clauses in budget bills. Democrats on the committee discussing the bill disagreed, and dropped the ban. Then Republicans, not willing to give up the idea that the availability of clean needles would have us all racing to start shooting up smack, decided to protect the innocent by forbidding needle programmes within 1,000 feet of “a public or private day care centre, elementary school, vocational school, secondary school, college, junior college, or university, or any public swimming pool, park, playground, video arcade, or youth centre, or an event sponsored by any such entity”. That’s the red bits on the map of Chicago above.

After Maine, where the Catholic church actually organized a second collection to raise money to prevent gay people from having civil rights, the situation shifts again. Using a tax-exempt church to raise money to defeat the civil rights of fellow citizens is not too shocking in the age of Benedict. It is shocking if one believes in a separation of politics and religion, and if one believes that the church of Jesus should stand in solidarity with the marginalized, rather than seeking to marginalize and demonize them still further.

It is time to acknowledge that the Catholic church hierarchy can no longer pretend that it isn't the active enemy of gay people and our families. That this church hierarchy – especially in its more conservative wing – is disproportionately gay itself and waging war against their fellow gays through the cowardly veil of the closet, is not new. But it is, as we flinch with the sting of defeat, harder to take than ever.

It is time to demand that gay priests who are actively fighting against the dignity of gay people own their enmeshment in injustice, stigmatization and cruelty. It is time to reveal them in this respect as the enemies of the Gospels, not the champions. Here is a letter many people – straight and gay – will soon be writing to their parish priests. It rings with the heart-ache that gay Catholics and gay people in many other faith traditions still feel. And it is, in a deep way, simply true:

Dear Father Andrew:

We have shared the celebration of Mass of universal inclusion for 18 years.  Homeless, doctors, addicts, plumbers, prostitutes, trash collectors, gang members, elderly, boomers, young adults, teens, babies of all colors, races, genders gathered in common purpose — to give thanks for blessings and rejoice in the goodness that can come from humanity.  You provided a unique sanctuary for us all — rich or poor, educated or not, gay or straight.  No one had any fear; none were rejected.  

It is with the deepest sorrow that I must write you that I no longer can join you at Mass.  After 59 years, I am no longer a Catholic.

You will be distressed at my decision, but not surprised.  We have spoken about this possibility for some time now.  In fact, I suspect you would join me if you did not have such a valuable mission in this vibrant community.  I will still volunteer for the children's programs, and remain involved in activism, but I can no longer participate in the one rite that binds me to the Catholic Church.  I cannot swallow the bile another day.  I cannot look up at the altar when you read the gospel, give a homily that is so beautiful, it makes me weep, raise the chalice we believe is to be shared by everyone.  I cannot bear the thought of you being driven from your ministry when the bishop discovers you are gay.

Hatred fueled by the resources of hundreds of thousands of parishes will be the central reason why the Church will eventually wither and die.  I can no longer bear the stench of the rotting body and hierarchical ignorance.  I can no longer embrace what has become a menace and money machine to support evil.  We are all tainted by what happened in Maine.  We are all lesser citizens because our brothers and sisters are lesser citizens.

We remain joined in friendship and common cause, my dear friend.  I will need your counsel in this dark time because I feel hatred bubbling in my thoughts.  I do not want to be them.  Bless you, dear Andrew.

With great affection,

M.

Ames, Iowa, 5.18 pm

A reader writes:

I’m surprised you haven’t figured it out. About Levi, that is.

Who had the power, before she left office, to spring Levi’s mom from an inconvenient meth possession and sale case? Sarah Palin. Who didn’t spring Levi’s mom? Sarah Palin.

Who was the attorney in the case involved with defending Levi’s drug trafficking mother? None other than Rex Butler, a Democratic operative from way back. Who’s representing Levi now? Same same.

Butler is basically killing two birds with one stone. I suspect that the dumbfuck kid is interested in payback because the Palin wouldn’t spring mommy (she couldn’t, that would have been leapt on by the Democrats and Obamist fellow travelers like you…) and he’s also interested in making what money he can by showing the world his Johnston.

Palin will make a statement about what Levi does once in a while but has been pretty studious in ignoring the young man since she left office. Basically, Sarah is smart enough not to stop a man from staging his own hanging. She’s also not happy about it, because the kid is, technically, “family”. He’s a dirtbag, but he’s “family”. The notion that she’s been getting down in the mud with Levi lately is the kind of shitty observation that passes for wisdom on your blog and others. She’s been ignoring Levi, and that’s not good for Levi and his people at all. Thus, the recent article and the clamoring to get on TV.

And you actually believe that Palin has legal standing to “keep” Levi from seeing Bristol’s kid when Occam’s razor suggests that it’s a device to get attention for his 16th minute?

If Sarah Palin has been "ignoring Levi" she has a very funny way of doing that. She has immediately and viscerally responded to almost every TV appearance he has made. I don't know whether Palin is grieved for family in the way my reader suggests, because, unlike my reader, I cannot know what's in her head (and am a little frightened to find out). But accusing the father of her grandson of selling his body for money does not seem like someone who is trying to keep her family together.

I repeat that I don't know what to believe about all this tit-for-tat – except that there's something out there we don't yet know about. But my money remains on Levi.