Some Catholic Obama supporters have reacted as if to a slap in the face. Well, they clearly weren’t paying attention to what the President has done for the past 3 years, nor his record before then (slim as it was).

I don’t think this was a slap in the face. I don’t think this was the administration telling us Catholics to “go to Hell”, as Bishop Zubik of Pittsburgh said. I think this is, flat out, plain and simple, an attempt to get organizations who do have a prohibition against such things to stop offering health coverage. On purpose. They want things to get worse, so the government can come to the rescue.

Think about it. Health insurance companies will be required to only offer plans to larger organizations that include contraceptive coverage.  Catholic organizations, unable to get the exemption (which only lasts until Novermber anyway, IIRC) will have two options. Violate their conscience and get coverage that includes contraceptives, or to stop offering any coverage at all. Some places have already opted for the second choice.

I think that’s part of the plan. If churches, schools, and other Catholic organizations cancel their medical insurance plans, their employees will have to get it on their own. It will be a hardship for those individuals (especially since they will be limited in options as well), and some won’t be able to afford any insurance. This will, in their minds, increase the demand for universal coverage.

To sum up:
1 – Require organizations to violate their consciences if they want to offer health insurance.
2 – Organizations that refuse to violate their consciences will cancel insurance.
3 – Large groups of people will have to obtain private insurance.
4 – The government gets to fine the organizations that don’t offer insurance to their employees  (income!)
5 – The government gets to fine people who don’t get private insurance (income!)
6 – The number of uninsured increases, thus “proving” the need for universal healthcare.

I think that’s the plan. It’s not an attack against Catholics because we’re Catholic, it’s an attack against a strategic target to reach an ultimate goal.

ETA: By the way, I’m uncomfortable with how Bishops and others have been reacting to this. I think they’re months behind, and arguing the wrong point. NOBODY should be required to offer coverage that violates their conscience. For example, if the Chick-Fil-A owners (Corporate Purpose: To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us. To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.) want to provide health insurance to their employees, but don’t want to cover abortions or contraceptives, that should be their right. The outrage shouldn’t be limited to religious institutions being forced to pay for this coverage. I realize it’s easier to argue the Free Exercise clause, but what about all of us other people who want to follow our consciences?

But once it’s re-branded, understanding of this self-evident truth disappears.

The childhood cry of “it’s not fair” has become the more adult-sounding “it’s an injustice that this perceived inequality exists”. “Equality” is the new brand name.

Now I’m not saying that equality is bad. Equal treatment under the law, equal pay for equal work, and so forth, are all good things. I fully support such equality.

However…

Equality does not exist in all things, nor can we force it to exist. Not without changing humanity…replace the human race entirely, no men or women or children with different experiences, but 100% asexual clones (with absolutely no genetic drift) raised in the exact same environment, experiencing the exact same things, living the exact same lives. Barring that mechanized, drone-like life, there are going to be differences between people.  Differences that will be reflected in the choices we make in similar situations, and differences in the situations that arise for each individual.

Take, for example, opportunity. One great thing about the US is that this is the land of opportunity. For all the belly-aching done by some people, anyone can become a millionaire here, even without playing the Lottery. 1st generation immigrants start their own businesses and, through hard work and much sacrifice, succeed. They expand and open a second location, and then a third. What opportunity existed was seized, taken advantage of, and success was achieved.

But that’s not good enough for some. The fact that the opportunity exists isn’t enough. The amount of opportunity must be equal for equality to exist (in their minds). White suburbanites have more opportunity than inner-city blacks, therefore it is an inequality that must be combated. The children of the ultra-rich are “given” more opportunities than others, and it’s unjust. So goes the logic. But when really examined, it boils down to “it’s not FAAAAIIIIRRRR!!!!”

There is nothing we can do to eliminate the inequality of opportunity that exists as a result of chance of birth. Some people are genetically better athletes, some people are born into wealthy families, some people get the shaft. That’s life.

Now that I’ve pointed out and accepted the fact that life isn’t fair, and that there will naturally be an inequality between individuals due to chance of birth, where do we go? We can be jerks about it and ignore those who got a horrible hand dealt to them. We can be reasonable about it and try to help those who got life’s junk hand. Or we can be jerks about it and blame the rich for their chance of birth.

That third option is what I’ve been seeing promoted lately. It’s there in every argument to eat the rich. It’s there in every argument that those born rich (Paris Hilton, for example) got an unfair share of life’s opportunities. It’s there in every argument that rich suburbanites (relatively speaking) must pay for poorer inner city extra-curricular programs. In every argument that some people earn “too much” and should have the excess stripped away from them and given to someone in need.

I disagree with such sentiments. While the objective of helping those in need is indeed laudable, the means to the end is unjustifiable. I much prefer private donation over public programs funded by high taxes. Many (if not most) of the so-called rich are very generous, and really do support programs that give additional opportunities to others. And I believe there is a moral obligation for them to give such support.

But the support shouldn’t be at gunpoint.

That’s just not fair.

(This post inspired by various discussions surrounding this article)

So, knowing about the biases, I read and listen to everything with a certain amount of distrust, thinking “Where’s the spin? Ah-ha! There it is.” It doesn’t matter if it’s the New York Times, NPR, FoxNews, whatever. There’s almost always a spin, something saying “this is what they mean, this is what you should believe, this is why you should be outraged, this is who to blame.”

That said, it was nice to read this article by Richard A. Oppel, Jr. Not that the content of the article is nice, it’s awful. But there was no “Ah-ha!” moment. This is what I ideally expect from news articles. Facts, not opinion. Quotes from investigators, not some guy who heard something and came out to look, or from anonymous sources making extreme accusations.

Mr. Oppel stuck to the facts and didn’t play psychoanalyst, guessing at the cause of the shootings. He doesn’t give a motive for the shooting, he doesn’t label actions as anything other than actions. There are no calls for a change to background checks or blaming rhetoric. The gunman did this, Judge Roll did that. Rep. Giffords is in this condition. Facts. The reader can decide to label actions as “insane” or “heroic”, the reader can decide what actions they think should be taken (if any) to prevent such a thing from happening again.

Report. The. Facts.

Kudos to Mr. Oppel, and may we see more reporting like this.

I find that I have a lot of opinions about politics, but I’m drained. It must be all of those blood-sucking insects. Actually, it’s that most people just don’t listen to opposing views, and I’m tired of talking to brick walls.

Anyhow, posting on politics will probably be light. Instead I’ll post more about being Catholic, and an idea I had about being a good spouse. For a sneak-peak, read what is probably the most hated-by-feminists and misunderstood-by-many part of Paul’s Epistles. Ephesians 5:21-33

Not for me, because I, unfortunately, am represented in the US House by Gary Peters.  But what about those people who are represented by Republicans?  Oh, sure, they got to vote on the Healthcare Reform Bill.  But they were locked out of all discussions leading up to that vote.  They were unable to participate in putting the bill together.  And the Senate Bill didn’t come to the floor of the House until Nancy Pelosi knew she had enough votes to get it passed.

That is not representative government, it’s a facade.  The House Republicans had absolutely no voice in this decision.  Heck, neither did the Senate Republicans.  It was entirely written and passed by Democrats, without any input at all from Republicans.  The vote was a sham, since Pelosi already knew she had enough votes…and extra in her “pocket” to spare.

So…those people represented in the House or Senate by Republicans were effectively without representation in this matter.  They had no voice, because their representatives could do nothing to change the course of things.  No access, no input, no nothing.  Not even a real vote.

So we have tyranny by the majority, but at the same time tyranny by the minority – an oligarchy – where the elites get to ignore what the people they are supposed to represent really want.

Ugh.

What is really sharp was his complaint that people who want to see some type of tax incentive for businesses to hire more people are clueless about the impact any such tax rebate (or however it would be handled) would really have.  His chief complaint: no business would hire a new employee, paying them $50,000 (including benefits) for a $10 tax break.  He went on to say something along the lines of ”it would have to be something like $1000, and that’s a lot of money” (very much paraphrased).

On another show at a different time (go figure….still no recollection of who or what show), an “expert” suggested a secondary problem to tax breaks for new employees: unfair competition.  If restaurant A is fully staffed, and brand new restaurant B opens up across the street, hiring an entirely new staff, B would get a huge tax break that A wouldn’t have access to.

So I thought “why not put the ideas together”.  Instead of giving a tax break for every new job, give a tax break for EVERY job.  Every single job gets a $2000 tax break.  Hows that for an incentive?

But wait, you say.  That’s a lot of money.  Is it?  The population of the US is roughly 308,841,458, give or take a little.  If every single man, woman, and child were employed…100% full employment and beyond, the tax incentive would cost $617.6 billion dollars.  That’s significantly less than the $787 billion stimulus plan from 2009.

That would be a much better use of taxpayer dollars, keeping money in the hands of the businesses and giving them an incentive to unfreeze hiring.

What a waste.

I don’t know how much those things cost, but they surely aren’t cheap.  And plenty of people will not want to go through them.  On top of that, I read recently that some people are trying to use religious reasons for not submitting to such a scan (“Thou shalt not undergo a full body scan”?), and if that’s enough to avoid such scrutiny, then even the false sense of safety that comes from such technology is elminated.

Wait…”false sense of safety”?  Of course.  The thought I had upon hearing that those scanners were going to be installed at various airports was: “Then terrorists will simply go deeper.  Implant a double-bladder inside the abdomen of the suicide bomber that contains the chemicals to be mixed.”  Think of those chemical glow-sticks that are everywhere around Halloween for the kids to carry.

And, of course, what did I see recently in the news?  Female suicide bombers with explosive “augmentations“.  How will the TSA respond to these things?  Mandatory x-rays and MRIs?

I don’t know what the right response is, but I do know that these full-body scanners won’t do much to improve safety.  The cost/effectiveness of them is negligible, and the work-arounds are plentiful and simple.

What bothers me the most is the lack of outrage among other scientists.  There should be all sorts of complaints out there about how the scientific process has been undermined.  There should be people calling for the resignation or suspension of involved scientists pending review.  Scientists, corrupting science to drive a policy agenda?  It strikes at the very heart of what’s supposed to make science such a good tool: objective evaluation of collected data to explain what is observed and predict, again objectively, what will happen.

Good science relies on quite a few important legs.  One is objectivity.  Others include openness and repeatability.  The processes involved in adjusting the raw data to account for various factors (urban heat islands, movement of surface stations, etc.) should be clear and understandable.  It must be repeatable and reasonable.  Quality controls need to exist for any algorithms used to make those adjustments.  All of these things seem to be lacking in the case of AGW.

Without those things in place, it’s not science.  It’s just a bunch of self-proclaimed experts saying “trust us”.  Why should we trust them?  They’re not acting as scientists, they’re acting like magicians.  Their incantations are secret, not meant for the ears of mere mortals.  We are supposed to just accept their declarations without question.

And while I’m upset with the media’s poor coverage of this, and with the scientists involved, I’m even more upset with other scientists who should be raising integrity issues instead of defending this as “normal”.  They should be defending science, not scientists.  They should expect and demand that all scientists who put forth hypotheses give full disclosure of all relevant data needed to reproduce the results.

Where is the integrity in science?

It is no surprise that Dame issued the invitation.  The administration there has wandered all over the place with regards to the Catholic faith, doing some good things but also doing some incredibly stupid things, things that are out of alignment with Catholic values (at least, from my perspective).

No, it was no surprise at all.  They’ve issued such invitations to Presidents regularly (from what I recall and have read).  Not all in the recent past have accepted.  Carter did, Reagan did, Bush did, Clinton didn’t, Bush did.

What I question is why the President accepted. 

The charitable side of me says that President Obama was truly honored to be asked to speak at the ceremony, and delightedly accepted such an honor.  The cynical side of me, the side that is currently winning in my evaluation of the reasons, laughs at this idea.  My inner cynic thinks that it is another attempt to pander to Catholics.  To me, it is an attempt to placate his Catholic supporters, to say “I care about my Catholic friends” while doing so much that is so completely contrary to Catholic teaching.

I don’t think he expected the response he got…at least, not the amount.  But it’s all directed at Notre Dame, and not Obama.  He is not the target of the anger.  If it keeps up as is, directed almost entirely at Notre Dame, liberals will be able to paint this as just a bunch of ultraconservative kooks who are out of touch with America.  Their accomplices in the press will help push this concept.  And because the driving force is Obama’s stance on life issues, they’ll be able to use this to harm the pro-life movement.

Instead of simply railing at Notre Dame, this needs to be used to drive home why Obama is bad for America.  Yes, he shouldn’t be speaking at a Catholic commencement ceremony, he shouldn’t be receiving an honorary law degree from the premier US Catholic university.  These events are a travesty.  But they’re a travesty because of Obama’s stance and actions with regards to abortion and ESCR. 

He has written a death sentence for millions of innocent babies.  He’s made you and me pay for those deaths.  He’s done it in the name of scientific advancement and personal freedom and privacy, as if any of those justify killing another human being.  And now he’s trying to keep the wool pulled over the eyes of many Catholics by making them feel good because he paid attention to a Catholic university.

The sad thing is…it’ll work.  After all, a school as prestigious as Notre Dame wouldn’t give an honorary degree to someone unless they really deserved it, would they?

I’m outraged.

I’m not outraged that public money was used to pay the $165 million in bonuses.  Those were contractually-required bonuses, from what I understand.  No, I’m outraged that public money was given to AIG in the first place.  I’m outraged that $170 Billion of taxpayer money was given to AIG with no strings attached, no oversight, no direction on how it was to be used, and seemingly no planning.

I’m further outraged that some Congressional Democrats are now calling for a retroactive tax on those bonuses (and bonuses paid out to people working at other companies that took bailout money).  Excuse me?  Who do you think you are, to change the rules in place after the event has taken place, and penalizing people for something that was fine at the time of the action?  The action is complete, the transaction finalized, the taxes taken out and paid (at current rates), the bonuses delivered.  If you want to change the rules now, then the new rules apply from here on out.

I’m trying to find a good analogy, but I just can’t.  Changing a golfer’s handicap after the round and declaring the loser a winner?  Not quite.

Ahh…I think I have it.  You go out to a restaurant for a meal.  You order the meal, eat the meal, pay for the meal, and go home.  Two weeks later you get a bill from the restaurant saying that they had raised prices on their entrees and you owed them another $20 for that meal from two weeks ago.

That’s still not quite right.  Let’s try another.

Robin Hood robs from the townsfolk and gives to the nobility, to help them out of a bind they got themselves into through bad decisions (shouldn’t have sunk all that money into new expensive villages where the villagers couldn’t afford to stay there).  The nobility then pay some townsfolk some extra money for being loyal workers.  Robin Hood gets pissed, gets a list of those so paid, and steals the money away from them again, even though he had originally required the nobility to give those townsfolk that extra money.

Man, Robin Hood is a jerk.

Well, that’s about the best I can do.  Maybe someone else out there can come up with a better analogy.