Point taken. I think my general argument survives, however. The Catholic church is a political player and always has been. It works differently than a particular regional party but has its hand in the pot none the less. It would be wise for those that do not want to be governed by a Catholic regime to pay attention to their political maneuvering.
The Catholics went to a great deal of trouble during the Kennedy years to assure the general public that they would be hands off to a large degree. I see that they have forfeited this promise. With the Church playing hard ball with Catholic politicians they undercut the likely hood that those same politicians will have meaningful independence from the Church. The Church has crossed the line, and to a large degree become a political player. They therefore have given up any protection they might have been afforded as a disinterested religious organization and opened themselves to all of the rough and tumble of politics.
Did you think that the services they provided or the social advocacy for the poor have anything to do with their rise to power? I think they were brilliant. If I wanted to gain power, providing for the masses would be the way I'd go. I'm not sure, however, that I would want to pave the way for someone else to do the same in my back yard.
Would you say that's worked out well for the Palestinians? Providing services is a civic responsibility. When you pass that responsibility to an organization that one has little oversight over, you run a risk that I believe is short sighted. It would be far better for D.C. to find or create a secular organization that can meet their standards than to run the risk of being dictated to by an outside power.
I don't think that it's in a communities best interest to be dependent on religious institutions for their social services. D.C. should give their contracts to organizations that can meet their expectations and let the Catholics do what they will.
Shouldn't we use our military might when anything untoward happens around the globe? One other aspect of States Rights is that military would likewise be fractured. The presence of Canada attests to the value of having militia that question whether it's actually in their interest to take part imperialism vs. self defense.
Money can't buy love, but it can be a great down payment?
Thinking about education (rearing complex little monsters) causes my head to spin. There are so many factors that I believe are necessary it's hard to know where to start.
Generally there's a social factor. Travelling in Eastern Europe immediately after the fall of the wall, I was impressed with how education had taken the place of material goods. Most people were relatively poor, what wealth there was having been spread out. How people competed with the Jones was to compete in education. In contrast, America has a long anti-intellectual history. Often youngsters are encouraged by their peers to act dumb just to fit in and are called out if they are seen to be smarter than the jocks.
Home life is incredibly important. There are some parents who should have gotten a license. The effect of a single uncontrollable kid can ruin a whole playground or school room. I'm not sure how much socio-economics has to do with this. I've seen more wealthy parents that are afraid to discipline their children than those that looked poor. It could just be the particular places we go.
Schools and Unions. I have limited experience here. My ex is a school teacher. She has generally favorable reviews of her peers. When my little one was in school she had relatively competent teachers. There was a political battle at her school between the principal and the union rep and some senior teachers. That seemed to be about power more than anything else and left a bad taste in my mouth.
Ultimately, I doubt that a good education can be had at 25+ to 1 teacher ratio. Parental volunteers can certainly help the situation. Unfortunately, as one of these parental volunteers providing the majority of one on one interaction, I came to the conclusion that my little one wasn't best served. This perhaps is selfish on my part but when it comes to my little one, I'm ok with that.
Doing a little poking about on the webs on this, (not being from NY, I haven't followed this race or have much invested in it) many seem to be claiming that Thompson ran a weak campaign and that Bloomberg's billions scared off the Democratic machine, including Obama, from giving much support to Thompson.
To the more general question. I shouldn't be surprised if liberal non-whites have different priorities and focuses than liberal whites. I would imagine this would be difficult to quantify over the entire US as I'm sure that southern liberal whites may very well have different concerns than whites from the NW or NE. Similarly, the focus of liberal non-whites must also show some difference depending on the particular make up of that group in different areas.
I'm not sure about the West going to China or many of his absurd positions. On the other hand the US isn't too big to fail. Our political systems aren't working. When the Federal Government takes more than it can give, I'm sure that it will end.
You're beer buddies are a great example. If we conceive of the government as encouraging people to take care of each other rather than relying on welfare instead of trying to recreate some fictional account of the fifties, heck yeah. You should have been given a deduction and support for helping your clan. You gave them support both emotionally and financially. Supposedly, you helped them on their journey and you kept them off of welfare. All good.
Wow, that's a pretty amazing picture. What did Bloomberg do to piss off the blacks? The article claims that he took the immigrant vote. He increased his vote in very few places but lost much of the Black vote. What do you make of this?
The problem, as has been pointed out elsewhere, is that this concept of marriage doesn't really hold water for most hets. I have no problem letting traditionalists keep the name. However, an institution or legal construct must then must be created for everyone else. It's unacceptable for the holy rollers to lay claim to an institution and then act as its gate keeper. Keep your institution but quit trying to stop others from creating a secular version.
Good post E.D. The Republicans are going backward quickly. If they're going to preach devolving National power in favor of the local, they're going to have actually walk the talk. Not only would this give them credibility, which they completely lack at the moment, it might actually, you know, make for a better party.
If it mattered enough to your sister to change her behavior in the market place of jobs, I think it fare for customers to do the same. Of course, such a pharmacy could never exist in my neighborhood but if it did, I'd be pretty interested in who shopped there as well.
The reason it hasn't been prosecuted for these many years, is that folk don't believe it can pass charter objections. If I had to put money on it, I'd say the courts will strike down polygamy laws.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Gay Marriage in D.C.”
Point taken. I think my general argument survives, however. The Catholic church is a political player and always has been. It works differently than a particular regional party but has its hand in the pot none the less. It would be wise for those that do not want to be governed by a Catholic regime to pay attention to their political maneuvering.
The Catholics went to a great deal of trouble during the Kennedy years to assure the general public that they would be hands off to a large degree. I see that they have forfeited this promise. With the Church playing hard ball with Catholic politicians they undercut the likely hood that those same politicians will have meaningful independence from the Church. The Church has crossed the line, and to a large degree become a political player. They therefore have given up any protection they might have been afforded as a disinterested religious organization and opened themselves to all of the rough and tumble of politics.
"
Agreed.
"
Did you think that the services they provided or the social advocacy for the poor have anything to do with their rise to power? I think they were brilliant. If I wanted to gain power, providing for the masses would be the way I'd go. I'm not sure, however, that I would want to pave the way for someone else to do the same in my back yard.
"
Would you say that's worked out well for the Palestinians? Providing services is a civic responsibility. When you pass that responsibility to an organization that one has little oversight over, you run a risk that I believe is short sighted. It would be far better for D.C. to find or create a secular organization that can meet their standards than to run the risk of being dictated to by an outside power.
"
Hamas does a fine job, I hear.
"
I don't think that it's in a communities best interest to be dependent on religious institutions for their social services. D.C. should give their contracts to organizations that can meet their expectations and let the Catholics do what they will.
On “things I don’t get”
Shouldn't we use our military might when anything untoward happens around the globe? One other aspect of States Rights is that military would likewise be fractured. The presence of Canada attests to the value of having militia that question whether it's actually in their interest to take part imperialism vs. self defense.
"
That's not only true of Libs though. I'm much more of a paleocon (though of a regional variety) and I'd say the same is true.
On “Education loses out in Arizona”
Money can't buy love, but it can be a great down payment?
Thinking about education (rearing complex little monsters) causes my head to spin. There are so many factors that I believe are necessary it's hard to know where to start.
Generally there's a social factor. Travelling in Eastern Europe immediately after the fall of the wall, I was impressed with how education had taken the place of material goods. Most people were relatively poor, what wealth there was having been spread out. How people competed with the Jones was to compete in education. In contrast, America has a long anti-intellectual history. Often youngsters are encouraged by their peers to act dumb just to fit in and are called out if they are seen to be smarter than the jocks.
Home life is incredibly important. There are some parents who should have gotten a license. The effect of a single uncontrollable kid can ruin a whole playground or school room. I'm not sure how much socio-economics has to do with this. I've seen more wealthy parents that are afraid to discipline their children than those that looked poor. It could just be the particular places we go.
Schools and Unions. I have limited experience here. My ex is a school teacher. She has generally favorable reviews of her peers. When my little one was in school she had relatively competent teachers. There was a political battle at her school between the principal and the union rep and some senior teachers. That seemed to be about power more than anything else and left a bad taste in my mouth.
Ultimately, I doubt that a good education can be had at 25+ to 1 teacher ratio. Parental volunteers can certainly help the situation. Unfortunately, as one of these parental volunteers providing the majority of one on one interaction, I came to the conclusion that my little one wasn't best served. This perhaps is selfish on my part but when it comes to my little one, I'm ok with that.
On “The New White City”
Doing a little poking about on the webs on this, (not being from NY, I haven't followed this race or have much invested in it) many seem to be claiming that Thompson ran a weak campaign and that Bloomberg's billions scared off the Democratic machine, including Obama, from giving much support to Thompson.
To the more general question. I shouldn't be surprised if liberal non-whites have different priorities and focuses than liberal whites. I would imagine this would be difficult to quantify over the entire US as I'm sure that southern liberal whites may very well have different concerns than whites from the NW or NE. Similarly, the focus of liberal non-whites must also show some difference depending on the particular make up of that group in different areas.
On “Strange Bedfellows”
Can you provide any links or insights that you've come to from reading the book? I'm very interested in this topic.
"
I'm not sure about the West going to China or many of his absurd positions. On the other hand the US isn't too big to fail. Our political systems aren't working. When the Federal Government takes more than it can give, I'm sure that it will end.
On “Survey Says: 49% of Americans Don’t Much Like Homosexuality”
Oh my! It seems like Carrie Prejean won't be the spokesperson for the anti-gay camp for long. Justice.
"
Troll
"
"mocking opponents of SSM in comedy skits where they ask us if our marriages are any worse the wear because Adam and Steve have gotten hitched."
Are you married? Troll?
"
You're beer buddies are a great example. If we conceive of the government as encouraging people to take care of each other rather than relying on welfare instead of trying to recreate some fictional account of the fifties, heck yeah. You should have been given a deduction and support for helping your clan. You gave them support both emotionally and financially. Supposedly, you helped them on their journey and you kept them off of welfare. All good.
"
Is this right that you're accepting that culture has an impact on what should be admitted to be marriage?
On “The New White City”
Wow, that's a pretty amazing picture. What did Bloomberg do to piss off the blacks? The article claims that he took the immigrant vote. He increased his vote in very few places but lost much of the Black vote. What do you make of this?
On “Survey Says: 49% of Americans Don’t Much Like Homosexuality”
The problem, as has been pointed out elsewhere, is that this concept of marriage doesn't really hold water for most hets. I have no problem letting traditionalists keep the name. However, an institution or legal construct must then must be created for everyone else. It's unacceptable for the holy rollers to lay claim to an institution and then act as its gate keeper. Keep your institution but quit trying to stop others from creating a secular version.
On “Post-election ruminations”
Good post E.D. The Republicans are going backward quickly. If they're going to preach devolving National power in favor of the local, they're going to have actually walk the talk. Not only would this give them credibility, which they completely lack at the moment, it might actually, you know, make for a better party.
On “gay marriage and the catholic church in maine”
If it mattered enough to your sister to change her behavior in the market place of jobs, I think it fare for customers to do the same. Of course, such a pharmacy could never exist in my neighborhood but if it did, I'd be pretty interested in who shopped there as well.
On ““deep thoughts” on television shows I watch or used to watch”
or weight, your choice.
"
Lightwight!
On “gay marriage and the catholic church in maine”
"ACCEPTANCE, and that is something to which no one is ENTITLED."
Back to McDevite's solution.
"
The reason it hasn't been prosecuted for these many years, is that folk don't believe it can pass charter objections. If I had to put money on it, I'd say the courts will strike down polygamy laws.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.