Rebuttles to some of Oh, bama's li(n)es

My comments are inserted after the quotes pasted from the transcript of Obama's speech, they are in italics.

under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance - just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. But with auto insurance you are only required to purchase it if, and only if, you choose to own and drive a vehicle. Talk about apples being compared to jello.

While there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance, an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance. I'll concede this one. You probably could gather fairly broad consensus on these three points...but that's when you started in on part II of your speech tonight.

the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple. But the house/senate bill that was floated did include some sort of panel that would make decisions on what was and was not reasonable treatment for individuals. Of course you didn't CALL it a death panel...Sarah Palin and others simply saw through that one.

under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions But you are already using federal dollars to fund abortions internationally. It was right around the annual March For Life that you revoked the Mexico City Policy, which Bush II had restored after Clinton. So you are perhaps half-truthful on this one. Also, what is abortion anyway??? homicide, murder?

Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies Then tear down the restrictions that prevent out of state companies from marketing their competitive policies in other states.

they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities. What a bogus example...considering that the US government is already subisdizing the private colleges and universities in the form of student loans, grants, etc. What would be left of the private colleges and universities if federal and state aid were not allowed to be paid to them??? And you just said you want to end such subsidies to health insurance companies. And what do you call the start of costs or the coverage of overhead, other than subsidies out of taxpayer pockets??? If you are not offering the same deals to the private firms, then you are using the taxpayers, and their customers, to undercut them...subsidze them. I find this one of the most egregious mis-truths of the night.

a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. Thank you for informing us of this one, oh omniscient one...every report/poll I have read for the last few weeks says the opposite.

I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. That is unless you want to choose to opt out of health insurance, because you already said that such a choice would be met with a penalty fee.

I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need. Define 'need.' Just the word I would choose to use here, if I wanted wiggle room later on down the road.

we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system - a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care doesn't make us healthier. Shouldn't that money be...no longer taken from us, if we are being overcharged presently, then stop taking so much...just because you found a way to prevent fleecing the tax payers, you think you get to keep the fleece to do what you want with it???

This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money This will encourage every insurance buyer to go .....1%below the policy that is being taxed, this is a golden goose that will drop dead, not keep laying. Further, everyone wants such a plan! How is this just? You have the best, now you have to pay an extra fee for having the best. I bet that all of congres and all the Kennedy's have just such a plan!

health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that "it concerns more than material things." "What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country." Yes this is a moral issue! Taking responsibility away from the individual is morally repugnant. If I have to work two jobs to pay my bills then that is my problem, not Oh, bama's.

Obama's second half

Tonight I found myself down right surprised by the number of particulars I thought tolerable, and in some cases even liked, in Oh, Bama's speech. And then the second half of the speech ensued.

Let's simply highlight three humorous moments:

1. When Obama declared that his bill would not cover illegal immigrants. There was a racous boo, hiss that ensued. Oh, Biden and his cohort Pelosi truly glared, Pelosi possibly snarled.

2. Biden and Pelosi continued to glare at the crowd to their left (not a political code in this instance). Biden even passed Pelosi a note. It seemed he almost tried to pass it under the table, but a couple inches of the page were visibly passed, received, read, and acknowledged with a nod.

3. Some bald Representative continued to sit, while others stood, with a sign he had quickly drawn: "What Bill?" Because, after all, despite all his talk about the bill he has put forward their remains no bill in anyone's hand. Is it all in his mind?

Catholic Bishops and Health Care

Let me start by saying that I was livid, appalled, furious, and seething two weeks ago when a I read the stance of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, USCCB, on Health Care.  The USCCB declares

 "In our Catholic tradition, health care is a basic human right. "  Our Bishop's conference goes further and states the following as well: This teaching is rooted in the biblical call to heal the sick and to serve "the least of these," our concern for human life and dignity, and the principle of the common good. http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/position.shtml

Let me me explain why I was seething as I read this hideous statement.  

1. The basic human rights are to be allowed to follow ones conscience, to have access to earn food and water, and so on.  

2. The Bible calls upon individuals to heal the sick.  Scripture DOES NOT call on the faithful to abandon their responsibilities and hand them over to the power of the state.

3. The principle of the common good...is this to imply that doctors and nurses are to be slaves of the common good?  If a doctor withholds the brilliance of his mind and ability, because he wants fair compensation, what will be done to punish him for harming and denying the common good? 

4. For thousands of years the care of the poor has been placed upon individuals that volunteer to heed the call of the gospel.  By handing this task over to the state they would destroy charity.  Forced tithing is not charitable giving!  

5. Christ said to, render unto the Caesar the things that are Caesar's.  This is not Caesar's.  This is our own responsibility!  

6. Education has already been handed over to the state.  Diocesan schools are almost systematically collapsing and using texts which advocate against the Catholic Faith.  I see government health care replacing Catholic ministry to the sick and infirm and corrupting it, just as government managed education has done to Catholic education.  

However, I am overjoyed to read what two bishops worthy of the name have declared.  The bishops of Kansas City have stated the following: I. The Principle of Subsidiarity: Preamble to the Work of Reform

This notion that health care ought to be determined at the lowest level rather than at the higher strata of society, has been promoted by the Church as “subsidiarity.” Subsidiarity is that principle by which we respect the inherent dignity and freedom of the individual by never doing for others what they can do for themselves and thus enabling individuals to have the most possible discretion in the affairs of their lives.  (See: Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, ## 185ff.; Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 1883) The writings of recent Popes have warned that the neglect of subsidiarity can lead to an excessive centralization of human services, which in turn leads to excessive costs, and loss of personal responsibility and quality of care. 

Pope John Paul II wrote:                                                                                  
 “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.” (Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus  #48)

And Pope Benedict writes:
“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person -every person -needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) - a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.” (Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est #28)

While subsidiarity is vital to the structure of justice, we can see from what the Popes say that it rests on a more fundamental principal, the unchanging dignity of the person. The belief in the innate value of human life and the transcendent dignity of the human person must be the primordial driving force of reform efforts.

...C. The “Right to Acquisition of Health Care” in the Teaching of the Church
The “Right to Health Care” as taught by the Church is a companion to the fundamental right to life, and rights to other necessities, among them food, clothing, and shelter. It may be best understood as a “Right to Acquire the Means of Procuring for One’s Self and One’s Family these goods, and concomitantly, a duty to exercise virtue (diligence, thrift, charity) in every aspect of their acquisition and discharge. This language of rights, coupled with duties toward those who ‘through no fault of their own’ are unable to work, is present throughout papal teaching, and only reinforces the idea that, in its proper perspective, the goal is to live and to work and ‘to be looked after’ only in the event of real necessity.” (Source: Catholic Medical Association, 2004 document,Health Care in America. – bold and italics our own)

The right of every individual to access health care does not necessarily suppose an obligation on the part of the government to provide it.  Yet in our American culture, Catholic teaching about the “right” to healthcare is sometimes confused with the structures of “entitlement.” The teaching of the Universal Church has never been to suggest a government socialization of medical services.  Rather, the Church has asserted the rights of every individual to have access to those things most necessary for sustaining and caring for human life, while at the same time insisting on the personal responsibility of each individual to care properly for his or her own health.  

Obamemnon and the NYC date

My sister in law asked me to blog about the Obama date in NYC...she said one news agency is now saying that the total cost was more like 250K, passed on to the American people.  

I'm the type who thinks the job of President is one that deserves a bit of extravagance.  A job that includes many perks.  I just take issue with the way Oh'bama's rhetoric fails to match his actions.  

Ben Shapiro has a worthy little article on the matter with a Greek bent on it.  The first two paragraphs are pasted below and followed by a link to the entire article. 

Obama Makes You Sacrifice for Him

by Ben Shapiro

Let us compare two historical situations. One took place several thousand years ago. The other took place on Monday.

According to legend, during the 13th century B.C., there was a Greek king named Agamemnon. He was bound and determined to attack and raze the city of Troy. When Agamemnon sought to launch his ships for Troy, however, the goddess Artemis sent a stagnant wind to stop Agamemnon's fleet. Agamemnon responded by calling out his daughter, Iphigenia, and sacrificing her to appease Artemis.

Fast forward to last Monday. In announcing the bankruptcy of General Motors, President Barack Obama spoke directly all those who would lose their jobs and their livelihoods. "I want you to know that what you're doing is making a sacrifice for the next generation -- a sacrifice you may not have chose to make, but a sacrifice you were nevertheless called to make so that your children and all of our children can grow up in an America that still makes things; that still builds cars; that still strives for a better future," he said.

Obama is fond of calling upon Americans to make sacrifices -- or rather, he is fond of forcing Americans into sacrificing themselves at a time and place of his choosing. Heroic sacrifice requires volunteerism, or at least an element of extraordinary choice; Obama's sort of sacrifice runs along Agamemnon-esque lines. He names the time and the place, and you are expected to put your neck on the altar.

 

 

torture at kylecupp.com

I've mentioned it before...Kyle is the guy who first suggested I start a blog. Since doing so, he and I seem to disagree on every topic that comes up. There has been a long, drag-on back-and-forth about torture on his blog, journeys in alterity. You can reach his blog by clicking on the name of his blog at the bottom of this page.

A couple of my recent comments to Kyle is posted below. I am eager to hear other people chime in on both this blog and Kyle's!

Kyle, et al...

Sorry I haven't been around for a few weeks.

Please allow me to posit the following remarks:

1. Kyle is right. V.P. Cheney did not make a sound case. His logic is flawed.

2. Teresa, I believe it was, to say that moral relativism is ok some of the time is preposterous. To state that such would be ok once in a while implies it is ok at all times. Moral Relativism is never ok. Like T. More said in R. Bolt's play, "Would you strike down every law in England to get the devil? [Roper says, "yes."] "Then where will hide when there is nothing in the land to stop the devil from coming down upon you?"

3. Kyle, we are at completely at odds with e/o when it comes to the issue of relativism. I side with P. Johnson in 'Modern Times' believing that moral relativism is at the heart of every problem and every evil that transpired in the 20th century.

4. I still uphold that severe, harsh questioning with physical and psychological tactics can be permissible by grounds of self-defense. Just like I don't think the death penalty is murder, so I don't think waterboarding is intrinsically torture.

5. I think that Dick Cheney will take Oh, Bama down with this torture issue. I think that Dick Cheney running for the presidency is possible if Obama doesn't change his tack--a Cheney-Obama debate would be fascinating to observe!

6. I think that libertarians are usual right but for the wrong reasons. I would say the same of Cheney, presently.

7. Some one said: If, according to Catholic teaching, the object chosen is intrinsically evil, the latter two sources of the moral rightness of an act cannot justify it. So, I make my point again, the question is whether EIT is intrinsically evil.
-I don't think EIT is intrinsically evil. Torture as revenge is wrong. Vengeance is not ours. But EIT upon an individual who is part of an ongoing plot of a certain nature can be reasonable.

So there it is, I continue disagree with every one of you. Aargh. Why is this?

May 22, 2009

and

Below I've pasted the entire section of Gaudium et Spes that keeps coming up. I copied the section from Vatican's website version of the "Pastoral Constitution."

MY COMMENTS ARE IN ALL CAPS.
-FIRST OFF, THIS DOCUMENT IS A PASTORAL CONSTITUTION, PROMULGATED BY PAUL VI...WHICH IMPLIES IT DOES NOT HAVE THE FULL WEIGHT AND AUTHORITY OF CHURCH TEACHING AND TRADITION BEHIND IT. (IT IS NOT AN ENCYCLICAL, IT IS NOT AN APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION, WHICH WOULD HAVE MORE WEIGHT.) IT DOES STILL IMPLY THAT WE SHOULD EXAMINE IT CAREFULLY AND EXPECT INFORMATION THAT CAN AFFECT OUR LIVES FOR THE BETTER, HOWEVER.

27. Coming down to practical and particularly urgent consequences, this council lays stress on reverence for man; everyone must consider his every neighbor without exception as another self, taking into account first of all His life and the means necessary to living it with dignity,(8) so as not to imitate the rich man who had no concern for the poor man Lazarus.(9)IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE SECTION SPECIFICALLY IS MEANT TO ADDRESS OUR TREATMENT OF THE POOR. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME SORT OF POOR IN OUR BACK AND FORTH.

In our times a special obligation binds us to make ourselves the neighbor of every person without exception. PASTORALLY SPEAKING THIS IS PERFECTLY TRUE, BUT IF OUR NEIGHBOR HARMS US WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECOMPENSE AND IF OUR NEIGHBOR ATTACKS WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE. and of actively helping him when he comes across our path, whether he be an old person abandoned by all, a foreign laborer unjustly looked down uponHOW DOES THIS CATEGORY MEASURE UP TO THE OTHER ONES? THIS SORT OF INSERTION IS WHAT HAS CONVINCED SOME THEOLOGY STUDENTS THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS ONE OF THE WORST CONSENSUS DOCUMENTS VAT. II PRODUCED, a refugee, a child born of an unlawful union and wrongly suffering for a sin he did not commit, or a hungry person who disturbs our conscience by recalling the voice of the Lord, "As long as you did it for one of these the least of my brethren, you did it for me" (Matt. 25:40). AGAIN, NONE OF THE SCENARIOS LISTED ABOVE MAKE ME THINK THIS SECTION IS MEANT TO BE A GUIDE TO WHAT TO THINK OF EIT'S ON ENEMY COMBATANTS. (I AM ONLY ATTEMPTING TO DEFEND THE POSSIBILITY OF A SCENARIO WHERE EIT CAN BE JUSTIFIED, NOT ANY PAST USE OR ABUSE.)

Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments THIS SORT OF TERM NEEDS SERIOUS DISTINCTION AND CLARIFICATION BECAUSE ANYTHING COULD BE CLAIMED AS A 'TORMENT' TO SOMEONE!inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportationDEPORTATION? WERE THE WRITERS OF THIS DOC. SERIOUS? HOW IS THE JUST EXPELLING OF A PERSON WHO VIOLATED MULTIPLE LAWS TO ILLEGALLY ENTER A SOVEREIGN NATION APPLICABLE TO THIS SPECIFIC DISCUSSION OF SECTION 27 OF GAUDIUM ET SPES?, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies(DEFINED BY WEBSTERS AS A BAD REPUTATION) indeed. DOES ANYONE KNOW THE LATIN TERM AND ITS POSSIBLE OTHER TRANSLATIONS FOR/WHERE INFAMY IS HERE USED? INFAMY HARDLY SEEMS A UNIVERSAL CONDEMNATIONThey poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator. THIS LAST LINE SEEMS OUT OF PLACE WITH SOME OF THE OTHER LINES...AGAIN, HOW DOES DEPORTATION QUALIFY AS 'SUPREME DISHONOR TO THE CREATOR?"

I'M NOT THE BIGGEST FAN OF GAUDIUM ET SPES. IT IS A POORLY WORDED PASTORAL DOCUMENT WHICH CAN BE USED TO MEAN ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE JUST LIKE THE INFAMOUS USCCB DOCUMENT ON FAITHFUL CITIZENSHIP WHICH VARIOUS 'CATHOLIC' LEADERS THEN USED TO JUSTIFY CALLING OBAMA, THE NATION'S LEAD DEFENDER OF ABORTION IN THE SENATE "THE REAL PROLIFE CANDIDATE." WHICH, OF COURSE, WAS TOTAL NONSENSE.May 27

and, lastly,

The following is taken from the most noble, trustworthy source of information in the modern world: wikipedia!

"Criticism

It [Gaudium et Spes] has been criticized[citation needed] as over-optimistic, even from the floor of the council.
The ongoing question that arose from Gaudium et Spes is: how can the church be credible in a secular world? In the commentaries of the document, Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) called certain parts of Gaudium et Spes "downright Pelagian," particularly in the treatment of free will in article 17. He is not wholly negative in his judgment about Gaudium et Spes, however, and praises the discussion of atheism in articles 19-21 as “balanced and well-founded.”
Gaudium et Spes is a pastoral document. Lumen Gentium on the other hand is a dogmatic constitution document."

This excerpt may not have specific impact on our ongoing disagreements, but it does help serve to show us the weight we ought to give the pastoral document; casting doubt as to whether you can say that G. et S. has the authority to claim universal, complete denunciation of anything.

May 29

-Any insight people have to offer on Gaudium et Spes would be very welcome as well!

Catholic Colleges and Required Courses

It has been announced that the University of San Francisco, USF, is doing away with its MA in theology program.  Two reasons were given: it is losing money and the 'pastoral ministries' program at Santa Clara (home of old acquaintance Fr. Warren, S.J.-who led me on a personal Ignatian retreat years ago) essentially does the same thing, allegedly.  

An excerpt from an article that addresses this move by USF: But, he said, the university needs to adapt to all of its students - 71 percent of whom are not Catholic.

"I'm not sure that forcing students into a Catholic theology course is appropriate if the student is Muslim, Hindu or Jewish," he said. In the core curriculum, "what we are trying to do is evoke from students sensitivity to the mystery and reality of God."

Undergraduate students seemed to agree with Privett.[Privett is the president of USF]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/10/BAKQ17HD1I.DTL

I'm curious to hear from others...it seems to me that a public school which requires a class in psychology or history or art or music or economics or political science would be forcing or foisting a potentially offensive course upon their students as well.  I'd say it is even worse, by such reasoning, for a public school to have such requirements...at least a Catholic/Jesuit school has a clear, sectarian history, mission, and identity which its students applied and requested to enter and and take part.  What about Public Elementary and High Schools that require a course in World Religions and allow non-Muslims to educate the young on Muslim precepts?   

Why would anyone want to consider themselves Catholic if the "mystery and reality of God" were not something they considered absolute and certain?  If an institution has been around for 2000 years and it doesn't have any certainty of its 'core curriculum' then why is it around?

My thought on USF...If you don't think it is fitting to require the students that voluntarily enroll in a Catholic school to be reasonably well-informed of Catholicism, what do you think must be required core curricula at a Catholic institution?  Is history required?  Is Literature required?  If education pursues truth and knowledge, what role does Catholicism play in all things objective and absolute, such as truth.  Didn't someone ask the same thing of Christ, What is truth, some 2000 years ago?   

Church hierarchy sees Oh, Bama's pragmatism at work

Taken from a short blurb from Catholic World News, a link to CWN can be found at the bottom of the blog.

While L'Osservatore Romano took a mild editorial view toward the Obama presidency, other voices from the Vatican are more critical. At a conference on human rights sponsored by the Pontifical Academy for Social Sciences, Archbishop Roland Minnerath of Dijon, France, said that Obama's "subjective" approach to human rights actually undermines human dignity. Father Michel Schooyans denounced the "messianism" of the approach taken by Obama and Tony Blair. He continued:

In fact, a society that calls itself democratic but whose leaders, invoking subjective "new rights," permit the elimination of some categories of human beings, is a society that has already set out on the road of totalitarianism.