I Usually Blog on Sundays
By Dan on Aug 31, 2008 in Blog, Local, Music, Politics, SJ-R, Techno
but I’m pretty busy with other things. I’ve got a new freelance client that I’m off to a good start with, but there’s more to be done this week. I also have a few things in the works with the SJ-R. So who has time for blogging? Except to say:
We’ve started to Wii
I hooked up the kids’ Wii today. It ended up being "self-contained and fairly explanatory"*, but as I get older, I get increasingly intimidated when faced with a thick operator’s manual. Every techno gadget has so many features these days that you deserve three college credit-hours if you can figure it all out. Anyway, they were up and singing High School Musical songs in short order. Tomorrow, we plunge into the deep with Endless Ocean.
VEEP Thoughts
What do I think of McCain’s VP pick? Well, I’ll tell you.
It was a shrewd move in that she’s untouchable. Obama’s already on thin ice with many women voters who think that he undeservingly vanquished Hillary. Any arrows slung at Ms. Palin will be interpreted as slights against women and the PUMAs will be more inclined to sit out the election, or worse, throw their weight to the right.
Of course, by picking Palin, McCain forfeits an arrow from his own quiver. He can no longer say that Obama is too young and inexperienced to inherit the throne when his own first-in-line is even younger.
I think Palin will help McCain more than Biden will help Obama, but in the end, it may not matter.
Unspeakably Sad
I don’t like to get too heavy here at BFS, but I feel compelled to tell you this. There may be no more devastating sight in all of humanity than a tiny casket. I saw one this weekend; I hope to never see one again.
I still like music
Song of the week honors go to … it’s a tie! The Weight of Lies by the Avett Brothers and Mission Control by the Whigs. I’m up for hearing something new if anyone cares to recommend their favorite new musical find.
Bocce Balls!
The Springfield Parks Foundation Bocce Ball Tournament kicks off on September 11. The $35 entry fee is a little steep, but I imagine that it is waived for standing champions. In fact, I could probably command a fairly hefty appearance fee should I decide to enter. I’m a bit of a legend in bocce circles.
*Lunch for two at the Sportsmen’s Lounge to the first person who can identify what movie this line is from.
Loading ...
I know the movie but not on my own merits. Hopefully some deserving buff will win fairly.
Gish | Sep 1, 2008 | Reply
The next time I have trouble sleeping I will give another listen to that Avett Brothers song.
M.B. | Sep 1, 2008 | Reply
Palin? Untouchable?
OK, I’ll touch. Or poke. Or something. How can this “family values” darling take proper care of her special needs infant while touring with McCain, and then possibly serving as Vice President?
I completely understand that some families need to have two incomes to survive but that’s not what we’re talking about with Palin. The campaign and the vice presidency will be a 24 hour a day job for the next four years. Who’s going to take that baby to the doctor, to therapy? Are conservatives OK with a part-time vice president or a part-time mother? Lou Dobbs is singing her praises for choosing to give birth to this child (I do too!), but thie is where a lot of the Christian conservatives lose face: their directive seems to be “have the baby…give BIRTH to it… and we’re happy.’ Don’t ask for government help raising it and if you’d like to just carry on with your life as if its poor little life doesn’t mesh with yours, so be it.
Real pro-lifers should understand that “life” happens a lot longer than birth. My heart is sick for that baby.
nancy | Sep 1, 2008 | Reply
Nancy,
I’m not saying that Palin is beyond reproach. But that Obama, or anyone officially associated with his campaign, will never make the charges that you have. It’s too risky, even if they are legitimate criticisms.
I’ve also made the point that it’s impossible to be a candidate for high office and also be a great parent. There are just too many demands on their time, and the kids have to be the losers if the candidate wants to be the winner. It’s sad, but that’s the way it is.
MB
Not every song has to rock your sock off. And I do owe you for the Whigs. Mission Control is a kicker.
Gish,
My trivia is garnering little interest. Discovered any good new beers lately?
Thanks for commenting,
Dan
Dan at BFS | Sep 1, 2008 | Reply
Not only do I know the movie, I used that scene in a trivia night question. But I’ll let a non-trivia-nerd take it. I’ll bet Nick Rogers will know.
Russ | Sep 1, 2008 | Reply
Nancy,
How does, or did, any person in politics take care of their special needs or young children? Who knows? How was she taking care of her child as governor? Do you know? I don’t. I would guess just like anybody else, they manage it however they need to.
Were you concerned that Amy Carter wasn’t getting a bedtime story read to her by Jimmy (I guess brother Billy was babysitting)? Were you concerned that Chelsea had to spend her entire time with Hillary (I would, that’s a frightening thought) as opposed to being able to be with her father full-time and soak up all the impeccable family values that he could offer to her? How is Obama going to give ample time to his two little scamps? I don’t know, but I’m sure he will do his best as he seems to like them.
I would say that any child, special needs or not, will have very little face time with their politician parent or any parent who has a job that requires them to travel a lot. Which is why you and I will probably not be running for office any time soon.
M.B. | Sep 2, 2008 | Reply
To answer your questions:
I don’t know how Palin took care of her baby as governor, but it has been widely reported that she returned to office three days after giving birth. “Managing” seems to be a good word to describe her child-rearing, rather than “mothering” or “nurturing”.
I was too young to know about or care about Amy Carter. I’m not concerned that Chelsea spent her childhood with her mother. She seems to be a very successful young woman.
I actually am concerned about the Obama girls. I think despite the opportunities awaiting them later in life as being children of a President, their childhoods will be marked by a fair amount of protection and sheltering that will take away some of the joys of being children. However, the alternative of having someone too old to have young children presents another list of problems. Furthermore, Obama has at least taken a week’s vacation during a grueling election cycle to be with his family. Not enough time, for sure, but at least it’s something.
Special needs children are just that, M.B., and you know it. They require more attention, certainly more medical appointments and to deny that they are in greater need of parental involvement is just bullheaded. We are talking about an INFANT, not a school aged child.
Call me sexist, call my hypocritical…it’s probably true, but I firmly believe that any woman with true family values would have declined the nomination for a job that would afford her virtually no time with this little boy.
nancy | Sep 2, 2008 | Reply
For the sake of argument, let’s say Palin shouldn’t be criticized for running for VP even though she has five kids or blamed for the mistakes of her pregnant teenage daughter and the obvious failure of the abstinence-only concept that she so strongly advocates. She (and McCain also since he knew) SHOULD be criticized though, for thrusting her daughter into the limelight during such a difficult time. This girl needs privacy and the support of her family now more than anything. Instead, all of us get to hear about and discuss her predicament, the decision to have and keep the baby as well as marry the father. I wonder if the father (who has also been exposed now) knew about that before the announcement was made to the world.
I personally might question the fact that no one is talking adoption; also Palins decision to return to work only three days after giving birth to her last child but I have to admit, I don’t know all the intimate details of their home and family life and how they make it work so I’ll leave it at that. But I DO know that an innocent baby and an unwed, pregnant teen don’t need to be used as pawns at the national level to help get a bunch of politicians elected….even if it is their mother.
Mary | Sep 2, 2008 | Reply
1. I don’t know how Palin could possibly have taken care of her child as governor, but it has been widely reported that she returned to work three days after giving birth. (Full disclosure: I was equally troubled by Lisa Madigan’s rapid return to work)
2. I wasn’t old enough to know who Amy Carter was during her residence in the White House.
3. I would say that Chelsea Clinton is proving herself to be a successful young woman.
4. I am actually concerned about the Obama daughters. While there will certainly be benefits to being a President’s daughter, certainly elements of childhood will be affected when their dad takes the White House. Personally (and sexistly), I’m convinced of the historical and cultural importance of a nurturing mother. I think Michelle Obama will continue to take the lead on raising her daughters with President Obama being as involved as possible.
5. Special needs children are just that…SPECIAL needs. To deny that this 5- month old infant with Down syndrome requires extra attention above and beyond healthy school-aged children is just bullheaded.
Call me sexist, call me hypocritical…I don’t care. It’s probably true. But when it comes right down to it, I believe Palin would truly show her Republican, conservative family values by dedicating as much of her time and attention to her little baby as is feasible for her family. She doesn’t have to be governor or vice-president for her family to put food on the table.
nancy | Sep 2, 2008 | Reply
As a dedicated secular-progressive liberal, I say that women should abort anything that gets in the way of their independent rise to the top in attempts to shatter that glass ceiling. Palin should have aborted that Downs baby and the 17 year old will surely have no social life with a toddler around. How dare that Palin have everyday problems of an everyday person. There is no way that the general public could relate to that.
Dave H | Sep 2, 2008 | Reply
As a compassionate conservative, I say don’t have ‘em if you can’t take care of ‘em. Also, abstinence-only sex education is effective. Also, Palin should stop bragging about her teenage daughter’s “choice” to have the baby. We don’t believe in choice.
nancy | Sep 2, 2008 | Reply
“I am concerned about the way Palin (Republican) will raise her child.” (Absent parenting)
“I am not concerned with how Bill Clinton (Democrat) raised his child.” (Absent parenting with a heaping helping of infidelity on top)
Hmmmm, I think there is a trend here but I just can’t put my finger on it.
For the record, I think the selection of Palin as the VP candidate is just more political sleaze. I’m concerned that she is the governor of a state with a small population and has little experience, which are some of the reasons I was so opposed to Bill Clinton when he first ran for office. However, for anyone to start making assumptions about her personal life at this point is kind of crazy, especially when 99% of the population didn’t know she existed until last week.
M.B. | Sep 2, 2008 | Reply
M.B.
Well let’s see here, Palin has a pregnant teenager, benefactor of her abstinence-only sex education program. Your usual obsession with the Clintons begs the question, do you think Chelsea has somehow grown up to be a person of weak moral character? As ravenous as the media is, I think we’d know if there had been any scandal surrounding her. Have you heard of any? As much as you may hate to admit it, the Clintons have raised a pretty decent child.
As for Dave H., I am thrilled, sincerely and literally thrilled that Palin gave birth to her Down syndrome baby. In no way have I ever indicated that she should have aborted that child. It may not come off as such here, but as the mother of five and a liberal, I’m all for caring for your children, no matter how challenging that may be and no matter what you have to sacrifice in the process.
The thing that keeps nagging at me, and I can’t for the life of me figure out where it keeps coming from, is….FOCUS ON THE FAMILY!!! With an infant child who has a serious illness and a teenager who is pregnant, it seems to me that now may not be the time for Palin to go after her own ambitions, in the national spotlight, with the goal to being away from this extremely needy family for entirely too much time.
I hate to throw your own words back at you but, Palin is in fact showing that nothing will get in the way of her independent rise to the top in attempts to shatter that glass ceiling. Not even her own children. Pretty sad.
nancy | Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
As the mother of 2 little people, I hope and pray that they make all the right decisions. As the mother of a teen, I know they do not. Did I not hope & pray hard enough? Too much? I don’t know, does anyone? We have to do the best we can in every situation. As a mother, I’m positive Palin was disappointed in her daughter, but also as a mother, she knows she is going to need the support & love from her family. They didn’t annouce this news, and I wouldn’t expect them to. They did not deny or cover it up either. They knew it would come out.
I agree with M.B. Noone even knew her name last week. How can you sit upon your throne and judge her as a VP, or even pretend to know what kind of a mother she is. My guess is you would LOVE her if she believed in part-birth abortion and aborted her pregnancy the moment she was informed of the down’s, like your pick Obama would have advised her. Then skirted the issue later.
cjh | Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
Just a reminder that no one has claimed that free lunch for answering the trivia question correctly. And I’m still waiting on those song recommendations.
Dan at BFS
Dan | Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
I am sick and tired of conservatives intentionally distorting the Democrats position here. FOR THE RECORD: No democrat is upset that Palin didn’t abort her 5th pregnancy; no Democrat is mad that Bristol didn’t abort her pregnancy . . . And there is nothing to suggest that Obama, or Bidden, or any other Democrat would have counseled them to do so . . . Those who say otherwise – like Dave H, cjh, and another blowhard (from today’s SJR letters) Kandace L. Hatcher – are spewing this rhetoric because they know they have ceded the moral high ground here and have no other recourse then to lie, lie and lie some more.
I have every right to judge her, cjh, that’s what elections are meant to accomplish. The electorate gets to judge the competency of the candidates. And I would be careful how you accuse others – as judgment and condemnation are standard operating procedures for conservatives.
What I find funny is how hypocritical the anti-choice crowd really is. They would deny others a choice – but when it’s their bodies and their children they revel in how great their “choice” was. But in their world there is no choice, right? What a conundrum!
The Democrats have become the party of family values – real family values – in America. That’s why Obama has already declared this issue off limits for his campaign. Democrats realize that life can be difficult and complicated and that sometimes things don’t turn out the way we planned. Democrats advocate for information to be taught that can help teens understand their bodies and prepare for what may – or may not – happened in (literally) a moment of passion. Conservatives say that information should be off limits. Democrats say the government shouldn’t be allowed at the table when a family is facing a crisis – like a teen pregnancy – and that choosing a personal course of action is difficult enough, without the threat of government incursion into a woman’s body. Conservatives want to pretend these conversations don’t ever happen. That’s a great policy stance . . . maybe it will work in others areas – like the war (let’s pretend that’s not going on) and the economy (it’s not a recession if we don’t believe it is!).
I don’t know what kind of parent Sarah Palin is – but I do know that her staunch position to advocate for abstinence couldn’t even help the one girl she should have the most influence on. What great policy! But thankfully, the Democrats have preserved their family’s right to forthrightly discuss her options. That’s what pro-choice is all about. As a conservative, that had to be an awkward conversation for Sarah to have. I wonder if she’ll ever admit how thankful she is that she got to have it.
Rock-Robster | Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
Talk about lie lie lie. Only democrats advocate for information to be taught? Give me a break. You say “democrats say government shouldn’t be allowed at the family table of crisis, like teen pregnancy.” If you think the Obama campaign is not going to try and use this to their advantage, your the “blowhard”
I agree, you have the right to judge her. Did it take you as long to decide to back your man? I thought the whole being Catholic and the abortion issue, might throw you for a day or two. Don’t worry though, the church will keep taking your money.
cjh | Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
cjh – was it your desire to have the last word that prompted you to write an incomprehensible post that no one would be able to respond to even if they wanted to?
The difference between commentators here seems to be that MB and Nancy started out disagreeing (go figure) but stayed on the issues surrounding Palin, whereas those with nothing reasonable to add to that debate resort to personal attacks on people and their religious beliefs. Well done.
Laura | Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
Rock,
You must concede that Nancy started the abortion issue by throwing out a jab at the “pro-lifers” in her first post. Although I think she made it perfectly clear that she personally supports and applauds Palin having her special needs child.
Nancy,
Yes, I can’t stand Bill and Hillary for a variety of reasons. However, I only included them in an attempt to demonstrate your ridiculous hypocrisy in criticizing Palin and how she plans to care for her child. There have been many presidents throughout history, and several in the 20th century, that have had young children while in office yet you could care less about how they were raised, even ignoring one who IN MY OPIONION had to have suffered greatly by having her father’s indiscretions broadcast world-wide.
You are merely wondering out loud about how Palin will care for her child while I am giving facts about how Chelsea was adversely affected by her parent. Chelsea seems fine, and probably is, maybe due to the years and years of professional counseling. Do I know she went to counseling because Bill likes his ladies on the chunky side? NO! Do you know that baby Palin isn’t going to benefit by having the additional resources that can only come as a result of being the child of a VP? NO!
Of course I’m not sure why I do this as you have already admitted; “Call me sexist, call my hypocritical…it’s probably true,”
It’s tough to call out a hypocrite when they could care less about being one.
M.B. | Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
That’s opinion, not opionion. Sorry.
M.B. | Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
MB, if its YOUR OPINION that Chelsea suffered greatly due to her father’s public indiscretions, then by definition, that’s not a fact. You don’t know any more about Chelsea than Nancy does about Palin and her baby.
Laura | Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
Good guesses, everyone, but the correct answer is Raising Arizona.
When Evelle asks the cashier at the mom and pop store if he’ll need pins or fasteners for the diapers he is purchasing, the cashier responds:
“Well no, they got those tape-ettes already on there, it’s self-contained and fairly explanatory.”
Ahh, we have fun.
Dan | Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
Well, I thought Mr. Unpainted Huffines would have known it. Now I wish I had gone ahead and answered it. Maybe that would have tempered some of the flame war that followed.
Sorry.
Russ | Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
Way to go Russ. Happy now?
Dan | Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
Wow, religion is off limits now even when we are talking about abortion? I’ve got to ask this question and I am sure that I won’t get a straight answer but, there are a number of “Catholics” in this blog who were raised by some very staunch Catholic parents, myself included.
Is it possible to beleive in the Catholic tenants (or Christian for that matter) as well as support a candidate who is “pro-choice”/”pro partial-birth abortion and still call yourself Catholic?”
I find this very contrary and confusing! I do know there their is a term called cafateria-catholic where you pick and choose what fits your lifestyle but still enjoy the “keeping up with the Jone’s” lifestyle of being catholic (Big C or little c).
I find the position that a politician takes on this key issue as paramount to all others because without it… no others matter. At the very least this is a human rights issue. How could we possibly condem China or Darfur for their issues when we value it so little from our side
Dave H | Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
Laura,
It’s a fact that Bill did something that could have adversely affected poor Chels.
It is mere speculation that Palin becoming VP might adversely affect baby Palin.
I’m talking about the past. Nancy is predicting the future.
That’s what I meant.
M.B. | Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
No Dave, religion is not off limits. But lets not pretend that a comment like ‘Don’t worry though, the church will keep taking your money.’ was intended to legitimately weave the religious aspects of the abortion debate into this discussion. Clearly it was just a mean-spirited slam against a person’s religious practices.
You and your lovely wife seem to think you have us all figured out. I have not once stated my views on abortion yet you think you know what they are because I’m supporting Obama in this election. Now you think you know all about how my parents raised me and what I was taught to believe. The truth is, you don’t have a clue on either matter. So first and formost, don’t drag my parents into this debate (didn’t we at least all agree that parent/child relationships are rightly off limts? And that the views of the parent aren’t necessarily the views of the child?) I speak for myself and myself only. Although, I will say that you might be surprised to find out how many ’staunch Catholics’ you think you know that are actually supporting Obama these days.
MB – I don’t see the difference. Here’s where you still lose me. It’s a fact that Palin is running for Vice President, right? Just like it’s a fact that Bill’s cheating went public. Nancy thinks that the FACT that Palin is running for VP will adversely affect the baby, just like you think that the FACT that Bill’s sins went public adversely affected Chelsea. Neither one of you know for sure. So what’s the difference?
Laura | Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
You didn’t answer the question. I am asking how the “Catholics” in this forum rationalize the fact that they call themselves Catholics yet support a politician that condones pro-choice pro-abortion/pro partial birth abortion. Please cite to me within the Doctrine of the Cathloic church where it supports this?……you know it doesn’t. Please don’t spin the question. If I was dragging your parents into this then I drug my own also. I just want to know how this is issue is rationalized? Please due tell.
Dave H | Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
Laura,
Is it a FACT that Bill Clinton had some form of sex with Monica Lewinski? I will answer for you. Yes. That is the fact that I am referring to. It happened in the past, he admitted to it, so we know it to be true. Do I know that this act hurt his child? No, we can guess that it did but we really don’t know. I already said that.
Is it fact or conjecture that Palin’s child will suffer if she becomes VP? The answer -pure, unadulterated conjecture. It has not happened so we don’t know what the outcome is going to be.
Now to clarify once more, I only brought up the Clintons as a politician who did something that at least had a strong possibility of harming their child yet some bloggers don’t seem outraged about that, yet are all put out that Palin MIGHT, IN THE FUTURE, (you know, the thing we are uncertain about) do some harm to their child. And really, to say or think that there is a possibility that Bill’s infidelity had no negative impact on his daughter is ridiculous. Do you really believe that?
I am merely pointing out that children of high level politicians from BOTH SIDES of the aisle are sure to miss out on some aspects of a normal family life. Therefore, to point out only the possible flaws of one side (the one you don’t like) while ignoring the other side (the side you love) is silly, and hypocritical.
****”you” in the last paragraph does not mean you, it is fictitious person who might just feel that way, happen to enjoy commenting here and likes sparing with me.
M.B. | Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
You put ‘em under the butt and up over the groin area.
These balloons blow up into funny shapes?
Not unless round’s funny.
Had I not been away and without web access for the weekend and busy catching up yesterday, I might have entered the derby to claim the prize. Then again, it wouldn’t really have been fair for me given my blog’s namesake, would it?
Unpainted Huffhines | Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
OK Dave, the answer to your question. I always intended to answer but wanted to give it some careful thought and not fire off a reckless reply after yesterday’s heated exchanges.
Let me begin with a question of my own, not in an attempt to dodge yours but to (hopefully) make a point. Haven’t we had a pro-life occupant in the White House for the last 8 years? And isn’t abortion still legal? Abortion became legal the year I was born, and for the majority of my lifetime, the country has been under the leadership of a pro-life President. And we still have legalized abortion. The fact is that the position of the President doesn’t effect the change you’re looking for. In my opinion, casting a vote for a candidate based on this single issue alone, in the face of serious disagreement on so many other fundamental issues, is both dangerous and irresponsible.
Last night a reporter on the floor of the Republican National Convention (yes, I am tuning in, in an effort to learn about the issues from both sides of the aisle), was speaking to a pro-choice Democrat who is supporting McCain. The reporter asked the woman how she reconciled her pro-choice beliefs with a vote for McCain. The woman said that she was not worried that abortion would become illegal with John McCain in the White House. And she was exactly right. She needn’t worry, because that’s not going to happen. So a vote solely based on that issue is, in my opinion, a wasted vote.
The Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion is not strictly limited to protection of the unborn. Rather, it is a broad teaching that demands respect for all life, both born and unborn. Which brings me to my next point – the war in Iraq. A war that John McCain is committed to waging for the next 100 years or more if he thinks it’s necessary to do so. Where is the respect for life in the killing of thousands of innocent people? How can you on the one hand condemn Catholics who vote for a pro-choice candidate but then join with the Catholics who vote in support of continued violence and death in unjustified wars? (or even in justified wars, if that’s your opinion)? I see hypocricy there. I heard one speaker at the RNC last night proclaim to wild applause that we must always attack before we are attacked, promoting a violence that flies in the face of Catholic Churth teaching.
Clearly, there is never going to be a candidate who shares our views on every issue, so we must choose the one who most closely mirrors our beliefs and our values, and has the power to lead in ways that upholds those values.
So you think I’m a cafeteria Catholic if I choose to support a pro-choice candidate. I suppose that means you strictly follow every tenent of the Catholic Church. So you and your wife have never used birth control? Didn’t engage in sexual intercourse before you were married? Attend Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation, without fail, always careful not to eat one hour before Communion? Tithe 10% of your income? You don’t have to answer any of that (unless you want to).
Finally, I believe it is unfair to paint pro-choice Democrats as supports or encouragers of abortion. You make it sound like pro-choice candidates and the Catholics who support them favor and encourge abortion. Again, good rhetoric, but you are smart enough to know better. The issue of partial-birth abortion is particularly difficult, but we all know its not just out there as an easy alternative for a woman who, in her 7th or 8th month, just decides she doesn’t feel like being pregnant anymore. Facing a life-or-death decision for both a mother and her unborn baby is clearly the most gut-wrenching, tragic, and unfair decision that anyone can be faced with. Surely you can’t suggest that this decision is a no-brainer? A person faced with such an impossible decision is at least entitled to explore every option, and how dare anyone question or criticize them for that. You don’t know what you would do and I don’t know what I would do either, and thank God neither of us ever had to find out. But you will never convince me that you wouldn’t weigh all of your options, consider every alternative and pray over every course of action. You’d want choices, right? You simply can’t oversimplify what is clearly a very complex, highly personal issue.
Laura | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
First of all, the term “cafeteria catholic” is offensive. We prefer “potluck Catholic”, or if you know the person personally, the more casual “picnic Catholic” is acceptable.
Impossible to add anything more to Laura’s outstanding last response, but since a request for proof of the official Catholic stance on voting for candidates in keeping with the cathechism of the faith, I did a little research. I knew it was there because not long ago the question was posed in the Catholic Times if Catholics could in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate and the answer was “yes”, as long as that was not the reason one voted for him/her. We are allowed to consider all aspects of a candidate’s philosophy and platform and vote with our conscience for the person most closely reflecting those values.
I made sure to find an “official” site, as there are numerous liberal Catholic sites which are more interpretive, and I didn’t want to ruffle any more feathers. So I went right to the big guns, The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the source quoted in the Catholic Times. This if from their statement on faithful citizenship:
“In this statement, we bishops do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote,” the bishops explain. “Our purpose is to help Catholics form their consciences in accordance with God’s truth. We recognize that the responsibility to make choices in political life rests with each individual in light of a properly formed conscience, and that participation goes well beyond casting a vote in a particular election
The bishops warn of two temptations for Catholics in public life. “The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life…is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.” A second temptation involves “dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, torture, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or lack health care, or unjust immigration policies are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act.”
…As they prepare for the elections, the statement says “Catholic voters should use Catholic teaching to examine candidates’ positions on issues and should consider candidates’ integrity, philosophy, and performance.”
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2007/07-187.shtml
anonymous | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
that last comment was from me…sorry.
nancy
anonymous | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
I don’t know about you guys, but McCain has my vote….Todd Palin is hot!!! If that statement doesn’t make Mrs. Best(awesome UA teacher)get on her “thoapbox”, I don’t know what would. A wise person told me this a.m that Palin was probably picked just as much, if not more, for her husband than herself. I think there is a lot of merit to that statement. From the little I know about her currently, I admire her greatly. I am sure that this nomination is something she struggled with and undertook with great consideration. It is something I could not and would not do with a young family, but not everyone sees things from the same perspective.
Di | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
Laura,
Dave’s lovely wife never claimed to have you all figured out, I know enough. I know Rock started the finger pointing and name calling. Did I take offense to it? Not coming from him.
After thinking about it, your right on all points. Thanks for the insight. I will no longer use the term “cafeteria catholic”. From now on it’s strictly “picnic catholic”
cjh | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
Knock. Knock.
Dan | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
cjh, I really am over all the nastiness of yesterday. So I just want to say this, as nicely as I can. There was sometheing very specific that you wrote yesterday that I was referring to when I said you think you have us all figured out:
“My guess is you would LOVE her if she believed in part-birth abortion and aborted her pregnancy the moment she was informed of the down’s, like your pick Obama would have advised her.”
I took major offense because you don’t know how I feel about abortion, and you attributed a stance to me that is far, far, far from my beliefs. I have 4 kids, and I never had an amnio during any of my pregnancies because it wouldn’t matter to me what they revealed. I would never abort my child under any circumstances, and I just found that claim to be one that is too offensive to lob at someone, even in the harsh confines of this blog that we all knowingly participate in.
I know i’ll never change your mind, and you know you’ll never change mine. I just tried to lay out a reasonable response to Dave’s question about how I can rationalize my vote for a pro-choice candidate. I knew you wouldn’t agree with it and that’s ok.
Have a lovely day.
Laura | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
cjh
Wrong again. The gloves were off with this comment from you to me (before Rock ever replied). This isn’t finger pointing?:
“My guess is you would LOVE her if she believed in part-birth abortion and aborted her pregnancy the moment she was informed of the down’s”
DON’T YOU DARE claim to know my personal stance on abortion. We can all disagree here on policy, and most of us are able to do so without unbased personal insults. You have crossed a very important line with that “guess” and I am absolutely offended. (I know,I know….you don’t care that I’m offended, and I’ve offended you…, but I have never accused you of anything so outrageous and you know it. It’s below the belt and completely unacceptable.
It’s nice that you admit that you don’t need to know much about people before knowing enough. (And again, you have Laura’s and my comments confused. Please try to pay attention).
Di
Your last sentence is something I try to remember, but I think it’s fair game to be scrutinized when you throw your hat into a national election. I don’t intend to come off as unkind to Palin, but I AM going to make judgments based on her personal decisions, since I need to trust her abilities to make sound decisions and policy that I agree with. It’s the best indicator of what to expect of her as vice-president. I think that’s something we’re all doing here in this forum. Her decision to run for office when her family is in (what I would consider)crisis, demonstrates values that I don’t agree with personally. Just as Dave H, cjh, mb and anyone else are allowed to let their personal values dictate their vote. Do I respect her as a mother outside of this process? I don’t really know enough to say that much, but I do think that she’s not a bad person at all and I feel sorry for the challenges that her family is facing right now.
And damn! How did you capture Ms. (not Miss!!!) Best’s voice so perfectly in print??? Outh-tanding!
anonymous | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
who’s there?
Mary | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
Babs’s uvula.
Dan | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
Laura,
Your first September 4th post was very good. Many excellent points and very articulate. You are a true asset to this blog as a commentator……mainly because you usually get where I am coming from. Not this time, but usually. And you go to football games.
M.B. | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
I don’t know, Babs. But I do know this…you’ve really let your uvula go to the dogs.
Who’s up for bocce?
Russ | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
I got balls?
Gish | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
These are ideal bocce conditions for me. I’m a mudder.
Dan | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
I’m also up for some sort of dart-throwin’, beer-drinkin’, college-football-watchin’ activity.
Dan | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
Dan,
Did you learn dart throwing while serving in the Lithuanian army?
M.B. | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
True story – yesterday, I am having this discussion with my wife regarding Catholics supporting pro-abortion issues on my cell phone at Big R when the phone goes dead. I try and try to re-connect but am unable to…. …weird, must be the metal roof. I look up and a man in black wardrobe, open collar is standing in front of me in the cowboy hat department. Having been familiar with this attire from my past, I ask the man if he is a priest. He replies yes, a Catholic priest. He then commences to say.”It is not by chance that you are standing there and I am standing here”! I about fell over but I have had a couple experiences in my life like this. Taking the opportunity I ask the priest if it is contrary for a Catholic to support a political candidate that supports such issues as abortion. He replied that “A person of good conscience will be required to answer for his/her action while on earth.” He quoted some sections which I later looked up from John Paul II’s Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae where John Paul II says that the Church teaches that, regarding law permitting abortion, it is “never licit to obey, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such law, or to vote for it” (EV73). This is the Pope speaking infallibly…the whole “he who hears you hears Me thing!”
I already knew the answer and wasn’t surprised by the response. I guess I was just looking to reinforce my own understanding of the Catholic Church. The Church to me seems to be very black and white about issues and have been for 2000 years. There’s not a lot of changing with the times or people’s lifestyles. That is why I am attracted to it. There are so many fringe protestant denominations out there that support and condone such things as abortion. I don’t understand why liberal groups try and remain Catholic and change the stances of the Church. It seems to me to be a futile effort.
I merely want to understand how people form their opinions. Catholicism is a tough religion to follow in this day and age of so many external forces pulling us into secularism. I also understand there to be Doctrines within the church and disciplines. Doctrines being non-negotiable issues such as abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and gay marriage.
Your right Laura, I do struggle with the disciplines of the Church like eating meat on Friday and making all the required masses. If you really want to know whether I use contraceptives…I don’t nor does my wife. Is that personal enough for you? I’m going to take my chances on those disciplines but I am not so sure there will not be much forgiveness when it comes to turning our backs on Doctrinal issues.
Nancy, I read the entire article in which you cited. I am not sure where you are seeing this freedom to choose non-negotiable issues. The Church nowhere says that freedom of conscience gives one carte blanche freedom . You cannot be a good Catholic and endorse an intrinsic evil. If such an endorsement doesn’t prick your conscience, then your conscience is malfunctioning.
Besides, we’re not talking here about an especially convoluted question or one that only recently has come to the attention of moral theologians. Abortion is an easy issue to deal with at the moral level. There is no reason to scratch one’s head and wonder, “Is abortion morally permissible? Is it something that I, as a Catholic, can endorse? Is it something that I, as a Catholic politician, can foster?” Freedom of conscience just doesn’t enter into the equation.
I cannot speak for others but I, in good conscience, could not vote for Barak Obama knowing the positions he takes regarding this basic human rights issue.
Just for the record, when I think of good devoted Catholic folks. I think of your Mom and Dad.
Obama on O’Reilly tonight…..no softball question there I would bet.
Dave H | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
Dave
Hmmmm…..you were in Big R, huh? Not Big D? No wonder that priest said what he did! Kidding.
The Catholic church does in fact continue to evolve and change. Look at Vatican Council II.
You can agree or disagree with the changes, but they did come from the Vatican, not some fringe groups.
Obviously, I didn’t make myself clear when I cited the article. I don’t see that I have freedom to encourage abortion. “Accept” it is a different story…do I acknowledge that it exists? Yes. So in that regard I “accept” it.
For the record, I believe that abortion is wrong. I’m glad I’ve never had to face that decision. But similarly, I don’t see that there is wiggle room in supporting a war that also takes innocent lives.
What the declaration said was “The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life…is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.” It doesn’t specify UNBORN innocent human life. It doesn’t say AMERICAN innocent human life. It doesn’t say it’s OK to take innocent human life if you’ve been attacked by others from that country.
So if your candidate is McCain, who is in support of the war, how is it any different than supporting Obama? We don’t get to put qualifiers on these things. I would think that you would rightfully counter that McCain is not encouraging the deaths of our soldiers or Iraqis, but considers the war a complex situation that requires extreme action and not without careful consideration of its outcomes.
Even though it has been alluded to Obama being pro-abortion, that’s simply not true. The twisting of pro-choice to pro-abortion is purposefully misleading. It would be like referring to McCain as anti-choice, when that would be misleading too. I’m assuming that McCain is in favor of giving women the choice of either keeping their unplanned babies, or giving them up for adoption. So it wouldn’t be fair to classify him as anti-choice.
Similarily, any intelligent person (and despite all the arrows flung, I know you are) knows that Obama is not encouraging anyone to have abortions. On the contrary, comprehensive sex education does much to try to reduce the need for it…..Democrats very much want less abortion. The idea is that it becomes unnecessary.
I note that you did not include among your non-negotiable issues the death penalty, torture, racism, war crimes…Are these things that the Church tells you are negotiable, or is that your take on the matter?
As Laura said, abortion has been legal for a long time, and will continue to be so. I’ve even heard it suggested that Republicans and the Christian right really need it to stay legal in order to have platforms to campaign on. I’m not quite that conspiratorial, but it’s any interesting premise. And even if it wasn’t legal, it would still happen. So I’m looking at issues that I think candidates have a real hope of affecting.
I am very much prepared to some day account for my actions. I do not take these things lightly as clearly neither do you. I’m honestly trying to support a candidate who most matches the values and ideals I have been brought up with, understanding that no one is going to fit that bill completely.
nancy
anonymous | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
Dave, first, thanks for a thoughtful response that stayed on topic and didn’t resort to personal attacks.
Second, I’m not trying to change the stances of the Church. I never suggested that the Chuch should change its position on abortion and I am certainly not engaged in a ‘propoganda campaign’ in favor of abortion. And for the record, neither is Barack Obama. Your question was, how can a Catholic support a pro-choice candidate, and I responded with what I hope was substantative details about how I reconcile that decision for myself. That doesn’t mean I expect the Church to change its position; I merely explained how I resolve the issue in my own conscience.
What about the conundrum of the war? Our choice in this election is one who is pro-choice vs one who is pro-war. And, while Obama is not leading a propoganda campaign in support of abortion (he believes in a woman’s right to choose but is not rallying for women to actually choose abortion), I assert that John McCain is in fact leading a propoganda campaign in favor of the war and all the death and destruction that comes with it. What about the basic human rights of those who have been tortured or killed as a result of the war we’re waging in the Middle East? Do you think that the Church weighs the basic human rights of the unborn with a higher priority than the basic human rights of the innocent people caught in the crossfire of an unjust war? I don’t. Following your line of thinking then, we aren’t morally free to vote for either candidate. So should we just not vote? I’m not willing to let the rest of the general public decide this issue for me.
There is no right or wrong answer here, it seems. And I have no quibble with the resolution that you reached for yourself, even though its different than mine, because it is clear you arrived there after careful thought, introspection and study. That’s all I ever hope of anyone, is that they form their political decisions intelligently based on issues that matter. Clearly you have done that. Hopefully you extend the same respect toward me and the decision I have made. But even if not, one thing I can tell you is that I am confident I will not have to ask for God’s forgiveness over a vote for Barack Obama.
Laura | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
Yeah, what they said!
Well put Nancy and Laura!!!
rock-robster | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
So from what I am hearing then is that the Catholic priest was wrong. The Pope when speaking infallibly was wrong? I don’t think that you will ever see the Church conform to a pro-choice stance. This is the conundrum that I have. Why would you even want to be Catholic if it is in direct conflict with your own belief system. I think that I would probably migrate to one of these fringe protestant groups where I could revel with other like-minded individuals.
Don’t get me wrong, I am always looking for loopholes in the Catholic Doctrine that would let me be a little more corrupt but its hard and I don’t see one here.
You are wrong in that there is a right answer here. We don’t have to kill babies as a society. There are thousands of families lined for miles that want to adopt these children whether they are Downs babies or rape/incest babies, or just inconvenient babies. As I said before, there is no way that we can condemn China, Darfur or any other country for human rights issues when we as a society value our own babies so little.
When you guys start touting this unjust war thing you really discredit yourselves and start sounding like Cindy Sheehan. No one is pro-war on either side. We are fighting evil forces here. This is an entirely separate blog and I am sure that Monkey Boy would to chime in on that one.
I’m gonna let you girls get the last word but I don’t believe for a second that as good devoutly raised Catholics you have rationalized in your mind that pro-choice is the position you want to judged on.
Let your (good)conscience be your guide!
Dan, I come out of retirement and once again I get you a 50+ comment submission….your welcome! You can wipe the sweat from your forehead!
Dave H | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
Gee Dave, thanks for giving the girls the last word. Did I mention I’m not 8 anymore? Anyway, so much for you returning a little respect or even acknowledging the other point of view. Two things before I go because McCain’s speech really made me ready for bed:
1) I never claimed to be the world’s greatest Catholic and you are the one who keeps insisting that I’m trying to bend Catholic teaching to suit what I believe. I’m not. It is what it is and I believe what I believe. But until God puts you in charge of all the judgement you keep talking about, I’m not too worried about my soul – but thanks for caring.
2) I must have missed the part where the pope said its ok to kill innocent people and disregard basic human rights if George W Bush (who I’m pretty sure can’t even spell infallibly let alone speak it) decides that there are evil forces to be fought.
But hey – great chatting with you. Lets do lunch.
Laura | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
“We are fighting evil forces here. This is an entirely separate blog and I am sure that Monkey Boy would to chime in on that one.”
I’m too tired……but not too tired to say this; recently I have seen some things regarding Muslim extremists and their goals that mainstream America is not privy to. I wish everyone could see what I have seen and read as it might just scare the Be-Jesus Bells (what does that mean, is it spelled right, is it capitalized?) out of many while also possibly changing their opinions on our role in Iraq and Afghanistan.
M.B. | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
Have any of you given any thought to the fact that Todd Palin will do a fine job taking care of the kids when his wife is VP? No one would question any of this if he were the one one the ticket and she was on the sidelines raising the kiddies. When Sarah Palin was elected governor of Alaska, Todd Palin stepped quit a 100K-a-year job, took a lesser paying, part time gig, and is now home raising the kids. The only difference now will be where they are living.
Art Vandalay | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
Dave
No one said the pope doesn’t speak infallibly, but the mystery priest in the hardware store most certainly can.
M.B.
Why would the government keep information from its citizens that would help them support this war that they’re so hell bent on fighting? I’m glad they filled you in, but I’ll wait for my enlightenment before casting support.
Art (MB)
Yay! I’m all for men taking the lead on child care. It’s one step closer to acknowledging that gay couples should be allowed to adopt kids. If Todd Palin can do it alone, imagine what two men could do.
Wish I could chat longer, but I have to get my kids ready for school. CATHOLIC school.
Have a good day and God bless.
nancy
anonymous | Sep 5, 2008 | Reply
Well crap, I thought I was done. But now I would just like to add this. I do not blindly think that the United States has never had or will never again have just cause to engage in warfare. I just happen to think this war in Iraq is not one of those times. And, Dave, I think you discredit yourself when you go after the mother of a dead soldier. I hope and pray you never have to find out what you’d do with that kind of grief.
Laura | Sep 5, 2008 | Reply
Nancy,
You absolutely kill me. My comment on Muslim extremists was not intended to sway you, as that we have found out is impossible. The information is out there, you just have to dig it up. It is not on cable tv.
Furthermore, I did not send the “Art Vandalay” comment although I do agree with it. Of course it would be impossible to convince you of that because you already got me all figured out don’t you?
M.B. | Sep 5, 2008 | Reply
I too have some REALLY INCREDIBLE information on Muslim extremists, their goals and the war in general that I sooooo wish I could share with you all. It is so convincing and compelling – it will blow your mind, change your opinion and make you run to support Obama for President.
Unfortunately, you are all not privy to this, so I can’t share it.
DANG!
Rock-Robster | Sep 5, 2008 | Reply
No candidate, no party, nobody has the moral high ground. Morality is relative. What the Muslims do is no more or less moral from their perspective than what America or Christianity or any other thing has done past, present and future. Try to be happy because the Universe is trying to kill you and you needn’t work ourselves up into a tizzy or something as infinitesimally small as this election cycle.
Gish | Sep 5, 2008 | Reply
Nancy: “If Todd Palin can do it alone, imagine what two men could do.” How in the World did you come to that conclusion? Joe Biden raised his two children on his own. Is that why he is in favor of gay marriage? I don’t think children are hurt by a stay at home dad. In fact, I dropped my kids off a CATHOLIC School too and saw one very involved stay at home dad who has two wonderful children. But, as usual, I think you missed the point. The media would have NEVER axed if Todd could be VP with 5 children if Sara had either stayed at home or even remained Governor. It is a clear double standard.
Art Vandalay | Sep 5, 2008 | Reply
Nancy – I don’t think Palin’s husband is gay so what made you bring up the issue of gay marriage? I don’t have a problem with gay marriage, I just don’t see why you chose to introduce it in response to Art’s comment, which was about a father’s ability to parent while his wife works.
Franklin Delano Romanowski | Sep 5, 2008 | Reply
Hey, Dan, I don’t really have anything to add, but I was just wondering, what is the record for number of comments on a single post? We have to be getting close.
Laura | Sep 5, 2008 | Reply
Laura,
Without checking, I think it was around 50. I’ll try to go back and see if I can find it.
Dan | Sep 5, 2008 | Reply
In 1991, Pope John Paul II opposed the Gulf War and publicly appealed to U.S. President George H.W. Bush not to wage it. In 2003, he once again opposed a war in Iraq and appealed to U.S. President George W. Bush to refrain from going to war.
In an Address to the Diplomatic Corps at the Vatican on January 13, 2003, the Pope declared that “War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations” and reiterated that “war cannot be decided upon . . . except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions.”
Pope John Paul did not drop his opposition to the war once it had started. On June 4, 2004, in an Address to President Bush (who was visiting him at the Vatican ), the Pope reminded the President that:
“You are very familiar with the unequivocal position of the Holy See in this regard, expressed in numerous documents, through direct and indirect contacts, and in the many diplomatic efforts which have been made since you visited me, first at Castelgandolfo on 23 July 2001, and again in this Apostolic Palace on 28 May 2002.”
So it’s clear that the Catholic Church has condemned the actions the US has engaged in in Iraq . This war is morally wrong.
We, as good Catholics, should all agree that abortion AND war (and I would go along with the Council of American Bishops and add the death penalty to that list) are morally wrong. We should all be trying with all our soul to end both.
So, we as good Catholics are faced with a challenge: neither candidate fits the bill on the very important issue of safeguarding human life. Both fail the litmus test in some specific way. Now what?
Let’s consider what a President can and cannot affect while in office. Thanks to our Constitutional separation of powers, the President has no authority to overturn a Supreme Court decision. Therefore, he cannot outlaw abortion (and, let’s face it, if it was due to your disdain of Roe v Wade that you voted for W in the first place, then you must be REALLY disappointed by now). So, neither president can do much to change the abortion law (because if the conservatives could have done something about it, wouldn’t they have done it by now??). BUT, as the Commander-in-Chief, the President CAN snap his fingers and end the war in Iraq . Just like that. He doesn’t even need Congress – just a pen and a commitment to human life . . .
So, our prospects are: 1) with McCain, continued access to legal abortions AND continued killing in a war the Vatican has condemned or 2) with Obama, continued access to legal abortions BUT no more killing in a war the Vatican has condemned. With that in mind – as a Catholic, I think it’s morally wrong to vote for McCain
Reverand Big R | Sep 5, 2008 | Reply
At 64 post Im a little late to join in on the games but I cannot sit still any longer. Mcain made a fabulous choice in picking Palin. Not for me but of the FAR RIGHT WING who need to be reassurred that God will still protect them and that the US government will continue to stick its nose in shit where it doesnt belong.
I love the ABC news interview. Her foreign policy extent is going to Canada and Mexico. Oh dont foget Russia is in eye sight just off of an Alaskin island where she has been.
I wont bagger her about her about the RNC and “FAMILY VALUES” since her daughter is knocked up but maybe a little sex education would have helped her or maybe a rubber. It all seems so funny to me that God truely does have a sense of humor.
The ABC interview showed that Palin is little more than a puppet. I wonder why her name isnt at the top of the RNC ticket instead of Mcain. Oh maybe because he is one fart away from a brain infarct and she will assume the helm.
I cant wait for the debates. Ill leave it at that….Bridge to nowhere my ass. Its going somewhere…..
Roy | Sep 13, 2008 | Reply
good article about, however! i really don’t strive to be so negative but i believe that your web site would look a little better if you would have a bit of black on it =) No, you don’t need to agree… this really is only my humble opinion. Thanks to the excellent post anyhow!
Best regards, Resa
Resa | Apr 8, 2011 | Reply
Greetings from Los angeles! I’m bored to death at work so I decided to browse your website on my iphone during lunch break. I really like the info you present here and can’t wait to take a look when I get home. I’m shocked at how fast your blog loaded on my cell phone .. I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyways, superb blog!
online dating sweden | Dec 16, 2011 | Reply
The next time I just read your blog post, I hope that it doesnt disappoint me just as much as that one. After all, I know it was my replacement for read, but I actually thought youd have something interesting to say. All I hear is a lot of whining about something you could fix in the event you werent too busy trying to find attention.
العاب جديدة | Dec 16, 2011 | Reply
I can just say such a relief to discover someone who actually knows what theyre talking about online. You need to discover how to bring a concern to light making it important. More and more people have to check this out and understand why side of the story. I cant believe you are not very popular because you definitely possess the gift.
Selina Fugo | Jan 3, 2012 | Reply