There is nothing that disappoints me more than Conservatives pushing for the expansion of the school voucher program. I am vehemently opposed to the idea of school vouchers for several simple reasons.
1--The First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The vast majority of school vouchers go to private, Christian and Catholic schools. Taxpayer money should not be used to fund promotion of religion. Having gone to Catholic schools for 8 years, I can tell you that even if you are "excused" from religious activities during the school day (an argument used to refute the First Amendment argument), the prayers, crucifixes and pictures are still there in front of you all day. And what do you think the reaction would be from the Religious Right if a Milwaukee or Madison mosque opened a school and vouchers were being used there? I'm guessing there would be far less celebrating the "freedom of choice" being exercised by those families.
2--It's nothing more than petty politics. School voucher supporters have an axe to grind with what they see as the "liberal control" of public schools. What better way to subvert that control than to bleed off students and put them in classrooms where they will learn the "values" that I mentioned in item number one? There is a reason this has been a Milwaukee and Racine program for such a long time.
3--Lack of accountability. Democrats are 100% correct in saying that private schools are not held to the same academic standards as public schools. For some reason, school voucher supporters believe that once a kid enters a religious school classroom they suddenly become smarter and more focused. The limited testing that has been done show absolutely NO difference between kids taken from the public schools and put in the private schools and those left in their "failing" schools.
4--It runs counter to everything else Conservatives promote--All of us promoting smaller government roll our eyes at plans to increase funding for subsidized day care, ObamaPhones and mortgage assistance programs--arguing that people should manage their money better to afford those things. We would never promote a program to use taxpayer dollars to buy cars for people so they don't have to use public transportation. And Republicans have been arguing most vehemently for a Constitutional amendment preventing the use of gas taxes and transportation fees from being used for anything other than roads. Yet, those same people want to take property taxes--which are constitutionally earmarked for City, County and PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION--and use them for another purpose!
Even if you disagree with my first three points, you have to agree with the fourth one--just for the sake of consistency.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Why I Vote Every Time
The usual response to my reminders to get out and vote today has been "For what?" And when I explain that there is a primary for State Supreme Court (and nothing else) on the ballot (at least here in Oshkosh), the reply has been "Why vote in just one race?" Well, here is why I make sure to vote every time--in every election: Jesse Jackson, Jr.
For those not familiar, Jackson is a now-former Congressman from Chicago--and the son of the Reverend Jesse Jackson. Jackson is currently facing federal charges after using $750,000 in campaign funds to pay for a lavish lifestyle that included fancy cars, trips and sports memorabilia. Jackson also garnered national attention when he basically disappeared for most of his last term in office--not casting a single vote on the fiscal cliff bill and not bothering to make campaign appearances in advance of the November election. His office would only say that he was undergoing medical treatment. It turns out that Jackson was in a mental ward at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota--being treated for bi-polar disorder.
You may have noticed that I used the term "former Congressman" in describing Jackson. But it was not because he lost his seat in Washington in the last election. Jackson resigned three weeks after easily winning re-election in his Chicago district. And it's not like all of the news surrounding his legal and mental health issues came out AFTER the election. It was widely publicized that Jackson and his wife (a member of the Chicago City Council) were misusing campaign funds, were facing federal charges and that he was suffering from severe mental disease. Despite all of that, 71.7% of voters in his district still went to the polls on November 6th and said "This is the guy that I want representing me in Washington." (And by technically "winning" that additional term--even without serving a single day--Jackson's federal pension increases to $45,000--if he is allowed to actually keep it).
And so I will brave the cold and the snow again today to get to my polling place and be one of the few dozen who casts a ballot there in an otherwise "meaningless" February primary. Because I almost feel an obligation to somehow "cancel out" the stupidity of those who vote for people like former Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.
For those not familiar, Jackson is a now-former Congressman from Chicago--and the son of the Reverend Jesse Jackson. Jackson is currently facing federal charges after using $750,000 in campaign funds to pay for a lavish lifestyle that included fancy cars, trips and sports memorabilia. Jackson also garnered national attention when he basically disappeared for most of his last term in office--not casting a single vote on the fiscal cliff bill and not bothering to make campaign appearances in advance of the November election. His office would only say that he was undergoing medical treatment. It turns out that Jackson was in a mental ward at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota--being treated for bi-polar disorder.
You may have noticed that I used the term "former Congressman" in describing Jackson. But it was not because he lost his seat in Washington in the last election. Jackson resigned three weeks after easily winning re-election in his Chicago district. And it's not like all of the news surrounding his legal and mental health issues came out AFTER the election. It was widely publicized that Jackson and his wife (a member of the Chicago City Council) were misusing campaign funds, were facing federal charges and that he was suffering from severe mental disease. Despite all of that, 71.7% of voters in his district still went to the polls on November 6th and said "This is the guy that I want representing me in Washington." (And by technically "winning" that additional term--even without serving a single day--Jackson's federal pension increases to $45,000--if he is allowed to actually keep it).
And so I will brave the cold and the snow again today to get to my polling place and be one of the few dozen who casts a ballot there in an otherwise "meaningless" February primary. Because I almost feel an obligation to somehow "cancel out" the stupidity of those who vote for people like former Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Monday, February 18, 2013
The Real Threat From Nature
How about the show the Cosmos put on last week? A meteor streaks across the sky in Russia, causing explosions that injured more than a thousand--AND an asteroid passes closer to the planet than some of our communications and weather satellites within days of each other. Astronomers believe that the two events are likely not related. But they do exemplify the very REAL threat to all life on our planet.
And yet, I am not hearing any calls from environmentalists, animal rights groups, the United Nations or Democrats to do anything about this. The objects that struck and passed near planet Earth last week are dust bunnies and pebbles compared to some of the other objects floating around the solar system and the galaxy. And NASA readily admits that they are unable to track more than 99% of those space rocks. We got a couple weeks head notice about the asteroid--but there was no notice at all about the Russian meteor. So where are the alarmists demanding immediate action to "protect the planet"?
This is a threat that we know IS going to happen again. The dinosaurs flourished during one of the warmest periods in Earth's history (as did all of the plant life and fauna that now provides us with oil and coal). But they didn't die off suddenly because the planet got "too hot". They (along with nearly all other life on the planet) were killed by the after-effects of a giant meteor strike--which blocked out sunlight and caused severe global cooling. A couple of other mass extinctions can be attributed to meteor and asteroid strikes as well in the billions of years of Earth's history.
So again, why the lack of outcry from those looking to "protect Mother Earth"? Is it because this threat can't be blamed on the rich, or industry, or the United States? Is it because the "industrial war complex" would actually be part of the solution? Or is it because you would have to admit that one medium sized meteor strike would do enough to lower the temperature of the Earth far more than the uber-expensive green energy programs that you promote to retard the progress of mankind?
Now don't think that we need some Hollywood solution to prevent an asteroid strike. There's no need to build titanium Space Shuttles to land on the asteroid so crews of miners can blow it up by drilling a hole 500-feet deep and dropping in an atomic bomb to miraculously destroy the rock seconds before disaster. (Armageddon is without a doubt, the most laughable sci-fi movie in the history of cinema.) Most astrophysicists believe a laser or a proton ray could be used to "nudge" the threatening object on a different path while it is still millions of miles away from Earth--causing it to miss us (this time around). Also needed would be a system of satellites and ground facilities facing out to track sudden changes in orbital patterns of objects in our neighborhood.
If we have been so willing to waste billions of dollars to keep wind turbines functioning, I would think spending the same amount to actually protect the planet from a REAL threat might be a better use of our resources.
And yet, I am not hearing any calls from environmentalists, animal rights groups, the United Nations or Democrats to do anything about this. The objects that struck and passed near planet Earth last week are dust bunnies and pebbles compared to some of the other objects floating around the solar system and the galaxy. And NASA readily admits that they are unable to track more than 99% of those space rocks. We got a couple weeks head notice about the asteroid--but there was no notice at all about the Russian meteor. So where are the alarmists demanding immediate action to "protect the planet"?
This is a threat that we know IS going to happen again. The dinosaurs flourished during one of the warmest periods in Earth's history (as did all of the plant life and fauna that now provides us with oil and coal). But they didn't die off suddenly because the planet got "too hot". They (along with nearly all other life on the planet) were killed by the after-effects of a giant meteor strike--which blocked out sunlight and caused severe global cooling. A couple of other mass extinctions can be attributed to meteor and asteroid strikes as well in the billions of years of Earth's history.
So again, why the lack of outcry from those looking to "protect Mother Earth"? Is it because this threat can't be blamed on the rich, or industry, or the United States? Is it because the "industrial war complex" would actually be part of the solution? Or is it because you would have to admit that one medium sized meteor strike would do enough to lower the temperature of the Earth far more than the uber-expensive green energy programs that you promote to retard the progress of mankind?
Now don't think that we need some Hollywood solution to prevent an asteroid strike. There's no need to build titanium Space Shuttles to land on the asteroid so crews of miners can blow it up by drilling a hole 500-feet deep and dropping in an atomic bomb to miraculously destroy the rock seconds before disaster. (Armageddon is without a doubt, the most laughable sci-fi movie in the history of cinema.) Most astrophysicists believe a laser or a proton ray could be used to "nudge" the threatening object on a different path while it is still millions of miles away from Earth--causing it to miss us (this time around). Also needed would be a system of satellites and ground facilities facing out to track sudden changes in orbital patterns of objects in our neighborhood.
If we have been so willing to waste billions of dollars to keep wind turbines functioning, I would think spending the same amount to actually protect the planet from a REAL threat might be a better use of our resources.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Stultior, Extorquendo, Rapacitate
We've known for decades that members of the International Olympic Committee are money-grubbing scum--interested only in lining their own pockets and those of their cronies. But now they appear to be hell-bent on destroying the very spirit of the Games. How else to explain the decision this week to put Wrestling on the chopping block for the 2020 Games.
Wrestling is one of the core sports upon which not just the Modern Games were built--but the Ancient Olympics Games as well (insert naked Greek guys jokes here). It captures one of the most basic nature of human competition--I think that I am stronger than you, and I'm about to prove it.
Some of America's greatest Olympians were wrestlers. Dan Gable (the GREATEST WRESTLER OF ALL TIME) didn't give up a single point to his opponents in capturing the Freestyle Gold at the 1972 Games in Munich. Rulon Gardner gave us the "Miracle On The Mat" in ending Russian Aleksandr Karelin's 13-YEAR undefeated streak to win Gold in Greco-Roman Wrestling at the 2000 games in Sydney. That same year Garrett Lowney from tiny Freedom, Wisconsin won Bronze in his weight class in Greco-Roman. In 2004, Kurt Angle won Gold in Freestyle competing with BROKEN VETERBRAE IN HIS NECK!! That same year, Cael Sanderson capped off an undefeated amateur career (with a record 4 UNDEFEATED NCAA CHAMPIONSHIPS) with Freestyle Gold. And in Beijing in 2008, Henry Cejudo--the son of illegal immigrants in South Central LA--became the youngest American wrestler EVER to win a Gold medal.
And those are just the stories of American glory. There are hundreds of similar athletes with similar amazing tales from dozens of other countries over the years as well. But that isn't good enough for the IOC. Wrestling's biggest problem? It doesn't make for good TV. Better to have the "chick flick" equivalent of sports: Synchronized Swimming or Rhythmic Gymnastics in order to assure better ratings--and thus bigger TV contracts from NBC.
If the IOC needs to cut a sport to save Wrestling, could I offer up Golf as an option? Golf needs the Olympics like it needs longer rounds and slower play. Golf already has four major events (cleverly called "Majors") EVERY YEAR. Plus, it already has heated international competitions like the Ryder Cup and President's Cup being contested on biennial cycles. Besides, the British Open has qualifying events on every continent except Antarctica--making it a de facto "World Championship". But the IOC decided a couple of years ago that it wanted in on the money that big-time golf can bring in.
2016 will be the first Olympic Golf Tournament (provided Rio de Janeiro can actually get the course built in time)--and the hope is that Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy will play--bringing with them the huge built-in TV audience and sponsors. That is not a given however, as Tiger cares only about the Majors (and an Olympic Gold wouldn't count toward his pursuit of Jack Nicklaus' record of 18) and Rory may sit out because he is worried about offending entire nations--since he is eligible to play for either Great Britain or Ireland. So how many people would tune in if Team USA is Matt Kuchar and Keegan Bradley?
But golf will stay, if only for the giant dollar signs attached to it. You don't think Titleist/Addidas, Taylor Made, Nike and all the other manufacturers aren't going to pony up big bucks to be the "Official Driver, Fairway Woods, Irons, Wedges, Putter, Ball, Tee, Bag, Shirt, Shoes, Spikes, Cap, Umbrella, Divot Repair, Towel and Gloves of the Olympic Games"? It's too bad wrestlers only have shoes, singlets and those ear muffs to sell.
If sensibility is not restored by 2020 and Wrestling is not re-instated as a sport, it might be time to change the Olympic motto from "Citius, Altius, Fortius" ("Faster, Higher, Stronger) to "Stultior, Extorquendo, Rapacitate" (Dumber, Cockier, Greedier)
Wrestling is one of the core sports upon which not just the Modern Games were built--but the Ancient Olympics Games as well (insert naked Greek guys jokes here). It captures one of the most basic nature of human competition--I think that I am stronger than you, and I'm about to prove it.
Some of America's greatest Olympians were wrestlers. Dan Gable (the GREATEST WRESTLER OF ALL TIME) didn't give up a single point to his opponents in capturing the Freestyle Gold at the 1972 Games in Munich. Rulon Gardner gave us the "Miracle On The Mat" in ending Russian Aleksandr Karelin's 13-YEAR undefeated streak to win Gold in Greco-Roman Wrestling at the 2000 games in Sydney. That same year Garrett Lowney from tiny Freedom, Wisconsin won Bronze in his weight class in Greco-Roman. In 2004, Kurt Angle won Gold in Freestyle competing with BROKEN VETERBRAE IN HIS NECK!! That same year, Cael Sanderson capped off an undefeated amateur career (with a record 4 UNDEFEATED NCAA CHAMPIONSHIPS) with Freestyle Gold. And in Beijing in 2008, Henry Cejudo--the son of illegal immigrants in South Central LA--became the youngest American wrestler EVER to win a Gold medal.
And those are just the stories of American glory. There are hundreds of similar athletes with similar amazing tales from dozens of other countries over the years as well. But that isn't good enough for the IOC. Wrestling's biggest problem? It doesn't make for good TV. Better to have the "chick flick" equivalent of sports: Synchronized Swimming or Rhythmic Gymnastics in order to assure better ratings--and thus bigger TV contracts from NBC.
If the IOC needs to cut a sport to save Wrestling, could I offer up Golf as an option? Golf needs the Olympics like it needs longer rounds and slower play. Golf already has four major events (cleverly called "Majors") EVERY YEAR. Plus, it already has heated international competitions like the Ryder Cup and President's Cup being contested on biennial cycles. Besides, the British Open has qualifying events on every continent except Antarctica--making it a de facto "World Championship". But the IOC decided a couple of years ago that it wanted in on the money that big-time golf can bring in.
2016 will be the first Olympic Golf Tournament (provided Rio de Janeiro can actually get the course built in time)--and the hope is that Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy will play--bringing with them the huge built-in TV audience and sponsors. That is not a given however, as Tiger cares only about the Majors (and an Olympic Gold wouldn't count toward his pursuit of Jack Nicklaus' record of 18) and Rory may sit out because he is worried about offending entire nations--since he is eligible to play for either Great Britain or Ireland. So how many people would tune in if Team USA is Matt Kuchar and Keegan Bradley?
But golf will stay, if only for the giant dollar signs attached to it. You don't think Titleist/Addidas, Taylor Made, Nike and all the other manufacturers aren't going to pony up big bucks to be the "Official Driver, Fairway Woods, Irons, Wedges, Putter, Ball, Tee, Bag, Shirt, Shoes, Spikes, Cap, Umbrella, Divot Repair, Towel and Gloves of the Olympic Games"? It's too bad wrestlers only have shoes, singlets and those ear muffs to sell.
If sensibility is not restored by 2020 and Wrestling is not re-instated as a sport, it might be time to change the Olympic motto from "Citius, Altius, Fortius" ("Faster, Higher, Stronger) to "Stultior, Extorquendo, Rapacitate" (Dumber, Cockier, Greedier)
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Making ObamaCare Stand On Its Own
There goes Governor Scott Walker undermining the Affordable Care Act again. On Wednesday, the Governor rejected the "ObamaCare" requirement to add more people to the BadgerCare program--and said "No" to an additional $30-Million in Medicaid funding. This follows Walker's decision to let the Federal Government to set up the Health Care Exchanges also required by the new law. You know, it's almost like the Governor wants those responsible for foisting this monstrosity on us to take the fall when it ultimately fails miserably.
Let's start with Health Care Exchanges. Washington mandated them--then tried to push off the cost and responsibility to set up and monitor them to the states. Some governors--who love having even more bureaucracy and control jumped at the chance to set up yet another level of state government. Others--like Governor Walker--told Washington "You are the experts at this--why don't you do all of the leg work and bear all of the expense?" And Democrats howled that Wisconsin's exchanges won't be as good because they were going to be set up by the Obama Administration. Excuse me, but the folks at Health and Human Services are the "architects" of "ObamaCare", how could they possibly not set up the most efficient system that will guarantee the best rates and coverages?
And now with the Governor's decision not to have the Badgercare program bear more of the brunt of the ACA expenses, Walker is again forcing Washington to put its money where its mouth is. All the Governor's decision means is that fewer people will be using Federal funds filtered through the Badgercare program to get their health insurance coverage--and more will be taking their Federal vouchers to purchase health insurance through the Exchanges. The two big differences is that those above the poverty line will likely have more "skin in the game" than those below the line on Badgercare (and having a stake in the game will likely lead to some better lifestyle choices)--and when Medicaid funding is cut in the future to deal with the Federal Deficit Crisis, state taxpayers won't get stuck with the cost of subsidizing the Badgercare program at an even higher level.
And don't buy the arguments that you will hear over the next few days from those upset with the Governor's decision. First off, doing it "Walker's Way" will not mean any fewer people will have health insurance--because the Affordable Care Act REQUIRES EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN TO HAVE HEALTH INSRUANCE!! This is why the Exchanges are there, to allow non-group buyers to purchase policies from all of those companies that will be "competing" for their business. (Remember, that is going "drive down the cost of health insurance"--having to cover all of those people who under the old standards of risk assessment those insurers wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.)
And then there is my favorite argument: "That money is going to be spent elsewhere anyway". We heard that after Walker told the Feds to keep their $300-Million for less-than-high-speed rail service in the state. That money instead went to California--which needed it, since their moderate-speed rail projects are looking at going over budget by about 100%. So let the Federal Medicaid dollars go to Illinois or California or Massachussetts--which are being buried by debt created by other government programs.
Besides, we all know that "ObamaCare" is designed to fail anyway--so a Democrat somewhere in the future can make a "stronger case" for the ultimate liberal goal of a budget-crushing single-payer system. So why don't we just end the charade sooner than later and just get to what you guys want in the first place?
Let's start with Health Care Exchanges. Washington mandated them--then tried to push off the cost and responsibility to set up and monitor them to the states. Some governors--who love having even more bureaucracy and control jumped at the chance to set up yet another level of state government. Others--like Governor Walker--told Washington "You are the experts at this--why don't you do all of the leg work and bear all of the expense?" And Democrats howled that Wisconsin's exchanges won't be as good because they were going to be set up by the Obama Administration. Excuse me, but the folks at Health and Human Services are the "architects" of "ObamaCare", how could they possibly not set up the most efficient system that will guarantee the best rates and coverages?
And now with the Governor's decision not to have the Badgercare program bear more of the brunt of the ACA expenses, Walker is again forcing Washington to put its money where its mouth is. All the Governor's decision means is that fewer people will be using Federal funds filtered through the Badgercare program to get their health insurance coverage--and more will be taking their Federal vouchers to purchase health insurance through the Exchanges. The two big differences is that those above the poverty line will likely have more "skin in the game" than those below the line on Badgercare (and having a stake in the game will likely lead to some better lifestyle choices)--and when Medicaid funding is cut in the future to deal with the Federal Deficit Crisis, state taxpayers won't get stuck with the cost of subsidizing the Badgercare program at an even higher level.
And don't buy the arguments that you will hear over the next few days from those upset with the Governor's decision. First off, doing it "Walker's Way" will not mean any fewer people will have health insurance--because the Affordable Care Act REQUIRES EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN TO HAVE HEALTH INSRUANCE!! This is why the Exchanges are there, to allow non-group buyers to purchase policies from all of those companies that will be "competing" for their business. (Remember, that is going "drive down the cost of health insurance"--having to cover all of those people who under the old standards of risk assessment those insurers wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.)
And then there is my favorite argument: "That money is going to be spent elsewhere anyway". We heard that after Walker told the Feds to keep their $300-Million for less-than-high-speed rail service in the state. That money instead went to California--which needed it, since their moderate-speed rail projects are looking at going over budget by about 100%. So let the Federal Medicaid dollars go to Illinois or California or Massachussetts--which are being buried by debt created by other government programs.
Besides, we all know that "ObamaCare" is designed to fail anyway--so a Democrat somewhere in the future can make a "stronger case" for the ultimate liberal goal of a budget-crushing single-payer system. So why don't we just end the charade sooner than later and just get to what you guys want in the first place?
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Twitter--But For Radio
Since social media appears to be the only way to reach people about politics--here are my thoughts on the State of the Union address--180 characters at a time.
--Middle class Americans used to worry about outliving their retirement savings. Now we have to try to outlive the taxes and debt we are creating in Washington every day.
--It's too bad the "shovel ready" jobs don't actually require the use of shovels anymore. Hopefully all of those out of work accountants, retail clerks, and marketing specialists can get CDL's real quick.
--If every child has to attend, it's not "pre-school"--it is "school"
--I am now taking bets as to how soon we will have someone in front of the school board talking about the alarming number of 4-year olds who are "not ready to learn"--and how we need 3-year old kindergarten.
--I'm putting the over/under on that previous bet at ten minutes after the first day of "required pre-school".
--Remember how parents used to hold back five-year olds because they "weren't ready for school yet" and needed to spend a little more time at home?
--Has any Presidential message ever fallen on deafer ears than the "men need to stay with the mothers of their children"?
--How effective is the "men help raise your children" message anyway after you've just spent an hour talking about all of the free government programs you are going to provide to "needy kids"?
--What is the timeline before we have to send troops back to Afghanistan to deal with the Taliban and Al Qaeda resurgence there? I'm putting the over/under at 5 years.
--What does it say about us that the number one most talked about topic from last night is that Senator Ricky Rubio drinks water while giving speeches?
--Middle class Americans used to worry about outliving their retirement savings. Now we have to try to outlive the taxes and debt we are creating in Washington every day.
--It's too bad the "shovel ready" jobs don't actually require the use of shovels anymore. Hopefully all of those out of work accountants, retail clerks, and marketing specialists can get CDL's real quick.
--If every child has to attend, it's not "pre-school"--it is "school"
--I am now taking bets as to how soon we will have someone in front of the school board talking about the alarming number of 4-year olds who are "not ready to learn"--and how we need 3-year old kindergarten.
--I'm putting the over/under on that previous bet at ten minutes after the first day of "required pre-school".
--Remember how parents used to hold back five-year olds because they "weren't ready for school yet" and needed to spend a little more time at home?
--Has any Presidential message ever fallen on deafer ears than the "men need to stay with the mothers of their children"?
--How effective is the "men help raise your children" message anyway after you've just spent an hour talking about all of the free government programs you are going to provide to "needy kids"?
--What is the timeline before we have to send troops back to Afghanistan to deal with the Taliban and Al Qaeda resurgence there? I'm putting the over/under at 5 years.
--What does it say about us that the number one most talked about topic from last night is that Senator Ricky Rubio drinks water while giving speeches?
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Pope Dreams
It took all of two minutes after yesterday's surprise announcement about the resignation of Pope Benedict for speculation to start in the electronic and social media about the possibility of Cardinal Timothy Dolan becoming the next Pontiff. The former Milwaukee Arch-Bishop is out-going, engaging, well-spoken, knowledgeable on subjects far beyond theology and a natural leader. He has become the face of the Catholic Church in the US, engaging the Obama Administration in the fight over mandatory coverage of contraceptives and abortion procedures in the Affordable Care Act. He has just one thing going against him when it comes to consideration for Pope--he is an American.
The Vatican has no interest is selecting an American to lead the church. Until recently, we were already the world leader in everything else--so why should we have that position of power as well? And the Catholic Church in America is in a state of eclipse--with membership on the decline, a serious shortage of priests to serve congregations and an increasingly diminished role in society. Furthermore, the sexual abuse coverup perpetrated across the country for decades has cost/will cost the Church millions and perhaps billions of dollars in settlements. And the Vatican doesn't like to part with its money (to outsiders) easily.
There was plenty of talk yesterday about how a Dolan papacy would "re-invigorate" the Catholic faith in the US. But would having an American Pope really change the attitudes that have led to its decline here? Would ex-Catholics suddenly say "Oh, the Pope is an American? I guess I don't care about the role of women in the hierarchy of the Church anymore." Or "Since Timothy Dolan is the Pope now, I guess I do oppose gay marriage and contraception again." And it's not like the "lip service" Catholics already in positions of power--like the Kennedys, the Cuomos and John Kerry are suddenly going to change their politics to fit church teachings.
It is far better for the Vatican to focus its attention on the areas where Catholicism is actually growing: South America, Africa and Asia--societies where the Church's teachings and social stances still fit with societal norms. And where religion is actually a part of the government structure--unlike the US, where the Founding Fathers clearly spelled out the separation of Church and State. That being said, will the College of Cardinals actually be comfortable with watching a man of color don the Papal Mitre or the Fisherman's Ring? I'd be willing they will not--meaning another European white man to head the Church. I mean, they've only been in business for 2,013 years--no need to rush into any major changes too quickly.
The Vatican has no interest is selecting an American to lead the church. Until recently, we were already the world leader in everything else--so why should we have that position of power as well? And the Catholic Church in America is in a state of eclipse--with membership on the decline, a serious shortage of priests to serve congregations and an increasingly diminished role in society. Furthermore, the sexual abuse coverup perpetrated across the country for decades has cost/will cost the Church millions and perhaps billions of dollars in settlements. And the Vatican doesn't like to part with its money (to outsiders) easily.
There was plenty of talk yesterday about how a Dolan papacy would "re-invigorate" the Catholic faith in the US. But would having an American Pope really change the attitudes that have led to its decline here? Would ex-Catholics suddenly say "Oh, the Pope is an American? I guess I don't care about the role of women in the hierarchy of the Church anymore." Or "Since Timothy Dolan is the Pope now, I guess I do oppose gay marriage and contraception again." And it's not like the "lip service" Catholics already in positions of power--like the Kennedys, the Cuomos and John Kerry are suddenly going to change their politics to fit church teachings.
It is far better for the Vatican to focus its attention on the areas where Catholicism is actually growing: South America, Africa and Asia--societies where the Church's teachings and social stances still fit with societal norms. And where religion is actually a part of the government structure--unlike the US, where the Founding Fathers clearly spelled out the separation of Church and State. That being said, will the College of Cardinals actually be comfortable with watching a man of color don the Papal Mitre or the Fisherman's Ring? I'd be willing they will not--meaning another European white man to head the Church. I mean, they've only been in business for 2,013 years--no need to rush into any major changes too quickly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)