Too bad this is ABD (Already Been Done), or I would want to do this at my wedding . . .
Sunday, August 12, 2007
The Rich Get Richer . . .
I am so sick of hearing people (liberals actually, but I guess they're people too...) denying that allowing a tax cut to expire is the same as raising taxes. Come on people, when something that is done or not done causes taxes to go up, then that is a raise in taxes. It's math.
I also have a distaste for people (again, liberals) complaining about the majority of tax breaks going to the more wealthy among us. Doesn't this just make sense since the wealthy shoulder a higher tax burden in the first place?
Anyway, here is a little analogy to help the economically illiterate undestand what is going on when when we're talking about tax breaks.
H/T No Pasaran!
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
1. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
2. The fifth would pay $1.
3. The sixth would pay $3.
4. The seventh would pay $7.
5. The eighth would pay $12.
6. The ninth would pay $18.
7. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, thats what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. Since you are all such good customers, he said, Im going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtracted that from everybodys share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each mans bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
1. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
2. The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
3. The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
4. The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
5. The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
6. The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. I only got a dollar out of the $20, declared the
sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, but he got $10! Yeah, that’s right, exclaimed the fifth man. I only saved a dollar, too. Its unfair that he got TEN times more than I! Thats true!! shouted the seventh man.
Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!
Wait a minute, yelled the first four men in unison. We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor! The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him.
But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn”t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
That, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
I also have a distaste for people (again, liberals) complaining about the majority of tax breaks going to the more wealthy among us. Doesn't this just make sense since the wealthy shoulder a higher tax burden in the first place?
Anyway, here is a little analogy to help the economically illiterate undestand what is going on when when we're talking about tax breaks.
H/T No Pasaran!
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
1. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
2. The fifth would pay $1.
3. The sixth would pay $3.
4. The seventh would pay $7.
5. The eighth would pay $12.
6. The ninth would pay $18.
7. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, thats what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. Since you are all such good customers, he said, Im going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtracted that from everybodys share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each mans bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
1. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
2. The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
3. The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
4. The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
5. The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
6. The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. I only got a dollar out of the $20, declared the
sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, but he got $10! Yeah, that’s right, exclaimed the fifth man. I only saved a dollar, too. Its unfair that he got TEN times more than I! Thats true!! shouted the seventh man.
Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!
Wait a minute, yelled the first four men in unison. We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor! The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him.
But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn”t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
That, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Ahhh . . .Cheap Labor!
For my summer employment, I worked at a legal aid clinic in NoVa. I worked for free, as an investment in my future career as a struggling-to-pay-off-my-student-loans attorney. Hopefully, this investment will pay off. That's one example of cheap labor.
A second example of cheap labor is the crowd of day workers I passed every morning on my way to work. Actually, I pretty much passed them morning, noon, and night. In fact, one night I passed one who was passed OUT under a tree by the local library, being oh so gently shaken awake by a policeman. I am somewhat uncharitably but realistically under the assumption that the gentleman in question was passed out due to excessive drinking at the run down watering hole that is catty-corner to the library.
I was really disappointed that I didn't have a camera to capture that incident, so I borrowed one to take a few pics for posterity. These aren't the best, when I took these pictures it was a little late in the day for prime day worker gathering, but they do give a feel for what it's like in NoVa re: illegal(?) immigrants hangin' around, waiting for the white vans to come pick them up for a job.
A second example of cheap labor is the crowd of day workers I passed every morning on my way to work. Actually, I pretty much passed them morning, noon, and night. In fact, one night I passed one who was passed OUT under a tree by the local library, being oh so gently shaken awake by a policeman. I am somewhat uncharitably but realistically under the assumption that the gentleman in question was passed out due to excessive drinking at the run down watering hole that is catty-corner to the library.
I was really disappointed that I didn't have a camera to capture that incident, so I borrowed one to take a few pics for posterity. These aren't the best, when I took these pictures it was a little late in the day for prime day worker gathering, but they do give a feel for what it's like in NoVa re: illegal(?) immigrants hangin' around, waiting for the white vans to come pick them up for a job.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
SMOKERS UNITE!!
Great article from Townhall.com.
Buy Cigarettes for the Kids
By Jacob Sullum
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Politically, making smokers pay for children's health insurance is a great idea: Everybody loves children, and everybody hates smokers. But once you get beyond the popularity contest, it's clear that financing an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) with a big increase in the federal cigarette tax is neither fair nor wise.
As a group, smokers are less affluent than nonsmokers, and a poor person's spending on cigarettes represents a much bigger chunk of his or her income than a rich person's. These facts combine to make cigarette taxes highly regressive.
According to a Tax Foundation analysis, the Senate proposal to pay for a $35-billion SCHIP expansion by raising the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents to $1 a pack is the "least defensible alternative" because "no other federal tax hurts the poor more than the cigarette tax." The foundation's Gerald Prante calculates that "the burden of the proposed cigarette tax hike on the lowest-earning 20 percent of households is 37 times heavier than it would be if the government raised the money with the federal income tax."
Some supporters of higher cigarette taxes argue that smokers should bear a disproportionate fiscal burden because they account for a disproportionate share of taxpayer-funded medical expenses. But researchers such as Harvard economist W. Kip Viscusi estimate that, if anything, smoking saves taxpayers money.
Because smokers tend to die earlier than nonsmokers, they do not consume as much health care in old age or draw on Social Security as much as nonsmokers do. Leaving aside Social Security savings, a 1997 study in The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that total health care spending would go up, not down, if everyone stopped smoking.
Even if smoking does, on balance, increase government outlays, a 1994 report from the Congressional Research Service concluded that cigarette taxes in all likelihood already covered any external costs that reasonably could be attributed to smoking. Since then, the average cigarette tax (state and federal combined) has tripled, rising from 50 cents to $1.46, an increase of more than 100 percent in real terms. And that's not counting the price hike needed to fund the tobacco companies' settlement payments to the states.
Relying on yet another cigarette tax hike could mean that the people paying for SCHIP's expansion will be poorer than the people benefiting from it. The current Senate bill would raise the family income cutoff for SCHIP, currently 200 percent of the official poverty level, to 300 percent. Some legislators prefer a limit of 400 percent, which comes out to $82,600 for a family of four.
A decade ago, SCHIP's supporters sold the program as a way of providing health coverage to children whose parents could not afford it but were not quite poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Now they are proposing changes that would make SCHIP resemble a middle-class entitlement.
President Bush is not the most credible opponent of a new federal health care entitlement, given his support for the exorbitant Medicare prescription drug benefit. But he is right to oppose SCHIP expansion and the tax hike that comes with it -- a burden that nonsmokers eventually will find themselves bearing as the percentage of the population that smokes continues to dwindle (an explicit goal of higher cigarette taxes).
SCHIP expansion is especially worrisome in light of research by economists David Cutler and Jonathan Gruber, who found that making publicly funded health care more broadly available tends to crowd out private coverage, encouraging people to decline employer-provided insurance or drop coverage of dependents. According to a 2007 paper co-authored by Gruber, "the number of privately insured falls by about 60 percent as much as the number of publicly insured rises."
This research suggests that much, if not most, of the money spent on SCHIP expansion would pay to cover children who already have insurance. That does not seem like a smart use of taxpayers' money, even if the taxpayers are an unpopular minority.
Buy Cigarettes for the Kids
By Jacob Sullum
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Politically, making smokers pay for children's health insurance is a great idea: Everybody loves children, and everybody hates smokers. But once you get beyond the popularity contest, it's clear that financing an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) with a big increase in the federal cigarette tax is neither fair nor wise.
As a group, smokers are less affluent than nonsmokers, and a poor person's spending on cigarettes represents a much bigger chunk of his or her income than a rich person's. These facts combine to make cigarette taxes highly regressive.
According to a Tax Foundation analysis, the Senate proposal to pay for a $35-billion SCHIP expansion by raising the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents to $1 a pack is the "least defensible alternative" because "no other federal tax hurts the poor more than the cigarette tax." The foundation's Gerald Prante calculates that "the burden of the proposed cigarette tax hike on the lowest-earning 20 percent of households is 37 times heavier than it would be if the government raised the money with the federal income tax."
Some supporters of higher cigarette taxes argue that smokers should bear a disproportionate fiscal burden because they account for a disproportionate share of taxpayer-funded medical expenses. But researchers such as Harvard economist W. Kip Viscusi estimate that, if anything, smoking saves taxpayers money.
Because smokers tend to die earlier than nonsmokers, they do not consume as much health care in old age or draw on Social Security as much as nonsmokers do. Leaving aside Social Security savings, a 1997 study in The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that total health care spending would go up, not down, if everyone stopped smoking.
Even if smoking does, on balance, increase government outlays, a 1994 report from the Congressional Research Service concluded that cigarette taxes in all likelihood already covered any external costs that reasonably could be attributed to smoking. Since then, the average cigarette tax (state and federal combined) has tripled, rising from 50 cents to $1.46, an increase of more than 100 percent in real terms. And that's not counting the price hike needed to fund the tobacco companies' settlement payments to the states.
Relying on yet another cigarette tax hike could mean that the people paying for SCHIP's expansion will be poorer than the people benefiting from it. The current Senate bill would raise the family income cutoff for SCHIP, currently 200 percent of the official poverty level, to 300 percent. Some legislators prefer a limit of 400 percent, which comes out to $82,600 for a family of four.
A decade ago, SCHIP's supporters sold the program as a way of providing health coverage to children whose parents could not afford it but were not quite poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Now they are proposing changes that would make SCHIP resemble a middle-class entitlement.
President Bush is not the most credible opponent of a new federal health care entitlement, given his support for the exorbitant Medicare prescription drug benefit. But he is right to oppose SCHIP expansion and the tax hike that comes with it -- a burden that nonsmokers eventually will find themselves bearing as the percentage of the population that smokes continues to dwindle (an explicit goal of higher cigarette taxes).
SCHIP expansion is especially worrisome in light of research by economists David Cutler and Jonathan Gruber, who found that making publicly funded health care more broadly available tends to crowd out private coverage, encouraging people to decline employer-provided insurance or drop coverage of dependents. According to a 2007 paper co-authored by Gruber, "the number of privately insured falls by about 60 percent as much as the number of publicly insured rises."
This research suggests that much, if not most, of the money spent on SCHIP expansion would pay to cover children who already have insurance. That does not seem like a smart use of taxpayers' money, even if the taxpayers are an unpopular minority.
Harry Potter
*****SPOILER ALERT*****SPOILER ALERT*****
So, I finished reading Harry Potter this weekend and I really enjoyed it. However, there is one quibble that I have that goes to the "Is this book acceptable or not for Catholics?" debate. Did Dumbledore seriously ask Snape to kill him? And was it seriously looked at as this major heroic thing for Snape to have done it? J.K. tried to make it "seem" all hunky-dory cause, ya' know, Dumbledore was gonna die anyway. An argument, I might remind you, often employed to justify starving people to death in the real world.
So to any parents, please make sure to tell your muggle children reading this book that IT IS NEVER OKAY TO DELIBERATELY KILL AN INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE, EVEN IF THAT PERSON (as humans tend to) IS GOING TO DIE ANYWAY!!!!
So, I finished reading Harry Potter this weekend and I really enjoyed it. However, there is one quibble that I have that goes to the "Is this book acceptable or not for Catholics?" debate. Did Dumbledore seriously ask Snape to kill him? And was it seriously looked at as this major heroic thing for Snape to have done it? J.K. tried to make it "seem" all hunky-dory cause, ya' know, Dumbledore was gonna die anyway. An argument, I might remind you, often employed to justify starving people to death in the real world.
So to any parents, please make sure to tell your muggle children reading this book that IT IS NEVER OKAY TO DELIBERATELY KILL AN INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE, EVEN IF THAT PERSON (as humans tend to) IS GOING TO DIE ANYWAY!!!!
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Here's Mom's
She didn't really agree with the analysis . . .but that's what the test said so it must be true!
You are driven and ambitious and tend to make radical moves to reach your goals.
You are a direct and forthright person. You like to get to the core of the issue right away, with few signs of hesitation.
You like following the rules and being objective. You are precise and meticulous, and like to evaluate decisions before making them.
You have a sunny, cheerful disposition.
What does your drawing say about YOU?
Friday, May 18, 2007
Draw a mountain . . .reveal your personality
The results of my analysis say:
You tend to pursue many different activities simultaneously. When misfortune does happen, it doesn't actually dishearten you all that much.
You are a direct and forthright person. You like to get to the core of the issue right away, with few signs of hesitation.
You are creative, mentally active and industrious.
You have a sunny, cheerful disposition.
I'll take it!
What does your drawing say about YOU?
Monday, May 14, 2007
Separate Graduation Ceremonies
So today I checked "The Daily Docket," an email from the law school administrators letting us know what's going on at school. It came as a bit of a surprise to me (though it shouldn't) that the BLSA (Black Law School Association) is having a special graduation ceremony the night before the general graduation ceremony. Can I get a "What? What?"
How shameful! Students of the BLSA, let me extend my apologies for the actions of our school! Fight the power, and don't let them send you to the back of the bus! Separate is inherently unequal, and if a diverse group of people (meaning people with different skin tones) is not represented at the ceremony, the ceremony will also be presumptively racist! You will not learn cultural sensitivity!
They are trying to bamboozle you with a special ceremony, but you shouldn't fall for it! Remember, "special" is also a term used for the mentally impaired. Don't let the University label you "Not as good." Boycott the racist ceremony and join your peers at the general ceremony!
How shameful! Students of the BLSA, let me extend my apologies for the actions of our school! Fight the power, and don't let them send you to the back of the bus! Separate is inherently unequal, and if a diverse group of people (meaning people with different skin tones) is not represented at the ceremony, the ceremony will also be presumptively racist! You will not learn cultural sensitivity!
They are trying to bamboozle you with a special ceremony, but you shouldn't fall for it! Remember, "special" is also a term used for the mentally impaired. Don't let the University label you "Not as good." Boycott the racist ceremony and join your peers at the general ceremony!
Thursday, April 19, 2007
In Response to the tragedy at Virginia Tech . . .
the President of my oh-so-politically-correct university sent us an email on the 17th about the occurence. The pertinent parts read as follows:
Well, I mosied on over to find out what our emergency procedures are. I found such helpful hints as: "If you hear gunfire, immediately seek refuge in an area that can be locked from the inside. A room without windows would be the best choice. Hide inside that area behind a desk, under a table or in a closet or bathroom. Remain still and quiet." Gee, thanks.
Also helpful were these instructions in case of a bomb threat: "Immediately evacuate the building, using your preplanned evacuation route." Ummm . . .is this my personal preplanned route or an "official" one? If there is an official preplanned route, are we allowed to know about it?
Wouldn't you know it, today we got an email that there was a bomb threat. The helpful advice was to carry on with our business. While I am the eternal optimist and quite willing to assume that the bomb threat was a hoax, I would somehow feel even more optimistic if I knew the ex-army ranger and ex-marine in my classes were packing some heat!
President Ramsey, please consider taking the "no gun" stickers* down.
*Gun Stickers at UofL
The University of Louisville is stunned and saddened by Monday's events at Virginia Tech University. Our deepest sympathy goes out to the victims, their families and the entire Virginia Tech community.
This incident has led us to review our emergency response and communication procedures. While we do not have any reason to expect a similar occurrence at UofL, we encourage all our students and employees to review our emergency procedures at: http://php.louisville.edu/ur/preparedness/procedures.php
Well, I mosied on over to find out what our emergency procedures are. I found such helpful hints as: "If you hear gunfire, immediately seek refuge in an area that can be locked from the inside. A room without windows would be the best choice. Hide inside that area behind a desk, under a table or in a closet or bathroom. Remain still and quiet." Gee, thanks.
Also helpful were these instructions in case of a bomb threat: "Immediately evacuate the building, using your preplanned evacuation route." Ummm . . .is this my personal preplanned route or an "official" one? If there is an official preplanned route, are we allowed to know about it?
Wouldn't you know it, today we got an email that there was a bomb threat. The helpful advice was to carry on with our business. While I am the eternal optimist and quite willing to assume that the bomb threat was a hoax, I would somehow feel even more optimistic if I knew the ex-army ranger and ex-marine in my classes were packing some heat!
President Ramsey, please consider taking the "no gun" stickers* down.
*Gun Stickers at UofL
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
AN ODE TO ROMA . . .
Roma you're a giant.
You ought to take a bath.
Lane thought he smelt you at the ball . . .
But we couldn't do the math.
How could your scent be ling'ring here,
This year, 2007?
When last we saw your face, my dear,
T'was '06, May eleven?
We tried to find a replacement.
She wasn't quite the same.
She did not have the stench of you!
(We don't even know her name!)
But then it struck us both so clear
And we knew the reason why!
"It's 'cause we miss our stinkin' Romes!!!"
And we both sat down to cry.
WE MISS YOU ROMA!
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Random
It has come to my attention that an unnamed nun's cure of Parkinson's disease has been attributed to the late Pope John Paul II. This of course will seal the deal on his cannonization if it proves trustworthy, but I also had another thought. Has anyone alerted Michael J. Fox of this cure? Perhaps he should try praying to JPII to intercede on his behalf, and give up on the embryonic stem cell hooey he's been pursuing. After all, the score is 1 to 0, with JPII in the lead over embryonic stem cells in the cure for Parkinson's race . . .just a thought.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
The Intellectual Confusion of PC Policies
On the Dean of Admissions' door at my oh-so-politically-correct law school there is a sticker proclaiming his office to be a "safe-zone."
The pretty pink triangle of course means "safe" for gay people. Now, I have no intention of discussing the obvious false advertising of this sticker, since I'm sure our Dean of Admissions hasn't found the cure for HIV/AIDS. What I want to discuss are the implications of the sticker.
1. Only homosexuals are safe in this particular area. Since there is a sticker for one group and not others, it may be assumed that heterosexuals and asexuals are not safe there.
2. The rest of the campus is unsafe. I think the true implication of the sticker is that it is unsafe for homosexuals everywhere else, but without a sticker, how are heterosexuals going to know where they are safe?
For example, there is no Safety Sticker here:
How can we know if this is a safe place, or even more disturbing . . .who it is safe for?!?!
Call me crazy, but shouldn't the whole campus be "safe" for everyone?
I wouldn't want to inadvertantly step into the "unsafe for women zone" and get the snot beaten out of me. I'm much too delicate and dainty.
The pretty pink triangle of course means "safe" for gay people. Now, I have no intention of discussing the obvious false advertising of this sticker, since I'm sure our Dean of Admissions hasn't found the cure for HIV/AIDS. What I want to discuss are the implications of the sticker.
1. Only homosexuals are safe in this particular area. Since there is a sticker for one group and not others, it may be assumed that heterosexuals and asexuals are not safe there.
2. The rest of the campus is unsafe. I think the true implication of the sticker is that it is unsafe for homosexuals everywhere else, but without a sticker, how are heterosexuals going to know where they are safe?
For example, there is no Safety Sticker here:
How can we know if this is a safe place, or even more disturbing . . .who it is safe for?!?!
Call me crazy, but shouldn't the whole campus be "safe" for everyone?
I wouldn't want to inadvertantly step into the "unsafe for women zone" and get the snot beaten out of me. I'm much too delicate and dainty.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Abortion and "Catholic" Politicians
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bishop on Nancy Pelosi: It's "Categorically Impossible" to be Catholic and Hold Abortion is "Just a Choice"
By John-Henry Westen
PORTLAND, OR, March 1, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - "It is categorically impossible for the same person to state that he or she believes simultaneously both what the Catholic Church teaches and that abortion is just a choice," says Bishop Robert Vasa in a column released today by the Catholic Sentinel, the diocesan newspaper of the Archdiocese of Portland and the Diocese of Baker.
Although Vasa, the Bishop of Baker, did not mention her by name, he was referring in his column to Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi specifically, and to all politicians of a similar ilk in general.
"Some months ago a prominent Catholic public person," says Vasa, "described as faithful to the church, was asked if being pro-choice or pro-abortion was an issue which conflicted with the Catholic Faith." He goes on to quote verbatim what Nancy Pelosi stated in a highly publicized interview with Newsweek in October last year. "To me it isn't even a question. God has given us a free will. We're all responsible for our actions. If you don't want an abortion, you don't believe in it, [then] don't have one. But don't tell somebody else what they can do in terms of honoring their responsibilities."
Vasa then adds a comment by Pelosi's daughter Alexandra Pelosi, calling her only a "close relative" of the unnamed prominent Catholic. Alexandra was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle on January 17 as saying that according to her Catholic school education neither abortion nor homosexuality were wrong, "They were just choices."
"It seems to me that there are just choices and there are unjust choices," counters Bishop Vasa. "Choices would be the preference for chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream or sherbet instead of ice cream. That is just a choice."
"A just choice would be to choose to pay a fair and living wage to employees as opposed to simply meeting the mandatory standard of minimum wage laws," he wrote. "An unjust choice would be to choose to terminate the life of another human being. This is not just a choice and it is not a just choice; it is an unjust choice."
"Furthermore it is an unjust choice which is diametrically opposed to the clear and consistent teaching of the Catholic Church as well as to the clear and consistent teaching of God Himself in the Ten Commandments. The direct, intentional taking of the life of an innocent human being is inhumane and unjust. It is not just a choice!," wrote the Bishop.
Although not referenced in Bishop Vasa's column, the younger Pelosi commented about her mother to the Chronicle saying: "My mother, throughout her entire life, has been faithful o the Church, even though the Church has not been that faithful to her because of her politics. And I think that takes a lot of perseverance. And still, people protest her right to go to her own church."
Bishop Vasa concludes his column "It is categorically impossible for the same person to state that he or she believes simultaneously both what the Catholic Church teaches and that abortion is just a choice."
This article may be found at LifeSite.
Bishop on Nancy Pelosi: It's "Categorically Impossible" to be Catholic and Hold Abortion is "Just a Choice"
By John-Henry Westen
PORTLAND, OR, March 1, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - "It is categorically impossible for the same person to state that he or she believes simultaneously both what the Catholic Church teaches and that abortion is just a choice," says Bishop Robert Vasa in a column released today by the Catholic Sentinel, the diocesan newspaper of the Archdiocese of Portland and the Diocese of Baker.
Although Vasa, the Bishop of Baker, did not mention her by name, he was referring in his column to Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi specifically, and to all politicians of a similar ilk in general.
"Some months ago a prominent Catholic public person," says Vasa, "described as faithful to the church, was asked if being pro-choice or pro-abortion was an issue which conflicted with the Catholic Faith." He goes on to quote verbatim what Nancy Pelosi stated in a highly publicized interview with Newsweek in October last year. "To me it isn't even a question. God has given us a free will. We're all responsible for our actions. If you don't want an abortion, you don't believe in it, [then] don't have one. But don't tell somebody else what they can do in terms of honoring their responsibilities."
Vasa then adds a comment by Pelosi's daughter Alexandra Pelosi, calling her only a "close relative" of the unnamed prominent Catholic. Alexandra was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle on January 17 as saying that according to her Catholic school education neither abortion nor homosexuality were wrong, "They were just choices."
"It seems to me that there are just choices and there are unjust choices," counters Bishop Vasa. "Choices would be the preference for chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream or sherbet instead of ice cream. That is just a choice."
"A just choice would be to choose to pay a fair and living wage to employees as opposed to simply meeting the mandatory standard of minimum wage laws," he wrote. "An unjust choice would be to choose to terminate the life of another human being. This is not just a choice and it is not a just choice; it is an unjust choice."
"Furthermore it is an unjust choice which is diametrically opposed to the clear and consistent teaching of the Catholic Church as well as to the clear and consistent teaching of God Himself in the Ten Commandments. The direct, intentional taking of the life of an innocent human being is inhumane and unjust. It is not just a choice!," wrote the Bishop.
Although not referenced in Bishop Vasa's column, the younger Pelosi commented about her mother to the Chronicle saying: "My mother, throughout her entire life, has been faithful o the Church, even though the Church has not been that faithful to her because of her politics. And I think that takes a lot of perseverance. And still, people protest her right to go to her own church."
Bishop Vasa concludes his column "It is categorically impossible for the same person to state that he or she believes simultaneously both what the Catholic Church teaches and that abortion is just a choice."
This article may be found at LifeSite.
Monday, February 26, 2007
It makes no sense. . .
Every Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday when I go to the gym at my oh-so-politically-correct public university, I am confronted by a bright red banner proclaiming the idiocy of my school. Oh yes my friend, we have a "zone" that is free from all hatred. It's mandated by the powers that be. Why is such a banner so incredibly stupid? Let me propose something that may be controversial. I think that there are lots of things that are very good to hate, and of course, the university does also, we just don't always agree about what those things may be.
For example, I think that it is good to hate things (or actions really) that are sinful. I know, I know, using the word "sinful" makes me sound like a religious fanatic. I don't mind. It's true.
The university hates intolerance. Now, hating intolerance isn't always a bad thing, depending on what you are intolerant of. I think it is good to be intolerant of (cue doomsday music) SIN! The university is intolerant of viewpoints that recognize that there is such a thing as sin, unless it's sin against the sacred cows of feminism, sodomy, affirmative action, and man made global warming. They are very intolerant of those types of viewpoints.
At least I know where I am allowed to engage in hating depravity, and where I am allowed to love white straight males who drive gas guzzling cars. The university has it clearly marked.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Not Bad for a Cradle Catholic!
You know the Bible 95%!
Wow! You are awesome! You are a true Biblical scholar, not just a hearer but a personal reader! The books, the characters, the events, the verses - you know it all! You are fantastic!
Ultimate Bible Quiz
Create MySpace Quizzes
If I do say so myself!
Friday, February 9, 2007
God Bless Principal Anne Carroll
Anne Carroll, the principal of Seton School in Manassas, Va., deserves great praise. She has broken the mold of your typical "catholic" high school. At Seton, we learned true Catholic doctrine, and while not everyone was able to appreciate what we received there (some of the female graduates will forever be bitter about having to wear skirts below their knees)I have never met anyone with a bad word to say about Mrs. Carroll. She had a way of making us want to behave well because we didn't want to disappoint her. While some other teachers might have had a bit too strong of a disciplinary bent, one conversation with Mrs. Carroll could straighten out the toughest cases. she provided balance, reason, and inspiration.
I remember meeting up with some of my grade school friends who were going to Presentation in Louisville after my second year at Seton. They told me about the "debates" about abortion they had in their religion classes, which were "non-judgemental" with no preconceived winner. What a bunch of crap. Contrast this with my experience at Seton, where we were taught the truths of the Catholic Faith, and how to defend these truths.
I was a boarding student, and there were quite a few of us, so if you are looking for a Catholic School that that is true to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, I recommend Seton School in Manassas, Virginia.
I remember meeting up with some of my grade school friends who were going to Presentation in Louisville after my second year at Seton. They told me about the "debates" about abortion they had in their religion classes, which were "non-judgemental" with no preconceived winner. What a bunch of crap. Contrast this with my experience at Seton, where we were taught the truths of the Catholic Faith, and how to defend these truths.
I was a boarding student, and there were quite a few of us, so if you are looking for a Catholic School that that is true to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, I recommend Seton School in Manassas, Virginia.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Global Warming (booga booga booga)
Here's a link to an article on Global Warming that I found interesting. Remember . . .just because "every scientist agrees," doesn't mean that every scientist agrees...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)