More Famous Than the Beatles?

Stephen Colbert to Pope Francis: We can’t fix wealth inequality until we get money out of politics

BETHANIA PALMA MARKUS

Rawstory.com featured an interview with Stephen Colbert on the eve of Pope Francis' visit to the United States. I have a few comments on it.

interviewer Sebastian Gomes called Colbert “the most famous Catholic in America.” Colbert handled it well, replying, “Sure, I’ll tell Timothy Dolan you said so.” 

He probably is with the same demographic who considered John Stewart the most trusted newsman in America. Oy!

And again, for the Jon Stewart generation, they've learned that 'the personal is political, so of course the most important thing to as a public Catholic is about the US politics surrounding the pope's visit.

“Gomes asked Colbert what he thinks the message is that Congress most needs to hear when Pope Francis addresses a joint session.

“The corrupting influence of money in politics because it reinforces not looking out for the poorest or the least of my brothers,” Colbert responded. “I think that’s the one they need to hear the most because until you can control the money you won’t control the message of Congress, and so you won’t get action from Congress that looks out for average people.”

True enough. But overturning Citizens United or trying to create some sort of campaign financing scheme or a limit to what can be spent on politics in order to solve the influence problem is a fool’s errand. That sort of War on Money in Politics has as much chance of success as the War on Drugs has had. Let’s take a quick look at where the big money is in Washington:

From Opensecrets.org:

House

Financial activity for all House candidates, 2013-2014

Democrats: $450,776,626

Republicans: $585,606,851

Senate

Financial activity for all Senate candidates, 2013-2014

Democrats: $285,218,602

Republicans: $315,898,295

That adds up to: $1,637,500,374

In 2013-2014, the Congress spent about $7,000,000,000,000

Which is 4275 times as much as lobbyists spent on Congress.

Get Congress out of the big money and you will get the big money out of Congress.

He also discussed the need to prevent religion from being associated with a political party.

“It’s perceived of in the United States that the right is the more Christian party,” Colbert said. “But in any given election, if the right doesn’t do well, well did Christ not do well? You’ve poured that infection of competition into the eternal world of the Gospel.”

I’ve only watched to the 2:00 mark, but this is another opportunity to wonder if Stephen has a problem with the Episcopal Church or the Church of Christ who seem more concerned with supporting the most popular current cultural fads and Left wing politics than they are about God.

Thinking and speaking clearly

A Kind of, Sort of Eulogy for the Declarative Sentence

Speak, Dammit!

Say what you mean. Clearly and concisely. My personal pet peeve at the moment is using "feel" in lieu of "think"; as in "I feel like that's sky blue."

We are still allowed to think, to admit that we do think, and say what we think. Telling someone what you sort of feel really doesn't provide any particularly useful information. "I sort of feel like that paint is sky blue." How about 'that paint is sky blue.'?

20 cognitive biases that screw up your decisions

Think, Dammit!

And then speak clearly.

Perspective…

Pope wears cross of slain Iraqi priest

Back to the Future with the new Know Nothing Party

A country without churches

By Dominic Bouck September 18

Dominic Bouck, O.P., is a Dominican brother of the Province of St. Joseph.

That the WaPo is even hosting an extended discussion of the question of tax exemption for churches is an indication that the church exemption's days are numbered - at least for denominations that don't toe the line.

"After the Obergefell decision, Time magazine writer Mark Oppenheimer was quick to declare that the state should “abolish, or greatly diminish” property tax exemptions for churches that “dissent from settled public policy on matters of race or sexuality.”

"Punishing “dissent” seems a strange new role for the American government. In the mid-twentieth century, the Catholic church was a leading advocate against anti-miscegenation laws. The church was able to take a stand contrary to the state on marriage and not be penalized for it, a position now almost unquestionably supported by Americans. And despite the confidence of those like Oppenheimer, the dissenters aren’t even a minority in the more recent marriage controversy. Most Americans favor religious liberty, and a plurality oppose Obergefell."

Even that relatively meek and respectful opposition is unacceptable to Oppenheimer and the new Know Nothings who cannot have any power outside of their control.

"By prohibiting faith-based conscientious objection, institutions will be limited in their ability to speak independently without fear of punishment, and some of the largest charities in America will be shuttered."

Again, the loss of the charitable contributions of church-based organizations, like Catholic Charities and Catholic non-profit hospitals and Catholic schools in poor neighborhoods, isn't as important to Oppenheimer and his ilk as silencing any voices of conscientious objection to the Progressive project and the all powerful state that will enforce its diktat.

Seamless but faded garment of life

Chicago archdiocese appoints Commonwealeditor as new director of media

By Mary Rezac

"Gallicho is a Chicago native and currently serves as an associate editor of Commonweal, an independent, lay-run Catholic journal. He has also been published in America, the National Catholic Reporter, The Tablet, El Ciervo, Religion Dispatches, Religion News Service, The New York Observer, The New York Times, and elsewhere."

Uh oh. Those aren’t on my go-to list for orthodox Catholic news and commentary.

"Since his appointment to the Chicago archdiocese, Archbishop Cupich has taken steps to distance himself from Cardinal George, and to instead align himself with Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who preceded Cardinal George as leader of the third-largest archdiocese in the nation.

"For example, in an August column on the Planned Parenthood videos released by the Center for Medical Progress, Archbishop Cupich referred to the “consistent ethic of life,” a phrase coined by Cardinal Bernardin and popularly known as the “seamless garment” understanding of faith's role in the public square."

“While commerce in the remains of defenseless children is particularly repulsive, we should be no less appalled by the indifference toward the thousands of people who die daily for lack of decent medical care; who are denied rights by a broken immigration system and by racism; who suffer in hunger, joblessness and want; who pay the price of violence in gun-saturated neighborhoods; or who are executed by the state in the name of justice.”

Hard to accept a ‘but.... monkey’, even from an archbishop.

Flesh Markets

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/09/18/house-votes-to-de-fund-planned-parenthood-after-it-sells-body-parts-from-aborted-babies/

House Votes to De-Fund Planned Parenthood After it Sells Body Parts From Aborted Babies

Steven Ertelt

So, the Democrats are nearly unanimous in their defense of commerce in baby body parts.

Pure Wind

US government says it will now use the term 'sexual rights'

By CARA ANNA

Associated Press

See: George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”

http://georgeorwellnovels.com/essays/politics-and-the-english-language/

From which I provide excerpts here for your convenience:

A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.

But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation, even among people who should and do know better. The debased language that I have been discussing is in some ways very convenient.

Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.