Monday, September 26, 2005
Al Neuharth and Terror At 35K Feet
I almost fell out of my 1st Class seat this past Friday. Al Neuharth said in his Op Ed piece in his USA Today W 'deserves better than those low ratings.' Read that again...Al Neuharth who has not been a friend of Bush and neither are most of the op ed pieces I've seen over the last several months. But here he goes with three points he feels W needs to be given credit for some decisions he has made over the last several weeks:
A) John Roberts - Naming John Roberts to the Supreme Court 'was such a smart move, even some partisan Democrats grudgingly approve.'
B) Taking Blame - 'His accepting blame for some of the Hurricane Mess and dumping his political crony Michael Brown as the head of FEMA was belated but brave.'
C) Mission To Mars - 'His approval of the plan by his new head of NASA, Michael Griffin for an ambitious nut affordable return to space, going back to the moon and then on to Mars, is futuristic and commendable.'
Of the three, I am partial to the C since I live in FL and the Space Coast depends heavily on NASA to have a purpose - not to mention all the benefits to the private sector space exploration has given the US. Bravo, Al! I hope to read more flattering editorials with equal pleasure as W steers the last years of his Presidency to even more successes.
Next - Voter ID Cards - Julianne Malveaux (I wonder if she is from LA since she ends her name with an X as so many Cajun decedents do to separate themselves from their French neighbors to the North) put out an Op Ed piece that decries the uselessness of Voter ID Cards the current administration wants to implement. She laments, 'I haven't gotten over the 2000 Presidential Election (which she did not capitalize) what happened in FL and elsewhere can only be described ass a 'fiasco.' The nation's fix-it attempt, with the 2002 Help America Vote Act failed to prevent more meltdowns in the 2004 election, including long lines and implications of fraud in Ohio.' Oh really, Ms Malveaux. Maybe it's because you lost both elections, the second worst than the first. Maybe that is why you think it was a fiasco, 'implications' (not fact) and all. Loser!
Well, Ms Malveaux then takes a swipe (no pun) at the recommendations from the National Committee of Federal Election Reform, headed by one of her heroes, Jimmy Carter, that recco's the following: A voter database, administration of elections by non-partisan groups, and a paper receipt from electronic systems. Now her main criticism falls on Voter ID Cards. She cites the analysis of George Washington University law proff Spence Overton who opines, 'Voter IDs would burden 19 Million eligible voters. Many people would be required to provide documentation of citizenship before a real voter id would be issued.' What's wrong with that? He claims doing so would 'fall heaviest on people of color, low income earners and the elderly...Georgia's AARP chapter noted that 36% of its residents do not have a driver's license. In WIS, he added that '23% of those 65 and older do not have licenses or photo ids.' Malveaux then states, 'For many people, especially blacks, it makes voting expensive - a certified copy of a birth certificate costs as much as $45.' She concludes, 'Implementing the Real ID proposal is likely to leave out many eligible voters further undermining confidence in the nation's electoral process.'
First she only said that voter id cards are expensive. She never said they are a bad idea. So in essence she has not claimed that such a reform is bad thing. It's only a bad thing since it might cost money to those that allegedly can't prove citizenship. She has economically excused the multifarious ways to prove citizenship, but that is not important since it seems her only intent is to further the disenfranchisement of a single group. The proposal states that for those that do not have a driver's license, voter id cards would be free!
Lastly - New Rules May Restrict Gay Men From Catholic Seminaries - Great! There should be no homosexuals in the Catholic clergy, period! If gay men want to be men of God, there are other religions that will welcome them. Go there, not the Catholic Church, please. Here's the rub (sorry) , there is a proclamation that has been in the works since 1994 which would bar gays from Catholic service with a catch. The problem with this 'Don't Rub, Don't Tell' rule allows regional Bishops to decide if regional seminaries would allow those with homosexual inclinations to be admitted into seminaries. WRONG! The rule needs to be uniform and sweeping to disallow any man who has such tendencies or outright inclinations, period! If the proposed rule is enacted, then what you will have will be regions where such unholy behavior is sanctioned. Personally, I want to know what seminaries allow such acceptance and what priests in my parish came from one of those trollop factories. No thanks, Pope - Don't Rub Don't Tell will not work. Exclude them all and let them go where they are welcomed.
All of the above came from the first section of Friday's Sept 23 USA Today. And I only used to read USA for the Sports Section.
Second, she's a twit.
Third, Hey! Don't send them over here! Do you not remember 1Corinthians 5? The seminaries are all mostly liberal. A lot happens in those seminaries, whether or not you are inclined. It's time to clean up the seminaries!
Thank you! Pretty good stuff! :)
But no big deal they can find another religion.
I'm not Catholic but I think priests should be allowed to marry and have families, I'm also very disappointed in the most recent choice for pope. Just so you know where I'm coming from.
There are two verses in Leviticus that say men should not lay with men (lesbians are okay) and if they do, they should be stoned. That seems fairly clear, but only if you're willing to start killing our gay brothers and sisters. This is part of the Holiness Code which folk don't buy wholesale anymore.
Then there's the Romans passage that condemns men and women abandoning "natural relations" but since we know that natural relations for homosexuals is with the same gender, it seems more an endorsement rather than a proscription.
The thing the scriptures do deal with are unhealthy and oppressive relationships, heterosexual and homosexual. Healthy and whole relationships are a blessing from God and should be accepted as such.
So much fuss in the church over these very few passages on this subject, but very little fuss over the weightier matters of economic justice and peacemaking that run the gamut of the bible. Makes you wonder...
My absolute point is that the Bible is WAY clear on the need to address economic injustices with probably 100 times as many passages dealing with the issue as compared to sexual immorality issues.
We ought to be about the clear work of the Bible, not nitpicking a few verses that seem to validate our distaste for gays.
It is insane to me that we have rampant CHILD POVERTY in this country and yet gay marriage is the big issue for the so called 'christian' lobby.
If priests are celibate, I do not understand the difference between a heterosexual and homosexual priest. To me, the term homosexual priest has no meaning, as there can NEVER be any action.
At any rate, every religious body, corporately (or in the Catholic church, papally) has the right to select the type of priests AND flock it wants. On the other hand, selecting out a large portion seems like a bad idea.
Links to this post: