Tom Faranda's Folly

At a Democrat Town Hall mtg: 1 minute demolition of Obamacare HHS Mandate

And listen to the (non)response of the Congresswoman!

 

Got an ad from a trappist Monastery promoting their "handcrafted cremation urns"

I better look into this, since I plan on being cremated (after I'm dead of course).

"Life-honoring Cremation Urns Prayerfully Made by Trappist Monks"

They are low cost, and for last minute shoppers, they will overnight fedex them for $30.

 

Rugby: How backs came into the game of rugby

For the unitiated, there are 15 players in rugby, eight forwards and seven backs. The forwards are typically large, hairy-assed men who would have cumulative scores on their SAT's of about 420 (under the old system; 622 under the new, three part SAT).

They are the guys who are in the rugby-iconic scrum.

My friend Sue forwarded around an email with the following description of backs.

As with all satire, there's an element of truth ...

FULL DISCLOSURE: I played scrum half (half back).

Here is a perspective on how `backs' became known as such. 
Obviously written by a forward which in itself is quite remarkable. 
 
 
It is largely unknown to players and followers of the modern game of rugby, that in the very early days it started off purely as a contest for forwards in opposition in line-outs, scrums, rucks and mauls. 
This pitted eight men of statuesque physique, of supreme fitness and superior intelligence in packs against one another.
In those days, the winner was the pack that had gained most set pieces. The debasement of the game began when backs were introduced. This occurred because a major problem was where to locate the next scrum or line-out.
 
Selecting positions on the ground for these had become a constant source of friction and even violence.
The problem was resolved through a stratagem of employing forward rejects, men of small stature and limited intelligence, to select positions on the field from where, when in receipt of the ball they could be guaranteed to drop it in a random pattern but usually, as far from the last set piece as possible. Initially these additional players were entirely unorganized but with the passing of time they adopted positions.
 
For instance, the half-back. He was usually generally the smallest and least intelligent of the backs whose role was simply to accept the ball and pass it on.
He could easily (given his general size) have been called a quarter forward or a ball monkey but then tolerance and compassion are the keys to forward play and the present inoffensive description was decided upon.
 
The five-eighth plays next to the half-back and his role is essentially the same except that, when pressured he usually panics and kicks the ball. Normally, he is somewhat taller and slightly better built than the half-back and hence his name. One-eighth less and he would have been a half-back, three-eighths more and he might well have qualified to become a forward.
 
The centres were opportunists who had no specific role to play but who were attracted to the game by the glamour associated with forward packs. After repeated supplication to the forwards for a role in the game they would be told to get out in the middle and wait for the ball. Thus, when asked where they played, they would reply "in the centre". And they remain to this day, opportunists and scroungers, men so accustomed to making excuses for bad hands and errant play that  most become solicitors or real estate agents.
 
You may ask, why wingers? The answer is simple. Originally these were players who had very little ability and were the lowest in the backline pecking order.
They were placed far from the ball and given the generally poor handling by the inside backs, were rarely given the opportunity to even touch the ball. This is basically why, through a process of natural selection, they became very fast runners and developed the ability to evade tackles.
But to get back to the name. The fact that they got so little ball led to the incessant flow of complaints from them and the eventual apt description "whingers". Naturally, in the modern game, the name has been adapted to become more acceptable.
 
Lastly, the full-back. This was the position given to the worst handler, the person least able to accept or pass the ball, someone who was always in the way.. the name arose because, infuriated by the poor play invariably demonstrated by that person, the call would come "send that fool back" and he would be relegated to the rear of the field.
 
So there you have it. The fact is that if a side does not have eight men of statuesque physique, of supreme fitness and superior intelligence then they might as well play soccer.
-- 
 

Fist fight breaks out in the British House of Commons bar

Between MP's (member of Parliament).

I'll have to speak to Brigid about this!

Could you imagine if there were saloons adjoining the U.S. House or Senate chambers?

Headbutts, flying fists break out at Britain’s House of Commons

“There was blood spilled – it was like the Wild West in there,” one MP told the Evening Standard.

It took five security officers to calm the over-excited MP, according to the Evening Standard. He was arrested on suspicion of assault and on Thursday morning was suspended from the Labour caucus. The British Speaker of the House, John Bercow, told reporters he would take the incident “very seriously.”

Heavy drinking is considered a serious problem in Britain’s Parliament. There are bars adjoining the Commons and Lords chambers which are packed before and after sittings; it is widely reported that some MPs have numerous drinks before attending sittings – even in the morning. Stories about drunken brawls and misbehaviour among parliamentarians abound.

For Mr. Scheer, visiting from a House of Commons whose disorder is usually confined to its benches, it must have been an enlightening moment. Then again he was officially in London with a delegation whose topics included “violence in Somalia.”

 

Wall St. Journal likes the new Romney tax plan

Superior to Obama's - or Santorum's.

His 20% marginal rate cut changes the tax reform debate.

As an economic matter, this is the most effective kind of tax cut because it applies at the margin, meaning the next dollar of income earned. A mountain of economic research shows that a marginal-rate cut does far more than tax holidays or targeted tax credits to change the incentives to invest and hire workers, and thus provides the most economic lift.

This is especially true because the vast majority of businesses in America today aren't corporations. They're sole proprietorships, partnerships or Subchapter S firms whose profits are "passed through," as the jargon goes, to the owners and are taxed at the individual rate. These noncorporate firms account for over half of all business income, according to IRS data. By lowering their taxes and making the rates permanent, Mr. Romney's plan would do much to make the U.S. more job and investment friendly.

By contrast, President Obama's proposal yesterday (see below) to cut the corporate rate to 28% from 35% wouldn't apply to this "pass-through" business income. It would thus favor big corporations at the expense of smaller businesses that file as individuals and would see their marginal rate rise to 41% or more under Mr. Obama's plan to raise individual tax rates.

******

The Obama campaign will attack his plan as favoring the rich, but it would do so even if Mr. Romney proposed no tax cut. Now Mr. Romney will have a better response because in return for cutting rates he says he would also close loopholes and deductions that have become shelters from high tax rates.

 

Obama energy plan: "Algae"

"This fuel we can grow right here in the United States."

Yup - there's some hope and change for you.

In the same speech he knocked the Republican candidates for suggesting "more drilling" was the answer to the energy crisis.

The leaders in places like China or the middle eastern countires must be laughing their butts off at us.

 

Nancy Pelosi on the Church not "enforcing" the birth control rules

What is she talking about? What an idiot - does the Church ever "enforce" anything when people go against it's teachings?

My Saintly grandfather used to say "It takes a certain amount of intelligence to know that you're stupid."

Pelosi: Catholic Church 'Has Not Enforced' Its Teaching on Contraception

 

Cardinal Dolan writes his fellow Bishops on the HHS Mandate

Dolan is the current President of the US Catholic Bishops Conference

Cardinal Dolan writes his fellow bishops on the HHS mandate: "Where does it end?"

And he's pretty stinging.

Religious freedom is a fundamental right of all. This right does not depend on any government’s decision to grant it: it is God-given, and just societies recognize and respect its free exercise. The free exercise of religion extends well beyond the freedom of worship. It also forbids government from forcing people or groups to violate their most deeply held religious convictions, and from interfering in the internal affairs of religious organizations.

Recent actions by the Administration have attempted to reduce this free exercise to a “privilege” arbitrarily granted by the government as a mere exemption from an all-encompassing, extreme form of secularism. The exemption is too narrowly defined, because it does not exempt most non-profit religious employers, the religiously affiliated insurer, the self-insured employer, the for-profit religious employer, or other private businesses owned and operated by people who rightly object to paying for abortion inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. And because it is instituted only by executive whim, even this unduly narrow exemption can be taken away easily.

In the United States, religious liberty does not depend on the benevolence of who is regulating us. It is our “first freedom” and respect for it must be broad and inclusive—not narrow and exclusive. Catholics and other people of faith and good will are not second class citizens. And it is not for the government to decide which of our ministries is “religious enough” to warrant religious freedom protection.

 

Last interview with Marie Colvin, the American journalist killed in Syria

Colvin was working for the Times of London. She was originally from Oyster Bay, NY.

Colvin lost her eye in 2001, when she was hit by shrapnel in Sri Lanka. She was 56 when she died.The interview was only several hours before whe was killed.

 

Lenten reading: Jesus of Nazareth, by Pope Benedict XVI

Ahhh, a great read - both volume 1 and volume 2.

Yes, today is Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent. And many people do try and do some serious spiritual reading during the 40 day period.

Here was my review of the first Volume Latest Read: Jesus of Nazareth which I read right after it came out, in the summer of 2007. The Pope examines the biblical Jesus from the Baptism in the Jordan, to the Transfiguration.

The second volume Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance Into Jerusalem To The Resurrection came out in March 2011, and I read it during Lent last year.

As the subtitle indicates, Benedict takes you from Holy Week through the Resurrection, along with an Epilogue regarding the Ascension and the coming return(!) of Jesus.

The books are not light reading - you have to engage the text. I found that 8-12 pages at a time was about right/all I could handle. But with 40 days, it's quite doable.

Pope Benedict says he is not writing doctrinally or dogmatically, but giving his opinion ofthe biblical texts - and he is a great scholar.

For a shorter taste of Pope Benedict, Behold the Pierced One, a book of four essays (128 pages), is wonderful. It was first published in 1986 - I believe they were actually talks he gave - and I've read it twice. Hit the link for the two reviews on Amazon. It costs less than ten dollars and is available on Kindle for $8.99 (I just bought it for my Kindle Fire; guess I'll be reading it a third time... I could do worse!).

Pope Benedict/Cardinal Ratzinger not your cup of tea? Here's a fine work by the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus Death on a Friday Afteroon which combines spirituality, with a bit of theology.

Get off the sports page and the television -it's Lent! 

 

Ron Paul has an amusing ad going after Santorum

Amusing, but it's a hard sell convincing people that Santorum isn't conservative.

 

WSJ columnist: "Sex, Lies and Rick Santorum"

Bill McGurn. He nails it.

The politics of the double standard on social issues.

When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, he declared that marriage is between a man and a woman. For the most part, his position was treated as a nonissue.

Now Rick Santorum is campaigning for president. He too says that marriage is between a man and a woman. What a different reaction he gets.

There's no mystery why. Mr. Santorum is attacked because everyone understands that he means what he says.

President Obama, by contrast, gets a pass because everyone understands—nudge nudge, wink wink—that he's not telling the truth. The press understands that this is just one of those things a Democratic candidate has to say so he doesn't rile up the great unwashed.

******

The answer is that when Mr. Santorum discusses these issues, he needs to fold them into his larger narrative about the free society. That narrative has to do with pointing out the dependency that comes with an expanding federal government, the importance of family, and the threat to freedom when, say, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or a Health and Human Services secretary can substitute their own opinions on these issues for the judgment of the American people.

Mr. Santorum comes to the task well equipped. He echoes Ronald Reagan, for example, when he talks about how small government requires strong families. Or when he's pointing out the intolerance of a federal government bent on forcing religious individuals and institutions to underwrite practices (e.g., contraception and sterilization) they regard as abhorrent.

There is, however, one area where Mr. Santorum needs to demonstrate a discipline it's not yet clear he has. That is the ability to resist the efforts to drag him out of the public questions into the weeds of theological debate. ...

It's a great column; hit the link for the whole thing.

FULL DISCLOSURE: RE: something mentioned in the full column. I have read Humanae Vitae, and yes it is prophetic (see section 17).

 

Franklin Graham vs. MSNBC

Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, and President of the huge international evangelical charity, Samaritan's Purse.

He gets grilled by guest hosts on the MSNBC Morning Joe program, as they don't seem to happy with his Evangelical Christian answers, especially about Obama.

The video is 16 minutes long - the whole interview - so you need to set aside some time if you want to watch it. Hit the link and then scroll down.

Awkward and uncomfortable interviews aren’t rarities in the wonderful world of media. But Rev. Franklin Graham’s (son of famed evangelist Billy Graham) appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” today certainly distinguishes itself, particularly due to the nature of the discussion: The faiths of President Barack Obama and the GOP presidential contenders

 

 

 

Mariano Rivera hints that this is his last season

Well, he is 42. Wouldn't he love to end his career closing the last game of the World Series?

Rivera Hints This Is His Last Yankees Season

Where the 1% lives - the 15 richest counties in the U.S.

Well now, here's a not stunning surprise. Most of them, including the top three, are around Washington DC. ...

Nassau County, NY - ranked 11th - is the only county in my state and there are three NJ counties and one in Colorado. The rest - Maryland and Virginia.

The 15 Richest Counties In America

Big atheist rally planned for Washington next month

Be interesting to see which politicians and media people show up,

On March 24, the National Mall will be populated by those who sympathize with atheist perspectives, generally defined by an absence in belief of deities or other religious icons.

The website for the event states that organizers aim to encourage participants to claim their identity as what they call “secular Americans,” to dispel stereotypes, and to rally for legislative equality.

David Silverman, a chair for the Reason Rally Coalition and president of American Atheists, said that participants are motivated by positivity.

“We’re not going there to complain, we’re not going there to fight,” he told CBSDC. “[We want to] celebrate the fact that we are growing, we are stronger, and we are taking our place in American society.”

******

“There are 40 to 50 million atheists [in the United States]. About 40 to 50 thousand are involved in the movement,” Silverman said. “That’s one-tenth of 1 percent [of the movement actively participating].”

******

“We need people to ask the tough questions, and they’re not. What’s more important: the Bible or the Constitution? Do they want theocracy? Do they want Christianity as the official religion, and if so, which version?” Silverman stated, adding that despite his Republican affiliation, he feels himself without a candidate that supports his beliefs. “Hopefully what we’ll do is get people talking about what … atheists and secularists think.”

British actress Judi Dench battling macular degeneration

A fine actress, known mostly to Americans for playing "M" in recent James Bond movies. Dench was born in Heworth, which is a suburb of York, where Brigid's family is from. In fact Heworth is literally just down the street from the Brigid's home.  Dench's father was a physician in York.

In a deeply moving interview, Dame Judi said her sight is already so bad she cannot see faces in front of her and friends have to read scripts to her so she can learn her lines.

Tales of the 1%

FULL DISCLOSURE: I've had three vacations in the last three years. All of them were one night overnight hiking trips on the Appalachian Trail. I suppose my overnight trip up to Rochester to drop Joe off for college could count as a vacation. And then there's the four weddings we've taken weekends to attend. That's not to say I don't take individual days off - I certainly do.

But I haven't been to Aspen or Hawaii.

First lady Michelle Obama’s weekend jaunt to Aspen, Colorado for a President’s Day ski holiday with her daughters Sasha and Malia makes the 16th time members of the first family have gone on extended vacations during their three years in office.

According to presidential watcher Mark Knoller of CBS, George W. Bush, at this time of his presidency, had made 30 visits to his Texas ranch spanning all or part of 220 days. The Obama’s vacation day count is less than half of that.

But his have become more controversial because of the costs associated with moving the first family to a public vacation spot, unlike the Bushes to their remote ranch in Crawford, Texas. For example, the Hawaii Reporter said the first family’s 2011 Christmas vacation in Hawaii would exceed $1.5 million.

Critics and even some in his own party say the vacations present a bad image at a time when many Americans are struggling to get by during the recession. According to recent Harris poll, only three in 10 said they plan to take a vacation lasting longer than a week in the next six months, and that number has been dropping during the recession as people worry about the costs of vacations.

NYT columnist Ross Douthat: "The 'safe, legal, rare' illusion"

Douthat is the only non-liberal columnist the NY Times has - his column appears once a week. He is a convert to Roman Catholicism.

The ‘Safe, Legal, Rare’ Illusion

The problem with the conservative story is that it doesn’t map particularly well onto contemporary mores and life patterns. A successful chastity-centric culture seems to depend on a level of social cohesion, religious intensity and shared values that exists only in small pockets of the country. Mormon Utah, for instance, largely lives up to the conservative ideal, with some of America’s lowest rates of teenage pregnancies, out-of-wedlock births and abortions. But many other socially conservative regions (particularly in the South) feature higher rates of unwed and teenage parenthood than in the country as a whole.

Liberals love to cite these numbers as proof that social conservatism is a flop. But the liberal narrative has glaring problems as well. To begin with, a lack of contraceptive access simply doesn’t seem to be a significant factor in unplanned pregnancy in the United States. When the Alan Guttmacher Institute surveyed more than 10,000 women who had procured abortions in 2000 and 2001, it found that only 12 percent cited problems obtaining birth control as a reason for their pregnancies. A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study of teenage mothers found similar results: Only 13 percent of the teens reported having had trouble getting contraception.

At the same time, if liberal social policies really led inexorably to fewer unplanned pregnancies and thus fewer abortions, you would expect “blue” regions of the country to have lower teen pregnancy rates and fewer abortions per capita than demographically similar “red” regions.

But that isn’t what the data show. Instead, abortion rates are frequently higher in more liberal states, where access is often largely unrestricted, than in more conservative states, which are more likely to have parental consent laws, waiting periods, and so on. “Safe, legal and rare” is a nice slogan, but liberal policies don’t always seem to deliver the “rare” part.

What’s more, another Guttmacher Institute study suggests that liberal states don’t necessarily do better than conservative ones at preventing teenagers from getting pregnant in the first place. Instead, the lower teenage birth rates in many blue states are mostly just a consequence of (again) their higher abortion rates. Liberal California, for instance, has a higher teen pregnancy rate than socially conservative Alabama; the Californian teenage birth rate is only lower because the Californian abortion rate is more than twice as high.

******

At the very least, American conservatives are hardly crazy to reject a model for sex, marriage and family that seems to depend heavily on higher-than-average abortion rates. They’ve seen that future in places like liberal, cosmopolitan New York, where two in five pregnancies end in abortion. And it isn’t a pretty sight.

Spring training started yesterday, for catchers and pitchers

But Derek Jeter was there also.

From the NY Post - might ber  funny format because it's linked through my kindle.

SPRING TRAINING PREVIEW: Pitching remains biggest question for Yankees

But there are other questions: Can Alex Rodriguez’s body, 37 in July, hold up? And what types of numbers can be expected if it does?

Can Curtis Granderson duplicate last year’s MVP-type season? Is it possible David Robertson can improve? What about Rafael Soriano?

Is this the season when age finally invades Mariano Rivera’s cutter?

All good questions - hopefully the answers are all good.

Current Navy SEALS in a Hollywood movie?

The movie is "Act of Valor".

Interesting - There has been a decidedly "mixed reaction" to the movie project at the Pentagon, the defense official said.

But they do view it as a recruiting tool.

Here's the official trailer -

 

John Fairfax - rowed across two oceans

Well, he didn't lead a boring life ...

Mr. Fairfax died on Feb. 8 at his home in Henderson, Nev., near Las Vegas. The apparent cause was a heart attack, said his wife, Tiffany. A professional astrologer, she is his only immediate survivor. Ms. Cook, who became an upholsterer and spent the rest of her life quietly on dry land (though she remained a close friend of Mr. Fairfax), lives outside London.

For all its bravura, Mr. Fairfax’s seafaring almost pales beside his earlier ventures. Footloose and handsome, he was a flesh-and-blood character out of Graham Greene, with more than a dash of Hemingway and Ian Fleming shaken in.

Fairfax made his living playing baccarat in recent years - the card game of James Bond.

Government chart on the U.S. debt outlook

The chart was included in this article from Friday, and is from the White House Office of Management and Budget. To get the whole sorry story, hit the link.

Testifying before the House Budget Committee today, U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told Chairman Paul Ryan the following: “We’re not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem. What we do know is we don’t like yours.”

 

 

Linsanity and the science of winning streaks

This morning The Daily Beast, which is one of the online arms of Newsweek, has an interesting sports article. Because it's connected to Newsweek, you may suspect that the writing and editing is going to be mediocre, and in this case you'd be right.

Nevertheless, if you're a sports fan you will enjoy this. I happen to disagree with much of what they are saying, but I report, you decide.

The title of the article is in the link here, but the better title is the title I used for this posting.

Jeremy Lin and the New York Knicks: The Science Behind Winning

I kind of agree with this point:

“People confuse the existence of streaks, which undoubtedly occur, with momentum,” says University of Chicago professor Tobias Moskowitz, coauthor of Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences Behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won.

And don't agree at all with this, which is kind of analogous to the old idea that if we knew the position of every atom in the universe we could perfectly predict the future (an opinion that has been totally refuted by modern physics):

Streaks and momentum? It’s all in your head. Nothing more than statistical randomness, especially in baseball. (Compared to basketball, which is played in a relatively controlled environment with evenly matched players, baseball has more variables that can affect outcomes.) As Leonard Mlodinow, author of The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules our Lives, explains, randomness typically comes from two sources: a lack of information and environmental factors. In theory, if we had complete physical data on each player—a player might be hiding an injury, for instance—and the exact playing conditions (precise changes in wind speed and light and how each affects, say, a hitter or pitcher), we could accurately predict the outcome of any contest.

Pat Buchanan explains why he's been blacklisted by MSNBC

FULL Disclosure: I'm no great fan of Buchanan's

Kind of surprising that he actuully lasted 10 years at MSNBC. He's been off the reservation with them for at least seven years, since they bacame just a publicity machine for the Democratic Party. 

Quite a comedown from the days of Huntley-Brinkley

The New Blacklist

My days as a political analyst at MSNBC have come to an end.

After 10 enjoyable years, I am departing, after an incessant clamor from the left that to permit me continued access to the microphones of MSNBC would be an outrage against decency, and dangerous.

The calls for my firing began almost immediately with the Oct. 18 publication of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?"

Missouri first state to move to stop HHS Mandate

A Missouri Senate Committee has passed and sent to the full Senate a bill which would protect the conscience rights of Missouri citizens, employers and insurance companies from the effects of the Obama administration’s sterilization, abortifacient and contraceptive mandate.

SB 749 by Senator John Lamping (R-Clayton) has been fast tracked and could be up for consideration as early as Monday. The bill’s summary reads, in part:

This act provides that no employee or any other person, employer, health plan provider or sponsor, health care provider or any other entity shall be compelled to obtain coverage for or provide coverage for abortion, contraception, or sterilization in a health plan if such items or procedures are contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of such employee, health care plan, provider or sponsor, or any other entity or person. No such employee, health care plan, provider or sponsor, or any other entity or person shall be discriminated against by any governmental entity, public official, or entity acting in a governmental capacity for failing to obtain or provide such coverage because of such religious beliefs or moral convictions of such employee, health care plan, provider or sponsor, or any other entity or person.

The bill further directs the State Attorney General to bring action in state or federal court is any of its provisions are threatened or violated.

Rick Santorum vs. Charlie Rose

As I mentioned here From The Business Insider website: A short explanation of why Santorum could beat Obama I am surprised that Santorum, whose views I am mostly in agreement with, has proven to not be a lightweight.

Here he is on an interview on CBS with Charlie Rose. CBS only posted the last minute and a half on their own youtube site (a discussion of what to do about Iran), but Glenn Beck has the whole interview on his site.

Rose starts with a gotcha question, which Santorum handles well, and then the interivew gets down to substantive issues.

Hit the link and scroll down for the video.

Santorum vs. Rose

News Flash! Yanks trading AJ Burnett to Pittsburgh for two minor leaguers

The Pirates are going to eat some of the $35 million the Yanks owe Burnett.

Yankees to acquire two Minor Leaguers in exchange for righty

Anthony Shadid

The NY Times reporter and two time Pullitzer Prize winner while with the Washington Post. I am familiar with his writing from the Post.

In Syria, of an asthma attack.

Anthony Shadid, the two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign correspondent who died on Thursday at 43, had long been passionately interested in the Middle East, first because of his Lebanese-American heritage and later because of what he saw there firsthand.

Mr. Shadid spent most of his professional life covering the region, as a reporter first with The Associated Press; then The Boston Globe; then with The Washington Post, for which he won Pulitzer Prizes in 2004 and 2010; and afterward with The New York Times. At his death, from what appeared to be an asthma attack, he was on assignment for The Times in Syria.

Mr. Shadid’s hiring by The Times at the end of 2009 was widely considered a coup for the newspaper, for he had been esteemed throughout his career as an intrepid reporter, a keen observer, an insightful analyst and a lyrical stylist. Much of his work centered on ordinary people who had been forced to pay an extraordinary price for living in the region — or belonging to the religion, ethnic group or social class — that they did.

UPDATE: From the AP

Sr. Carol Keehan - Obamacare and HHS Mandate facilitator - "The Little Sisters of Limousine Liberalism"

Thanks to my friend John for sending this to me -

How much is Sr. Carol Keehan worth to the pro-Obamacare Catholic Health Association? Answer: $962,467.

That's a pretty good take, which she presumably passes on to her order, The Daughters of Charity.

As it has been widely reported, Obama conferred with Sister Keehan before his announcement last Friday. Then, lo and behold, she praised his revision as an inspiring resolution to the thorny issue of "religious freedom" soon after the sham event concluded.

Actually, it's worse then that. A letter from her praising the phony "compromise" was circulated to Democratic politicians hours before the announcement. Evidently she was an insider in putting the deal together.

Who knew that lobbying for the corporal works of mercy paid so well? Of course, the dirty little secret of secularized "non-profit" Catholic hospitals is that they rake in enormous profits. Hence, some of its executives garner salaries/benefits north of $9 million. Obamacare will release another avalanche of federal government cash with which to feather their nests.

That's one of the most misunderstood things about non-profits. They absolutely can make profits! They just call the profit "surplus" and don't have to pay taxes on it. No, there are no stockholders and no dividends paid - just sweet salaries to the major corporate officers and executives.

"For where your treasure is, your heart will be also," said Jesus Christ. A pedestrian reduction of the Son of God's saying is: Follow the money.

But say this at least for Sister Obamacare: she displays gumption that the waffling U.S. bishops lack. She still wears the pants in the clerical family.

She spun Obama's "compromise" effortlessly, while the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was caught flatfooted. In his tiresomely inane and people-pleasing way, USCCB president Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan initially praised Obama's con job as a first "step in the right direction." This gave the White House nearly a day of good publicity with which to confuse Catholics.

"Encouraging" words from the USCCB, declared CNN's Wolf Blitzer last Friday. Other networks and newspapers soon followed with rosy reports that blared, "USCCB: Obama compromise a 'step in the right direction.'"

Later that Friday, the USCCB issued a new statement pronouncing Obama's revision "unacceptable." But the damage was already done.

Yeah, Sr. Carol has a bigger pair then any of the bishops, as the author of this piece, George Neumayr, abundantly demonstrates in the rest of his column (hit the link above).  It's pathetic.

154th anniversary of the apparitions at Lourdes

The celebrated anniversary is the 11th of February. 6 million visitors a year to Lourdes ...

 

WSJ op ed on why the HHS mandate is unconstitutional & illegal

Straightforward and easy to understand. Not a long featur - 16 paragraphs - but very comprehensive.

"It violates the First Amendment and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

The birth-control coverage mandate violates the First Amendment's bar against the "free exercise" of religion. But it also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That statute, passed unanimously by the House of Representatives and by a 97-3 vote in the Senate, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. It was enacted in response to a 1990 Supreme Court opinion, Employment Division v. Smith.

That case limited the protections available under the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion to those government actions that explicitly targeted religious practices, by subjecting them to difficult-to-satisfy strict judicial scrutiny. Other governmental actions, even if burdening religious activities, were held subject to a more deferential test.

The 1993 law restored the same protections of religious freedom that had been understood to exist pre-Smith. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act states that the federal government may "substantially burden" a person's "exercise of religion" only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and "is the least restrictive means of furthering" that interest.

******

The refusal, for religious reasons, to provide birth-control coverage is clearly an exercise of religious freedom under the Constitution. The "exercise of religion" extends to performing, or refusing to perform, actions on religious grounds—and it is definitely not confined to religious institutions or acts of worship. Leading Supreme Court cases in this area, for example, involve a worker who refused to work on the Sabbath (Sherbert v. Verner, 1963) and parents who refused to send their teenage children to a public high school (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972).

In the high-school case, the Supreme Court found that even a $5 fine on the parents substantially burdened the free exercise of their religion. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, employers who fail to comply with the birth-control mandate will incur an annual penalty of roughly $2,000 per employee. So it is clearly a substantial burden.

******

Does the mandate further the governmental interest in increasing cost-free access to contraceptives by means that are least restrictive of the employer's religious freedom? Plainly, the answer is no. There are plenty of other ways to increase access to contraceptives that intrude far less on the free exercise of religion.

Health and Human Services itself touts community health centers, public clinics and hospitals as some of the available alternatives; doctors and pharmacies are others. Many of the entities, with Planned Parenthood being the most prominent, already furnish free contraceptives. The government could have the rest of these providers make contraceptive services available free and then compensate them directly. A mandate on employers who object for religious reasons is among the most restrictive means the government could have chosen to increase access.

The mandate also fails the "compelling government interest" test. Given the widespread availability of contraceptive services, and the far less restrictive other ways to increase their availability, the government can hardly claim it has a "compelling" interest in marginally increasing access to birth control by requiring objecting employers to join in this effort.

******

In an effort to rally its base in the upcoming November election, the Obama administration seems more interested in punishing religiously based opposition to contraception and abortion than in marginally increasing access to contraception services. ...

... the birth-control mandate violates both statutory law and the Constitution. The fact that the administration promulgated it so flippantly, without seriously engaging on these issues, underscores how little it cares about either.

 

From The Business Insider website: A short explanation of why Santorum could beat Obama

Until recently, I thought the Santorum bid to be President was kind of silly. While I agree with him on most issues, I did feel he was a bit of a lightweight. He reminded me (in demeanor, not policy-wise) of Rick Lazio, who lost the the NY Senate race to Mrs. Clinton years ago. In fact, I've told a few friends that while "my heart is with Santorum, my head is with Romney."

But in the last month or two, I've had to re-think my opinion. I haven't watched any debates, but he's sounded pretty good in sound bites, and in radio interviews. Not a lightweight at all - although Don Imus (Romney supporter) doesn't like him.

So we'll see. Here's the article, which is probably correct -

One Paragraph Explains Why Santorum Can Win

You'll have to hit the link for the "one paragraph" which is a quote from Jonathn Chait, a very left wing columnist. Here's the Business Insider writer's commentary:

This is exactly right.

Santorum is the only presidential candidate who can deliver the following line with conviction: "I have seven kids. Maybe they’ll all go to college. But if one of my kids wants to go and be an auto mechanic, good for him, that’s a good paying job, using your hands, using your mind,” he said.

Santorum doesn't poll much worse than Romney against Obama. And he has a long way to go to beat Romney for the nomination.

But Santorum doesn't identify with the political overclass. Romney does and so does Obama.

Kimmel: "Jay Leno lies - Jimmy Kimmel responds"

The Wall Street Journal had an article a couple of days ago about how Kimmel's show is the only late night talk show wherethe audience is rising. They attribute this to his exposure and following on youtube - which also generates some advertising revenue.

I've never watched his show on the tele, but he has some funny clips online - like this one.

 

Tim benches 245

Having done for the past 30 (15 lifting sessions) days a program specifically designed to increase his bench press, Tim raised his personal record to 245 pounds yesterday - prior best was 230. We think that's pretty darn good for one month's effort.

Tim's had no problems with his repaired knee, but he's nowhere near where he had been with his squat. We'll now change the focus of his workouts a bit. Still lifting weights three days a week, but more work on his cardiovascular endurance with running and the rower machine.

 

 

In Greece, people are foraging in dumpsters for food

From NPR

"I've even seen people rummaging through the garbage for food," Nikolaidou, a high school teacher and historian, tells The Salt. "The situation is very bleak."

Rugby: Last day of USA leg, World Series seven-a-side

Round 5 of the Series, played in Las Vegas. Here are the two semi-finals and the final.

The final was shown live on NBC Sunday afternoon  and was decided with no time left on the clock.

 

New White House Chief of Staff didn't know it takes only 51 Senate votes to pass the budget.

Honestly ... The WH chief. Didn't the President tell him it took only 51 votes?

“You can’t pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes, and you can’t get 60 votes without bipartisan support,” Lew said on CNN’s State of the Union. “So unless… unless Republicans are willing to work with Democrats in the Senate, [Majority Leader] Harry Reid is not going to be able to get a budget passed.” Lew repeated the claim in a slightly different form on NBC’s Meet the Press, saying “One of the things about the United States Senate that I think the American people have realized is that it takes 60, not 50, votes to pass something.”

The trouble is, Lew is absolutely wrong. As ABC’s Jake Tapper points out, budgets only require 51 Senate votes for passage. The Washington Post‘s “Fact Checker” Glenn Kessler weighed in as well, saying that Lew, who is a two-time budget director, “really should know better.” When Tapper called the White House on the error, he says that they didn’t deny that Lew was wrong and instead spun back to blaming “general gridlock in Congress that makes accomplishing even the most basic tasks nearly impossible.”

These people are ruining running the economy? The above article goes on about the still looming financial crisis. It ain't over yet.

Why it's important to read NY Times editorials

A typically amusing - and deadly accurate - James Taranto column in today's online Wall Street Journal (I had to use the red to show the long excerpts Taranto included in his column).

New York Times editorials are often worth reading--stop laughing, we're serious!--because they provide a window into the mindset of the liberal left, the ideological tendency that dominates many major cultural institutions and, for at least the next 11 months, the executive branch of the federal government.

Times editorialists write for people who think alike and seek reinforcement of their prejudices. Unconstrained by any need for compromise or political sensitivity, they provide an honest distillation of left-liberalism, ... What you learn from reading Times editorialists is that the fundamental attitude of left-liberalism today is one of contemptuous ignorance.

Thus after President Obama made a symbolic concession to religious liberty last week, the Times once again employed scare quotes to sneer at the entire idea. This time it was in the very first phrase of its Saturday editorial:

In response to a phony crisis over "religious liberty" engendered by the right, President Obama seems to have stood his ground on an essential principle--free access to birth control for any woman. . . .

Nonetheless, it was dismaying to see the president lend any credence to the misbegotten notion that providing access to contraceptives violated the freedom of any religious institution. Churches are given complete freedom by the Constitution to preach that birth control is immoral, but they have not been given the right to laws that would deprive their followers or employees of the right to disagree with that teaching.

In truth, no one denies that individuals have "the right to disagree with that teaching," and the religious institutions that object to the mandate do not claim the authority to police their employees' private lives or opinions. Rather, they oppose the government's attempt to coerce them into facilitating the practices they preach against.

The editorial continues by assuring the Times's readers that everyone who disagrees is dishonest, because the Times knows what they really think: "The president's solution, however, demonstrates that those still angry about the mandate aren't really concerned about religious freedom; they simply don't like birth control and want to reduce access to it." The evidence for this assertion is laughable:

Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican of Florida, has introduced a bill that would allow any employer to refuse to cover birth control by claiming to have a religious objection. The House speaker, John Boehner, also supports the concept. Rick Santorum said Friday that no insurance policy should cover it, apparently unaware that many doctors prescribe birth control pills for medical reasons other than contraception.

The Rubio and Boehner examples, as described here, offer zero support for the Times's claim that opponents "don't like birth control" and contradict the claim that they "aren't really concerned about religious freedom." The Rubio bill would give broader recognition to religious freedom than an exemption limited to religious institutions.

As for Santorum, our sense is that he has serious, and quite reasonable, doubts that birth control is good for society, But let's stipulate for the sake of argument that he doesn't "like birth control." First of all, so what? The Times editorialists may believe that birth control is valuable or beneficial, but it's weird that they get bent out of shape merely because other people don't like the stuff. Second, even if the Times accurately characterizes the former senator's views on birth control, it is both a non sequitur and, knowing Santorum, a completely preposterous assertion that he isn't "really concerned about religious freedom."

This columnist likes birth control a lot. To our mind, it is one of the greatest conveniences of modern life. As we are not Catholic, we don't share the church's moral objections to abortifacient drugs or sterilization procedures. But as we are American, we care a lot about religious liberty, and about liberty more generally. Thus we view the birth-control mandate as a particular outrage and ObamaCare more generally as a monstrosity.

Times columnist Gail Collins went off message, beginning her column on the same day as the editorial: "It's not really about birth control." We got a good laugh imagining left-liberals who look to the Times for guidance, driving themselves crazy trying to reconcile the dueling messages.

But Collins is right that it's not about birth control. It's about freedom from government coercion. She wants more coercion; as she puts it sneeringly: "National standards, national coverage--all of that offends the Tea Party ethos that wants to keep the federal government out of every aspect of American life that does not involve bombing another country." But at least she has some rudimentary understanding of the other side of the debate.

Not so Nicholas Kristof, who in his column yesterday treated us to this magnificently funny display of un-self-awareness:

I may not be as theologically sophisticated as American bishops, but I had thought that Jesus talked more about helping the poor than about banning contraceptives.

The debates about pelvic politics over the last week sometimes had a patronizing tone . . .

Yeah, tell us about it! Physician, heal thyself. But the most revealing Kristof quote is this one: "The basic principle of American life is that we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can."

This prompted an incandescently furious response from Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:

Nicholas Kristof's statement is light years beyond the President in disrespect for religious liberty.

Where would we find what Kristof describes as "the basic principle of American life," when he goes on to state that principle with language as chilling as "we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can"?

The language of accommodation is almost as old as the Constitution itself, but it was never framed as Kristof frames it--certainly not by the founders who spoke of "inalienable rights" granted to human beings by the Creator's endowment.

Can you imagine any of the founders speaking as Kristof writes, of an intention to "try to respect religious beliefs"?

Mr. Kristof is a serious man, and he raises serious issues in this column. But with this one simplistic and condescending sentence he throws religious liberty under the bus and reveals what makes sense to so many in the secular elite.

They will try their best, they promise, to respect our religious beliefs, and to "accommodate them where we can."

That's it. Don't dare ask for anything more.

Religious liberty--no scare quotes for us--is one of America's basic principles, the first freedom in the Bill of Rights. The separation of church and state protects religious minorities, and nonreligious ones, from the coercive imposition of religious law. It is also a bulwark against a secular government's impositions on private conscience.

Albert Mohler is a Baptist. This columnist is an agnostic. But we're with Mike Huckabee, another Baptist, who said last week: "We're all Catholics now."

NIce column. I've excerpted the entire part of his column that today deals with the religious freedom issue.

Rugby: Day two USA leg of World Series seven-a-side

Being played in Las Vega -

 

Notre Dame letter indicating the Obama mandate is "Unacceptable"

Especially significant since Notre Dame gave President Obama an honorary law degree in 2008 (remember? Brigid makes the news at Notre Dame today).

From their law school with many signatures of national "scholars and intellectuals" and takes into consideration the phoney Friday "accomodation".

"Unacceptable"

 

Saturday night: Gang of Four + Wives

Or, Gang of Four + husbands, depending on who the Gang of Four is. ...Dinner out, as we go Thai

Mike, about to perform a magic trick - make the photographer disappear

Dennis and Paul, solving the world's problems ...

Three hot Moma's - also discussing world problems? - that is NOT Denice's middle finger

Fourth hot Moma - a grainy, romantic look at the restaurant.

Brigid took this - I sometimes like to dress up - especially when the formal wear was left over (hadn't been taken to the cleaners yet) from the prior weekend.

And three more pictures that Brigid took at the restaurant

BONUS!

Evangelical Pastor Rick Warren: "I'd rather go to jail than obey mandate"

Rick Warren is the author of the worldwide best seller The Purpose Driven Life and Pastor of Saddleback Church.

Here's his commentary on the HHS mandate -

“I’m not a Catholic but I stand in 100% solidarity with my brothers & sisters to practice their belief against govt pressure,” Warren said. “I’d go to jail rather than cave in to a govement mandate that violates what God commands us to do. Would you? Acts 5:29.”

Richard Land, a pro-life leader who is a top official with the South Baptist Church, said the same thing the day prior.

“When it comes to abortifacients, and many birth-control methods are abortifacients,” Land said, this mandate is “reprehensible in its demands for people to violate their conscience.” “We are not going to do this. We have a First Amendment right to freedom of conscience, and we’re going to defend it. If we have to defend it by going to jail, so be it.”

Rev. Matthew Harrison is another Protestant leader who is opposed to the mandate.

“We have a full-tilt assault on religion, especially full creedal Christians, right now,” he said. “This is a fundamental attack on the Roman Catholic Church’s ability to be in the public square, being in partnership with the government providing for the needy.”

He says the “ultimate goal is to drive religious people out of public life in this nation and out of the reception of any kind of funding or partnership with government for good in society.”

Harrison is 100% right! How do I know that? Because I've read the publications of all sorts of pro-abortion groups, and that is a prime long term aim. They think the practice of religion is fine - as long as you confine it to the Church building for one hour a week. Applying your beliefs outside of Church is trumped in their view, by their own superior secular beliefs.

Rugby: Day one, USA leg of World Series seven-a-side

Huckabee vs. Rush on talk radio

Interesting article. They will be in the same 12 noon to 3 o'clock time slot. 

Can Mike Huckabee Dethrone Rush Limbaugh On Talk Radio?

Issues the NY Giants face in their quest for the next Super Bowl

From the NY Post a couple of days ago. The odd format is because I sent it to myself from my kindle fire.

Five issues champion Giants face in quest to repeat

The issues include running backs, and how much to pay Mario Manningham.

Wall Street Journal on the Obama accomodation: "An 'accommodation' that makes the birth-control mandate worse."

Yesterday's announcement by the President that all insurance companies simply had to make contraception, et al, free to everyone has pleased some of the lap dog Catholics who support him, like EJ Dionne and Sister Carol Keehan. To be blunt about it, how stupid are these people?

The Wall Street Journal points to the total and utter bogusness:

An 'accommodation' that makes the birth-control mandate worse.

... you almost have to admire the absurdity of the new plan President Obama floated yesterday: The government will now write a rule that says the best things in life are "free," including contraception. Thus a political mandate will be compounded by an uneconomic one—in other words, behold the soul of ObamaCare.

Under the original Health and Human Services regulation, all religious institutions except for houses of worship would be required to cover birth control, including hospitals, schools and charities. Under the new rule, which the White House stresses is "an accommodation" and not a compromise, nonprofit religious organizations won't have to directly cover birth control and can opt out. But the insurers they hire to cover their employees can't opt out. If that sounds like a distinction without a difference, odds are you're a rational person.

Say Notre Dame decides that its health plan won't cover birth control on moral grounds. A faculty member wants such coverage, so Notre Dame's insurer will then be required to offer the benefit as an add-on rider anyway, at no out-of-pocket cost to her, or to any other worker or in higher premiums for the larger group.

But wait. Supposedly the original rule was necessary to ensure "access" to contraceptives, which can cost up to $600 a year as Democratic Senators Jeanne Shaheen, Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray wrote in these pages this week. The true number is far less, but where does that $600 or whatever come from, if not from Notre Dame and not the professor?

Insurance companies won't be making donations. Drug makers will still charge for the pill. Doctors will still bill for reproductive treatment. The reality, as with all mandated benefits, is that these costs will be borne eventually via higher premiums. The balloon may be squeezed differently over time, and insurers may amortize the cost differently over time, but eventually prices will find an equilibrium. Notre Dame will still pay for birth control, even if it is nominally carried by a third-party corporation.

This cut-out may appease a few of the Administration's critics, especially on the Catholic left—but only if they want to be deceived again, having lobbied for the Affordable Care Act that created the problem in the first place. The faithful for whom birth control is a matter of religious conviction haven't been accommodated at all. They'll merely have to keep two sets of accounting books.

******

Yesterday's new adventure in damage control and bureaucratic improvisation makes the compliance problem much worse. There is simply no precedent for the government ordering private companies to offer a product for free, even if they recoup the costs indirectly. Why not do that with all health benefits and "bend the cost curve" to zero? The shape of the final rule when the details land in the Federal Register is anyone's guess, including the HHS gnomes who are throwing it together on the fly to meet a political deadline.

One major problem will be how the rule applies to large organizations that self-insure. Arrangements in which an employer pays for care directly and uses insurers to manage benefits and process claims (not to take on insurance risk) account for the majority of the private market. In these cases there isn't even a free lunch to pretend exists.

And the last point is a major one - most large organizations self-insure and use the insurer to manage and administrate benefits, so the insurer only pays on large claims (what's called a stop loss). The small claims - say under $25,000 or $50,000 - are paid by the organization themselves, from a fund they've set aside.

Hit the link for the whole editorial.

My new ambition: "How to be a super strong badass over 50"

HA! Pretty cool.That's a 48 inch box the dude jumps onto. Of course, I couldn't do this when I was 24, never mind 54.

 

In Serbia; a breathalyzer test gone wrong

Sent to me by college roomie Mike.

"Please breath into the bottle sir."

Cardinal Wuerl on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" defending first amendment freedoms

The Cardinal does a nice job.

UPDATE: The Cardinal, along with Charles Colson (Protestant) and Meir E. Soloveichik (Jewish Rabbi) have a joint op ed in the Journal this morning. United We Stand for Religious Freedom

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy