August 2009
24 posts
Secularists' Feelings Hurt By Eco-friendly Pontiff's Dismissive Remarks on Irreligion →
secularism.org.uk
Regarding retropolitics’ post:
In a speech at the Vatican on Wednesday, Ratzinger said: “Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where his existence is denied? If the human creature’s relationship with the Creator weakens, matter is reduced to egoistic possession, man becomes the ‘final authority,’ and the objective of existence is reduced to a feverish race to possess the most possible.”
Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, commented: “This is rich coming from the leader of an organisation that has plundered the world to enrich itself. As he sits in his golden palaces, surrounded by unimaginable luxury and material wealth, he lectures the rest of us about restraint and greed. We have nothing to learn about environmentalism from this hypocrite.”
atheistramblings asked, ”Has he put solar panels on the Vatican yet?”
Yes, he has. The Holy Father’s been putting the church’s money where his mouth is on environmental preservation. Also helping are eco-charitable donations to the church, [ex: Vatican Climate Forest]. The Vatican city-state’s goal is carbon-neutrality in toto.
The lead NSS buried while busying themselves with avoiding Benedict’s regnal name? The spiritual leader of a billion who proffer one of those pesky teleologically concerned moralities chose to emphasize an existential ethic for earthly continuity and consumptive restraint. (This could even delay the pretribulation rapture for Pesci’s sake!) He also emphasized the role of secular authorities in bringing change. Score two for the soulless.
As has been the case with other recent Papal edicts, it wouldn’t take a 26 year old Australian to reframe the lecture as a progressive critique of avarice that even non-catechumens could find agreement with:
The economic and social costs of using up shared resources must be recognized with transparency and borne by those who incur them, and not by other peoples or future generations. The protection of the environment, and the safeguarding of resources and of the climate, oblige all leaders to act jointly, respecting the law and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the world.
There's a Tumblelog for That →
whoabundy.tumblr.com
The App Store commercial tagline “there’s an app for that” mocks my unsuccessful brainstorming for the next great apportunity. The same feeling just arose when, having snuck in a “Whoa Bundy” at a staff meeting, I checked its availability as a Tumblr name with thoughts of aping Eye on Springfield.
Alas, somebody already squatted a (minimalist) WHOA BUNDY! Tumblr.
Jessica Biel - Most Dangerous Celebrity? →
informationweek.com
In alarming news for discerning one-handed typists the world over:
“In its third annual list of the most dangerous celebrities in cyberspace, McAfee has found that 20% of searches for ‘Jessica Biel,’ ‘Jessica Biel downloads,’ ‘Jessica Biel photos’ and the like lead to Web sites where malicious content [spyware, adware, spam, viruses, or phishing mechanisms] has been detected.”
Experts recommend getting your Biel fix via trusted 3M sources: Mandalay, the Manatee and McAfee.
Listen
christinefriar <3’s precis who <3’s Nina Simone - Feeling Good
“The real trouble with this world of ours is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor even that it is a reasonable one. The commonest kind of trouble is that it is nearly reasonable, but not quite… It looks just a little more mathematical and regular than it is; its exactitude is obvious, but its inexactitude is hidden; its wildness lies in wait.”
—G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, VI: The Paradoxes of Christianity, which could as easily be The Paradoxes of Finance (as relayed by Craig Matters in the current issue of Money.)
Judge: Claiming Someone's Gay Isn't Defamatory →
jonathanturley.org
In Howard K. Stern’s defamation suit against Blonde Ambition author, Rita Cosby, “Southern District of New York Judge Denny Chin has handed down an important torts ruling…that being called a homosexual is not defamation per se.”
The thoughtful ruling (read pgs.20-30 of Chin’s opinion) explains how cultural progress means imputing homosexuality, in and of itself - that’s the per se part - can’t be considered reputation-harming.
Stern’s claims will proceed on a non-per-se basis. In this case, for example, he can’t win a claim for being falsely accused of gay oral sex on Larry Birkhead at a party because of its homosexual nature; rather because (allegedly) blowing your client/lover’s former lover on the sly in the middle of someone else’s private party is shady and could diminish most people’s reps.
[This topic may sound familiar to Slate readers.]
I'm A Fashion Trend-Setter →
nytimes.com
A first for me. Thanks for pointing it out, Mo!
On Phraseology
“Don’t begrudge him personally - I begrudge the market,” is how Ivy Leaguers render “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.” [Full circle.]
“When you live in NYC for too long, it’s common to forget what you originally came to do.”
—Zach Klein’s timely call to periodically re-evaluate.
On Obamacare Protest Coverage
I think the thing that blows my mind the most about the coverage of the Tea Parties pt. 2 is the fact that all the media outlets cover the protests, and all the crazy beyond off base stuff the protesters are saying, without comment. Why not use this opportunity to fact check what they, and Republican leaders, are saying? Why not talk about some of the stuff that is actually in the bill?
Since the text medium can’t convey this, I will preface that I mean this in a non-sarcastic, non-snarky way: Is there a bill; or several variations contending to be the bill? In either case, does anyone - who isn’t an author of the bill(s) or in closed-door negotiations - know what’s really in it/them?
A major advantage the protesters have is the Democrats have made the straw men for them, pushing an amorphous, unwieldy bill by peristalsis. The specifics/extent of the public option and the impact on private insurance are still unclear. The the tax burden funding it may expand beyond the rich. The CBO can’t make Obama’s numbers compute.
The Dems’ consensus counter-punches to Town Hall unrest seem to be 1) mocking vulnerable, ill-formed people who can’t connect the dots between Medicare and ObamaCare. (The mocking smacks of elitism to those same people.) And 2) calling Town Hall disturbances conspiracy. It may be, but until the YouTube mash-ups are posted showing the same 20 suits shouting down every town hall, I’m inclined to credit Peggy Noonan’s line: “you can’t get people to leave their homes and go to a meeting with a congressman (of all people) unless they are engaged to the point of passion.”
Maybe these obstructors are evil geniuses and pricks, but maybe they’re people who’ve already taken lumps in the recession. Despite agreeing healthcare needs some kind of systemic change, they’re satisfied with their health care. They misunderstood, or were misled about what they might lose (via taxes, hypothetical nationalization-creep under the public option, …)
Powerless and scared, feeling town hall meeting won’t be debates so much as sales-pitches, too reasonable to resort to riots, but deprived of electoral options off-cycle - they’re gumming up the works with incivility and letting every Blue-Dog know that if they back Obama/Pelosi here, they’re out on their asses in 2010.
In fact, Noonan may have the right script for Obama at this juncture:
The Democrats should not be attacking, they should be attempting to persuade, to argue for their case. After all, they have the big mic. Which is what the presidency is, the big mic.
And frankly they ought to think about backing off. The president should call in his troops and his Congress and announce a rethinking. There are too many different bills, they’re all a thousand pages long, no one has time to read them, no one knows what’s going to be in the final one, the public is agitated, the nation’s in crisis, the timing is wrong, we’ll turn to it again—but not now. We’ll take a little longer, ponder every aspect, and make clear every complication.
In the interim, they could stump for (further) patching of popular “socailized” programs - like Medicare, Social Security, S-CHIP; saving the major health push for when our eventual economic recovery has most Americans feeling flush again. It would also help if they have a clearer mandate as a starting point next time. This time around they started writing the book before the query letters.
Anyone interested in a spectacle? I’m jogging Hoboken’s Washington St in a shamelessly tight top!
Bring Gatorade in little cups.
