I love Harper's Index from Harper's Magazine. A few tidbits from the most recent issue (not yet online):
Number of blank votes recorded by touchscreen machines in a January election for Florida's House of Representatives: 137
Votes by which the race was won: 12
Days before last year's invasion of Iraq that Osama bin Laden called Saddam Hussein a "socialist infidel": 36
Percentage of US companies that threaten to close the work site when faced with a unionization effort: 51
Amount that Tom DeLay's political action committee spent at the Washington DC Hooters last November: $117.79.
[Yes, that's the same House Majority Leader who's Deputy Moralizer-in-Chief]
Years in prison to which two ex-Pentagon officials were sentenced last year for taking bribes of money and prostitutes: 24
Number of years a North Carolina man was has been in prison for stealing a television: 33.
[And finally, from the "I thought this was going desecrate the institution of marriage and cause Western Civilization to collapse" category]
Percentage of the 958 same-sex unions granted to Vermont residents since July 2000 that have since been dissolved: 3
Percentage of US heterosexual marriages that are dissolved within five years: 20
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Monday, May 03, 2004
WEST AFRICAN LEGISLATORS: NEW YORK STATE BUDGET 'OPAQUE'
How screwed up is the budget "process" in New York state? So much so that a visiting delegation of West African parliamentarians we mystified by the situation.
An article in The New York Times quoted several members of the delegation from Ghana, a country that experienced its first democratic transition of power only four years ago.
"We were amused by the word 'lobbyist,' " said Moses Asaga, a ranking member of Ghana's Parliament. "This lobbyist can just walk around and they get money."
Mr. Asaga didn't quite understand why power in New York State government was so tightly held by only three individuals: the Assembly speaker, the Senate majority leader and the governor. Or why ordinary legislators had so little influence on anything.
"We don't have powers concentrated to such a degree at the highest level," Mr. Asaga said. "We find this a little bit strange. We expected more debate, more opinions."
"We have a definite time when the budget must be passed," said Eugene Agyepong, chairman of the Finance Committee in Ghana's Parliament. "If we do not have a budget, the government shuts down." New York has not had an ontime budget in 20 years.
The Times noted: Mr. Agyepong said that the hardest thing to understand, in some ways, was just where all the money was going, particularly the funds dealing with domestic security. While West Africa in general is not a place where there are functioning governments, much less governments operating in a way the public can scrutinize, the delegation found New York's budget 'opaque.'
"Here we have to ask a lot of questions," Mr. Agyepong said. "You just really don't know how each allocation is spent. That is quite bleak."
Mr. Asaga noted some of the differences between what the New York and Ghanaian bodies discussed.
"They would introduce some baseball team to the speaker," Mr. Asaga said. "Someone introduced his son."
Not sure whether this was time well spent in conducting the business of the state, Mr. Asaga said that back in Ghana such antics would have drawn condemnation.
"They would have said, "What does this have to do with anything?' "
Many New Yorkers wonder the same thing.
But legislative gerrymandering prevents most legislative races from being competitive and thus most legislators from being accountable. Back when Ghana was a one-party dictatorship, it probably had a higher turnover rate than the New York state legislature.
How screwed up is the budget "process" in New York state? So much so that a visiting delegation of West African parliamentarians we mystified by the situation.
An article in The New York Times quoted several members of the delegation from Ghana, a country that experienced its first democratic transition of power only four years ago.
"We were amused by the word 'lobbyist,' " said Moses Asaga, a ranking member of Ghana's Parliament. "This lobbyist can just walk around and they get money."
Mr. Asaga didn't quite understand why power in New York State government was so tightly held by only three individuals: the Assembly speaker, the Senate majority leader and the governor. Or why ordinary legislators had so little influence on anything.
"We don't have powers concentrated to such a degree at the highest level," Mr. Asaga said. "We find this a little bit strange. We expected more debate, more opinions."
"We have a definite time when the budget must be passed," said Eugene Agyepong, chairman of the Finance Committee in Ghana's Parliament. "If we do not have a budget, the government shuts down." New York has not had an ontime budget in 20 years.
The Times noted: Mr. Agyepong said that the hardest thing to understand, in some ways, was just where all the money was going, particularly the funds dealing with domestic security. While West Africa in general is not a place where there are functioning governments, much less governments operating in a way the public can scrutinize, the delegation found New York's budget 'opaque.'
"Here we have to ask a lot of questions," Mr. Agyepong said. "You just really don't know how each allocation is spent. That is quite bleak."
Mr. Asaga noted some of the differences between what the New York and Ghanaian bodies discussed.
"They would introduce some baseball team to the speaker," Mr. Asaga said. "Someone introduced his son."
Not sure whether this was time well spent in conducting the business of the state, Mr. Asaga said that back in Ghana such antics would have drawn condemnation.
"They would have said, "What does this have to do with anything?' "
Many New Yorkers wonder the same thing.
But legislative gerrymandering prevents most legislative races from being competitive and thus most legislators from being accountable. Back when Ghana was a one-party dictatorship, it probably had a higher turnover rate than the New York state legislature.
Friday, April 30, 2004
PROTECTING OUR FREEDOM? MY FOOT!
Earlier this year, some seized on testimony given to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 by the then recently-discharged John Kerry. Kerry said:
During an investigation, Vietnam vets told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
Conservatives were apoplectic with rage about these comments. They fumed that Kerry had betrayed American soldiers by accusing them of war crimes. And any moral authority he may have gained by his medals for valor was thrown away by these vicious and slanderous accusations. American soldiers simply don’t do such things, was the clear implication of conservative rage.
They could’ve praised Kerry for pointing out the atrocities committed by individual soldiers that besmirched the honor of the overwhelming majority that don’t do such things. But instead, for political reasons, they chose to shoot the messenger. American soldiers simply don’t do such things and for Kerry to suggest otherwise is despicable and slanderous.
Then earlier this week, 60 Minutes II broadcast images of prisoners being abused by American soldiers. CBS News’ website reported:
Some pictures show Americans, men and women in military uniforms, posing with naked Iraqi prisoners. There are shots of the prisoners stacked in a pyramid, one with a slur written on his skin in English. In some, the male prisoners are positioned to simulate sex with each other.
According to the Army, one Iraqi prisoner was told to stand on a box with his head covered, wires attached to his hands. He was told that if he fell off the box, he would be electrocuted.
Another picture shows a detainee with wires attached to his genitals. Another shows a dog attacking an Iraqi prisoner. There is also a picture of an Iraqi man who appears to be dead — and badly beaten. In most of the pictures, the Americans are laughing, posing, pointing, or giving the camera a thumbs-up.
The images were initially shown on the Arab network al-Jazeera, much maligned for its somewhat different style of covering the invasion than the American networks used.
The soldiers who allegedly committed the acts are apparently going to be court-martialed. The abuses were denounced by President Bush.
Yet few are accusing CBS, even though it's supposedly the most leftist of the "liberal" television networks, of slandering the troops. I guess it’s harder to smear the messenger when there’s video footage.
Most soldiers are honorable and don’t do these things, many will say. If such atrocities are really committed by only a tiny minority of American troops, then it’s all the more important that they be condemned unambiguously. If soldiers are really "protecting our freedoms," (or "Iraqi freedom") then these horrific acts need to be condemned with no equivication.
It’s not al-Jazeera’s fault. It’s not the “liberal” media’s fault. And it’s not the anti-war hippies fault. It’s the fault of some soldiers who forgot they were against what Saddam’s regime represented, not part of it.
If you want me to support the good guys, then you damn well better be willing to denounce the bad guys. Regardless of what uniform they're wearing.
Earlier this year, some seized on testimony given to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 by the then recently-discharged John Kerry. Kerry said:
During an investigation, Vietnam vets told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
Conservatives were apoplectic with rage about these comments. They fumed that Kerry had betrayed American soldiers by accusing them of war crimes. And any moral authority he may have gained by his medals for valor was thrown away by these vicious and slanderous accusations. American soldiers simply don’t do such things, was the clear implication of conservative rage.
They could’ve praised Kerry for pointing out the atrocities committed by individual soldiers that besmirched the honor of the overwhelming majority that don’t do such things. But instead, for political reasons, they chose to shoot the messenger. American soldiers simply don’t do such things and for Kerry to suggest otherwise is despicable and slanderous.
Then earlier this week, 60 Minutes II broadcast images of prisoners being abused by American soldiers. CBS News’ website reported:
Some pictures show Americans, men and women in military uniforms, posing with naked Iraqi prisoners. There are shots of the prisoners stacked in a pyramid, one with a slur written on his skin in English. In some, the male prisoners are positioned to simulate sex with each other.
According to the Army, one Iraqi prisoner was told to stand on a box with his head covered, wires attached to his hands. He was told that if he fell off the box, he would be electrocuted.
Another picture shows a detainee with wires attached to his genitals. Another shows a dog attacking an Iraqi prisoner. There is also a picture of an Iraqi man who appears to be dead — and badly beaten. In most of the pictures, the Americans are laughing, posing, pointing, or giving the camera a thumbs-up.
The images were initially shown on the Arab network al-Jazeera, much maligned for its somewhat different style of covering the invasion than the American networks used.
The soldiers who allegedly committed the acts are apparently going to be court-martialed. The abuses were denounced by President Bush.
Yet few are accusing CBS, even though it's supposedly the most leftist of the "liberal" television networks, of slandering the troops. I guess it’s harder to smear the messenger when there’s video footage.
Most soldiers are honorable and don’t do these things, many will say. If such atrocities are really committed by only a tiny minority of American troops, then it’s all the more important that they be condemned unambiguously. If soldiers are really "protecting our freedoms," (or "Iraqi freedom") then these horrific acts need to be condemned with no equivication.
It’s not al-Jazeera’s fault. It’s not the “liberal” media’s fault. And it’s not the anti-war hippies fault. It’s the fault of some soldiers who forgot they were against what Saddam’s regime represented, not part of it.
If you want me to support the good guys, then you damn well better be willing to denounce the bad guys. Regardless of what uniform they're wearing.
ANOTHER FLAG FLAP
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is the best news show on television. This is sad, considering that it’s a show that satirizes the news.
Yet every time I watch the show, Stewart makes at least one important point about current events that I never would’ve heard by watching the “real” news.
The US-appointed Iraqi governing council (IGC) unveiled a new flag for the country. Stewart pointed out that while the old flag was red, white and black (like many other Arab flags), the new one is primarily white and blue. Like, um, Israel.
I guess it’s great that things are going so swimmingly in Iraq that the IGC has time to invent a flag. But there is one thing that interested me.
The old flag had the words “God is Great” written in Arabic script. The new flag does not have this.
I am surprised that this didn’t cause an uproar here in the United States. Some people think we need to have God invoked everywhere or else the country will collapse. In the Pledge of Allegiance. In the courthouses. In every fifth word of a presidential speech.
Most Americans are furious about the possibility of “God” from a pledge ABOUT the flag. American-controlled Iraq is removing “God” from the ACTUAL flag and there’s no reaciton here.
Makes you wonder if it’s because of the fact that in Iraq, God goes by the name Allah.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is the best news show on television. This is sad, considering that it’s a show that satirizes the news.
Yet every time I watch the show, Stewart makes at least one important point about current events that I never would’ve heard by watching the “real” news.
The US-appointed Iraqi governing council (IGC) unveiled a new flag for the country. Stewart pointed out that while the old flag was red, white and black (like many other Arab flags), the new one is primarily white and blue. Like, um, Israel.
I guess it’s great that things are going so swimmingly in Iraq that the IGC has time to invent a flag. But there is one thing that interested me.
The old flag had the words “God is Great” written in Arabic script. The new flag does not have this.
I am surprised that this didn’t cause an uproar here in the United States. Some people think we need to have God invoked everywhere or else the country will collapse. In the Pledge of Allegiance. In the courthouses. In every fifth word of a presidential speech.
Most Americans are furious about the possibility of “God” from a pledge ABOUT the flag. American-controlled Iraq is removing “God” from the ACTUAL flag and there’s no reaciton here.
Makes you wonder if it’s because of the fact that in Iraq, God goes by the name Allah.
Thursday, April 29, 2004
"THE ULTIMATE REALITY SHOW"
It's a bad idea to declare, "television can't get anymore tasteless." Network executives apparently view this not as an attack but as a challenge.
Fox has long been in the vanguard of the Crap TV movement. Some of their "reality" shows (such Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire and My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance) have done exponentially more to cheapen the institution of marriage than the inclusion of gays ever could. Others exploit fat people and ugly people and short people.
Tommorrow, ABC's "news" program 20/20 is following the path of five couples who are interviewed as potential adoptive parents to the same little baby. The Associated Press reports: The birth mother had chosen an "open" adoption process where she selected potential parents from a group of applicants. The couples chosen agreed to have the process documented by ABC News.
This itself could be an insightful look at the adoption process. Yet, ABC's promotions for the show leave one to wonder if 20/20 will treat the process like a documentary or a reality show. Things weren't helped by 20/20's John Stossel. Stossel, well-known for his, um, candor, said that co-host Barbara Walters "will bring you what might be called the ultimate reality show."
Walters, herself an adoptive mother, insisted that 20/20 would simply report what happened.
The line between news and entertainment, information and titilation, was blurred a long time ago. At least in the private American media. But say what you will about the bilge Fox puts out, those shows were, at worst, infantile pranks in bad taste, harmless except to the egoes of those involved. They didn't attempt to make the life of a newborn into "the ultimate reality show."
It's a bad idea to declare, "television can't get anymore tasteless." Network executives apparently view this not as an attack but as a challenge.
Fox has long been in the vanguard of the Crap TV movement. Some of their "reality" shows (such Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire and My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance) have done exponentially more to cheapen the institution of marriage than the inclusion of gays ever could. Others exploit fat people and ugly people and short people.
Tommorrow, ABC's "news" program 20/20 is following the path of five couples who are interviewed as potential adoptive parents to the same little baby. The Associated Press reports: The birth mother had chosen an "open" adoption process where she selected potential parents from a group of applicants. The couples chosen agreed to have the process documented by ABC News.
This itself could be an insightful look at the adoption process. Yet, ABC's promotions for the show leave one to wonder if 20/20 will treat the process like a documentary or a reality show. Things weren't helped by 20/20's John Stossel. Stossel, well-known for his, um, candor, said that co-host Barbara Walters "will bring you what might be called the ultimate reality show."
Walters, herself an adoptive mother, insisted that 20/20 would simply report what happened.
The line between news and entertainment, information and titilation, was blurred a long time ago. At least in the private American media. But say what you will about the bilge Fox puts out, those shows were, at worst, infantile pranks in bad taste, harmless except to the egoes of those involved. They didn't attempt to make the life of a newborn into "the ultimate reality show."
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH
Dear Mr. President,
While you and I were enjoying Easter dinner with our families, a young man from a neighboring town was killed thousands of miles away in Iraq. Private Brown and his National Guard unit were killed in an ambush near Samarra. Four local soldiers from the unit were injured.
The funeral was held last Tuesday. I was disappointed that you chose not to attend, Mr. President. Though I don't know them, I think the family of Pvt. Brown would've been interested in asking you a few questions. One of your spokespeople says that you don't attend any military funerals because you don't want to suggest that one soldier's death is more worthy of your time than the hundreds of others. This seems a fair enough point.
Still though, when Pat Tillman, a former football player turned Army Ranger, died, you spoke words praising specifically him. I admit he made quite a sacrifice turning down millions of dollars in the NFL to join the military. I respect that he believed in whatever the cause is enough to do this. Though he wasn't a semi-famous athlete, I'm pretty sure Pvt. Brown made sacrifices to be in Iraq, even before his very life became one of them. Such as being away from the woman he was going to marry next year.
The reason I think her family would've benefited from you calling them, Mr. President, is because Pvt. Brown's mother told our local paper, "He did not approve of what the president was doing. I can tell you that."
What gets me, Mr. President, is that Pvt. Brown didn't join the Army. He didn't join the Army Reserves. He joined the Army National Guard. The National Guard is not supposed to see combat except in the most extreme of circumstances. I do not think our local Guard unit has been sent to combat since World War II. I suspect Pvt. Brown thought he'd see combat only if the United States were attacked by Uzbekistan or Samoa.
The National Guard's primary task, at least around here, is to help out when there are floods or other civil disturbances. I think some of them might have kept patroled the Albany airport when it re-opened following 9/11. That's what the National Guard here does. They don't go to combat except in the most extreme circumstances. Only as a last resort. Or at least that was the way things were when Pvt. Brown joined. That was his understanding. That is the basis upon which he offered his consent.
The US has the most powerful army in the world. It spends more on national "defense" than the next 15 highest spenders COMBINED. Why is it that young men like Pvt. Brown, who signed up to deal with black outs and ice storms, are being sent to face gunfire and rocket propelled greandes in a foreign land that was never any threat to America?
A local paper reported that Pvt. Brown, who was 21, wrote to his mom about how he went i nto an orphanage in Iraq to deliver meals to children there. Mrs. Brown told the paper, "It would break his heart. When he saw the kids on the street, he would give them some food. He asked me to send him bags of candy," for the children.
This is the kind of human being you've chosen to sacrifice in Iraq. Was this really the best use of his energy, passion and talents? I don't know.
Since neither you nor your children have ever been soldiers in a combat zone, you don't know what he went through and you don't know what his family is going through. If you talked to them, you might get a more full idea of what war is about.
If Pvt. Brown can summon the courage to face real, mortal danger, then surely you can have the courage to face the wrath of his mother and fiancee.
At least you know they won't put a rocket-propelled grenade through your limo, Mr. President.
I know you're busy figuring out what Sen. Kerry did in 1971 but I still think you should call the recruiter for our local National Guard unit. I'm sure the sergeant will be happy to give you the phone number of Pvt. Brown's family.
Sincerely yours,
[Me]
Dear Mr. President,
While you and I were enjoying Easter dinner with our families, a young man from a neighboring town was killed thousands of miles away in Iraq. Private Brown and his National Guard unit were killed in an ambush near Samarra. Four local soldiers from the unit were injured.
The funeral was held last Tuesday. I was disappointed that you chose not to attend, Mr. President. Though I don't know them, I think the family of Pvt. Brown would've been interested in asking you a few questions. One of your spokespeople says that you don't attend any military funerals because you don't want to suggest that one soldier's death is more worthy of your time than the hundreds of others. This seems a fair enough point.
Still though, when Pat Tillman, a former football player turned Army Ranger, died, you spoke words praising specifically him. I admit he made quite a sacrifice turning down millions of dollars in the NFL to join the military. I respect that he believed in whatever the cause is enough to do this. Though he wasn't a semi-famous athlete, I'm pretty sure Pvt. Brown made sacrifices to be in Iraq, even before his very life became one of them. Such as being away from the woman he was going to marry next year.
The reason I think her family would've benefited from you calling them, Mr. President, is because Pvt. Brown's mother told our local paper, "He did not approve of what the president was doing. I can tell you that."
What gets me, Mr. President, is that Pvt. Brown didn't join the Army. He didn't join the Army Reserves. He joined the Army National Guard. The National Guard is not supposed to see combat except in the most extreme of circumstances. I do not think our local Guard unit has been sent to combat since World War II. I suspect Pvt. Brown thought he'd see combat only if the United States were attacked by Uzbekistan or Samoa.
The National Guard's primary task, at least around here, is to help out when there are floods or other civil disturbances. I think some of them might have kept patroled the Albany airport when it re-opened following 9/11. That's what the National Guard here does. They don't go to combat except in the most extreme circumstances. Only as a last resort. Or at least that was the way things were when Pvt. Brown joined. That was his understanding. That is the basis upon which he offered his consent.
The US has the most powerful army in the world. It spends more on national "defense" than the next 15 highest spenders COMBINED. Why is it that young men like Pvt. Brown, who signed up to deal with black outs and ice storms, are being sent to face gunfire and rocket propelled greandes in a foreign land that was never any threat to America?
A local paper reported that Pvt. Brown, who was 21, wrote to his mom about how he went i nto an orphanage in Iraq to deliver meals to children there. Mrs. Brown told the paper, "It would break his heart. When he saw the kids on the street, he would give them some food. He asked me to send him bags of candy," for the children.
This is the kind of human being you've chosen to sacrifice in Iraq. Was this really the best use of his energy, passion and talents? I don't know.
Since neither you nor your children have ever been soldiers in a combat zone, you don't know what he went through and you don't know what his family is going through. If you talked to them, you might get a more full idea of what war is about.
If Pvt. Brown can summon the courage to face real, mortal danger, then surely you can have the courage to face the wrath of his mother and fiancee.
At least you know they won't put a rocket-propelled grenade through your limo, Mr. President.
I know you're busy figuring out what Sen. Kerry did in 1971 but I still think you should call the recruiter for our local National Guard unit. I'm sure the sergeant will be happy to give you the phone number of Pvt. Brown's family.
Sincerely yours,
[Me]
WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND
I see that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad spoke of resistance to the American occupation in Iraq. The dictator opined, "Certainly, what has happened on the popular level gives legitimacy to the resistance and shows that the major part of what is happening is resistance."
I wonder if he thinks the possible terrorist attack, possible mutiny, possible uprising (no one seems quite sure) that hit part of Damascus yesterday constituted legitimate resistance the repressive, decades-long Baathist regime in Syria.
I see that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad spoke of resistance to the American occupation in Iraq. The dictator opined, "Certainly, what has happened on the popular level gives legitimacy to the resistance and shows that the major part of what is happening is resistance."
I wonder if he thinks the possible terrorist attack, possible mutiny, possible uprising (no one seems quite sure) that hit part of Damascus yesterday constituted legitimate resistance the repressive, decades-long Baathist regime in Syria.
CHERRY PICKING CHURCH TEACHINGS
As I mentioned yesterday, the punditocracy has been consumed by arguments over what John Kerry and George W. Bush allegedly did or didn't do back in 1971. Most of the rare yapping heads that dare discuss something else are talking about Kerry's Catholicism. Particularly, how his beliefs on abortion square with the Catholic Church's.
The common perception is that Americans fear a Catholic politician might be held hostage by the Pope. Yet Kerry's under attack precisely because his position on abortion is different from the Church's. He said he's personally opposed to abortion but supports the right to an abortion. The catechism of the Catholic Church declares this a distinction without a difference. The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation.
This has garnered a great deal of attention, reportedly with some high clergy declaring that Kerry and other pro-abortion rights' Catholics should not receive communion. While pro-abortion rights' Catholic pols are regular targets of conservative Catholic ire, pols who go against Church teaching on other issues seem to be generally immune.
The death penalty is the most pertinent example. This would appear to be a contradiction. It's hard to call yourself pro-life if you're in favor of killing prisoners. Some justify this, "I'm pro-'innocent unborn' life" as though this squares it with Church teaching.
[Incidentally, I don't think catechism of the Catholic Church should be the law of the land. But if you're going to invoke it, then why not do so across the board?]
The death penalty is state-sponsored and -implemented first degree murder. No amount of rationalization changes this fact. Even a fair, properly implemented capital punishment process with all the safeguards doesn't change this fact either. Those things might make the death penalty less likely to execute an innocent person, which is certainly a lesser evil. But it remains state-sponsored and -implemented first degree murder.
In some ways, the death penalty is ethically worse than abortion. If you believe abortion is murder, then it's murder by an individual. The death penalty, on the other hand, is not only murder sponsored and sanctioned by the state, but it's implemented by the state as well. It's murder not by an individual but with the moral sanction of "the people."
The Catechism's opinion the death penalty is as follows:
Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."
So according to the Church, cases in which the death penalty is an absolute necessity are "very rare, if not practically nonexistent."
Yet when was the last time you heard bishops and cardinals (or the conservative press) say the Church should deny communion to or otherwise condemn Catholic politicians who want to execute adolescents or retarded people or anything but the most extreme criminals?
And I haven't even gotten into the sections peace and avoiding war.
Like I said, the catechism of the Catholic Church should not be the law of the land. Contrary to what many of the president's supporters seem to wish, the United States is not a theocracy. But if Church teaching is going to be injected into the political discourse, then it should be done so consistently, not when it's convenient to a particular point.
As I mentioned yesterday, the punditocracy has been consumed by arguments over what John Kerry and George W. Bush allegedly did or didn't do back in 1971. Most of the rare yapping heads that dare discuss something else are talking about Kerry's Catholicism. Particularly, how his beliefs on abortion square with the Catholic Church's.
The common perception is that Americans fear a Catholic politician might be held hostage by the Pope. Yet Kerry's under attack precisely because his position on abortion is different from the Church's. He said he's personally opposed to abortion but supports the right to an abortion. The catechism of the Catholic Church declares this a distinction without a difference. The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation.
This has garnered a great deal of attention, reportedly with some high clergy declaring that Kerry and other pro-abortion rights' Catholics should not receive communion. While pro-abortion rights' Catholic pols are regular targets of conservative Catholic ire, pols who go against Church teaching on other issues seem to be generally immune.
The death penalty is the most pertinent example. This would appear to be a contradiction. It's hard to call yourself pro-life if you're in favor of killing prisoners. Some justify this, "I'm pro-'innocent unborn' life" as though this squares it with Church teaching.
[Incidentally, I don't think catechism of the Catholic Church should be the law of the land. But if you're going to invoke it, then why not do so across the board?]
The death penalty is state-sponsored and -implemented first degree murder. No amount of rationalization changes this fact. Even a fair, properly implemented capital punishment process with all the safeguards doesn't change this fact either. Those things might make the death penalty less likely to execute an innocent person, which is certainly a lesser evil. But it remains state-sponsored and -implemented first degree murder.
In some ways, the death penalty is ethically worse than abortion. If you believe abortion is murder, then it's murder by an individual. The death penalty, on the other hand, is not only murder sponsored and sanctioned by the state, but it's implemented by the state as well. It's murder not by an individual but with the moral sanction of "the people."
The Catechism's opinion the death penalty is as follows:
Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."
So according to the Church, cases in which the death penalty is an absolute necessity are "very rare, if not practically nonexistent."
Yet when was the last time you heard bishops and cardinals (or the conservative press) say the Church should deny communion to or otherwise condemn Catholic politicians who want to execute adolescents or retarded people or anything but the most extreme criminals?
And I haven't even gotten into the sections peace and avoiding war.
Like I said, the catechism of the Catholic Church should not be the law of the land. Contrary to what many of the president's supporters seem to wish, the United States is not a theocracy. But if Church teaching is going to be injected into the political discourse, then it should be done so consistently, not when it's convenient to a particular point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)