An open letter to the Catholic bishops

Dear Bishops:

First, forgive me for not knowing the proper title for your offices. After the papal “Your Holiness,” they run together in my memory.

I write to offer the insights of a sole Catholic who feels alienated from the Church. I can only assume my feelings are shared by others, since I have had some conversations with other Catholics who identify with my dismay.

Since the 1990s, the Church’s hierarchy in the U.S. (as well as in Rome) have said and done things that make me feel less and less welcome in the only church I have ever known. Statements from the hierarchy that have indicated that Catholics who vote for candidates like John Kerry or Barack Obama are somehow committing sin have hurt members of your flock. These statements have been most lately exemplified by the protests over the invitation by the University of Notre Dame to President Obama to speak at the University’s commencement.

These actions–and the judgmental character behind them–have served to push Catholics like me away from the Church. We have received the message that you do not want us in the parishes, despite the “welcome home” movement in my own diocese. Rather than fostering an atmosphere of inclusion and tolerance, you have created an environment where I cannot be certain I want my first born child (who will arrive this summer) to be baptized in the Church. It pains me deeply to write that and to acknowledge it is even a consideration. Ten years ago I would have thought these feeling to be impossible for me. I hope and pray that God will find a way to help me resolve these conflicts. But it seems that prayer may go unanswered.

I wish I did not feel like I was being pushed out of the Church. I wish I felt that I was still at home during Mass. And while I know that the rank and file pastors and associate pastors are often far more willing to celebrate common ground and to encourage people like me to continue to pray and let the Holy Spirit work, I feel like these good men are having their hands tied tighter and tighter.

My prayer for this Easter is that the Holy Spirit will move the Church’s leadership to be more pastoral and less judgmental, to be more welcoming of Catholics who follow their conscience and support candidates that may not agree with the Church on every issue, to be mindful that our common belief in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit is much greater than the things that separate us. I also pray that one day, I will feel at home again in the Church and can share the joy of celebrating the sacraments with my fellow parishioners and my family.

The New Yorker on Obama

Add me to the list of people bothered by this bone-headed move. Clearly, some people will get that it is satire. But I think the New Yorker gives too much credit to the people in this country. I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent, maybe even a little more intelligent than the average bear. I’ve missed satire sometimes and didn’t realize something was being lampooned.

I’m not a subscriber, and I still think the New Yorker has some of the best reporting in the country. Still, this editorial decision is deserving of the Dumbsh** Award for 2008.

Today, I hate Apple, Inc.

Keep in mind that the opposite of love is not hate–it’s apathy.

I love Apple. I’ve been an Apple junkie/enthusiast/user since probably 1982 or so. I probably can’t count all the Apple computers that my family and I have owned over the years, starting with the Apple ][ +. That was replaced by an Apple //e, I bought an original 128K Macintosh, the //e was replaced with a IIgs, my 128K mac was upgraded to a Macintosh Plus (which I still own). I’ve owned a Mac IIsi, a gaggle of laptops, a bunch of desktops, a couple of Newtons, and a handful or two of iPods. To adapt a cliché, back in the day if you had cut me, I would have bled Apple multicolors.

I skipped over getting an iPhone last year because I knew that I wouldn’t be able to take it with me into most courthouses. I don’t want a phone with me in the courthouse, but if it has my calendar on it, I sort of need it. The iPod touch made a nice compromise.

But now I want an iPhone 3G. I want to carry only one device around with me–and have it with the convenience of a phone. Our local federal court has adopted a change to its rules to permit attorneys to bring cell phones into the building, which is not a big surprise given that our chief judge is a tech junkie himself. (I ran into him on the street one day as he was walking to a lunch meeting and noticed the unmistakable white Apple iPod ear buds that he was using. I smiled at that.)

So, I want an iPhone, and I’m even willing to bite the bullet for a few months and pay for two cell services for several months.

But today I’m hating Apple. Not for their products, but for their decision to use AT&T as the cell carrier. You see, I’m really, really honked off at AT&T for their participation in Bush’s illegal wiretapping program. I’m really angry too that they spent millions to lobby Congress to get immunity for their law-breaking. (Next time you get a speeding ticket, try to see how much you’d have to pay your legislators to get the speed limit changed. It’s nice to know that the big corporations can get away with stuff that we mere mortals (and voters) cannot.) I do not want to give AT&T any of my money. It kills me to pay them each month for the phone service we have to have. (VOIP isn’t an option since we need a phone line to the security service.)

So Apple, I hate you for putting me in this position. I want to indulge my lust for Apple’s excellent product, but I can’t do it without paying AT&T. If I give in, am I compromising my principles? Probably. But as one person put it, refusing the new iPhone would be like cutting off my nose to spite my face–not because I lust after the product, but because the product can help me get things done in my work.

I’ll have to sort this out. Maybe I will get a new iPhone and use it, in part, to blog about how much AT&T sucks.

Less enthusiasm about Barack Obama

Unlike many pundits, I don’t think that Barack Obama has shifted to the center now that he has secured the Democratic nomination. Recalling back to Obama’s excellent speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Obama has always been somewhat of a centrist, even if a liberal-leaning one.

My enthusiasm has died a bit lately, though. It’s not over this so-called “shift.” Rather, it is that Obama seems to be giving up on the strategy that got him to the nomination: don’t look like a typical politician. Obama pledged earlier to filibuster any bill that provides telecommunication companies with retroactive immunity for their illegal spying. Now he’s backed away from that, giving McCain’s people fodder and earning the “flip-flopper” label. (I know, I know–John McCain has flip-flopped so much it’s not even funny. But just try to get someone in the so-called liberal media to report on it.)

When Gen. Wes Clark hammered a point about McCain’s qualifications (saying that being shot down over Vietnam and being a POW are not things that qualify one to be president–you have to look at other qualifications), people in the Obama camp called Clark’s comments “unhelpful.” What the hell?

Obama is becoming like other politicians–he’s listening to these morons inside the beltway who managed to LOSE TO GEORGE W. BUSH TWICE. Talk about qualifications…Bob Shrum et al. should be run out of town on a rail.

Senator Obama needs to get back on track, stop listening to those who have never won a presidential election, and get into his mode of being an agent of change–not another politician listening to the so-called experts.

Dems Disappointing Again

I’ve been so angry and discouraged over the entire FISA reform legislation that I haven’t been able to see straight or even think about blogging. I already sent my Congressman a note to explain that I won’t be voting for him this November. I won’t vote for his pinhead opponent, but I can’t vote for him either.

Glenn Greenwald again lays out the case for why these Democrats who are enabling Bush’s shredding of the Constitution need to be held accountable. I’m proud to be part of the “strange bedfellows” coalition that is pledging to defeat these enablers. I hope you’ll consider joining in.

To hell with Hillary Clinton

I can’t tolerate it any longer. Senator Clinton, who has been campaigning as if she’s the Republican in this race for a while now, has attacked the Democratic voters who want to change the direction of this country. She stood by while George Stephanopolous and Charles Gibson hit Obama with stupid questions during the debate. Her supporters have threatened House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, saying that if Hillary is not the nominee, they will withhold funds from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee–and just this weekend, it appears those supporters are now threatening DNC chair Howard Dean as well.

Hillary thinks that somehow she has this divine right to be President.

Bullcrap. Pure, unadulterated bullcrap.

It has come out that she’s blasted MoveOn.org (an organization created to help her husband during the impeachment mess, for God’s sake!!!) for being “activist” in the party and messing up her campaign. Good move, Senator Dimwit–alienate those whose votes you’ll need in the increasingly unlikely chance you’re the nominee.

Senator Tweedledum, when Georgie and Charlie were asking inane questions during this past week’s debate, why didn’t you speak up and say “Gentlemen, Senator Obama and I came here to debate the real issues confronting this nation, not to play games with these trivial little press items.” Doing so would have made you look smart, but maybe you’re not that bright.

Senator Nincompoop, why haven’t you told your donors that even if you’re not the nominee, this nation needs a Democratic Congress, so leave Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Dean alone? Perhaps you really don’t care about this nation.

One of my biggest complaints about the Republicans who are in DC today is that they are not interested in governing this nation. They’re interested in ruling. They want the power, and they don’t care how bad they foul things up to keep the power. What’s good for the country isn’t good enough for them.

But now, Senator Clinton, you’re behaving the same way. You’re interested only in winning–at any cost. You don’t give a damn about the things you say are important to you. How about Roe v. Wade? If your supporters end up handing the Senate to the Republicans, do you think you’ll see Justices Stevens and Ginsburg–who are just barely holding on, praying for a Democrat to win the White House–replaced by like-minded jurists? If you do, you’re either blinded by your own ambition or you’re as dumb as the average paperweight.

Senator, there is only one way that you would ever–ever–get my vote in November. That’s if, by some miracle, Indiana just might throw its electoral votes to you instead of Senator McCain. Otherwise, I’m not voting for you. I’ll never vote for McCain, but today I can’t say that you’re not just as bad as he is. You may say you want to do X, Y and Z for this country, but your behavior tells me that you believe it’s YOU who has the sole right to do X, Y and Z–and you’ll do everything you can to make sure that Senator Obama cannot do X, Y and Z if he wins the nomination or even the White House.

You, Senator, are no patriot, and you should be ashamed.

How to tell if you’re a liberal

A few years ago, I wrote an essay that argues the U.S. population is more liberal than conservative–based on their opinions, not on how people label themselves. I lost that thing, but feel inspired to re-create it today, using updated polling information. All the data supporting these points can be found at the Center For American Progress, which uses polling data from the major surveys.

Here are some positions that are often characterized as “liberal,” and some information on how many Americans support these positions.

• The government is doing a poor or fair job of addressing problems in the financial markets. Conservatives like to argue that regulating the financial markets is bad, but 80% of Americans believe the government is doing a poor (41%) or only fair (39%) job in dealing with the problems. If thinking we need to do a better job solving problems in our financial markets means we might be liberal, then 80% of us might be liberal.
• We need to increase fuel efficiency in our cars, trucks, and SUVs. This is a classic liberal position, and it’s one that 90% of Americans agree with.
• We need to increase federal funding for research into alternative sources of energy like wind or solar power. Another predictable liberal position, one that attracts 81% of the American public.
• We need to spend more money on public transportation (buses, subways, trains). Largely a belief held by the “tree huggers,” 72% of the population agrees with this position.
• Our health care system needs serious improvement. A surprising 80% of Americans are dissatisfied with the health care in the US as a whole.
• The government should make sure people have health care coverage. If you believe this, 64% of your fellow Americans agree with you.
• The global climate crisis must be addressed immediately. Fifty-nine percent believe we need to take “major steps” on global warming “very soon.”
• Government has a responsibility to help people who work hard achieve the American Dream (a good job, housing, enough to eat, health care, etc.). This is a position that some could easily call communist, but a huge 84% of the American people agree with the idea.
• We should forget tax cuts and invest in schools, health care, and job training. An impressive 61% of Americans are willing to pass on tax cuts in favor of spending money in these areas.
• Labor unions are a good thing. This one surprised me: 59% of the population approve of labor unions, while only 29% do not approve.
• Unions help their members for the most part. This one surprised me too–71% of Americans believe that unions mostly help their members as opposed to hurting their members.
• Abortion should remain legal in certain circumstances. Forty-nine percent of the country considers itself pro-choice while 45% considers itself pro-life. But 62% would not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
• The government should guarantee every citizen enough to eat and a place to sleep. If this isn’t an ultra-liberal position, I don’t know what is, but 69% of Americans agree with it.
• Government is responsible for caring for those who cannot care for themselves. Another liberal position that is often derided by conservatives, yet 69% of the country holds this position.
• We should expand subsidized day care. The French provide day care to parents at no charge, and 85% of Americans believe we should expand day care subsidies.
• We need to increase the minimum wage. A strong 85% of the people agree.
• We should increase spending on medical care for the poor. Another example where 83% of the population holds a liberal view.
• Food stamps should be more available to the poor. Ronald Reagan may have talked about welfare queens, but 61% say not enough people receive food stamps.
• The government should guarantee a minimum income. This sounds like another ultra-liberal/communist position, but 57% of Americans believe it.
• We should increase housing for the poor. This position is supported by 75% of the population.

As you can see, these are some classic “liberal” beliefs, but they enjoy very strong support among the American people. A lot of people may reject the “liberal” label, but their thinking makes them more liberal than they might realize.

If you looked at the list above and agreed with most of those positions, it’s okay. We liberals tend to be a welcoming bunch. Come on in, the water’s fine.

This is why I like Obama

I went to see him in South Bend last week. Very cool experience, impossible to describe here.

But this video on YouTube shows you what the man is all about.

Watch all of it–you’ll be glad you did.

The morning after

After yesterday’s primaries and caucuses in Ohio and Texas (plus Rhode Island and Vermont), I’m a little unhappy. A couple of reasons lurk behind my disgruntledness with the results. One, it appears that even though the math shows that Hillary Clinton can’t get enough delegates to win the nomination, she will be moving forward–apparently hoping the super-delegates will go to her side.

If this happens, then I foresee several problems–all of which benefit John McCain in November. For one, we will have a convention fight. Those are never healthy for a candidate’s chances in the general election. Another problem is that we will continue to have weeks and months of negative campaigning–Clinton’s ads or Obama’s ads that attack the other can become fodder for McCain to use. That’s not going to be healthy for our chances in November. (Did anyone else want to open a vein [not necessarily one's own] when Hillary Clinton said the other day that John McCain has more experience than Barack Obama? Talk about an endorsement of the opponent!]

My third worry is that if we do end up with a convention fight, whoever comes out with the nomination will not be seen as legitimately chosen by the voters. There will always be a stigma–and that won’t help us. So many new people have become involved in politics thanks to Senator Obama, and I worry that an ugly convention will turn them off.

Of course, I’m merely echoing what plenty of pundits have already said, but these things do worry me.

My favorite picture of the week

There might be hope for this country yet. Check it out.

Someone needs to turn that into a bumper sticker.