Crimes Against Humanity

Most of us probably do not give one flying fuck that Pope Benedict XVI is the first Pope in over 600 years to step down, or, retire.  I laughed out loud when, in a recent report, NPR stated "with many Catholics still shaken by the Pope's announcement..."  No, Sylvia.  More like "with many Catholics still shrugging."

I, for one, think the guy is misguided in his focus and for the head of a church that vaunts its views on peace, community, and life, he was the ultimate relativist.  In a time where politicians and cultural leaders use fear as a means to an end, should not the church urge peace and be a place of solace and community?

I, though, am not the only one to be so disappointed.

• One third of Americans raised Catholic no longer describe themselves thus;
• American Catholics declined 5% in the last decade ("and the decline would have been much steeper if not for the offsetting impact of Catholic immigrants from Latin America.")
• 40% of Americans give Benedict a "favorable" rating
• American Catholic support for Benedict has dropped from 80% to 60% in just 2 years

In my opinion, I offer the following statements and sentiments from the retiring pope as "evidence," if you will, of engaging in the same sort of fear-based, dog-whistle-laced demogoguery that our politicians are guilty of:

Sex Scandal

• As Pope, he refused to open Vatican records to outside scrutiny;
• In an interview around the time he became pope, instead of taking charge of the sex abuse scandals just starting to break, Ratzinger blamed Americans for a plot to undermine the church:
• “In the Church, priests also are sinners. But I am personally convinced that the constant presence in the press of the sins of Catholic priests, especially in the United States, is a planned campaign, as the percentage of these offenses among priests is not higher than in other categories, and perhaps it is even lower … In the United States, there is constant news on this topic, but less than 1 percent of priests are guilty of acts of this type. The constant presence of these news items does not correspond to the objectivity of the information nor to the statistical objectivity of the facts.” 

•  Before he was Pope, Ratzinger was the Vatican's chief "doctrinal enforcer."  But mounting evidence shows that he chose not to act, or acted covertly, as allegations of sex abuse escalated. It wasn't until the abuse broke in the media that the Vatican finally started to act, under Ratzinger's order.  

Gay Marriage

• During the 2013 World Day of Peace, the Pope's message of hope and call for world peace consisted of...wait...what?  An appeal to the existential threat of gay marriage??
• "There is also a need to acknowledge and promote the natural structure of marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the face of attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different types of union. Such attempts actually harm and help to destabilize marriage, obscuring its specific nature and its indispensable role in society.These principles are not truths of faith, nor are they simply a corollary of the right to religious freedom. They are inscribed in human nature itself, accessible to reason and thus common to all humanity. The Church’s efforts to promote them are not therefore confessional in character, but addressed to all people, whatever their religious affiliation. Efforts of this kind are all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, since this constitutes an offence against the truth of the human person, with serious harm to justice and peace."

• Let's not  forget the Pope's Christmas speech, where he took time out of celebrating the pagan-timed birth of Jesus to remind us that gay marriage is a threat to humanity:
• "There is no denying the crisis that threatens it [the family] to its foundations — especially in the Western world,” the Pope is quoted as saying. “When such commitment is repudiated, the key figures of human existence likewise vanish: father, mother, child — essential elements of the experience of being human are lost"

•  Let's not forget the Pope's "scientific" finding that the LGBT community are not fully developed humans.

Moral Relativism

• Benedict liked to make grand statements about moral relativism:
• "We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest value one’s own ego and one’s own desires"
• But he sure likes to pardon excommunicated priests who are "convicted" holocaust deniers, speaking of moral relativism.
• Oh, and let's not forget that some death is OK for Benedict's church, just not ever abortion and euthanasia, but some death is OK because not everyone in his flock might agree with, say, anti-death penalty or anti-war sentiments:
• Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion, even among Catholics, about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not, however, with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Some leadership.  This guy was anything but a source of peace, using the tactics and words of fear and division for some gain that I can't see yet.  What I do see is that his tactics have led to decline.  Fortunately for the world, these archaic views are also on the decline; perhaps what we see in Benedict is some of the last gasps of a dying mindset.

Read more...

230 Miles Per Gallon?

I haven't been able to post much lately on the subject of the auto industry, even through the whole bankruptcy, which is realy a shame because I could have vented a lot.

Today though, GM announced good news for a change. Their new green, halo car, the Chevy Volt will be E.P.A. rated in the city for 230 miles per gallon!

This would be calculated by some sort of combined driving cycle where the car runs on battery power only for the first 40 miles, using no gas, and then on electric drive with electricity being supplied by the on-board generator.

It will also be able to run on E-85 and will be built in Detroit starting next year.

This is quite an achievement unobtainable a few short years ago.

See autoblog here.
See CNN Money here, which explains a possible driving cycle.

All I can add is this: Fuck You Toyota!

Read more...

Holier than Thou, and a Challenge Accepted

Two topics of recent interest here at Our Lady's University.


First, it seems that I've been hangin' out at the center of the Culture Wars for the last couple of weeks. You may have heard that the President is going to deliver the commencement address here at Notre Dame in May. You may also have heard that (a small but vocal fraction of) the local folks are piiiiiissed about it. Obama is pro-choice, which to the Catholic Church is apparently a sin on the level of sodomizing a puppy while bombing an orphanage (or rooting for Ohio State).

There are a number of calls for the University to recind the offer, and for the University President and other high officials to resign (and presumable to commit hari kiri). But the most shocking call (at least from my perspective) came from a member of the law school faculty. This letter was printed in the student paper last week. Beyond the usual claims that Obama is worse than the Fuhrer, he includes this little gem:

Apart from the "life" issues, our leaders were reckless to commit Notre Dame to Obama in the face of mounting and well-grounded opposition to other Obama policies, including his fiscal deficits and such a stunning expansion of executive power and of federal control over private entities and states that it amounts to a constitutional coup. Unmentioned in the background are the pending lawsuits - not yet decided on the merits by the Supreme Court - that raise serious questions as to Obama's eligibility for the office.

You read that right; a member of the faculty at my school wondered publicly if our President is an American, or if he's somehow secretly Canadian.

So I'm curious, oh Sages of the Internets... Do you think it is inappropriate for a pro-choice politician to be asked to deliver the commencement address at a Catholic University? And why would a just and loving God put that crazy-ass professor on the panel of judges for my Oral Argument last week?

Secondly, a few weeks ago we had a nice discussion about the complexity of modern regulatory structures. It was suggested that it was the duty of all concerned Americans to do whatever we could to become educated. And because I can never seem to shut up, I've opted to put up.

I've accepted a summer position as a research assistant. A professor here at Notre Dame is writing a textbook/casebook/reference on the topic of corporate governance, and I've been hired to help out. My little part of the book is going to (I believe) involve the interrelationship between state and federal governments.

So, after this summer, you will all have to listen to believe my every word on the subject. Right?

Read more...

Church and State

Over the weekend, there were several protests around the country about Proposal 8. A Balloon-Juice contributor, Michael D, had a short post about it this weekend that is worth the few moments it will take to look at. The Episcopalian minister in the embedded video clip has some reasoned arguments to make as to why there is biblical justification for gay marriage (we'll get there in just a moment...don't go nuts yet), and Ashton Kutcher stumbles his way through an endearing "Prop 8 is bullshit" diatribe. It's both of their points that really got me thinking about the role of the government and religion in the gay marriage issue.

Religion

First, the minister. He warns, before he starts, about "throwing scripture at each other." From there, he makes the case that biblically, divorce is the worst aspect of relationships; that Jesus spoke much more of divorce and adultry than any other part of marriage. From this minister's perspective, one does well to encourage monogamy and stability. It is the support of monogamy and stability that represents "conservative family values." In general, I agree with his statements.

What really got me thinking was his initial statement: "if we're going to start throwing scripture at each other, which is always a dangerous thing..." I recall an old email that went around some time ago that railed against "Dr." Laura Schlessenger, who had a show a few years back in which she heavily quoted scripture as justification for her viewpoint. This email quoted other parts of scripture that we ignore in modern times, like when it is okay to chuck stones at people or kill them. The point is this: if we are indeed to use biblical justification for public policy, we should be careful what we wish for. I think this is the Episcopalian minister's point, in a way: the overarching lessons are what we should be concerned about. Stable, happy families are what we should support, not one type of religious law.

On a whim, I googled "religious jutification for slavery." Lo and behold, plenty of references.

Genesis 9:25-27:And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.[King James version]

This appears to be the basis from which all other justifications for slavery and/or segregation arise. A curse is put on generations of one guy, who if I remember correctly, saw his dad naked, laughed about it, and told his brothers. From that horrid mistake, generations were seen as slaves (it appears that there was some opinion that Canaan settled in Africa).

In fact, there are several passages in the bible that specifically regulate slave ownership in some way, shape, or form. I'm not a biblical scholar by any means, waffling back and forth between agnosticism and Presbyterian-Lite as I do, but whereas the bible seems silent on prohibiting slave ownership (save for, of course, The Golden Rule), it lays out sets of rules specific to the conduct of slave ownership. Some examples:

--Exodus 21:20-21 - And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
--Leviticus 19:20-22 - And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

On and on...I found at least 10 examples where the conduct of a slave-owner is laid-out, from emancipation of the slaves to punishment of the slaves.

I bring this up, because we either agree that we pick-and-choose what aspects of the bible are relevent to modern life, or we take a literalist view. We accept everything that it has to say as The Truth, literally, or we agree that it serves as a guiding light to help us each individually make important, morally-based decisions. The key is individually. "Dr." Laura certainly uses it as a moral compass, but the hole in her argument is all of the canon law she chooses to ignore (various demands on the appropriateness of stoning, killing, beheading, drowning, and the like) because it is not relevant or even normal or moral in modern society.

Eventually, in the Mid-1800s, we largely agreed as a nation that slavery was bad, despite many impassioned speeches by, among others, Jefferson Davis, about the biblical and moral imperative of slave ownership ("[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation."). Yeah, we had to kinda fight a war over it, but the point was made: slave ownership is immoral in modern society. In the 1920s, women could finally vote, despite much biblical evidence to womens' supposed inferiority (which we now know, according to Mrs. Smitty, that the opposite is true). In the 1960s, further discrimination, however biblically justified, was legislated away. In 2008, we elected a black President.

Like the Episcopalian minister in the video clip referenced above, we should be careful to start throwing around bible verses, and recognize religion as an individual's guiding principles alone, and not some source for the justification of legislation that discriminates against people or creates a 2nd class citizenry. If I put my mind to it, I could justify anything...any behavior...by picking the biblical verses that suit my needs, however out of context they may be. One has to take the bible as a whole, which is globally about treating our fellow man with respect and to be a friend and neighbor when people need it. Obviously, God did not and would not condone slavery. We can say that now, though one hundred and forty years ago, people might not have been so sure that He didn't. But, as we now disregard biblical passages either justifying slavery or laying-out rules for the ownership of slaves, perhaps we should look at a similar disregard for any passage that advocates for the discrimination of anyone. Discrimination, no matter how justified in the bible (which again I don't think any of this stuff is), just doesn't, or shouldn't, apply in modern society.

Government

Now, Kutcher's statements. His whole point, however rambling, was that Proposal 8 is discriminatory. The height of irony to me in the Proposal 8 battle was the aftermath. According to the Los Angeles Times, "an exit poll of California voters showed that black voters sided in favor of the measure by margins of more than 2 to 1."[November 6, 2008] A group that has fought discrimination at all levels just voted in massive numbers (statistically speaking) to discriminate against another minority group. Some else's turn, perhaps?

All snark aside, Proposal 8 creates a class of citizenry that does not get to enjoy all of the privileges afforded to every other American. Marriage is one of those funny things, in that it has both State as well as religious implications. Ostensibly, marriage can happen in a religious setting without State-sanction. But it's the question of the State's involvement in marriage that I am looking at.

If you subscribe to the view that the reason for marriage is procreation, then should we disallow sterile couples from marrying?

If you subscribe to the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and is a union before God, I would say that in the affairs of State, God and religion have nothing to do with marriage. The State does not grant a license to marry based on your standing as a Christian. If memory sevres me, you can get a marriage license so long as you have the $50 is cost me here in Michigan. I was never asked my background, my religious belief, or my moral code.

Restricting a right OR a privilege (both of which people have argued marriage is) based on whether or not it aligns with my religious belief is not something the U.S. Constitution protects. Then why not allow rape or murder? Because rape and murder violate the victim's right to keep living and enjoying their rights and privileges, as well as the fact that they are morally wrong. All gay marriage is, to some people of faith, is morally wrong. It doesn't violate my rights that two guys (or women) get married.

So, again, California (and Michigan 4 years ago) has passed a referendum that removes the ability for one self-selecting group of individuals to enjoy the same thing that everyone else gets to do on a whim.

Simply stated: from a religious standpoint, anyone is allowed to believe that homosexuals should not get married and that God will not recognize that union (and in fact may "punish" it). But as soon as that person backs laws that disallow homosexual marriage, they are a supporter of discrimination. There is no philosophical difference between forcing blacks to use different drinking fountains, and actually passing laws to that effect, and disallowing gays the benefits of monogamous, loving marriage.

Read more...

Wicked Witch of Wayne County?

Have you guys caught wind of Shirley Nagel, dubbed by one blogger as the "Wicked Witch of Wayne County"? I'll bet you have, but since I just heard about it, I'll assume there must be other who have not heard.

One Shirley Nagel, of Grosse Point Farms, refused to give candy to children on Halloween if their parents were supporters of Obama! What kind of a crock of shit is that?! She apparently even had a sign out front that read "No handouts for Obama supporters, liars, tricksters or kids of supporters." OMFG?!?! It's one thing for a couple of adults to hash out their political views in some less than savory ways... BUT LEAVE THE KIDS OUT OF IT!



One commenter on Buzzfeed said "And that's how many children learned to hate republicans. Not the brightest campaign idea."

Freep.com article

Read more...

Name that... car?

Okay, so enough politics for now... my wife and I were driving the other day when some song mentioned a Chevy in it and it got me to thinking, which soon became a contest between her and I as to how many songs mention cars in them. We came up with a few and, for the most part concluded that Chevy's and Chevrolet's are the most mentioned cars in popular music. I've been pondering this ever since and thought I would put it to you, the ATK community, to list any other song you can think of that mentions a car of some type. Obviously, we'll get plenty from the Beach Boys and Jan & Dean, stuff like that, and that's fine, but I was hoping for some more obscure stuff as well. Thought this would be a fun exercise.

Read more...

For Good or Bad, My Childhood is Being Recycled.

This has nothing to do with beer or politics, but since at least one other writer here dug the Transformers remake, I figured this was also worth a post.

If one harkens back to the days of "It's Ten O'clock, do you know where your children are?" you will remember that those P.S.A.’s came on during Friday night prime time on NBC during the airing of “Knight Rider”.

Knight Rider may have been slightly lame, but it was cool to an eight-year-old.

Now it’s coming back. Firebird fans beware, this time K.I.T.T. will be in a Shelby Mustang. That's OK, but let’s just hope it’s better than the Bionic Woman remake.

Read more...

A Bockumentary Film Review

Let me set the stage for you: Five friends leave New York City by minivan and set out to visit 38 breweries in 40 days.

Did you see the last part of that sentence? 38 breweries in 40 days. I am jealous beyond belief. I wish I had the luxury to take a month and a half off of life and go on that type of road trip.

But instead, those 5 guys did it for me and made an entertaining and very well-="edited and well-conceived documentary called American Beer: A Bockumentary.


What really set this documentary apart from other "road trip" style efforts is that the focus was not on the 5 friends and their relationship over the course of the trip. It was on the brewers and breweries. That is exactly as it should have been and I loved it.

It felt like a really fast hour and 45 minutes. The 38 breweries they stopped by are some of my favorites, including Anchor Steam, Brooklyn Brewery, Dogfish Head, Ommegang, New Belgium and Rogue. It was fun to put faces and voices to the "brewmasters" I have been reading about and drinking from. Sam Calagione from Dogfish Head is a physically fit dude just about my age. Larry Bell from Bell's is sort of an unkempt nerdy-looking fellow. Anchor Steam's brewer is older than my parents and bought the brewery in 1965. On and on, it was fun to see the brewers and the guts of the breweries.

The brewers, for their part, were extremely forthcoming about being a craft brewer. Each one, in part, discussed how and why they started, the challenges in owning and brewing in a craft brewery, humble beginnings, and their favorite beers. Larry Bell's story of his rocky start ("My second year, I made $25,000 and lost $25,000") and the mysterious sale-from-heaven that allowed his brewery to take-off was a really cool story. One and all had a great tale of starting with a single kettle brewing 3 times a day to the operation they have now. Some still brew amazing beers in cobbld-together shops and the Yuengling brewery (American's oldest) still makes use of the 52-degree tunnels hand-dug into the mountains (and apparently brew with ghosts).

The guys, of course, get smashed with some of the brewers, but again, little attention is paid to their party episodes in lieu of footage capturing each brewer's personality and story.

This is not a movie that will teach you how to brew. This is simply a movie about the greatest beer run in American History. I highly recommend this bockumentary and further, declare it Required Watching for the contributors to Around the Keg. It's a great contribution to the history of the AMerican Craft Beer movement. As the movie says when it starts

By the end of the 1970's," reads the white-on-black text that opens the film, "corporate consolidation" left the United States with less than 50 breweries.

There are nearly 1,400 in the U.S. today.

Cheers!

Read more...

How to Beat Your Wife

Continuing with the Mid-East theme, here is a video on the rules for beating your wife. Don't hit her in the face, don't leave bruises or draw blood, don't do it front of your kids. In other words, don't leave any evidence. While we certainly had this happen in our country's history, I find it appalling that this is still acceptable in some places.

Read more...