The Motley Monk Blog

Definitely not THE "Lamb of God"...

2012-01-31T07:32:00.000-05:00

The Motley Monk's attention was drawn by the title of a Washington Post article, "Lamb of God gives local blast before global tour."

In the end, the title was a clever very ruse to get The Motley Monk to read the article's contents. He had been wondering: "Is this a Christian rock band that has caught on with young people?"

Definitely not.

Who is this "Lamb of God"?

Aptly titled: "Take a walk with me in Hell"

It's a Richmond-based heavy metal rock band. The article's author, Dave McKenna, notes: "Plainly, it ain’t easy finding metal this heavy outside of a uranium mine."

That's for sure! The Motley Monk was not amused and his disappointment only grew as he read the article's contents.

The band was originally called "Burn the Priest" which may explain, in part, the titles of some of the band's songs:

"Walk With Me in Hell"
"Blacken the Cursed Sun"
"Now You’ve Got Something to Die For"

If the titles aren't enough to paint a clear picture, McKenna notes:

The arrangements are equally foreboding, with Fairfax product and bassist John Campbell’s fingers fretting to keep up with Chris Adler's incredible kick drumming---whenever LoG goes on a speed-metal run, Adler’s feet seem as fleet as Usain Bolt's. Melody remains something akin to Kryptonite in the Lamb’s oeuvre....

Then, too, there's the lyrics:

Beneath it all, vocalist Randy Blythe spewed dark lyrics with a roar that harkened Beelzebub more than Pavarotti. When he wasn't on the mic, Blythe rhythmically whipped his dreadlocks in circles....His dependence on profanity would surely separate Blythe on the campaign trail from at least Mitt Romney.

Unlike George Frederick Handel's "Behold Lamb of God":

Blythe flaunted his charismatic aptitude and exploited his place among this flock just before an encore of "Black Label," when he urged folks on the packed club floor near the stage to get crazy on his count.

Having listened to Lamb of God's "Take a walk with me in Hell," The Motley Monk can only wonder what tortured soul this genre of music emerges from? In contrast, consider Handel's "Behold the Lamb of God":

To think that tortured souls across the globe actually pay the price of admission for the phoney-baloney "Lamb of God."

Let the discussion begin...

To read Dave McKenna's article in the Washington Post, click on the following link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/lamb-of-god-gives-local-blast-before-global-tour/2012/01/29/gIQAPvh0aQ_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines

Is Mitt trying to "deep six" Allen West?

2012-01-30T13:11:00.000-05:00

The Motley Monk has read about a possible effort apparently underway by Republican Party officials to oust Tea Party Republicans from office. One target of this effort is The Motley Monk fave, U.S. Representative Allen West (R-FL).

Here's how the strategy works: Florida's Republican legislative leaders are pushing through (or have pushed through) a redistricting plan which puts Allen West at serious risk for re-election. According to The Shark Tank, the person leading the effort is a Florida Mitt Romney spokesman, Republican state representative Will Weatherford:

After last night's [Jan. 26] Republican Presidential debate, the candidates' respective spinmeisters made their cases to the media as to why their guy won the debate. One of Governor Mitt Romney's spokesmen was Florida Representative Will Weatherford, and during the course of his remarks in the "Spin Room," he shed a very dim light on the ongoing redistricting process in the Florida Legislature...

West's congressional district inexplicably sheds the most out support as compared to all other incumbent Republican and Democrat Congressman. A few weeks back we quoted an unnamed legislator saying that, "Allen West was screwed," a statement which was originally made about made five months before the purposed maps were made public, leading insiders to believe that the fix was in against Allen West. But in light of Weatherford's comment, it is increasingly clear that this is a fait accompli.

According to Weatherford, those preliminary maps will not change---at the most, any additional changes would be minimal, and those changes would not make any appreciable difference from the preliminary maps. In addition, Weatherford stated that a deal was struck between him, Senate President Mike Haridopolos, and Senator Don Gaetz to finalize these maps and push them through as soon as possible.

Listening to Weatherford---remember he is a spinmeister for Mitt Romney in Florida---one would believe that the redistricting plan was driven by having to comply with election law in light of the 2010 census.

Despite the plausible deniability, the simple fact may be that the Florida Republican Party establishment---at the behest of the Romney operatives---is about to sacrifice (or has already sacrificed) Allen West because it cannot countenance this principled conservative and Tea Party member.

The odds against Representative West are overwhelming. But, The Motley Monk is placing his money on him. After all, West is a combat veteran and may very well have a few surprises up his sleeve that will make the likes of political sycophants like Will Weatherford look foolish. It's called "political jujitsu."

At least, The Motley Monk hopes so.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Shark Tank report, click on the following link:
http://shark-tank.net/2012/01/27/24717/

What does "low interest rates for the near term" mean?

2012-01-30T09:14:00.000-05:00

Last week, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States, Ben Bernanke, announced that interest rates will remain low for perhaps the next two years.

According to a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, John Makin, "investors are lining up to lend to some governments at very low interest rates."

Which governments?

The United States, Japan, and European nations.

Why?

Makin notes that three factors have kept and will likely continue keep interests rates low into the near future:

Fears of inflation are minimal internationally.
There is little growth in the world's most stable economies.
The gradual erosion of investor confidence in a largely uncertain international market.

In this environment, investors are clamoring to buy government bonds and notes which, in turn, drives down interest rates.

What does that mean to the average Joe Schlub like The Motley Monk?

It's time to play "Follow the leader"...

Interested in purchasing a home? It's an ideal time to lock in a low-interest, fixed-rate mortgage.
Thinking about opening a start-up business? It's an ideal time to take out a low-interest loan.
Invest in "small cap" mutual funds. It's small businesses that fuel the economy and with low interest rates, small caps have been performing quite nicely during the past year.

Let the discussion begin...

To read John Makin's article, click on the following link:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/01/25/why_are_interest_rates_presently_so_low__99481.htm

A different take on "succession planning"...

2012-01-30T08:10:00.003-05:00

The concept of CEO succession planning is a "hot topic" in business schools these days. The idea is that no CEO is immortal and planning for what will happen following one's departure---for some sooner, for others later, but for all at some point in the future---is an important aspect of leadership that many CEOs don't exercise.

The Chicago Tribune reports that one CEO, Cardinal Francis George, is exercising succession planning as he prepares to retire as Archbishop of Chicago in the couple of years. Cardinal George was required to submit his resignation when he turned 75 on January 16, 2012, but remains in office until Pope Benedict XVI accepts George's resignation and appoints a successor.

Cardinal Francis George
Archbishop of Chicago, 1997-

What makes this story interesting to The Motley Monk is that Cardinal George isn't looking for or grooming a successor, but instead has turned to Wall Street for assistance to ensure the Archdiocese's long-term financial viability. This may be the "long shadow" Cardinal George casts long after he retires.

But, as interesting as this is, of even greater interest to The Motley Monk is that Cardinal George's succession plan isn't at all novel. In fact, the Cardinal taking a page from the playbook of one of his predecessors, Cardinal George Mundelein, who used bond sales to improve the Archdiocese's cash flow during the Depression. According to the Chicago Tribune article:

Considered one of the nation's top businessmen of the early 20th century, Mundelein financed and created most of the modern archdiocese and earned a reputation much like the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilts. Even at the height of the Great Depression, national media touted that "no one in Chicago had better credit than the cardinal."

Mundelein was reputed to be one of "God's bricklayers."

Cardinal George Mundelein
Archbishop of Chicago, 1915-1939

News revealing Cardinal George's succession plan emerged when the Archdiocese earned an A1 rating from Moody's, an announcement that typically precedes a bond offering. In this case, the Archdiocese is proposed offering $151.5M in bonds. However, with Securities and Exchange Commission regulations precluding any discussion of a potential bond sale, the Moody's rating does not guarantee a sale.

The Moody's report indicates that the bond sale proceeds would be used to refinance $75 M in loans used to pay for parish operations and sexual misconduct costs. Those loans were collateralized through the sale of undeveloped property, insurance proceeds, other reserves, and loans. The bond sale proceeds would also replenish reserves used to cover $42M of capital expenditures.

That said, Cardinal George told the Chicago Tribune that he would like

...to take advantage of historically low interest rates and the good creditworthiness of the Archdiocese.

Rather than borrow directly from banks...it might be advantageous to float bonds and pay them back on a regular basis, which is what a lot of corporate entities do.

There's a conversation going on about whether or not the Archdiocese should at this time do something that Cardinal Mundelein first did, meaning float private bonds to cover debts.

The President of O'Meara Ferguson Whelan and Conway, the financial firm hired by the Archdiocese to facilitate fundraising and investment strategies, Patrick O'Meara, said of Cardinal George's succession plan:

He's leaving Chicago in the best position it's ever been in recent memory. His legacy is going to be in many ways. One way is he wants the temporal affairs to be really solid.

Given the precarious financial situation confronting most dioceses in the United States, The Motley Monk wouldn't be surprised to see other diocesan CEOS---bishops, archbishops, and cardinals---taking the same page from Cardinal Mundelien's playbook as part of their succession planning process.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Chicago Tribune article, click on the following link:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-archdiocese-finances-20120129,0,1116500.story

The Vatican: Transparency and honesty...not...

2012-01-29T06:46:00.001-05:00

It has been with great interest that The Motley Monk has been following the news concerning the appointment of Rome's new nuncio to Washington, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. At first read, the story makes Pope Benedict XVI appear inept, a puppet of the all-powerful Curia.

Pope Benedict XVI with Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò,
Papal Nuncio to the United States

A more careful reading of the story indicates that it has much of the stuff to make for a great mystery novel.

First, the story. Second, some analysis.

The Story:

Synthesizing reports from three sources (Washington Post, Sandro Magister, and John Allen), a folio containing confidential letters sent by then-Secretary General of the Governorate of Vatican City-State, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, to Pope Benedict XVI and the Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, was made public on the evening of January 25, 2012. The disclosure was so earth-shaking that the news report interrupted the broadcast of a television program on Italian television.

Appointed Secretary General in July 2009, Archbishop Viganò reportedly turned a $10.5M deficit into a $44M surplus within one year by demanding centralized accounting procedures and strict accountability for cost overruns. No doubt about it, The Motley Monk would observe, this dramatic turnabout must have required Viganò to step on some toes and kick some serious butt inside of the Vatican. And, sure enough, Viganò was soon reputed to be a "take-no-prisoners financial reformer" and his efforts to rein in an out-of-control financial system raised quite a ruckus among some mid-level officials who believe themselves accountable only to God and the Pope (should the later ever find out...but, as the world works, popes come and go while bureaucrats outlive popes).

Apparently, "oversight" in the Vatican means "overlooking" and has traditionally been "in name only" and tensions were teeming within the Vatican. With Archbishop Viganò mounting a campaign to be allowed to complete his financial reforms, Pope Benedict XVI named Viganò papal nuncio to the United States.

All of this is confirmed by the folio's letters and by fact that there was no Vatican denial, Hence, intrigue about why and how those letters got into the hands the media closes the mystery novel's first chapter.

It seems that Archbishop Viganò was lead to believe he would become President of the Governorate, likely through some powerful cardinal's "wink and nod" because only the Pope has the power to make that appointment. But, Viganò's political enemies would have none of that. They wanted him gone.

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State,
with Pope Benedict XVI

It has been suggested that the Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, personally wanted Archbishop Viganò removed from his position as Secretary General for the reason that because Viganò was stubbornly enforcing his norms of transparency and honesty in financial matters. While The Motley Monk would wholeheartedly support those norms, they apparently had the effect of upending traditional "understandings" involving those who do business with the Vatican and its officials...including Bertone. Viganò apparently had also complained that some of the members of the Vatican's Finance and Management Committee (FMC) favored personal interests and routinely awarded construction contracts to businesses that overbid on the basis of personal connections.

So, there's the exchange of money---the motive---that brings the second chapter of the mystery novel to its devilish conclusion.

With the pro-Bertone forces pitted against the anti-Bertone forces as these played out concerning Viganò's handling of the Vatican Museum's budget as well as among some FMC members, there's additional evidence that the tangled web of internecine relationships within the Vatican ended up deciding to toss Viganò under the bus, what has been called "a face-saving maneuver to resolve these internal tensions."

Who replaced Viganò?

The "personally esteemed" Bishop Giuseppe Sciacca
with Pope Benedict XVI

A friend of Cardinal Bertone---"personally esteemed" by Pope Benedict XVI and his personal secretary, Georg Gänswein---Bishop Giuseppe Sciacca.

Hence, the exposé broadcast on Italian television portraying Archbishop Viganò in the brightest of lights as a true financial reformer and intimating that some Vatican prelates behind the scenes were conniving to thwart him. A March 2011 private letter to Pope Benedict XVI corroborates that Viganò had warned the Pope about this scheming and how his removal would be interpreted by those in the Curia:

My transfer would provoke confusion among all those who've believed that it's possible to clean up so many situations of corruption and dishonesty.

The secret handoff of that folio provides the closing scene of the third chapter of the mystery novel.

Some analysis:

Pope Benedict XVI found himself caught in the middle, trying to please everyone involved. But, it wasn't possible. So, Archbishop Viganò is now angry at having been thrown under the bus and sent off to Washington, DC. His archenemy, Cardinal Bertone, continues to wield power within the Vatican. However, Viganò has his supporters in the Vatican and they are onto Bertone, likely awaiting the most appropriate moment to make their next move.

The Apostolic Nunciature
in Washington, DC

But, what about Cardinal Bertone?

The Motley Monk must ask: Is he serving the Pope Benedict XVI's interests by tossing a financial reformer under the bus? After all, it was the Pope himself who appointed Viganò and empowered him to make the necessary reforms to the Vatican's financial system, that is, those norms of greater transparency and honesty. Why did Bertone not support Viganò's efforts, if only because they were personally approved by the Pope.

Perhaps all of this has more to do with how things really work and have worked for centuries at the Vatican. The culture of "understandings" and "winks and nods" as well as "secret handshakes" and "favors" is how business gets done and the retirement accounts of many prelates are funded. Anyone who attempts to tinker with all of that is not going to be warmly received by many of those working in the Vatican and have been bred in that culture, no matter what any Pope may wish.

Then, too, perhaps Pope Benedict XVI is not very much interested in financial matters nor does he have the time for them. A trained theologian, Pope Benedict may not be able to "get his mind around" cumbersome financial matters and had hoped that someone like Archbishop Viganò could do all of that work for him.

But, there was that none-too-insignificant problem: The Pope happens also to be allied with his friend, the Vatican's Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone.

"Yes, Your Holiness, very good, indeed! That certainly
would eliminate the Viganò problem. He's a bit, shall I say,
'stubborn.' He doesn't quite get how to be a team player."

Wouldn't all of this intrigue make for a smashing fourth chapter in the mystery novel?

John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter believes all of this intrigue may prove to be a boon for the U.S. Catholic Church, calling it the "Viganò effect":

...however distasteful the recent revelations may be for the Vatican, American Catholics actually ought to feel pretty good. They offer confirmation that we've got a nuncio in Viganò who's a no-nonsense guy when it comes to financial integrity and who's not afraid to fight some internal battles to make his principles stick.

All this is especially important at a time when some observers are concerned that financial scandals could be the second round of the sexual abuse crisis in terms of damage to the church's image and moral authority. Those fears have been fueled, among other things, by a 2007 survey by Villanova concluding that 85 percent of responding dioceses in the United States had suffered some form of embezzlement.

In that light, whatever the internal Vatican logic might have been for Viganò's transfer to the United States, his arrival here comes at a great time for the American church. He may be able to encourage those American bishops who are already committed to transparency, helping them square their local systems with church law and Vatican expectations, and to ride herd on those who aren't yet up to speed.

If he applies the same tough-mindedness he showed in Rome, perhaps we'll eventually talk about a "Viganò effect" in the American church---how the financial glasnost he wasn't able to bring to completion in the Vatican instead reached fruition on this side of the Atlantic.

While Allen's principal interest is in seeing the Church in the United States democratized and views all of this internecine infighting as potentially advancing his agenda, The Motley Monk is more interested in whether there will be a "Viganò effect" in the Vatican.

Being the papal nuncio in Washington, DC, is not a bad place to end up, even if that means ending one's career there. Maybe there's even a cardinal's red hat, if the nuncio would just "play ball" and not be a "whistleblower." But, he has done neither.

Will the Phoenix rise from the dust in Washington, DC, and return to Rome in triumph to extract his pound of flesh?

It all depends on how the fifth chapter of the mystery novel ends.

One thing is for certain: That chapter is being written right now in Rome and Washington, DC.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Washington Post article, click on the following link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/report-vatican-official-transferred-to-washington-after-denouncing-corruption-in-vatican/2012/01/25/gIQAqvi7PQ_story.html

To read Sandro Magister's article, click on the following link:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350153?eng=y

To read John Allen's National Catholic Reporter article, click on the following link:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/thoughts-americas-new-whistle-blowing-nuncio

The "unsurprising" 8.2% uptick in arrests of 11-23 year olds...

2012-01-28T08:36:00.000-05:00

A study published in the journal Pediatrics reports that nearly 1 of 3 young people in the United States will be arrested by the time they are 23 years old. This represents an 8.2% increase since 1968 when a similar study was published.

The data analyzed in the study were collected between 1997 and 2008 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Excluded in the analysis were minor traffic offenses. Included were arrests for offenses that resulted in an encounter with police and ended in an arrest, but criminal charges were not necessarily filed.

According to criminologist Alfred Blumstein, this increase is unsurprising, as tougher crime policies---for example, drugs and domestic violence---have been implemented in many locales since the 1960s.

Unsurprising or not, The Motley Monk would observe that the 8.2% increase in the number of arrests is quite likely just the "tip of the iceberg." A lot of criminal activity has been transpiring that does not involve an encounter with police. The Motley Monk also happens to believe that much of this is a direct consequence of the breakdown of the traditional, nuclear family, the decline in church attendance, and the failure of many of the nation's public schools to teach common morality.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the study in Pediatrics, click on the following link:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/12/14/peds.2010-3710.abstract?sid=63f9d4cc-5037-4c2b-aefa-9802ddea8ca1

The "20-somethings" have left the church...

2012-01-28T07:49:00.002-05:00

What's the religious status of this generation's "20-somethings"?

David Kinnaman has analyzed the data in a new book, You Lost Me: Why Young Christians are Leaving the Church ... and Rethinking Faith," and reports the following:

The good news: This generation's pre-20-somethings are not less active in church than in previous eras. In fact, 4 of 5 U.S. teens spend part of their childhood and/or teen years attending a congregation or parish.
What happens is that the faith of these young adults erodes and disappears by the time they are 20 years old and during their 20s. This is true for both Protestants and Catholics.
Even greater is the disconnect these young adults experience with the institutional church. They stop participating in the practice of their waning faith and, ultimately, become skeptical of faith, its practice, and the institution supporting both.

Kinnaman believes that one of the most important factors influencing this generation's 20-somethings is rapid cultural change---the media, technology, sexuality, and the economy---which has increased complexity, fluidity, and uncertainty in the culture in which the 20-somethings have grown up. In turn, these changes can be summed up in three realities:

Access: While the new tools of the digital world offer immense opportunities for evangelization, increased access access to other cultural views and values invites 20-somethings to question their beliefs.
Alienation: Skeptical about the institutions have shaped society in the past---especially marriage and family life---this generation's 20-somethings prize grassroots networks and collaborative efforts over hierarchical institutions.
Authority: This skepticism evolves into a distrust of authority with pluralism---to the point of being willing to hold contradictory ideas rather than resolve them---taking precedence over accepting Scripture and moral norms.

Is all lost?

Kinnaman recommends starting a "conversation" to stem the loss of so many 20-somethings from the church, another of his recommendations comes straight form the playbook of Martin Luther: To assist 20-somethings to rediscover the theological concept of a "personal vocation" by encouraging a deeper consideration about what God is asking these young adults to accomplish through their lives.

The Motley Monk would note that rediscovering the theological concept of a personal vocation was a critical element of Blessed John Paul II's larger initiative called "The New Evangelization," as he described this in his 1994 book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope. The idea is pretty straightforward:

"The human being is single, unique, and unrepeatable, someone thought of and chosen from eternity, someone called and identified by name...." A "personal vocation" is how that individual freely responds to God's initiative by living that out in a singular, unique, and unrepeatable way in all of human history.

The challenge?

Where are the 20-somethings to hear this important message---the spiritual antidote to their skepticism and alienation---if they don't participate in a church?

Let the discussion begin...

The silence of the Catholic left's "justice with peace" crowd: What about those iPhones?

2012-01-27T10:00:00.005-05:00

With their penchant for exposing capitalist hypocrisy whenever it exposes one of its Hydra-like heads, the Catholic left "justice with peace" crew must have a case of laryngitis again.

Just consider Apple, Inc.

Apple, of course, has been in the news recently because of the company's decision to outsource much of its iPhone production jobs to China.

According to Jordan Weissmann's article in The Atlantic, Apple argues in its self-defense that the difference in the cost of labor was one factor in the decision to outsource production of the iPhone to China. For example, if Apple built the iPhone in the United States, it would cost approximately $65 more/unit. Should Apple pass the increase to the buyer or cut corporate profits? It's a no-brainer for capitalists.

Apple also asserts five additional factors that influenced its decision to outsource production of the iPhone to China:

The Chinese workforce is far more flexible: Thousands of workers can be made immediately available for unexpected production expansions.
Labor regulations are much less stringent: Laborers can work longer hours with little notice.
Tighter supply chains: With many electronic component companies already located in East Asia, wait times and transportation costs are less.
China produces 600k engineers annually (versus 70k in the United States) who are skilled administrators.
The Chinese government supports individual manufacturing enterprises: rapid expansion of facilities and production capacity can expand rapidly which further augments the Chinese competitiveness.

For The Motley Monk, it seems that despite all of Apple's protestations to the contrary, the company's decision to outsource production to China comes down to one fact: It engorges the company's bottom line. To wit: Just look at what's happened to APPL's stock price over the past few years.

Isn't this exactly the kind of corporate greed that provides fodder for the Catholic left "justice with peace" crew? What about all of those sweatshops? What about all of those oppressed laborers who aren't protected by their union bosses? What about the injustice of it all?

The Catholic left's big mouth

Why is the Catholic left "justice with peace" crew so silent in this regard?

Could it possibly be they love using their iPhones?

Let the discussion begin...

To read Jordan Weissmann's article in The Atlantic, click on the following link:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/why-the-united-states-will-never-ever-build-the-iphone/251837/

It's time to ban texting while driving...

2012-01-26T10:07:00.000-05:00

In most matters, The Motley Monk generally upholds the principle implied in the maxim "less government is better government."

After reading Thomas Hemphill's article "Just How Dangerous Is Talking and Driving?" in The American, however, The Motley Monk sides in part with the National Traffic Safety Board (NTSB) that the nation's 50 states should ban all drivers from texting while driving. (The NTSB ban goes farther: All drivers would be banned from using portable electronic devices while driving, that is, using cell phones and texting.)

The data in support of this ban?

A Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study in July 2009 indicated the dangers associated with texting while driving:

Texting while driving increased the probability of a crash by a factor of 20.
Dialing a cell phone increased the risk of accident by a factor of 2.8 and that risk drops to 1.3 when only talking.

The study's results indicate that texting is by far more dangerous than merely talking. In contrast, the risks associated with dialing or talking on a cell phone while driving are equivalent to the risks associated with other distractions that can occur while driving.

Currently, 35 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam ban texting while driving. 9 states and the District of Columbia ban drivers from using hand-held cell phones. 30 states prohibit all cell phone use for beginner drivers.

The Motley Monk thinks it time to ban texting while driving even though doing so would increase government.

Why?

Driving is not a human right but a privilege. Putting others' lives in jeopardy while exercising that privilege is irresponsible, similar to the ban on driving while under the influence.

Let the discussion begin...

To read Thomas Hemphill's article in The American, click on the following link:
http://www.american.com/archive/2012/january/just-how-dangerous-is-talking-and-driving

In the Earthly City, what a "knuckle-dragging Troglodyte"...

2012-01-26T09:33:00.000-05:00

Imagine a college freshman telling his peers "I would rather have a Proverbs 31 woman than a Victoria's Secret model."

But, according to a Baylor Lariat article, that's just that Baylor freshman Alex Eklund posted in Facebook on November 29 after viewing "Victoria's Secret Fashion Show.

What is a Proverbs 31 woman?

¹⁰ A wife of noble character who can find?
             She is worth far more than rubies.
¹¹ Her husband has full confidence in her
             and lacks nothing of value.
¹² She brings him good, not harm,
             all the days of her life.
¹³ She selects wool and flax
             and works with eager hands.
¹⁴ She is like the merchant ships,
             bringing her food from afar.
¹⁵ She gets up while it is still night;
             she provides food for her family
             and portions for her female servants.
¹⁶ She considers a field and buys it;
             out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
¹⁷ She sets about her work vigorously;
             her arms are strong for her tasks.
¹⁸ She sees that her trading is profitable,
             and her lamp does not go out at night.
¹⁹ In her hand she holds the distaff
             and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
²⁰ She opens her arms to the poor
             and extends her hands to the needy.
²¹ When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
             for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
²² She makes coverings for her bed;
             she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
²³ Her husband is respected at the city gate,
             where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
²⁴ She makes linen garments and sells them,
             and supplies the merchants with sashes.
²⁵ She is clothed with strength and dignity;
             she can laugh at the days to come.
²⁶ She speaks with wisdom,
             and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
²⁷ She watches over the affairs of her household
             and does not eat the bread of idleness.
²⁸ Her children arise and call her blessed;
             her husband also, and he praises her:
²⁹ “Many women do noble things,
             but you surpass them all.”
³⁰ Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
             but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
³¹ Honor her for all that her hands have done,
             and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

Eklund, a philosophy and political science major at Baylor University, served as a youth leader at his church, Living Word United Methodist Church, where he initiated new spiritual activities for young people. His video, then, is an extension of that previous ministry and now with 213k+ views, the response to Eklund's video has been positive.

Of his notoriety, Eklund says:

It's been crazy; it's really an awesome movement. The hand of God has definitely been with us; and this is clearly something that He wants people to hear.

I love that we have been able to make an impact on a regional level, and now that we are selling T-shirts, we are able to make an international impact by combating sex trade, domestic abuse, suicide, and eating disorders.

If the image of a Proverbs 31 woman/wife offends some, The Motley Monk can just about guarantee that Eklund's new venture---that website devoted to the non-profit cause of healthy self-images through a biblical viewpoint in addition to offering "Live31" apparel---will drive those people over the edge.

"What a knuckle-dragging Troglodyte!" they surely think.

"Kudos!" The Motley Monk says.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Baylor Lariat, click on the following link:
http://baylorlariat.com/2012/01/20/the-world-can-hear-you-social-medias-growing-impact/

Departments/schools/college of education: The equivalent of "academic slums"...

2012-01-25T14:39:00.001-05:00

Despite facts to the contrary, many Democratic politicians, public school teachers' union leaders, and the general public continue to believe that increased spending on public education ineluctably will lead to increased student achievement.

What are those facts?

In an Orange County Register op-ed, the Director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom, Andrew J. Coulson, discussed California's SAT results to make the point because the Golden State's Democrat Governor Jerry Brown is seeking a $7B increase in taxes for the state's public schools:

1968 - 2010: real per student spending increased by 95% (+$27B since 1974, adjusting for increased enrollment)
1972 - 2010: California high school SAT scores dropped 4% (taking into account test rescaling in 1996)

Critics---Democratic politicians and public school teachers' union leaders, in particular---attack the SAT scores, calling them ineffective, misleading, and unrepresentative of the student population due to limited participation.

For his part, Coulson believes the critics' arguments are not particularly persuasive:

While broader participation can lower scores, participation was actually 4% higher in the mid-1970s than in 2010.
Nationally, SAT scores for White students have gradually dropped. The increased inclusion of low-scoring minority students is not sufficient to explain the drop.

Coulson does note that since the top third of high school students take the SAT, perhaps the increased spending over the past five decades has helped low-performing students. The problem is that there isn't any evidence to support this assertion.

The data suggest to The Motley Monk that increased money for public education is not the issue but confuses the issue. As Coulson notes with regard to California, student achievement---as that is measured on an array of standardized test scores across the elementary and secondary school years and as that has been measured across the past five decades---has not increased.

The issue?

The quality of teachers.

Concerning this matter, Dr. Walter Williams has aimed his guns directly at departments/colleges/schools of education, calling them "the academic slums at most any college."

The Motley Monk would observe that what's needed isn't a federal "urban renewal" program for U.S. public education but the development of school district enterprise zones.

Let the discussion begin...

To read Andrew J. Coulson's article in the Orange County Register, click on the following link:
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/billion-336160-sat-spending.htm

To read Dr. Walter William's article concerning schools of education, click on the following link:
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2012/01/25/schools_of_education/page/full/

According to the Catholic left "justice with peace" elite, it's time that Gingrich and Santorum to dial back their rhetoric...

2012-01-24T10:37:00.000-05:00

The Catholic left "justice with peace" elite has spoken: It's time that former Representative Newt Gingrich and former Senator Rick Santorum change how they refer to President Obama while out on the hustings.

Why?

Their rhetoric "evokes the past myth of 'welfare queens' and inflaming other racist caricatures." As a consequence, the candidates' rhetoric is "irresponsible, immoral and unworthy of political leaders."

The "progressive" policy group denouncing this rhetoric which "perpetuat[es] ugly racial stereotypes on the campaign trail" is Faith in Public Life, a self-described group of "Catholic leaders who recognize that the moral scandals of racism and poverty remain a blemish on the American soul" and who note that "some presidential candidates now courting 'values voters' seem to have forgotten that defending human life and dignity does not stop with protecting the unborn." The letter, posted January 19, 2012, is available on the organization's website.

So, who are these "Catholic leaders"?

They include the heads of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Pax Christi USA, and Network. Other co-signatories included theology, political science or religious studies professors from St. Louis University, Boston College, Fordham University, Catholic University, the University of Notre Dame, Xavier University, St. John's University in Minnesota, St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia, Loyola University in Chicago, Fairfield University, the University of Dayton, and Santa Clara University.

The Catholic left's big mouth

Reading the materials posted to the group's website, The Motley Monk would suggest that Faith In Public Life's espoused support of "progressive" social policies is indicative that its letter is nothing more an attack upon President Obama's political opponents and a thinly-veiled effort to promote the President and his administration's policies.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Faith In Public Life letter, click on the following link:
http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/newsroom/press/

Iran's "progress" in human rights...

2012-01-23T08:39:00.000-05:00

Since Iran secured a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women in 2010---the United Nations’ policy-making body devoted to gender equality and the advancement of women---the nation's leaders have apparently been considering how it will make strides to demonstrate why it deserved a seat at the table.

Previous to taking this seat, Iran routinely sentenced women found guilty of adultery to death by stoning. Since taking its seat at the table, however, Islamic experts have been investigating whether a prisoner convicted to death by stoning for adultery may be hanged instead.

The case focuses upon 44-year-old Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, whose husband was murdered in 2005. The mother of two was convicted of having an adulterous affair and, for that offense, was sentenced to death by stoning. Aashtiani was also convicted of being an accessory to her husband’s murder, receiving a 10-year sentence for that offense.

A prisoner on death row since 2006, Ashtiani's death sentence provoked an international outcry, with the Vatican and European Union calling for clemency. Then-Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva asked Iranian authorities to grant Ashtiani asylum, which they rejected.

According to a CNSNews report, international pressure has been exerted once again upon Iranian authorities. In late-December 2011, Malek Ajdar Sharif---the head of the justice department in East Azerbaijan province where Ashtiani is incarcerated---said: "As soon as the result is obtained, we will carry out the sentence."

The suspenion of Ashtiani's death sentence apparently continues, as Iran demonstrates its commitment to human rights, in general, and for women, in particular.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the CNSNews report, click on the following link:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/after-protests-over-stoning-sentence-adultery-iran-may-hang-woman-instead

What happens when a state's deficit becomes a surplus...

2012-01-23T08:06:00.002-05:00

What happens when an almost bankrupt state---on inauguration day having 30 minutes worth of cash available to continue operating---embraces an austerity budget and turns a profit?

Just ask Republican Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan whose "Reinventing Michigan" program is already demonstrating positive progress.

How did Governor Snyder engineer turning a $1.5B deficit into a $450M profit---also depositing $255M into the Michigan's "rainy day" fund---in record time?

He repealed the Michigan Business Tax, replacing it with a 6% corporate income tax.
He terminated the double tax on small businesses.
He created a stable business environment, providing certainly that allows businesses to thing and plan for the long term.

Snyder's balanced budget led to Fitch to upgrade Michigan's outlook to "positive." Bloomberg has reported Michigan as having the second fastest economic recovery in the United States.

Excellent news, no?

Well, guess what?

The Washington Times reports that Democrats in Michigan have proposed yet another "first-of-its-kind" entitlement program!

Dubbed "the 2020 Plan," the entitlement is estimated to cost at least $1.8B/year by offering some students free tuition throughout their undergraduate careers at Michigan's 15 public colleges and universities. Awards are based on how long students have lived in the state. For example:

Those who attend K-12 years in Michigan schools would be eligible for the full amount of the average tuition rate across the state's higher education system (currently $9.5k).
Students attending a public college with tuition rates above the average tuition rate would be responsible for paying the difference.

The Chair of the State Senate Education Committee, Republican Senator Phil Pavlov, said:

There's no shortage of people coming to the door with ideas of how to spend that additional money. It just seems like another social program. There's this presumption out there that Michigan is flush with additional revenue, but I don't know where [Democrats] plan on coming with an additional $1.8 billion every year.

The proposal's co-author, Democrat State Sen. Rebekah Warren, believes the $1.8B can be raised by cutting waste, repealing unnecessary tax breaks, and reaping the future economic benefits of the plan.

The Motley Monk asks: Isn't that how it usually works with all of those schemes to provide social "benefits" that become "entitlements" for which taxpayers ultimately will be on the hook?

Consider this: The tuition scheme is based on future projections which offer no guarantee whatsoever that the costs will ever be recouped.

Then consider this: What happens when college tuition rises?

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Washington Times article, click on the following link:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/19/michigan-plan-offers-tuition-free-education/

The "contraceptive mentality" and the "culture of death"...

2012-01-22T11:40:00.000-05:00

"contraceptive mentality," n., "a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality … a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfillment" (Evanglium vitae, #13)

In the name of "women's rights" and "reproductive health," nearly 100M women worldwide are using some form of combined oral contraceptive, with Catholic women using them at the same rate as non-Catholic women.

What is interesting to The Motley Monk about this phenomenon is how those who use combined oral contraceptives (and those who promote their use as well) conveniently ignore the growing body of evidence which questions the safety of the most popular forms of combined oral contraceptives.

A Motley Monk Alert:

The facts about the safety

of the most popular forms

of combined oral contraceptives

Oral contraceptives have been linked to a heightened risk for breast, liver and cervical cancers, heart attack, stroke, and blood clots, among others.

In particular, combined oral contraceptives increase the risk of venous thromboembolisms (VTEs)---blood clots in large veins that can break loose, travel through the blood stream, and block an artery in the lungs (pulmonary embolism)---for women during their childbearing years. More alarming, users of second and third generation oral contraceptives have a 2-7 times greater risk of VTEs than non-users. In the United States alone, VTEs may be responsible for some 100k deaths annually.

If that's not enough, one of the newest and most popular types of oral contraceptives---Yaz, Beyaz, Yasmin, and Safryal which contain synthetic estrogen and a progestin called "drospirenone"---presents an even greater risk of VTE.

Two studies published by the British Medical Journal in 2011 indicated that women who use Yaz had a two to three times greater risk of blood clots than women who use other combined oral contraceptives. In September 2011, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) announced that "preliminary results of the FDA-funded study suggest an approximately 1.5 fold increase in the risk of blood clots for women who use drospirenone-containing birth control pills compared to users of other hormonal contraceptives." In late October, the FDA confirmed its findings.

In November 2011, the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) published a study involving ~330k women in Israel. The finding? The "risk of venous thrombotic events was significantly greater among drospirenone users than among users of third generation combined oral contraceptives." How big of a risk? 1 of every 1,000 women who use drospirenone containing contraceptives will experience a VTE during use.

Another study, conducted in Denmark and published in the British Medical Journal, found that the risk for women who use Drospirenone OCPs have "a sixfold to sevenfold increased risk" of VTE compared to non-users.

All of this translates into early deaths that otherwise would not be.

With 100M women using oral contraception today, ~80k of them face life-threatening VTEs. This is 50k more cases of VTEs than if no woman used combined oral contraception. However, if women practice combined oral contraception as recommended for 30 years, of those 100M women using the pill every year over 30 years, ~2.4M will experience VTEs, 1.5M of whom simply because they ingested oral contraception.

Artificial birth control: "The Pope's Vietnam"

The Motley Monk would note that the "contraceptive mentality" shields women from confronting these inconvenient medical facts because the contraceptive mentality is rooted in the false belief that women "own" their bodies and have the "right" to do with their bodies as they wish...with no consequences whatsoever.

The Church has consistently taught that no human being "owns" one's body and possesses the "right" to do with one's body as one wishes. This mentality, the Church teaches, breeds what Blessed John Paul II called the "culture of death."

What does a Pope know about women's bodies and their rights anyway?

Let the discussion begin...

To read the pro-contraceptive argument, click on the following links:
www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html
www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html#3a

To read about the health dangers associated with the use of combined oral contraceptives, click on teh following links:
www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/deepvein/calltoaction/call-to-action-on-dvt-2008.pdf
www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/UCM277384.pdf
www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm257337.htm?source=govdelivery
www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2011/11/07/cmaj.110463.full.pdf
www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/448051/field_highwire_article_pdf/0.pdf

It's all got to do with "too few babies"...

2012-01-21T10:41:00.000-05:00

Could it possibly be that the current global economic mess, for the most part, is attributable to artificial means of birth control and abortion?

"Omigosh, no!" the secularists and anti-life forces cry out. "That's all so medieval...not even unenlightened. We must control population growth."

Yet, the President of the Istituto per le Opere di Religione (IOR), Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, thinks this is the case. At a symposium focusing upon the family held at the Italian Parliament, the IOR President spoke bluntly: "If the six of us speakers here today were the government, we would have resolved the economic problem immediately, because we would know where to point: the family."

Tedeschi then outlined five "No's" to illustrate his point":

No economic growth: "In the last 30 years children were not born, and the number of inhabitants that we had in Italy in 1980 has remained unchanged; hence how can the GDP grow when it grows only when there is more consumption?"
No savings: "One of the phenomena of our days is that the banks have no liquidity, the reason is that there has been no saving for more than 25 years. In 1975-'80 the rate of savings accumulation of Italian families was 27%; today it is 4.5%! Of 100 lire earned, 27 were put in the bank, they entered the cycle of investments and brokerage. Today all that is earned is consumed, there are no resources for financial markets."
No marriage: "How is it that today there is no possibility of getting married before 32 years of age? Because a young couple cannot afford to purchase a house, due to the fact that, even if they are professionals, they earn half of what was earned 30 years ago, due to an increase in tax rates from 25% to 50%."
No elderly: "Children are not born and the population ages and is of pensionable age. Economically this means an increase in fixed costs. Society has no more money to look after the elderly and as a result is studying the so-called sudden death."
No work: "To be able to consume, we have moved the most important work to Asia. Half of what was first produced in the Western world, today is imported because it costs less. By moving production, jobs have also moved. Hence, there is no longer work and 70%-80% are employed in the service sector."

Considering the negative effects caused when "births are interrupted and the family and children are ignored in the Western world," as Tedeschi notes, the "contraceptive mentality"---which Blessed John Paul II discussed frequently---is certainly one factor if not the factor contributing to the economic malaise of Western world.

This is all retrospective analysis, however.

It didn't have to be this way prospectively, The Motley Monk would argue.

Inspired by the Holy Spirit

All that unbiased individuals would have had to do---as early as 1968---is to read Humanae vitae. Agree with its contents or not, Pope Paul VI had the courage to overrule his advisers due to his fear that unleashing the power of the contraceptive mentality in the Roman Catholic Church would promote neither the truth nor the common good globally. He wrote:

Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. "Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact," Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. "From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God." (13)

For "enlightened" secularists and anti-life forces, God is not the Author of creation and it was very easy for them to mock and belittle Humanae vitae and its author as well.

"I am mistress of my body."

In retrospect, however, Pope Paul VI appears to have read the "signs of the times" accurately, if not prophetically. The failure to heed his warnings may be one of the primary causes if not the cause of the current global economic malaise.

Let the discussion begin...

To read a report on the symposium held at the Italian Parliament, click on the following link:
www.zenit.org/article-34150?l=english

To read Humanae vitae, click on the following link:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

"In Jesus' name we pray..."

2012-01-20T15:21:00.000-05:00

With states turning toward gambling as a revenue stream to help in balancing their budgets, should a minister offer his thoughts when invited to open a joint legislative session that is to consider a bill to legalize gambling?

Evidently, a Kentucky pastor, Hershael York of Buck Run Baptist Church, called gambling "a terrible thing" during his opening prayer minutes prior to Governor Steve Beshear proposing a casino gambling bill.

According to the Baptist Press, York began by invoking to grant the legislators and Governor wisdom in their decisions. But, York then switched gears.

Help us to admit that we cannot truly love our neighbor as ourselves and then scheme to get his money by enticing him with vain hope. May [legislators] not lead this state to share profits from an industry that preys on greed or desperation.

Help us to foster salaries and not slot machines, to build cars and enable jobs---not license casinos and seduce the simple into losing what they have. May their greatest concern not be that we get our share of the family's losses, but that we foster a sense of hope and justice that creates opportunity and leads to success.

Kentucky's legislators were divided on the issue.

Whether they agreed with Pastor York's sentiments or not, some Kentucky state senators insisted that the Pastor used the wrong venue. State Senator Dennis Perrit said:

There's lots of other avenues to make your opinion known on how your feel.

State Senator Kathy Stein opined:

A minister...should try to bring people together...should try to unite them rather than to divide them. I think it was disrespectful to the Governor and to other elected members of the general assembly.

However, Scott County State Senator, Damon Thayer, countered that it's not up to the state to decided what a pastor can preach:

I respect his right to come before the general assembly and to give a prayer of his choosing. I don't think it was inappropriate.

Pator York told Baptist Press he felt burdened to speak out.

I want to frame this as a moral argument, not a fiscal or financial one....To some I'm a hero and to others I'm an idiot. I try not to get too worked up over either one. All of us in the trenches [are] caring for people...we all know this is bad....I'm going to rally every pastor in the state that I can against this.

In view of the fact that gambling can be addictive for some personalities and, in turn, cause grave financial loss, the destruction of marriages and families, as well as suicide, all The Motley Monk can respond is "Amen, Pastor York."

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Baptist Press article, click on the following link:
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=36995

The miseducation of vulture capitalists...

2012-01-18T14:09:00.000-05:00

The Motley Monk was delighted to read an article in Inside Higher Education that a professor of finance at Iowa State University, Roger Stover, proposed teaching a course titled "The Application of Biblical Insight into the Management of Business/Organization." The course catalogue identified the goal of the course being "to employ the Bible for insight into handling the vital issues faced in a business." Students would read How to Run Your Business by THE BOOK: A Biblical Blueprint to Bless Your Business.

Stover has been at Iowa State since 1979 and has received a college award for outstanding research, publishing dozens of scholarly published in finance journals.

So, why not a class applying biblical insights into business management, especially since the course would be a one-credit, pass/fail, independent study?

As with so many great ideas in academia, however, there are other people who have other ideas and will use their ideas to put the kibosh on an idea they don't like.

Three colleagues initiated a movement to end Professor Stover's class. An associate professor of Education, Warren Blumenfeld, a religious studies professor, Hector Avalos, and a colleague wrote a letter to administrators and circulate a petition. Blumenfeld said:

It was obvious he was going to be teaching a Sunday school class and giving credit for it. This is a violation of the First Amendment. This is not teaching world religions or even one religion, but one concept of one religion.

Blumenfeld also took issue with the textbook, written by the Christian leadership motivational speaker, Dave Anderson. On page 173, Anderson writes "...business partnerships with nonbelievers are strongly discouraged." Blumenfeld and Avalos said the course topic might be valid at a private institution, but not at public universities.

In response to the brouhaha, the Chair of the Department of Finance, Rick Dark, said the class was not subjected to the usual vetting process because it was an independent study and agreed with many of the points made by the trio, closing registration for the class. Dark's decision prompted one student columnist to argue the material was in line with the First Amendment and should have been offered, and another to cite the Constitution in opposing the class.

Stover has decided not to appeal the decision.

The Motley Monk would note that when educators fail to take religion seriously and actively work to keep it out of the curriculum, this serves only to marginalize morality if it does not keep it out of the classroom...even for undergraduates.

Ever wonder how "vulture capitalists" are miseducated?

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Inside Higher Education article, click on the following link:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/01/18/iowa-state-cancels-class-biblical-insights-business#ixzz1jpY3eXXI

A little fact checking about public school teachers' salaries...

2012-01-18T12:01:00.000-05:00

When the Heritage Foundation announced the findings of its study that the average public school teacher received a total compensation package roughly 50% higher than what that teacher would receive in private-sector employment, the unionists on the political left predictably went on the attack.

Their accusations?

The normal rehashing of deficencies. The study was filled with "bias" and "analytical flaws, including:

The researchers didn't account for hours of work completed outside of the school day.
The researchers also didn't take into account how hard teachers work: the study did not include quantifiable data detailing the work they complete outside of school during the work week.
The researchers didn't deduct the cost of supplies they pay for out of their own pocket.
Researchers should not have included the benefit of job security, as many teachers have been laid off recently.

In the face of these accusations, the Heritage Foundation didn't back down and has directly addressed them:

Concerning work hours: Researchers did not make assumptions but based their figures on reliable, self-reporting by teachers. The data suggested that the median work week for teachers is 40 hours.
Concerning pay: The average private school teacher receives 10% less in compensation while working equally as hard. That fact adds credence to the argument that the average public school teachers receives an inflated compensation package.
Concerning out-of-pocket expenses: The federal government provides teachers a $250 income tax deduction for classroom materials. And this is to say nothing about the fact that many private sector workers also pay for business-related items out of their own pockets.
Concerning layoffs: Despite budgets cuts, public school teachers were still only 50% as likely as other white-collar workers to be laid off during the past 5 years.

What the unionists on the political left really want is one thing: That teachers' pay be increased. The assumption is that this pay increase would attract better teachers.

However, as the Heritage Foundation response points out, the research indicates pretty clearly that below-market salaries are not keeping potentially high-quality teachers from becoming teachers. Instead, it's the hiring practices that ignore important qualifications, such as college grade point averages and specialized degrees.

It's no secret that undergraduate teacher education programs in many institutions are viewed as an embarrassment. First, the quality of education majors in many instances is below that of many other majors. Second, for all of the increase in the base of human knowledge since the 1960s, if schools and departments of education at the nation's universities have similarly expanded their base of professional knowledge, then why are the nation's public schools not delivering a better product to their students?

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Heritage Foundation re-assessment, click on the following link:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/01/critical-issues-in-assessing-teacher-compensation

Corporate welfare: The political left barks up the wrong tree...

2012-01-17T09:36:00.001-05:00

Ever heard of a "pass through"?

It's a perfectly legal way for corporation to avoid paying federal and/or state corporate income taxes. No tax lawyers or tax shelters needed. The political left calls it "corporate welfare." However, a Wall Street Journal article reports that these firms have been granted legal immunity from tax liability.

The reason?

To encourage these corporations to locate and/or expand in areas where jobs will be a boon to the economy or to keep these corporations from exporting facilities (and jobs) elsewhere.

The facts?

In 1986, 24% of the nations' corporations were nontaxable. In 2008, 69% were nontaxable. Some estimates indicate that 60%+ of the nation's corporations with profits of $1M+ are structured as pass-throughs. This is the highest rate among developed countries.
In 1952, this "tax-exempt status" explains why federal corporate tax collections were 6.1% of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP). But, by 2010, they dropped to 1.3% of GDP.

Complain about this phenomenon all they want, one reason the nation's corporations take advantage of this status is that Congress is more than willing to provide it, given that the nation's corporate tax rate is 35%. That's one of the highest in the world. In addition, the federal government taxes capital gains resulting from corporate operations and distributed among the corporation's owners (e.g., shareholders). Even worse yet, non-tax-exempt corporations pay a "double tax" on net income and capital gains.

In view of this punitive tax environment, what sane corporation would not take advantage of "pass throughs"?

With the Democrats controlling both houses of Congress for most of the past five decades, it seems to The Motley Monk that the political left should be chastising its representatives who aided and abetted the expansion of corporate welfare.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Wall Street Journal article, click on the following link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970203733504577026361246836488.html?reflink=barrons_redirect

"Poor old Buffalo": Wasting more money on what can only be fixed by conservative fiscal policy...

2012-01-17T09:08:00.003-05:00

One of The Motley Monk's friends used to say with a sad voice, "Poor old Harry." It seems that Harry used to cry "poor mouth" to this friend, even though everyone knew that Harry had plenty of dough. And so, whenever Harry's name would come up in conversation, this friend would lower his head, look down at the floor, nod his head back and forth, and in that sad voice say, "Poor old Harry."

An article in the Wall Street Journal might have been aptly titled, "Poor Old Buffalo."

Ever since Buffalo, New York, began losing its manufacturing base in the 1950s, it steadily declined into one of the nation's poorest urban areas. To stem this tide, the federal and state governments poured hundreds of millions of dollars into redevelopment plans. By 2004, Buffalo had received more federal redevelopment aid per capita than any other city in the country.

How much federal redevelopment aid?

More than 500B since the 1970s.

And what does Buffalo have to show for this largess?

Virtually nothing. In fact, the poverty rate today is nearly 29%.

So, what does New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo plan to do?

He recently announced $1B in incentives to attract new investment in Buffalo.

In the Wall Street Journal article, Steven Malanga argues that this new infusion of money will be wasted for the simple reason that Buffalo is inhospitable to new investment due to its steep tax rates and the high cost of local government. To wit:

A Buffalo resident pays 25% more in income taxes than does the average resident in America's 100 largest metro areas.
Buffalo's 8.75 percent sales taxis the 5th highest among the country's 120 cities with more than 200k residents.
Buffalo's property-tax burden ranks in the top 10% nationwide.

So, where has all of this tax money gone and where is it going?

According to Malanga:

To support a spendthrift local government that nourishes itself at the expense of the private sector.
To fulfill a union-friendly binding arbitration law that results in rich public-employee contracts.
To fulfill a state law that allows unionized public workers to continue receiving the benefits of a contract even after the contract has expired.

Has the sun set on Buffalo?

Reading these statistics, all The Motley Monk can do is lower his head, look down at the floor, nod his head back and forth, and in a very sad voice say, "Poor old Buffalo...a statist's Paradise."

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Wall Street Journal article, click on the following link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409004577156603296740624.html

The California bullet train hits the wall of fiscal and political reality...

2012-01-16T09:04:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post is reporting that one of President Obama's strategies to end the nation's dependence on foreign oil, bullet trains, has hit a brick wall.

The President's vision of a national high-speed rail network integrated two "big ticket" items: a jobs program---supposedly generating tens of thousands of construction and manufacturing jobs---and an environmental program---cutting down on the number of automobiles, revitalizing urban centers, and sparing the environment millions of tons of carbon emissions.

Describing his vision, President Obama said in April 2009:

Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination. Imagine what a great project that would be to rebuild America.

The President promised this vision would transform U.S. transportation just like the interstate highways program did more than five decades ago. It would provide 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years with bullet trains trains moving passengers between the nation's major urban areas at 220 miles per hour. Costs? They wouldn't matter. The $797B stimulus program and passenger revenues would take care of that.

So far, President Obama has spent more than $10B in federal money on high-speed rail...with the same outcome as his Solyndra "investment."

Last year, Florida's Governor, Rick Scott terminated the proposed bullet train connecting Tampa and Orlando. Ditto in Ohio and Wisconsin, whose governors wouldn't even take the federal funds due to the strings attached. And now, California's highly-touted "train to nowhere"---connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco---and which has been beleaguered from the start by political infighting, costs spiraling out of control, as well as eroding political and public support---is likely not going to leave the station.

California State Senator Joe Simitian (D), who chairs the subcommittee charged with overseeing high-speed rail spending, said:

I feel like right now we are faced with two bad choices. One bad choice is to kill the whole project. But the other is to say let’s spend $6.2 billion because we are being rushed into it because we could lose federal funding. What we have to do is take a deep breath, take a step back and re-evaluate the entire project. We don't want to end up making a $100 billion mistake.

The lesson?

Talk all that President Obama may want about "transformation," he doesn't seem to understand that transformative visions are like dreams: Visionaries eventually must wake up to and to confront reality and, in this case, the facts. To translate visions into reality, visionaries must be entrepreneurs and capable of working with venture capitalists.

Unfortunately, those two items don't rank very high on this social democrat President's agenda and Senator Simitian has awoken to the facts.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Washington Post article, click on the following link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/plans-for-high-speed-rail-are-slowing-down/2012/01/13/gIQAngYc1P_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines

To read about Governor Rick Scott terminating the Florida bullet train, click on the following link:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/03/obama_and_high-speed_rail

A small victory for pro-life Texans...

2012-01-16T08:17:00.001-05:00

Texas House Bill 15, signed by Governor Rick Perry on May 15, 2011, requires pregnant women seeking an abortion---except in the case of rape or incest---to first undergo a sonogram at least 24 hours before undergoing an abortion so she can hear the fetal heartbeat and discuss the medical risks associated with abortion.

The bill was scheduled to take effect on September 1, 2011.

However, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) filed a class action lawsuit against the law and U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks granted a preliminary injunction. Judge Sparks believed the law was "unconstitutionally vague" and that it "violates the First Amendment by compelling physicians and patients to engage in government-mandated speech and expression."

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed an appeal, resulting in the Fifth Circuit’s ruling on January 10, 2012.

In Appeals Court's decision, Chief Judge Edith H. Jones wrote:

The required disclosures of a sonogram, the fetal heartbeat, and their medical descriptions are the epitome of truthful, non-misleading information. The appellees failed to demonstrate constitutional flaws. The point of informed consent laws is to allow the patient to evaluate her condition and render her best decision under difficult circumstances. Denying her up-to-date medical information is more of an abuse to her ability to decide than providing the information.

Governor Perry issued a statement hailing the court’s decision:

Today's ruling is a victory for all who stand in defense of life. Every life lost to abortion is a tragedy, and this important sonogram legislation ensures that every Texas woman seeking an abortion has all the facts about the life she is carrying, and understands the devastating impact of such a life-ending decision. We will continue to fight any attempt to limit our state’s laws that value and protect the unborn.

The anti-life forces were clearly not happy.

Nancy Northup, President and CEO of CRR wrote in a statement following the Appeal Court’s decision:

This clears the way for the enforcement of an insulting and intrusive law whose sole purpose is to harass women and dissuade them from exercising their constitutionally protected reproductive rights. Until today, every court that has reviewed similarly intrusive laws has ruled the laws unconstitutional....

This law reflects the hostility of anti-choice lawmakers to women, their reproductive healthcare providers, and their constitutional rights. This law, and this decision, inserts government directly into a private decision that must be protected from the intrusion of political ideologues. Anyone concerned with the erosion of our constitutional rights should be profoundly concerned and disappointed by today's events.

Characterizing the Appeals Court's ruling as an "abhorrent precedent," the President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Cecile Richards, wrote in a press release:

Politicians forcing doctors to use an ultrasound for political — and not medical — reasons is the very definition of government intrusion. The ruling today means that Texas can force doctors to use ultrasounds to shame a woman in the exam room — or deny her care.

As much of a pro-life victory as this was, it wasn't for those children conceived during an act of rape or incest whose mothers terminate their lives.

The battle continues....

It may be time to switch to drinking beer...

2012-01-15T14:29:00.001-05:00

According to Lisa Collier Cool in Yahoo! Health, beer drinkers throughout the world should be jumping with joy! Their favorite adult beverage de jour just may promote better health.

Ms. Cool culls together a body of recent research indicating that beer can be good for what ails people, perhaps more so than the more highly-touted adult beverage de jour, red wine.

[One caveat: These health benefits are associated with drinking 1, 12-ounce beer/day for females and 2/day for males. More than that amount increases the odds of liver damage, some cancers, heart problems, as well as unhealthy weight gain.]

That said, what are the 10 benefits of drinking beer?

Stronger bones: Beer contains high levels of silicon which can increase bone density, with pale ale being the richest in silicon and light lagers and non-alcoholic beers containing the least. Drinking more than the prescribed amount of beer each day is linked to increased risk for fractures.
A stronger heart: There appears to be a 31% reduced risk of heart disease in those who drink one pint of beer/day. The risk is much higher for those who drink more than the prescribed amount of alcohol, whether beer, wine, or spirits. A beer or two a day can raise HDL levels, the "good" cholesterol that helps keep arteries from getting clogged. Moderate drinking reduces the risk of heart attacks and dying from cardiovascular disease by 25% to 40%.
Healtheir kidneys: Each bottle of beer that males drink daily lowers the risk of developing kidney stones by 40%. This could be realed to beer’s high water content and/or the hops that help curb leeching of calcium from bones.
Boosting brain health: One beer/day may help keep Alzheimer’s disease and other dementia at bay and, in women, lowers the risk of mental decline perhaps by as much as 20%. In addition, older women who had one drink/day scored, on average, about 18 months "younger" on tests of mental skills.
Reduced cancer risk: Marinating steak in beer eliminates almost 70% of the carcinogens (heterocyclic amines [or HCAs]) produced when meat is pan-fried. Beer’s sugars may help block HCAs from forming.
Boosting vitamin levels: Beer drinkers appear to have 30% higher vitamin B6 levels in their blood than non-drinkers, and twice as much as wine drinkers. Beer also contains vitamin B12 and folic acid.
Guarding against stroke: Moderate amounts of alcohol, including beer, help prevent blood clots that block blood flow to the heart, neck, and brain and, in particular, the most common type of clots that cause ischemic stroke.
Reduced risk for diabetes: When those who drink occasionally raise their alcohol intake to 1 or 2 beers or other drinks each day, their risk of developing type 2 diabetes dropped 25%. However, there is no benefit associated with more than two drinks. Alcohol appears to increase insulin sensitivity, thus helping protect against diabetes.
Lower blood pressure: While wine is good for the heart, beer may be even better, especially for women aged 25 to 40. Moderate beer drinkers are less likely to develop high blood pressure---a major risk factor for heart attack---than women who drank wine or spirits.
Longer life: Moderate drinkers live longer, preventing perhaps 26k deaths/year in the United States due to lower rates of heart disease, stroke, and diabetes.

The Motley Monk is no beer aficionado, but when he does imbibe a brewski and as posted previously, his premiero choice is Chimay Grand Reserve (Blue Label). When that's not available, it's Bass Ale or Yingling's Black and Tan. When The Motley Monk cooks using beer, Sam Adams lager is his first choice and Yingling's lager is his second choice.

Never cooked with beer? Or, interested in trying a very good recipe for roasting beef brisket in beer? Check out The Motley Monk's recipe for beef brisket roasted in porter beer!

The Motley Monk's beef brisket
roasted in porter beer

Let the Gemütlichkeit begin...

To read Lisa Collier Cool's article, click on the following link:
http://health.yahoo.net/experts/dayinhealth/10-surprising-health-benefits-beer

To read The Motley Monk's recipe for beef brisket roasted in porter beer, click on the following link:
http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/FOOD/Brisket%20in%20Porter%20Beer.htm

Condemning U.S. troops but not Taliban troops...

2012-01-15T10:00:00.004-05:00

Last week, the video of three Marines urinating on the corpses of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan caused quite a stir in Washington, DC. Speaking for the Obama administration, the Secretary of Defense called the Marines' behavior "utterly deplorable" while the Secretary of State expressed her "total dismay."

video platform video management video solutions video player

Cataloging the denunciations, condemnations, lamentations, and apologies, William Kristol blogged in the American Standard:

Give me a break. More importantly, give our troops a break. Yes, the Marines who appear to have done what they did should be reprimanded or punished, as they would have been in the normal course of things once their deed came to light. I will even grant that some higher-ups might have felt it prudent to deplore what happened, based on realpolitik considerations of depriving our enemies of excuses to whip up sentiment against us in the region (though I'm doubtful the effort to do this isn't more counterproductive than not). But the administration's reaction is over the top. And it smells of cheap self-righteousness and moral posturing from an administration that, to be honest, hasn't devoted a whole lot of time to thanking our troops for what they've been doing in very difficult and dangerous circumstances

The Motley Monk couldn't agree more with Bill Kristol on this matter, as apparently do most of the 20k+ people who participated in a Washington Post poll. The question: "What was your reaction to the video that appeared to show Marines urinating on three Afghan corpses?" The responses:

It's an unacceptable desecration: 11%
It's an embarrassment: 7%
It's not surprising---things like this happen in war: 82%

Kristol went on to chide Republicans---especially those running for the GOP's presidential nomination---for not defending the commonsense point that this incident needs to be put in the context of the admirable behavior of 99% of the nation's troops 99% of the time.

The Motley Monk fave and retired Army lieutenant colonel, Representative Allen West (R-FL), took Kristol's bait, writing in an email published in the American Standard:

I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.

All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?

The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.

The Motley Monk thinks in this matter (as in most) that Representative West is absolutely correct.

What those 1% who have decried the contents of the video seem not to get is that war exacts its toll on both sides of the battle lines. Yes, there are behaviors in which professionals must not engage and for which there are sanctions. Those who engage in those proscribed behaviors should be punished. But, to express outrage only when "our side" engages in prohibited behavior signals "cheap self-righteousness and moral posturing" that denigrates the 99% of those who serve in the nation's Armed Forces.

The point Representative West makes is further validated in the beheading of Daniel Pearl. Many on the political left were vociferous in condemning his executioners. President Obama wasn't quite so judgmental, simply noting that the execution "captured the world's imagination...reminded us of how valuable a free press is...."

Not a word of condemnation when that valuable free press reports the torture and murder of American military personnel.

Let the discussion begin...

To read Bill Kristol's blog, click on the following link:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/silence-republican-candidates_616690.html
To read Allen West's email, click on the following link:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/allen-west-marines-incident-shut-your-mouth-war-hell_616699.html

To read the Washington Post poll, click on the following link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-user-polls/post/should-these-marines-be-punished/2012/01/12/gIQA65CctP_blog.html

Solyndra, the Department of Energy, and the White House: "No es bueno"....

2012-01-14T10:59:00.001-05:00

The Motley Monk had thought the whole Solyndra debacle was a "thing of the past" and those 1k jobs that President Obama pledged in return for the $500M+ government loan to the solar panel maker were histoire.

The Washington Post is reporting, however, that Solyndra officials warned Senior White House officials that the company was going to announce layoffs just before the hotly-contested November 2010 midterm elections.

The chronology:

Solyndra's CEO notified the Department of Energy (DOE) on October 25, 2010, that he planned to announce layoffs in three days. Two days later, Heather Zichal, a top aide to the White House "Climate Czar" Carol Browner, wrote Browner stating:

No es bueno. Sounds like they will make this announcement next week, but press is sniffing around so it may come out sooner.

One day later, Zichal told colleagues that the layoff announcement had been put off a week and an aide to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reported to Vice President Biden's Chief of Staff, Ron Klain:

I hear from [Zichal] that whatever announcement of "problems" they are considering has been delayed a week.

"I promise to tell the whole truth..."

Reading this document dump, The Motley Monk finds it interesting to note that Secretary of Energy Steven Chu testified to Congress after the November mid-term elections that he didn't know anything about a move to put off the announcement. Secretary Chu promised he would find out who was involved. In his testimony, he said:

It's not the way I do business. I would not have approved it.

So, then, The Motley Monk is wondering: Just how did the Solyndra CEO's notification to DOE get from DOE to Heather Zichal if Secretary Chu didn't know anything about it and hasn't identified who was directly involved?

There should be no surprise here to anyone, except for those who blindly support President Obama and his administration. After all, politics is politics---Democrat or Republican---pretty dirty and clandestine stuff, especially when the politics are maintaining power and not the people's interests.

But, it gets worse.

This advance notice provided the Obama administration the time it needed to lobby Solyndra's CEO to postpone delivering the politically damaging news.

In contrast to Secretary Chu's later testimony to Congress as well as his subsequent failure to identify who at DOE was involved, the documents reveal that DOE officials asked and then persuaded Solyndra's CEO to delay the announcement until November 3, the day following Election Day 2010. This was confirmed by an investment adviser for Solyndra who wrote at the time that DOE officials were pushing “very hard” for a delay until after the elections.

"Ya' win some and ya' lose some. Stop crying over spilt milk."

While the newly-released documents offer no evidence that White House officials directed anyone to request the delay in publicizing the layoff (that's euphemistically called "plausible deniability"), a DOE spokesman said the DOE Inspector General has been asked to review the delayed announcement.

The Motley Monk notes that this "document dump" fits what has been this administration's modus operandi, namely, that embarrassing news is "dumped" late on a Friday afternoon. If it is brought up on the Sunday morning talk shows, Obama administration officials have had plenty of time to brush up on their stories.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Washington Post report, click on the following link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-got-heads-up-on-solyndras-pending-layoff-announcements/2012/01/13/gIQAupzKxP_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines

How salmon can teach the smartest guy in the classroom a little humility...

2012-01-14T08:54:00.002-05:00

When you believe you're the smartest guy in the classroom, it's very tempting to opine concerning matters about which you know absolutely nothing.

As many who have succumbed to this temptation know all too well from the "school of hard knocks," it's quite likely there are people seated in the classroom who are a whole lot smarter about some matters than the guy who thinks he's the smartest guy in the classroom.

Poor President Obama learned this lesson the hard way this past week, according to a Washington Post article.

A school of very smart salmon

Speaking at the White House about his new government reorganization plan, President Obama opined that in moving the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration form the Commerce Department to the Interior Department, "all salmon issues would come under one roof." The President touted this as his "favorite example" of government duplication. He said:

As it turns out, the Interior Department is in charge of salmon in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them in saltwater. Apparently, this all had something to do with President Nixon being unhappy with his Interior secretary for criticizing the Vietnam War.

No business or nonprofit leader would allow this kind of duplication or unnecessary complexity in their operations....So why is it okay for our government? It's not. It has to change.

The Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget, Jeff Zients, later added:

...fresh and saltwater salmon will be together....It's good news for salmon.

Although The Motley Monk doesn't know much about salmon except how to cook them in a variety of ways, this is great news! On the matter of eliminating unnecessary duplication in government, The Motley Monk agrees wholeheartedly with President Obama and his minions.

However, it ends up that President Obama and his minions aren't the smartest guys in the classroom when it comes to salmon. No, a professor at Stony Brook University and President of the Blue Ocean Institute, Carl Safina, is one of the smartest guys in the classroom when it comes to salmon.

Praising the President's reorganization efforts, Safina wrote in an email:

For two decades, we've been saying that no Commerce secretary will ever understand fish. Natural resources are supposed to be managed in Interior. So, bravo! But the administration people could use one quick lesson about salmon swimmin': Rivers go to the sea. Salmon go upstream for sex and then their babies go downstream for adventure; they go up gravid, and gravity brings them down and out to sea. It's called a run, but actually they swim. It's connected. Simple enough, right?

The problem with the President's commentary as it relates to salmon is that there are not two types of salmon: fresh water and saltwater salmon. The fact is that salmon spend part of their lives in fresh water and part in the sea, which is why federal jurisdiction is divided in this particular matter.

"Read my mind, Motley Monk!"

As The Motley Monk knows all too well, hubris sometimes can lead an individual to believe he's the smartest guy in the classroom.

The antidote? A dose of humility.

The antibiotic when one is riddled with the disease? Public embarrassment, as "the Emperor has no clothes."

As the Washington Post article states in its lead:

Note to President Obama and his staff: Learn a bit of fish biology before mocking the federal government for how it handles salmon.

Ouch!

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Washington Post article, click on the following link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/expert-to-obama-you-dont-understand-salmon/2012/01/13/gIQAnHrswP_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines

Just who is stuck in the 12th century?

2012-01-14T07:48:00.000-05:00

With Pope Benedict XVI's creation of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, some former Anglican congregations as well as deacons, priests, and bishops---including their wives---have become Roman Catholics. Some think this a prelude to married Roman Catholic clergy and a solution to the post-Vatican II era's decline in priestly vocations.

The Motley Monk says: "Forget it."

Pope Benedict XVI signs Anglicanorum coetibus

Those married priests are doomed to extinction within one generation, as this allowance for married priests is clearly an exception. Benedict XVI's rules are clear. The provisions of Anglicanorum coetibus do not include an automatic right to be ordained in the Roman Catholic Church should those who are ordained wish to do so. Approval is on a case-by-case basis by the Ordinariate, followed by approval by the Holy See (the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). In addition, when an unmarried priest enters the Ordinariate and if he subsequently is ordained in the Catholic Church, he may not marry. If he is a married priest, in the event of his wife's death, he may not remarry. Seminarians in the Ordinariate must promise celibacy.

All of that said, an Assistant Professor of medieval European history at the University of Louisiana, Lafayette, Sara Ritchey wonders aloud in a New York Times op-ed: "What will life be like for the wives of Roman Catholic priests?"

The Motley Monk thinks Ritchey is raising a substantive question. Having known some married Lutheran and Episcopalian ministers who with their wives converted to the Catholic Church and were subsequently ordained in the 1980s, The Motley Monk knows there is much to be learned about the changes as well as the challenges confronting the wives of those priests.

Looking back to the 12th century for an answer to her question, Ritchey notes:

Now as then, the church's critics and defenders are rehashing arguments about the implications of having married priests in an institution that is otherwise wary of them. But in the midst of these debates, we should pause to ponder the environment that the priests' wives might expect to encounter. After all, the status of the priest's wife is perhaps even more strange and unsettling than that of her ordained Catholic husband.

Ritchey's is an interesting op-ed in that she provides an brief---if not jaded---overview of the history of clerical celibacy to answer her question. Her assessment of how the Church viewed the wives of priests by the 12th century? Ritchey notes:

...the foremost purpose of priestly celibacy was to clearly distinguish and separate the priests from the laity, to elevate the status of the clergy. In this scheme, the mere presence of the priest's wife confounded that goal, and thus she incurred the suspicion, and quite often the loathing, of parishioners and church reformers.

Intimately related to the Eucharist, transubstantiation, and priestly holiness---lest the "priest who handled the body and blood of Christ should therefore be uncontaminated lest he defile the sacred corpus"---clerical celibacy, Ritchey argues, centralized sacramental and moral power in men.

A celibate, male clergy is the problem?

Ritchey zeroes in on St. Peter Damian, perhaps because she wants to argue that his writings reveal a misogynistic ecclesiology:

The priest's wife was an obvious danger. Her wanton desire, suggested the 11th-century monk Peter Damian, threatened the efficacy of consecration. He chastised priests' wives as "furious vipers who out of ardor of impatient lust decapitate Christ, the head of clerics," with their lovers. According to the historian Dyan Elliott, priests' wives were perceived as raping the altar, a perpetration not only of the priest but also of the whole Christian community.

The priest's family also presented a risk to the stability of the church. Forget that they were a drain on a parish's coffers. Children, in particular, "represented a threat to laypersons, who feared that their endowments might be absorbed into the hands of the priest’s offspring to create a rival clerical dynasty."

These abuses should not be overlooked or dismissed. After all, St. Paul notes, "sin lurks even in good words, like a lion seeking to devour them. Resist them, steadfast in the faith."

In her New York Times op-ed, The Motley Monk thinks it important to note something Ritchey all too glibly brushes aside: The fact that when the First Lateran Council adopted canon 21 prohibiting clerical marriage in 1123, this canon was considered a "reform." The intent was to put an end to the abuses that had become customary in the Church which allowed married clergy and which lead to conflict both within the Church as well as between the Church and monarchs. Like the canon or not, in retrospect, the goal of the reformers seems to have been achieved.

The Defender of the Faith

That is an issue The Motley Monk would like today's "reformers" to address. Rather than bemoan the canon and its restrictions, what guarantees do the reformers have that the abuses leading to the establishment of canon 21 in 1123 will not occur again?

The simple answer is that there are no guarantees, especially when married Protestant clergy are used as a case study. After all, all's not well in mainline Protestantism where married clergy has been normative for centuries.

To the heart of the matter: In light of Ritchey's narrative, what might the wives of those Anglican priests---what Ritchey calls "sacerdotal attachés"---expect?

She writes:

...priests' wives should beware a religious tradition that views them, in the words of Damian, as "the clerics' charmers, devil's choice tidbits, expellers from paradise, virus of minds, sword of soul, wolfbane to drinkers, poison to companions, material of sinning, occasion of death...the female chambers of the ancient enemy, of hoopoes, of screech owls, of night owls, of she-wolves, of blood suckers.”

The Motley Monk would suggest that rehashing what St. Peter Damian wrote in the 12th century about the wives of priests---and to suggest that this view is normative in the Church today---represents a gross failure in appreciating how the Church of the 21st century is not the Church of the 12th century. Despite their protestations to the contrary, The Motley Monk would note, perhaps it's today's reformers who are stuck not only in the 1960s and 70s but also way back in the 12th century.

Let the discussion begin...

To read Sara Ritchey's New York Times op-ed, click on the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/opinion/for-priests-wives-a-word-of-caution.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

Engaging in "class warfare": Let's target the real enemy in the 2012 presidential election...

2012-01-13T12:25:00.002-05:00

Dissapointingly, Newt Gingrich's attacks upon Mitt Romney's leadership at Bain Capital smack of "class warfare," similar to but of a different stripe than the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

Attacking the 1%---the millionaires and billionaires---is easy, if only because they provide a very rich target (pardon the pun). It's easy to exploit this target by asserting "Us vs. Them" and "Have's vs. Have Not's" arguments. Yet, here's the former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives portraying the Us's and Have's as victims of such things as preditory capitalist vultures.

However, in an article published in The American, Steve Conover asks: "Are the 1%---the predatory capitalists---the correct enemy?"

Conover is no flower child but a vociferous proponent of engaging in class warfare. But, Conover believes the battle lines should not be drawn with respect to income but whether an individual's wealth is earned. Rather than wage war on the rich, Conover asserts, a "virtuous" class war would be waged on society's predators, pirates, and parasites.

Those Conover would target in this battle include:

Well-positioned rentiers leveraging their strategic position at a bottleneck in the financial system.
Wall Street firms employing high-speed data feeds into computers programmed to beat less-sophisticated market participants by using a trading technique known as "quote-stuffing."
Public-sector union bosses who are powerful enough to swing elections toward the candidates who will sit on the other side of the negotiating table, thereby bending the public trust to their special advantage.
Politically well-connected businesses that are able to extract government subsidies for their special interest and that are able to get their political friends to pass favorable legislation against competitive threats.

This would be a wonderful battle to be waged in the 2012 presidential election campaign, as the focus would be upon what Conover calls the "true heroes" of the nation's economy: the producers and earners.

The Motley Monk concurs.

Class warfare should defend and reward these individuals. In contrast, the battle would target the members of the class which lives off of those who produce and earn. Members of both classes exist at every income level.

Let the discussion begin...

To read Steve Conover's article in The American, click on the following link:
http://www.american.com/archive/2011/december/the-class-warfare-we-need

"Feeding the flock": Pride spiritual and doctrinal nourishment...

2012-01-13T11:18:00.000-05:00

The Barna Group recently surveyed Americans who have attended a Christian church sometime in the past to discover what they have to say about their first-hand experiences.

The data suggest that what happens to those Christians who have attended church is:

They feel "cared for." 68% of the respondents feel "part of a group of people who are united in their beliefs and who take care of each other in practical ways." 23% feel "like a group sharing the same space in a public event but who were not connected in a real way." 9% were "not sure."
They "connect with God." While attending church, 66% of the respondents feel they have had "a real and personal connection" with God. 33% have never felt God's presence while in a congregational setting. When asked about frequency, most of those who have attended church described these encounters as rare. 35% of all adults in the nation report connecting with God at least monthly via a congregational setting. Among weekly church attenders, 44% experience God's presence every week. 18% do so on a monthly basis.
They "gain new insights." The last time they attended church, 61% cannot recall gaining any new spiritual insights or understanding related to faith. Even among those who attended church in the last week, 50% could not recall a significant insight they had gained.
They "experience transformation." Of those Americans who had been to a church before, 26% said that their life had been changed or affected "greatly" by attending church. 25% described it as "somewhat" influential. 46% said their life had not changed at all as a result of churchgoing.

The survey's findings by size of congregation are identified in the table below:

The Motley Monk notes that these data reflect Americans who have attended a Christian church, in general, not Roman Catholics, in particular. Whether or not U.S. Roman Catholics share similar experiences is not known.

That said, The Motley Monk would note that attending church appears to connect a group of people in an important way. They seem to connect not only with other members of the congregation but also with God. That's good news! Whether it's intended or not, something appears to transpire in church breaks down barriers.

However, the data also suggest that those who attend church---whether regularly or not---are not being challenged to consider new spiritual insights or understandings related to faith. Stated positively, it may be that those who attend church are coming in the hope of being challenged to consider these matters.

This is perhaps the most disappointing finding for The Motley Monk. If ministers (and priests) are not getting those in the congregation to consider these matters, what then are they presenting in their sermons (and homilies)?

Might it be that these individuals are "hungering" for spiritual and faith-based nourishment and those God has called to provide it are leaving these individuals hungry?

Then, too, might this explain why these individuals aren't coming back to church?

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Barna Group survey report, click on the following link:
http://www.barna.org/congregations-articles/556-what-people-experience-in-churches

It's "bye bye" to ethnic studies courses in Tuscon, AZ...

2012-01-12T10:08:00.001-05:00

The Board of the Tucson (AZ) Unified School District (TUSD) has done what The Motley Monk would like to see the President and Congress do: Slash spending and then cut unnecessary programs, not fretting about how constituents may respond. After all, when there's no money, money shouldn't be spent!

According to ArizonaCentral.com, the saga began Arizona's ethnic studies law took effect on January 1, 2011. The law bans courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, encourage resentment toward a race or class of people, are designed solely for students of a certain ethnic background, and advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of students as individuals.

State senator John Huppenthal wrote the law with the help of Arizona's then-Superintendent of Schools, Tom Horne. Now Arizona's Superintendent of Schools, Huppenthal cut the TUSD budget by 10% each month until it modified or ended its Mexican-American studies classes. An administrative law judge had affirmed Huppenthal's finding that the program was ethnically divisive and violated the law restricting ethnic-studies courses.

Confronted with this reality, the TUSD Board voted 4-to-1 to suspend its controversial "Mexican-American studies program." In its place, TSUD will develop a curriculum that is to be integrated into a more general social studies program.

Had the TUSD Board failed to comply, TUSD would have lost $4.9M beginning in January 2012 and as much as $14M by the end of the fiscal year. The Board had previously determined that it would be too costly to appeal the decision by the Arizona administrative-law judge.

According to Huppenthal, "The problems are so deep and so wide, it would be almost impossible to cure the program."

The Motley Monk thinks that ethnic studies programs are an excellent way to preserve and explore its culture and heritage, especially in a culturally diverse society. There are many foundations and programs dedicated to this endeavor, for example, The Kosciuskzo Foundation, which is dedicated to promoting educational and cultural exchanges between the United States and Poland and to increasing American understanding of Polish culture and history.

The problem with many of the ethnic studies programs that have proliferated in the nation's public schools is that they don't belong there. Imagine a public school teaching a "Catholic ethnic studies course"! Instead, ethnic studies courses should be provided by the ethnic group that wishes to preserve and explore its culture and heritage and and those courses should be paid for by those parents who wish their children to learn about diverse cultures.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the ArizonaCentral.com article, click on the following link:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/01/10/20120110tucson-ethnic-studies-fate-weighed.html

To learn about The Kosciuskzo Foundation, click on the following link:
http://www.thekf.org/

Community organizing and sex education curricula...

2012-01-12T09:33:00.004-05:00

When God's design as well as the prior parental right in the education of children are trampled under foot by arguably well-intentioned ideologues, pressure groups whose members share the same agenda form coalitions which, in turn, begin advocating cherished policies and programs, all "for the good of the children," of course.

The phenomenon is nothing new.

It's called "community organizing."

Consider, for example, Advocates for Youth, the American Association of Health Education, the American School Health Association, the National Education Association-Health Information Network, the Society of State Leaders of Health and Physical Education, and the Future of Sex Education Initiative. These arguably well-intentioned ideologues have formulated a set of non-binding standards---The Future of Sex Education: National Sexuality Education Standards---which they would like the 50 states and nation's school districts to implement in public schools. The arguably well-intentioned goal is to inform students about matters some schools don't address and which the coalition believes every school must address appropriately.

And, what might those "matters" be?

If the coalition had its way, states and school districts would require students to engage in age-appropriate discussions about sex, bullying, and healthy relationships. The coalition's goal is to offer minimum, but uniform standards that educators would use to construct a long-term sequential curriculum that will better assist young people attending schools to grow into adulthood.

As long as God's design and the prior parental right in education are respected, The Motley Monk thinks these are important curricular matters.

But, consider "Guiding Values and Principles #4" which states:

Sexuality education should teach both information and essential skills that are necessary to adopt, practice, and maintain healthy relationships and behaviors.

It sounds all so benign, no?

That is, until the standards are examined in greater detail.

By the end of the second grade, the coalition would like every elementary school student to use the proper names for body parts and, by the end of the fifth grade, to know that sexual orientation is "the romantic attraction of an individual to someone of the same gender or a different gender." Also by the end of the fifth grade, every student should be able to "define HIV and identify some age appropriate methods of transmission as well as ways to prevent transmission" and "define sexual harassment and abuse."

Every eighth grader should be able to:

Differentiate between gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation;
Explain the range of gender roles;
Explain the health benefits, risks and effectiveness rates of various methods of contraception, including abstinence and condoms;
Define emergency contraception and its use.

According to the President of Advocates for Youth, Debra Hauser, some schools don't address bullying which Hauser believes is related to sexual orientation or gender identity." Educators should tackle it head-on," Hauser said.

Under the disguise of seeking to provide the nation's children an objective human sexuality curriculum, The Motley Monk would note that the standards reveal the coalition's intention: to indoctrinate the nation's children in its broader, pro-homosexual and pro-abortion ideology.

Seizing upon the hot topic of "bullying" and by relating it back to anti-homosexual bigotry, the coalition reveals its less-than-benign intent: To trample under foot God's design as well as the parental prior right in the education of their children.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the National Sexuality Education standards, click on the following link:

http://www.futureofsexed.org/documents/josh-fose-standards-web.pdf

Is the motive political, racial, molly coddling, or all three?

2012-01-11T17:04:00.000-05:00

It's time to refresh memories:

Remember when President George W. Bush sought to expand the government's powers to surveil citizens with the Patriot Act?
Remember the outcry on the part of the liberal left in 2006 when it became known that the FBI was monitoring the ACLU and antiwar groups?
Remember the outrage and political wrangling when the Patriot Act was renewed?

Many on the political left were apoplectic, decrying the alleged intrusion into the the lives of ordinary citizens. They demanded: Aren't we supposed to be protected by the Fourth Amendment?

It just so happens that The Motley Monk came across an item published by RT Questions More reporting that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intends to gather personal data on journalists or others who might use "traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed."

So, who might that include?

The new provisions could include any reporter or blogger, like The Motley Monk, and make them the subject of DHS spying! Also included are government officials, domestic or not, who make public statements, private sector employees who do the same, and "persons known to have been involved in major crimes of Homeland Security interest."

This power grab opens the door to surveillance of all sorts of persons.

By the way, DHS's definition of personal identifiable information is that which "permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information which is linked or linkable to that individual."

The Motley Monk isn't outraged by this power grab on the part of the administration. What The Motley Monk is outraged by is those on the liberal left who scream bloody murder when a White Republican President sought to expand the government's surveillance powers. In contrast, when a Black Democrat President expands those very powers, there's deafening silence on the part of the liberal left.

The liberal left's big mouth

Where's the outcry?

Let the discussion begin...

To read the RT Questions More article, click on the following link:
http://rt.com/usa/news/homeland-security-journalists-monitoring-321/

Pedophilia, exhibitionism, and kleptomania: Just like pyromania, compulsive gambling, fetishism, and sadomachism...

2012-01-10T14:13:00.002-05:00

BBC News Europe reports that Greece's Labor Ministry has expanded the list of state-recognized disability categories.

Newly-added disabilities include: pedophilia, exhibitionism, and kleptomania.

Imagine being a pyromaniac, compulsive gamble, fetishist, or sadomasochist and being grouped with pedophiles, exhibitionists, and kleptomaniacs!

Pretty outrageous, no?

Greece's National Confederation of Disabled People called the action "incomprehensible." Worse yet, the organization says, pedophiles are being awarded higher government disability pay than citizens who have received organ transplants.

However, the Labor Ministry maintains, the categories added to the expanded list were added for purposes of medical assessment and to be used as a gauge for allocating financial assistance.

And here The Motley Monk thought all along that Greece was broke!

Let the discussion begin...

To read the BBC News Europe article, click on the following link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16486416

Engendering immorality by regulating behavior...

2012-01-10T13:30:00.003-05:00

Anyone who has read Patrick Maclagan's Management and Morality knows that one unintended outcome of managers increasing the number of rules and regulations to avert immorality on the part of subordinates is that these managers unwittingly encourage their subordinates to become increasingly clever about how to maneuver their ways around new rules and regulations.

The Motley Monk would note that this is not a new phenomenon. Just consider why Congress has continuously expanded the size and scope of the Federal Income Tax Code since its inception. Crafty tax attorneys and taxpayers spend a lot of time trying to figure out ways around the new rules and regulation that were designed to stop tax evasion.

In light of this general observation about human nature, one would wonder why any manager---or administrator---would ever increase the number of rules and regulations that subordinates must comply with.

Yet, they do.

Worse yet, a study published by the Mercatus Center found that as Congress expands regulators' mandates, regulators write increasingly more highly detailed and specific rules to cover perceived gaps in the law.

And, guess what?

Lo and behold! When it comes to protecting the health and safety of workers, all of these rules and regulations make people less safe as businesses are forced to and, subsequently don't (or can't), comply with them.

According to the Mercatus Center report, when it comes to regulating workplace health and safety, many managers believe it impossible to keep up with the expanding number of detailed rules and regulations. In turn, this increased regulation stifles innovation as many managers must spend increasing amounts of time and energy trying to abide by the rules. Then, too, uncertainty about the future regulatory landscape makes many managers hesitant to invest in workplace health and safety. Most important of all, managers cite regulations as one of the greatest factors in their decisions not to hire, and this can cause economic paralysis.

The latest analysis by the Small Business Administration (completed in 2008) calculates that compliance with the 81k-page Federal Register costs a $1.75T annually. But, lest it be forgotten, that figure does not include the 75 new major rules generated by the Obama administration during its first 26 months, at an additional burden of $40B, according to a Heritage Foundation study. That also doesn't include the the impending clean air rules from the EPA, new derivative rules, net neutrality rules, the new CAFE fuel mandates, and the avalanche of rules mandated by Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank legislation. The Obama administration admits there are 4.2k new rules or revisions currently in the pipeline.

Would it not make more sense for the federal government to require businesses to develop firm-specific rules and regulations, to develop compliance metrics, and to report them? In short, to increase morality in businesses?

As Patrick Maclagan notes, psychology, economics and organizational science evidence the answer is "Yes."

Yet, the "centralized government" statists stamp their feet and say "No."

Why?

Ideology always trumps facts and human nature.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Mercatus Center study, click on the following link:
http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/More-Regulations-Less-Safety.pdf

To read the 2008 Small Business Administration study, click on the following link:
http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs371tot.pdf

To read the Heritage Foundation study, click on the following link:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/27/morning-bell-tangled-up-in-washingtons-red-tape/

Worshipping at the altar of environmentalism: Fining the refiners...

2012-01-10T10:02:00.001-05:00

It always starts with a good idea, if not a very good idea. But, behind that idea is an Oz-like ideology whose adherents intend to exercise hegemony by using it as a means to their malignant end.

The very good idea: renewable sources of energy. It makes economic and national security sense. If there is such a phenomenon as "global warming," renewable sources of energy makes eminent sense.

According to an article in the New York Times, it all started with the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), signed into law by then-President George W. Bush. The goal was to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, reliance on oil imported, and the export of dollars to pay for it. All of those are very good ideas, The Motley Monk would assert.

The law also included provisions to increase the efficiency of vehicles and to incorporate renewable energy sources into gasoline and diesel, including: car and truck fuel made from cellulose; diesel fuel made from biomass; and, fuel from biological materials with a 50% reduction in greenhouse gases. Those may be good ideas, The Motley Monk would note.

The law also set a goal of 250M gallons for vehicle fuel from cellulose for 2011 and 500M gallons for 2012. (In general terms, that's less than 10% of vehicle fuel being used annually.) The goal is part of an overall goal of having 36B gallons of biofuels incorporated annually by 2022. Those goals were bad ideas, The Motley Monk would note.

Why?

At the time and continuing to today, cellulosic fuel is commercially unavailable.

How is it possible for Congress to pass a law requiring the implementation of something that doesn't exist commercially?

Bad enough. But, it gets worse.

The technology required to meet those goals is not currently available and, it appears, won't be for a very long time. Yes, technological advances are being made. But, the technology is a long way from being ready for commercial use, "closer to the beaker...[than] closer to the barrel" is how the Executive Director of the Advanced Biofuels Association, Michael J. McAdams, described the situation.

It potentially gets even worse.

When refiners close their books in February, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to fine the refiners for not meeting EISA goals.

Just how does that make any sense whatsoever?

That is, unless one happens to be a zealous ideologue who worships at the altar of environmentalism and doesn't care about the facts.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the New York Times article, click on the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/business/energy-environment/companies-face-fines-for-not-using-unavailable-biofuel.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25

A "high fives" and "shout out" to Representative Allen West: Speaking truth to power...

2012-01-09T16:24:00.002-05:00

In a recent interview on WMAL radio in Baltimore, U.S. Representative Allen West (R-FL), spoke truth to power:

One of The Motley Monk's faves, Mr. West used plainspeaque to address the deal the Republican House leaders brokered with the White House to extend the payroll tax for two months. West said:

I was very upset about what happened with this payroll tax cut extension. We developed a good piece of legislation that took care of us for one year. It was paid for and would not decimate social security, unemployment insurance and also a two-year "doc fix" and then, all of the sudden---I get back from DC on a Wednesday---the next day, on a Thursday, we have a conference call and we're told were going to accept the Senate, what, two-month extension, which is absolutely pathetic policy. We can't do tax policy that way.

Evidently, all is not well within the House Republican majority and January 17, 2012---the day the House Republicans return to DC---looks like the beginning of the D-Day Invasion. West said there will be "some serious discussions" because the Republicans need to be "on the same sheet of music." West said:

(W)e really felt that our leadership did not stand against the Senate Republican leadership, who kind of sold us down the road with 40 members of the Senate GOP voted for this, you know, pathetic politics. It was not policy. And now we are going to start this Kabuki dance all over again.

This interview not only reinforces but also increases the respect The Motley Monk has for Representative West. Like him and his political views or not, speaking truth to power---especially as a new member of Congress---is the wrong way to curry favor with the congressional "makers" and the "shakers." But, then, why should Representative West care about all of that if he is placing what he believes is in the nation's best interests ahead of what is politically expedient for him?

The Motley Monk respects plainspoken public servants---liberal or conservative, left or right, Democrat or Republican---to all of those slick "makers" and "shakers," even if they happen to be the Speaker of the House and his Majority Leader.

Let the discussion begin...

Notes from the political hustings: Rick Santorum is "spot on" when it comes to dropout factories but he didn't go far enough...

2012-01-09T08:51:00.000-05:00

Finally someone has the fortitude to state what many are thinking but aren't saying because doing so would be "politically incorrect."

According to a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report, Rick Santorum accused President Obama of "snobbery" for promoting the notion that every American should have at least some higher education.

While campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination in New Hampshire, Santorum said:

We are leaving so many children behind. They're not ready to go to [college.] They don't want to go to college. They don't need to go to college. I was so outraged that the President of the United States [said] every student should go to college.

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.

The Motley Monk thinks Santorum is absolutely correct. "College" never has been nor should it be "for the masses." Call The Motley Monk a "snob" but the simple fact is that undergraduate studies have been and should be for the express purpose of providing capable young adults the mental formation needed if they are to further the pursuit of truth and to expand the body of knowledge in the next generation, not to be trained for well-paying jobs.

As The Motley Monk has noted in previous posts, what Santorum is rightly railing against is the pervasive utilitarian understanding that higher education is a "means to an end" (jobs) rather than an "end in itself" (a mental formation). The WSJ article even succumbed to this understanding when it noted that some higher education is now becoming necessary for many manufacturing jobs that once would not have required it. Properly speaking, that's "technical training" not "mental formation."

What Rick Santorum didn't state, but The Motley Monk will state, is that this expansion of access to higher education is predicated upon Congress having expanded the number of federal loans to "qualifying" students. In this instance, that adjective denotes income level not academic achievement.

And where is this expansion of access to higher education headed?

The Washington Post reports has reported a study of collegiate “dropout factories” in the DC area, ranking the colleges with the lowest completion rates, based upon a 6-year period of time to earn a bachelor's degree. The "Top 10" dropout factories:

University of Phoenix, Northern Virginia Campus. Graduation rate: 6%.
University of Maryland, University College. Graduation rate: 6%.
University of Phoenix, Maryland Campus. Graduation rate: 7%.
University of the District of Columbia. Graduation rate: 12%.
Strayer University, District of Columbia. Graduation rate: 15%.
Baltimore International College. Graduation rate: 15%.
Coppin State University. Graduation rate: 16%.
Saint Paul’s College. Graduation rate: 18%.
Sojourner-Douglass College. Graduation rate: 22%.
Southern Virginia University. Graduation rate: 25%.

If 80%+ of those admitted to institutions like these are not academically qualified for admission, why were they admitted in the first place?

One answer is that several of the "Top 10" dropout factories are for-profit institutions. They understand the notion of "cash flow" and as long as the cash is flowing, what should they or their shareholders care about admission standards and/or graduation rates?

But, that's to miss the point and the real answer to the question.

Insofar as The Motley Monk is concerned, these findings validate what Ward Connerly has been arguing for decades, namely, that affirmative action is a form of racism and that young people do not need preferential treatment in college enrollment to be successful. Yet, to criticize a college which functions as a "Dropout Factory" and boasts a large Pell student population or to call into question the expansion of Pell grants is to open the door to accusations of being "insensitive," "ignorant," and "racist."

Talk about a pile of bovine excrement!

Let the discussion begin...

To read the WSJ article, click on the following link:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/07/santorum-all-students-shouldnt-be-pushed-to-go-to-college/

To read the Washington Post article, click on the following link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/some-local-colleges-have-few-grads/2012/01/03/gIQAH1ASkP_story_1.html

The "living wage" and

2012-01-08T14:27:00.002-05:00

Since the pontificate of John Paul II, many associated with the Catholic left "peace with justice" crowd have touted the moral necessity of providing workers a "living wage."

A "living wage" is what The Motley Monk would characterize as a "minimum wage plus," meaning that capitalists should pay laborers at least the "cost of living." The rationale is that a living wage not only protects laborers from exploitation by capitalists, but is actually due to laborers because without them, capitalists would not be capable of producing much of anything. Hence, capitalists have a moral obligation to "share the wealth" with those who made that wealth possible.

All of this hinges, of course, upon a particular definition of capitalism, which Pope John Paul II espoused in his encyclical Laborem exercens which was critical of free market capitalism, Marxist socialism, and Stalinist communism. In summary:

God created all things, hence all created things belong to God.
God entrusted creation to humanity, hence no one person (or group of persons) can claim anything as one's own.
In the natural order, laborers come before capitalists because capitalists are entirely dependent upon laborers if their enterprises are to be profitable.
While capitalists undertook risk by investing in their enterprises and deserve to share in the profits generated, capitalists do not "own" the profits but are obligated by the natural virtue of justice to share those profits with their laborers.

For The Motley Monk, this is a meritorious argument, one that properly orders capitalism according to biblical principles as well as theological and natural virtue. This argument does not deny that capitalists, having taken risks that others have not or could not take, deserve to reap the rewards. But, this argument does constrain capitalists, according to the theological virtue of charity and the natural virtue of justice, from considering only themselves and their enterprises when allocating those profits. This argument actually provides a "moral imperative"---a vocation---for capitalists, in general, and Catholic capitalists, in particular. It is an argument The Motley Monk believes every student attending a Catholic business school should learn, know, understand, and consider very carefully. It is a form of authentic Catholic social justice.

That said, social justice advocates of all stripes are today pushing for local and state governments as well as the federal government to legislate that laborers be paid "living wages."

Consider New York City's Fair Wages for New Yorkers Act. If enacted, this law would provide 2 wage increase options to private businesses that receive at least $1M in subsidies for a given project: Either pay workers $10/hour in wages plus benefits, or pay workers $11.50/hour without benefits. That's a 58% increase in pay, similar to living wage stipulations in other locales.

According to the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Richard A. Epstein, this secular approach to defining a living wage raises at least two facts which those secularist social justice advocates conveniently overlook:

The alleged reform hurts the population that it is intended to help in the same way that the increase in the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25/hour did. Prior to the increase, 6.6M wokers were paid below $7.25/hour. With the increase, unemployment spiked as businesses responded to the significant additional cost of employing low-wage workers. Similarly, a living wage will help some low-wage workers while bringing unemployment for others.
The living wage regulation is much more pervasive, broad, and intrusive than its advocates let on. They tout examples such as the construction of sports stadiums that state and local governments subsidize, but the simple fact is that numerous small businesses will also fall under the umbrella of the living wage regulation. This creates an economic cost in terms of increased costs of compliance. Thus, when businesses discover their construction project will require paying a living wage, many businesses drop their projects altogether as they cannot afford the additional expense of complying with requirement. This is precisely what occurred to a proposed shopping mall in the Bronx.

The Motley Monk believes that "secular" social justice advocates, lacking a sound theological grounding for their proposals, reveal themselves for what they really are: socialists who would like to replace capitalism and the free market with a planned, centralized economy. Unfortunately, the rhetoric of many of the Catholic left social "peace with justice" crowd also fails to root their proposals in a sound theological grounding, as they liken Jesus' teaching to Marx's Das Kapital.

Let the discussion begin...

To read Richard A. Epstein's article in Defining Ideas, click on the following link:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/103636

"Unnatural" unemployment numbers...

2012-01-07T10:00:00.002-05:00

Touting an 8.6% unemployment rate is akin to touting a 50% decrease in a city's sky-high homicide rate. Yes, the numbers are lower and things appear to be headed in the correct direction, but the numbers hide the true extent of the problem.

It is important to remember what the 8.6% rate does not report: all of the underemployed and discouraged workers as well as how the demographics associated with the aging of the baby boom generation contribute to make unemployment rate look better than it really is.

According to a study by two scholars at the American Action Forum, Ike Brannon and Matt Thoman:

The older generation of U.S. workers (predominantly the baby boomers) are increasingly accepting early retirement or buyout packages when confronted with the choice of possible layoffs.
There is a large number of potential young workers who have chosen not to enter the labor force due to poor prospects and instead are attending graduate school.

The combination of these two factors alone, when integrated into the more comprehensive measure of unemployment---the Demographically-Adjusted Unemployment Rate---suggests that the real unemployment rate is closer to 10% than 8.6%. Others calculate the real rate at 9.8% to 21.4% with an average of 17%.

The "take away" for The Motley Monk?

Returning to a more "natural" rate of unemployment at pre-recession levels of 5% may be the stuff of a pipe dream fueled by magical herbs, especially when all of those graduate students finally enter the jobs market.

The Motley Monk would also note that the current unemployment rate being touted by President Obama reflects many "seasonal" hirings, that is, workers hired for the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays who are likely to be laid off sometime after inventory is taken in January. In that scenario, look for an uptick in unemployment in the February jobs report and a President with a case of persistent laryngitis.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Brannon and Thoman report, click on the following link:
http://www.american.com/archive/2011/december/why-unemployment-is-worse-than-you-think

Public transportation by any other name is a "sinkhole for votes"...

2012-01-06T08:52:00.000-05:00

One of the programs associated with the Obama administration's "Stimulus" was a commuter transit benefit of $230/month. The noble idea was to encourage people to use public transportation or car pooling and thereby reduce both fossil fuel use as well as carbon emissions. Or, perhaps the idea was to provide a tax break to those who are dependent on public transportation.

On December 31, 2011, the Stimulus part of the program met the end of the road, the date of its "sunset."

The Motley Monk learned of this program via an email notice:

CAMPUS NEWS

Commuter Plan Update

We have been advised by our administrator, WageWorks, that the government has not extended the monthly allowable transit benefit that had been increased as a part of The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. As a result, effective January 1, 2012, the limit for the monthly commuter transit benefit will be changed from $230 to $125. If you would like to make a change to your Commuter Plan election, please contact WageWorks at 1-877-924-3967 by January 8, 2012.

The "news" is not that those who have enjoyed the "monthly commuter transit benefit" will have to come up with an additional $105/month. For The Motley Monk, the "news" is that the government has been providing this benefit all along! In addition to subsidizing public transportation directly, the federal government is also subsidizing public transportation indirectly and, in this instance, in the form of tax credits.

Imagine where public transportation would be if those who use it had pay for it!

The Motley Monk thinks the noble ideal was to "spread the costs around" to make public transportation "more affordable." On the other hand, the less-than-noble ideal was to buy votes.

Let the discussion begin...

To learn more about the "Qualified Transportation Fringe Benefits under ARRA," click on the following link:
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=205664,00.html

An Edsel by any other name..

2012-01-05T10:20:00.002-05:00

Why listen to the free market, especially when it comes to anything "green"? Just press ahead with production and the free market will eventually love the product. And, if not, incentivize the product with a tax credit.

That seems to be the attitude and strategy of the Obama administration, especially when it comes to electric cars.

The Chevy Volt: The new "Edsel"?

The Detroit Free Press reports that electric cars in 2010 not only generated some technological failures but also failed to generate sales. Superadded to their high price and with fuel prices remaining relatively stable, market indicators are that electric vehicles should be going the way of the Edsel...except that the Obama administration is backing the venture.

The facts, as of November 2010:

General Motors thought it would sell 10k Volts. In reality, 6,142 Volts were sold at $39,995/vehicle.
Nissan sold 8,720 Leafs at $36,050/vehicle.

That's a whopping 14,962 electric cars sold in the USA!

The obvious conclusion: The market just isn't interested in those cars.

"Take my word for it. You're will love these cars!"

But, the results are even worse when an Obama administration federal subsidy to buyers in the form of a tax credit for $7.5k is factored into the analysis.

Typical of those who worship at the altar of environmentalism, the facts aren't allowed to interfere with the ideology.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Detroit Free Press article, click on the following link:
http://www.freep.com/article/20111225/BUSINESS01/112250399/Plug-in-electric-vehicles-get-off-to-a-slow-start

A "new normal" for U.S. Catholics?

2012-01-05T09:42:00.001-05:00

For U.S. Catholics, yesterday was one of those days where newspaper articles could only make readers shake their heads at what seems to constitute the "new normal."

To wit:

Item #1: An article in the Cincinnati Enquirer reports that the Archdiocese of Cincinnati fired an unmarried teacher after she became pregnant through artificial insemination. The woman has now filed a lawsuit alleging that she is a victim of gender discrimination. The grounds? Men who donate sperm are not likely to be fired while for women a pregnancy and baby are difficult to hide.

Christa Dias with her 11-month-old daughter

The Archdiocese fired Christa Dias---who is not Catholic---for violating her contract as technology coordinator at Holy Family and St. Lawrence schools in East Price Hill, Ohio. The original grounds were that Dias was pregnant and unmarried. The Archdiocese later changed the grounds to the "grave immoral" act of using artificial insemination to become pregnant. Why? Archdiocesan officials feared a discrimination lawsuit if Dias' marital status was an issue.

However, Dias says her lawsuit is really about a rigid religious institution that refuses to adapt to modern life and is punishing her for celebrating life with birth. Now the single mother of a 10-month-old girl and unemployed, Dias said:

I've always wanted to have a baby. That's why I became a teacher, because I love kids. I didn't think it would be a problem.

The Motley Monk asks: On what planet?

Item #2: The Los Angeles Times reports that Pope Benedict XVI accepted the early resignation of Los Angeles Auxiliary Bishop Gabino Zavala, 60, who recently acknowledged being the father of two teenagers.

Resigned bishop Gabino Zavala standing to the right
of his mentor, Cardinal Roger Mahoney

Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez published a letter stating that Zavala told him last December that he had two children is living with their mother in a different state. Following that conversation, Zavala submitted his resignation to Pope Benedict XVI. Canon law allows bishops to resign before the normal retirement age of 75 if they're sick or for "some other reason" that makes them unfit to fulfill their responsibilities.

The Motley Monk asks: Like being married and the father of two teenaged daughters?

Item #3: The New York Post reports that the Manhattan District Attorney's office is dropping a self-abortion case against a woman who was arrested after her fetus was found in the trash.

Last November, Yaribely Almonte, 20, was arrested on the misdemeanor charge of forcibly causing a miscarriage when she was more than 6 months pregnant. Abortion is illegal after that point in New York, unless the procedure is necessary to save the woman's life. It is believed that Almonte drank an herbal tea available from local bodegas that induced premature labor. The building superintendent where Almonte lives discovered the fetus in a plastic garbage bag.

The DA's office said it was declining to prosecute but would continue investigating.

The Motley Monk asks: Investigating herbal tea available at local bodegas that induce premature labor?

What a world we live in! A teacher in a Catholic school who thinks that bearing children out of wedlock wouldn't present any problem. An auxiliary bishop who has two daughters living with their mother in another state. A woman who self-inflicts an illegal abortion and throws her unborn infant into the trash, yet the Manhattan DA's office won't prosecute.

All The Motley Monk can do is shake his head at what seems to constitute the "new normal." What will next week's news bring?

Let the discussion being...

To read the Cincinnati Enquirer article, click on the following link:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20111226/NEWS010702/312270011/Baby-worth-legal-fight-church

To read the article in the Los Angeles Times, click on the following link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-catholic-resign-20120105,0,1012971.story

To read the New York Post article, click on the following link:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20111226/NEWS010702/312270011/Baby-worth-legal-fight-churchhttp://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/da_drops_trash_fetus_case_tz89pHvA2Htgfm3CbNlkMI

Language is a structure for communicating clearly...

2012-01-04T08:52:00.000-05:00

Social scientists seem to enjoy inventing "neologisms" that other social scientists then adopt. Before long, they have formulated a lexicon of so-called "technical" or "disciplinary" terms that most non-social scientists don't understand. Perhaps only only educationists and theologians surpass social scientists in this regard.

These thoughts reverberated through The Motley Monk's mind while reading a research study concerning "migrant's rights" (a.k.a., "illegal immigrants"). The Motley Monk happened upon a neologism---"elite interview"---that raised his eyebrows.

Not knowing what the author meant by the term, The Motley Monk contacted the author who offered a definition. If the definition offered is accurate, insofar as social scientists are using the term these days, "elite interview" does not communicate what they mean.

"Elite" as an adjective denotes the most "special," "select," or "exemplary" of a group that is outstanding in its own right, as in the "elite eight." Those who are afflicted with March Madness know exactly that that term means.

However, "elite" as a noun denotes a particular group within a broader category whose members excel in some way or at some task, as in the "the capitalist elite." Marxists and socialists know exactly what that term means.

Based solely upon this grammatical analysis, an "elite interview" means "a special" or a "select" or an "exemplary" interview in its own right. Perhaps a reporter lands an elite interview with the President of the United States. Reporters know exactly what that term means, if only because they lust to land elite interviews.

Yet, what social scientists who invoke that phrase intend to communicate is "an interview of the elites."

Yes, the latter phrase is more cumbersome. But, it happens to communicate what is intended accurately. The former certainly is straight-forward. But, it happens to communicate what is intended inaccurately.

The Motley Monk's purpose here is not to be lecturing about grammar. No, his purpose is to make a more general observation, namely, that many academics today are abusing the English language system. While The Motley Monk would hope those academics are aware that they are abusing the English language system, he is fearful that many of them are unaware that they are serial abusers.

In addition, The Motley Monk would observe, this abuse of the English language system is---horror of horrors---"non-inclusive," in that it excludes from discourse all of those non-elites who don't share the "inter nos," "secret handshake," "winks and nods" kinds of language shared by those who belong to the elite group.

In The Motley Monk's never-to-be-too-humble opinion, no group violates the English language system in this regard more than the elite educationists. Listen carefully as they talk to and past one another. Is it only themselves who understand what they are saying? Perhaps that's just how they want it.

Let the discussion begin...

In praise of brevity...

2012-01-04T08:14:00.001-05:00

In Shakespeare's Hamlet (2:2:86-92), the right-hand man of Hamlet's stepfather, King Claudius, Polonius, has been employed to spy on the prince and report on his bizarre behavior. As Polonius prepares to deliver the results of his investigation to the King and Queen, Polonius launches into a windy preface. Polonius' speech doesn't make sense because it is self-contradictory, as he wastes time denouncing the time wasted by rhetorical speechifying. Polonious states:

     My liege, and madam, to expostulate
     What majesty should be, what duty is,
     What day is day, night night, and time is time,
     Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time;
     Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
     And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
     I will be brief. Your noble son is mad....

Unlike Polonius's preface, Dr. Walter E. Williams offers a concise understanding of capitalism and a free market economy in one brief column. And he does so by turning socialism's critique of capitalism---its adherents are "greedy"---against its critics.

Yes, "brevity is the soul of wit." Or, in this case, of incisive explication.

"What human motivation gets the most wonderful things done?" Dr. Williams asks. He responds:

It turns out that it's human greed that gets the most wonderful things done. When I say greed, I am not talking about fraud, theft, dishonesty, lobbying for special privileges from government or other forms of despicable behavior. I'm talking about people trying to get as much as they can for themselves.

Using the example of Texas ranchers and Idaho potato farmers fighting nature's elements to ensure that New Yorkers can enjoy their beef and potatoes, Dr. Williams asks: "Do you think that Texas ranchers and Idaho potato farmers make these personal sacrifices because they love or care about the well-being of New Yorkers?"

Dr. William's question is rhetorical because answer is as obvious as it is irrelevant. Texas ranchers and Idaho potato farmers brave the elements because they want more for themselves. They are greedy, perhaps motivated by "enlightened self-interest" but, for Dr. Williams, that is to sanitize reality.

The genius of capitalism, Dr. Williams opines, is that it "has made it possible to become wealthy by serving one's fellow man. Capitalists seek to discover what people want and then produce it as efficiently as possible."

No doubt about it: "free market capitalism is ruthless in its profit and loss discipline."

But, that does not mean capitalism supports "government-backed crony capitalism, which has come to characterize much of today's businesses." And it also does not tolerate intellectual elites or political tyrants, the "people who believe that they have superior wisdom to the masses and that God has ordained them to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us." Their goal is to restrict liberty and access to a free market where citizens can engage in voluntary, peaceable exchange based upon---omigosh---greed, and replace it with statist economic planning and regulation.

What has all of this to do with the Occupy Wall Street crowd and the Obama administration?

The Motley Monk encourages reading Dr. Williams' column to learn the answer to that question. One hint, based upon a question Dr. Williams raises: "By the way, how much beef and potatoes do you think New Yorkers would enjoy if it all depended upon the politically correct notions of human love and kindness?"

Let the discussion begin...

To read Dr. Walter E. Williams column, click on the following link:

http://cnsnews.com/blog/walter-e-williams/i-love-greed

Weathly on inauguration day or enriched while serving in office?

2012-01-03T10:27:00.001-05:00

The stormy petrils are ranting from their soapboxes: "Congress is nothing but an exclusive club whose members become wealthier and wealthier the longer they 'serve' the public!"

Fueling this invective is the fact that practically every Joe Schlub who has been footing the bill to pay the salaries of those wealthy public "servants" since the early 1980s has seen his median wealth decrease slightly. As a result of this growing disparity between the representatives (the "haves") and the represented (the "have nots"), "blue-collar" representatives are increasingly becoming an endangered species in the U.S. House of Representatives.

According to an article in the Washington Post:

In the 25 years between 1984 and 2009, the median net worth of a member of the House more than doubled from $280k to $725k in inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars (that's a 259% increase) while the wealth of an American family declined slightly, the comparable median figure declining from $20.6k to $20.5k (that's a 1.7% decrease).
In 1984, 20% of the members of the House of Representatives had zero or negative net worth excluding home equity. But, in 2009, that number dropped to 8.5%.

Explanations for this phenomenon abound. For example, wealthy Americans on the whole have outpaced the nation in increasing personal wealth. Because Congress has traditionally been populated by wealthy citizens, their gains in recent decades make sense. Then, too, the rising costs of campaigning closed the door to elective office for the middle class because they do not have the means to self-finance a campaign.

The Motley Monk remembers from Civics class that the Founding Fathers generally envisioned the Senate as the house of Congress that would be populated by citizens of financial means. They envisioned the House of Representatives as the house of Congress that would be "the people's house." It was a grand scheme---a quite ingenious scheme at that---to balance the people's interests in the legislative branch. The former would be more "sober" and "deliberative" about the people's needs while the latter would be more "racous" and "responsive" to the people's pulse.

The dangerous trend suggested by these data is that the people's House is becoming that of the "landed gentry."

But, before allowing the stormy petrils to seize the moment, The Motley Monk has one question that has yet to be raised in the media accounts of the data that he has read: Are the members of the House of Representatives becoming richer after being inaugurated?

If they are being enriched through "public" service, The Motley Monk sides with the Joe Schulbs on this one. They should be screaming from their soapboxes.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Washington Post article, click on the following link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/growing-wealth-widens-distance-between-lawmakers-and-constituents/2011/12/05/gIQAR7D6IP_story.html

Expressing "care" for the homeless...

2012-01-03T06:46:00.000-05:00

An item in the Miami Herald caught The Motley Monk's attention.

By a vote of 4-1, commissioners in Fort Lauderdale County, Florida, approved a $25k program to purchase one-way bus tickets for homeless people who have family willing to care for them elsewhere. The Florida Law Enforcement Trust Fund---consisting of money confiscated from criminals---will pay for the "help the homeless" program.

Vice Mayor Bobby DuBose opposed the program, arguing that there are better ways to use money to aid the homeless. DuBose also expressed concern that some homeless persons may use the program to fund vacations.

However, the program is structured in such a way that homeless who participate in the program must have a family member willing to take them in at their destination. In addition, homeless can participate in the program can only once. Hence the "one-way" ticket.

The Motley Monk notes that although this program isn't innovative---Palm Beach and Broward counties have similar programs---it's likely to engender a lot of rancor on the part of "homeless advocates."

"Hard hearted. "Callous." "Mean spirited." "Uncharitable."

What's wrong with giving the able-bodied who would otherwise deplete the county or municipal treasury a one-way free trip to be with the relatives?

After all, doesn't "charity begin at home"?

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Miami Herald article, click on the following link: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/21/2555933/fort-lauderdale-will-buy-one-way.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy

Indoctination: The virtue of tolerance is becoming a one-way street in the nation's public schools...

2012-01-02T08:51:00.000-05:00

It's beginning to look as if policy governing the nation's public schools is increasingly allowing teachers to indoctrinate students about homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyles, but will not allow students to express what they think about homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyles.

"...that is, unless you disgree with us, you bigot!"

The Motley Monk came to this conclusion after reading a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern Region of Michigan by the national public interest law firm, the Thomas More Law Center. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Daniel Glowacki, his brother, and their mother, Sandra Glowacki.

The lawsuit alleges that one of Glowacki's teachers at Howell High School, Johnson ("Jay") McDowell, ordered a fellow student on October 20, 2010 to remove her confederate flag belt buckle because the teacher found it offensive. Daniel "raised his hand and asked Defendant McDowell why it was permissible to display a rainbow flag, which is offensive to some people, but not a Confederate flag, which Defendant McDowell found offensive."

McDowell then asked Glowacki "whether he 'supported' or 'accepted gays,' or words to that effect." Glowacki "responded by stating that his [Catholic] religion does not accept homosexuality and that he could not condone that behavior." McDowell became angry and said "that his religion was 'wrong,' or words to that effect, and ordered [Glowacki] to leave his classroom under threat of suspension."

After Glowacki exited the classroom, McDowell asked if any other students were opposed to homosexuality. One student raised his hand and "McDowell ordered him out of the classroom as well." The lawsuit contends:

During all of his class periods on October 20, 2010, Defendant McDowell did not teach his students about economics or any other subject that was part of the educational curriculum. Instead, he promoted the pro-gay agenda of the NEA [National Education Association], the MEA [Michigan Education Association], and the HEA [Howell Education Association], which was supported by the School District. In each of his classes, Defendant McDowell explained to his students that October 20th was nationally recognized as "anti-bullying" day, and he showed his students a movie about teenagers who committed suicide because they were homosexual.

McDowell was supposed to be teaching economics to the classroom of juniors. However, the lawsuit notes that McDowell was wearing a purple "Tyler's Army" t-shirt as part of the national campaign called "Spirit Day," promoted by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) to raise awareness of alleged bullying of homosexuals that led to teenagers committing suicide because they were homosexual.

"Moving Forward"? Isn't that MSNBC's monniker?

One doesn't have to be a neurosurgeon to conclude, as the lawsuit alleges, that McDowell was attempting to indoctrinate the students enrolled in his economics class "into believing that homosexuality is normal and to shift the blame for the destructive lifestyle of homosexuals to those who believe it is wrong and immoral."

As word of the suspensions spread, homosexual activists celebrated McDowell, labelling Daniel and his family "bigots." As the smear campaign grew, Daniel's mother, Sandra, contacted the Thomas More Law Center and filed the lawsuit charging that Daniel’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech and equal protection were violated by the policies and actions of the school district and McDowell.

The Motley Monk would note that preaching the virtue of "tolerance" seems to be a one-way street in the nation's public schools. Or, in the words of the President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, Richard Thompson:

Rather than teach the required Economics curriculum for which he is paid, McDowell, with the full knowledge of school officials, used his position of authority to promote his homosexual agenda at taxpayer's expense.

This case points out the outrageous way in which homosexual activists have turned our public schools into indoctrination centers, and are seeking to eradicate all religious and moral opposition to their agenda.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the lawsuit filed on behalf of Daniel Glowacki, click on the following link:
http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/HowellPublicSchoolsComplaint--FiledDecember142011.pdf

Political jujitsu: Anti-Catholic bigotry...

2012-01-01T07:03:00.000-05:00

A frequent jujitsu maneuver those on the political left engage in when confronted by a principled argument is to introduce into discussion a story about an individual or group who is currently suffering because as a result of that principle. They know that empathy on the part of people to a tragic narrative will almost always trump principle in the public forum.

For example, take the principle that long-term unemployed persons should dip into their savings and IRA/401k plans before receiving extended unemployment benefits. It's a reasonable principle, no? Try arguing for the principle and stories soon abound, contorting the individual asserting that principled argument into an uncaring miser, if not monster. To watch a recent example of this jujitsu maneuver unfold, read the comments to The Motley Monk's post advancing this principle.

So, taking a page from the political left's handbook, The Motley Monk would like to share a story he read in the New York Times:

Three years ago, a teacher in Marion, Illinois, Tim Kee, was turned away by Catholic Charities when Kee and his longtime partner, Rick Wade, tried to adopt a child. Kee said: "We're both Catholic, we love our church, but Catholic Charities closed the door to us. To add insult to injury, my tax dollars went to provide discrimination against me."

Isn't this horrible? Two loving, homosexual citizens whose taxes are being used to support a non-profit charitable organization of the Church they love are being discriminated against by that very organization because of their sexual orientation.

That's outrageous, no?

"Opening doors to help and hope"? Balderdash.

Catholic Charities: Helping the poor and downtrodden,
but not Catholic homosexual partners

Where's that "strict wall of separation" between Church and State? Receiving federal and state funding as Catholic Charities does, how is it possible for the government to allow the organization to engage in clearly discriminatory behavior? Either cut the funding right now or shut the organization down no matter what good it may be doing because, when it comes to Church teaching about homosexuality, the Church is intolerant of homosexual persons.

The Motley Monk is wondering about the principle of "tolerance" that so many on the political left espouse, as if it is the Eleventh Commandment God handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai. Should those who oppose Church teaching not be respectfully tolerant of it?

That's the question the Bishop of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois, Thomas J. Paprocki, raised when he recently observed: "In the name of tolerance, we're not being tolerated."

Due to intolerance of Church teaching in the State of Illinois, Catholic Charities is no longer receiving state contracts because the organization refuses to consider homosexual couples as foster and adoptive parents. In response, the Roman Catholic bishops of Illinois have shuttered most Catholic Charities affiliates rather than comply with the new regulation that requires the organization to consider homosexual couples as potential foster care and adoptive parents if Catholic Charities is to qualify for and receive state funding. That's after more than 40 years of serving as one of the state’s most important social service networks for poor and neglected children!

So what about that principle of tolerance? Is it a true principle that applies in all cases or only in those cases in which the political left has a self-interest?

Let the discussion begin...

To read the article in the New York Times, click on the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/us/for-bishops-a-battle-over-whose-rights-prevail.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&adxnnl=1&emc=tha2&adxnnlx=1325165217-nyfG/tpSjfDAe+Ph/eno5g

The ideology of "organic" meets free market truth..

2011-12-31T09:59:00.001-05:00

The images are pastoral and pristine---verdant fields of vegetables and other crops---grown and harvested locally, just as Mother Nature intended---organically.

The goal?

To rid planet Earth of food stuffs ridden with pesticides and chemicals, to slow if not reverse global warming, and to make the globe's population healthier.

"See what Mother Nature can do when you don't mess with her?
And it tastes so gooooooooooddddd!"

Who possibly could protest such noble goals?

Certainly not The Motley Monk, who always cooks using fresh produce.

But, then, as with all statist ideologies that eventually must contend with truth and reality in a free and unfettered marketplace, the "ideology of organic" is now having to confront some rather harsh free market truths and realities, according to a New York Times article.

The original and pristine ideology of organic required eating local, seasonal produce. However, the success of the adherents of the organic ideology now has consumers in locales as far flung as New York and Dubai fueling geometric growth in marketplace demand for organic produce. In turn, farmers' efforts to meet this demand are now stressing water tables where the crops are being grown and harvested due to the irrigation required (called "overexploiting"). Delivering all of that produce to the marketplace is also now draining the world's reserve of fossil fuels, thus contributing to global warming.

In 1990, U.S. organic ideologues successfully lobbied Congress to pass a law promoting ecological balance and biodiversity. If produce is to carry the USDA's organic label, farmers bringing their produce to market in the USA must comply with regulations prohibiting the use of synthetic fertilizers, hormones, and pesticides. The law also requires that soil and water health are not engendering environmental sustainability. However, the USDA checklist has few regulations promoting environmental sustainability.

Certifiable!

Like all statist ideologies, the organic ideologues want this lacuna remedied by increasing governmental regulation. For example, the organic ideologues in 2011 successfully lobbied the USDA's National Organic Standards Board to revise its rules to require that for an "organic milk" label, cows had to be at least partly fed by grazing in open pastures rather than standing full time in feedlots. The Motley Monk suspects that PETA also lobbied for this revision.

In the end, what happened when the organic ideology confronted marketplace truths and reality?

The development of an expanded global marketplace.
A geometrical increase in demand.
Overexploitation of the water table.
Less environmental sustainability.
Increased use of fossil fuels.

In sum, an increase in capitalist global agribusiness! Adherents of the organic ideology have expanded not contracted the very problems that ideologues seek to rid from planet Earth!

Fruit being unloaded at Portsmouth, UK

But, it gets worse yet for the organic ideologues.

It seems their "brand"---organic---has also been diluted. Despite all of the federal regulations, the Distinguished Fellow at the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University, Frederick L. Kirschenmann, notes:

People are now buying from a global commodity market, and they have to be skeptical even when the label says "organic"---that doesn't tell people all they need to know.

Like "If you purchase this product, you are contributing to the end of the Earth as humanity has known it."

Let the discussion begin...

To read the New York Times article, click on the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/science/earth/questions-about-organic-produce-and-sustainability.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

A few "inconvenient" statistics for the 2012 presidential election cycle...

2011-12-30T08:41:00.002-05:00

The Motley Monk happened upon five statistics that he sure would like the Republican nominee seize upon in the upcoming 2012 presidential election cycle.

These statistics include:

In the first quarter of 2010, 48.5% of American citizens lived in a household with at least 1 person receiving some form of government benefit from more than 70 federal programs. 34.2% lived in a household that received multiple benefits, including: cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services to poor and low-income persons. That's a record high! (source: The Wall Street Journal)
Federal anti-poverty spending has soared form $190B in 1990 to $348B in 2000 (or ~83.2%). In 2010, spending rose to $638B (or, 336%) and that's adjusted for inflation! Since 2000, Children's Health Insurance has increased 470%, food stamps 229%, energy assistance 163%, child care assistance 89%, and Medicaid 80%. Adjusted for inflation, anti-poverty spending in 2010 was 1300% higher than when LBJ declared his "War on Poverty" in 1965. How is one to spell "Success"? (source: Office of Management and Budget)
In 2010, the top 20% of federal taxpayers provided the federal government 86% of it total revenue. The top 1%, who earn 16% of all income, pay 36.7% of all federal income taxes. (Heritage Foundation)
In 2011, the number of the "poorest of the poor" (defined as "50% or less of the 2011 official poverty level of $22,350 for a family of 4") climbed to 1 in 15 people (or 6.7% of the U.S. population). That's the highest rate in 35 years! How's all of that "Hope and Change Treatin' 'Ya"? (source: Associated Press)
In 1966, the Food Stamp Program (in 2008, renamed "the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program") provided assistance to 500k citizens. By 2011, that number ballooned to 45.8M citizens (or, ~15% of the population). (source: Bloomberg News)

Surveying these statistics, The Motley Monk cannot conceive of a way that the 2012 Republican presidential nominee could possibly fail to communicate and turn to his advantage the utter failure of the so-called "War on Poverty" during the past 4+ decades as well as the direction of the economy for the past 3 years.

But, then, The Motley Monk is no starry-eyed idealist. He's willing to bet the Republican nominee will figure out a way to blow it and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The "betting man's" question is: "How?"

Let the discussion begin...

More on the "imperial presidency"....

2011-12-30T08:28:00.001-05:00

Since President Obama commenced "Operation Kinetic Military Action" (OKMA) on March 19, 2011, The Motley Monk has been keeping track of the number of days of silence on the part of the Catholic left "peace with justice" crowd. It has been a very long time waiting for them to condemn the President for commencing hostilities...even though OKMA appears to be all but a "Mission Accomplished" moment for the President.

Is it a case of persistent laryngitis or a matter of plain, old-fashioned hypocrisy?

The Catholic left's big mouth

The Motley Monk had thought the peace with justice crowd would be outraged that President Obama---who overrode the advice of his own lawyers as well as the Office of General Council---declared that he did not need congressional approval to commence hostilities against Libyan dictator, Moammar Qaddafi. After all, Congress enacted the War Powers Act (WPA) in 1973 much to the delight of the Catholic left peace with justice crowd because the it limits a President's ability to commit U.S. troops before being required to secure congressional approval to continue military operations, like OKMA.

Then, too, The Motley Monk thought, if that wasn't enough for the Catholic left peace with justice crowd, perhaps President Obama's declaration that the United Nations had sanctioned OKMA surely would outrage the Catholic left peace with justice crowd.

Why?

It was their beloved agency of supreme global governance, the United Nations, that empowered President Obama to commence OKMA against the Libyan dictator.

Surely, that would provoke outrage, no?

As Qaddafi begged for mercy, the militant
rebel said: "Shut up, you dog...."

Nope. Not a peep.

A persistent case of laryngitis or plain, old-fashioned hypocrisy?

The Motley Monk hasn't forgotten that former President George W. Bush invaded Iraq with congressional approval.

The Motley Monk also hasn't forgotten that the Catholic left peace with justice crowd accused then-President Bush of abusing his powers as Commander-in-Chief and of engaging in an illegal if not immoral attempt to change the Iraqi regime.

"Read my mind, Nicolas. Just like I told Congress:
'OKMA'-'Oh Kiss My Arse.' Now, get your finger
off my lapel. These are expensive threads."

With President Obama unleashing the nation's military to remove or kill a foreign head of state while refusing to seek congressional approval, the Catholic left peace with justice crowd remains deafeningly silent.

That's why The Motley Monk believes many of those Catholic left peace with justice types are just plain, old-fashioned hypocrites. It's not about "principle" but "convenience."

Let the discussion begin...

The "balanced budget amendment": A political ruse?

2011-12-29T08:25:00.002-05:00

For all of those who are concerned with the federal deficit, the idea of a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) seems to make a great deal of sense. The basic argument is: "Congress should not ever spend money it does not have."

BBA proponents note that most states have BBAs and their legislatures have learned to live within their means. "If the states can do it, why can't the federal government?", BBA proponents ask.

Taken at face value, the argument seems to make eminent sense.

But, hold on for just one minute.

According to a Cato Institute budget analyst, Tad DeHaven, the problem voters should target is spending. For decades, the federal government has expanded its powers to spend that today "the federal government can do pretty much what it pleases."

DeHaven correctly argues neither political party has been willing to confront congressional overspending because that would require cutting the size and scope of government---all of those sacred cows---if they were truly serious about bringing the federal budget into balance without raising taxes.

So, instead, members from both sides of the congressional aisle seem to be warming up to the idea of a BBA.

Why?

Many voters are empathetic with the idea and, in this economic and political environment, it's a winning campaign promise.

But, more ominously, DeHaven points out that a BBA "would actually end up solidifying the oversized and overbearing federal government we have today." That is, while the BBA would require Congress to balance the federal budget, it wouldn't necessarily cut the size and scope of the federal government. Congress could keep expanding the federal "pie" as long as it balances the federal budget.

That got The Motley Monk thinking. The BBA may be a political ruse candidates are using to deflect voters from electing representatives who really will cut the size and scope of the federal government...which means slaying sacred cows.

Let the discussion begin...

To read Tad DeHaven's article, click on the following link:
http://townhall.com/columnists/taddehaven/2011/12/29/we_dont_need_a_balanced_budget_amendment/page/full/

More from "the gift that keeps giving"...

2011-12-29T06:02:00.000-05:00

The minority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), recently announced that extending unemployment benefits would add 600k jobs to the nation's economy.

Imagine that! Doling out wads of taxpayers' cash to needy citizens, the federal government will stimulate the nation's economy.

Ms. Pelosi also said the money from unemployment benefits creates a "safety net" for the U.S. economy because it "injects demand into the economy [by] creating jobs."

Isn't that a bit backwards? Shouldn't unemployment benefits provide a "safety net" for the unemployed?

Well, it doesn't to matter very much to Ms. Pelosi. Those citizens who aer receiving the benefits will spend the money that the government has doled out which, in turn, creates taxpaying jobs!

Not allowing economics to sully her ideology, Ms. Pelosi argues:

The payroll tax cut that the president proposed would put $1,500 in the pockets of 160 million Americans. The unemployment insurance extension is not only good for individuals. It has a macroeconomic impact. As macroeconomic advisers have stated, it would make a difference of 600,000 jobs to our economy....

Again this is important because this is about the safety net not just for these individuals, but for our economic system that, in times of unemployment, we have a safety net and that is important....

Again, [not only] a safety net for individuals, but a safety net for the economy and again this money when received is immediately spent, it's urgently needed, and injects demand into the economy, creating jobs....

What a bunch of complete nonsense!

Discussing this matter with an eminent, nationally-quoted, and well-published economist to find out what Ms. Pelosi "gets" and what The Motley Monk "doesn't get," the The Motley Monk was told:

Resource allocations should be based on economic grounds, not on political grounds and the general public is too stupid to know the difference. No, moving money from your right pocket to your left pocket does not somehow make you richer. Consumption is not wealth. Pelosi supports a program that creates gross inefficiencies. Is she an idiot? If her decision was based on economic reasoning, then yes. But, she does not care about the nation's economy. Her decisions are made for political reasons. She is buying votes because the recipients of her generosity (with other peoples' money) think they are better off when in fact they are not.

In the end, the only way Ms. Pelosi's fantasy world works is if the federal government increases taxes to 100% of gross income or prints money. The former is socialism that makes slaves of citizens; the latter fuels inflation and kills national prosperity.

Let the discussion begin...

The Motley Monk offers a "tip of the hat" to Mavronious (aka, "Liberal Pilgrim"---watch for his blog) who informed The Motley Monk that Ms. Pelosi's "macroeconomic advisers" names are the think tank, Macroeconomic Advisers. They are a well-respected economic forecasting entity boasting excellent credentials. Having read some of their recent reports to get a sense of their politics, it seems Ms. Pelosi "cherry picked" a report that fit her talking points. Mavronious opines that Macroeconomic Advisers is "independent" in its political orientation. That may be an accurate assessment.

Emperor Rhamulus and the Chicago Teachers Union: An unhappy marriage...

2011-12-28T11:02:00.000-05:00

Evidently all's not well in "Rhamsville" if you're a member of the public school teachers' union.

According to an article in the Chicago Sun Times, the Kenwood-Oakland Community Organization along with members of the Chicago Teachers Union and Occupy-Chicago hijacked a Chicago School Board meeting. Outside the meeting, ~300 parents, students, teachers, and school activists protested. Inside, protesters used a tag-team of chants, charging the system's school closing policy with failing the city's children.

Adourthus McDowell, a Chicago Public School parent and member of the Kenwood-Oakland Community Organization, told the Board:

We see through the sounds bites. You have betrayed the public trust. You have failed Chicago's children. Children have died, literally and spiritually, as a result of your policies, You have produced chaos.

The chants persisted for 20 minutes, forcing the Board to go into closed session. That's when Chicago Teachers Union Vice President Jesse Sharkey "grabbed the microphone and led the beginning of the public participation section of the meeting to ensure speakers who had been waiting for hours to speak could at least comment on videotape for later viewing by board members." The protesters want the Superintendent of Chicago Public Schools Jean-Claude Brizard and the man who appointed him, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, fired.

So, what was this protest really about?

CPS officials had previously announced plans to phase out Dyett and Crane High Schools, close four elementary schools, and replace the staffs of 10 other schools during "turnarounds." The CPS Board is scheduled to vote on those plans in February 2012.

But, 2 hours after moving into closed session, the Board approved, without comment, what the protesters were challenging. The Board also approved 12 new charter campuses.

So that's what this was all about: Public schools in Chicago are being replaced by charter schools and unionized teachers and administrators will have to find new jobs.

"Emperor Rhamulus"---as columnist John Kass calls Chicago's Mayor---put the public school teachers' union on notice: He's not singing their song.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the article in the Chicago Sun Times, click on the following link:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/9440216-418/protesters-take-over-chicago-school-board-meeting.html

Illegal immigration: A power grab by an imperialist President?

2011-12-28T08:45:00.000-05:00

Proponents of illegal immigration have made Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, their poster boy for all that is wrong with opposing "undocumented immigrants." In their view, the Sheriff is unconscionably extra-constitutional and anti-humanitarian in his treatment of harmless and semi-nomadic people.

While it cannot be denied that Sheriff Arpaio fuels his critics' arguments with his "larger than life" approach to carrying out his authority as the County's chief constable, this politicization of the situation misses entirely the problem Sheriff Arpaio is charged by both federal and state law to confront: Identify and arrest undocumented immigrants. Sheriffs like Joe Arpaio are empowered to carry out this very important function of government.

These muddy waters have recently become muddier as the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, has jumped into the middle of the fray by limiting Sheriff Arpaio's authority to enforce federal immigration law.

It's a classic constitutional confrontation: Federal vs. States rights.

Should a President, like President Obama, have the power to dictate to a state which federal laws it should and should not enforce? President Obama seems to believe he can pre-empt state law whenever its enforcement might irritate a foreign government.

Or, should a state, like Arizona, have the power to act legally even if it is not in the interests of the President of the United States? Commensurate with federal law, the State of Arizona enacted legislation that penalizes "illegal immigrants." The goal was to drive down their numbers and reduce the burdens on the State's budgets and services.

In a Washington Post op-ed, David Rivkin and Joe Jacquot raise these fundamental questions as well as the constitutional issues dividing both sides, arguing that "the Obama administration has taken federal-state relations to a new low in its quest for an unprecedented expansion of presidential power." Like Rivkin and Jacquot's assessment or not, their explication of the details associated with the arguments on both sides are well worth reading and considering. Suffice it to say, both sides uphold important values.

That said, Rivkin and Jacquot believe President Obama has made "a stunning and audacious power grab, far more expansive than the legal theories that prompted critics of President George W. Bush to argue that he established an 'imperial presidency.'"

The argument seems to hinge on Congress' power to legislate.

Congress not the President is the federal government's legislative branch and when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration, Congress has been very clear. In 2008, none other than then-Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said about the bipartisan immigration law that Congress had passed and which the Arizona legislature used in crafting its so-called "illegal immigration" bill:

[The bill is true to the nation's] humanity and...tradition of a nation of immigrants. Politics is the art of the possible and the agreement we just reached is the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders, bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America.

Summing up their argument, Rivkin and Jacquote note: "When those measures are also incompatible with the basic precepts of federalism, his power is nonexistent. The fact that the Supreme Court granted swift review of this case suggests that it will repudiate the Obama administration’s imperial power grab."

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Riovkin and Jacquote's Washington Post op-ed, click on the following link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-imperial-power-grab-on-immigration/2011/12/27/gIQAaI6GLP_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions

To read about the passage of the 2008 immigration bill, click on the following link:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070517220656.d4w2ywk1&show_article=1

A random, passing thought of Dr. Thomas Sowell...

2011-12-27T08:24:00.000-05:00

One of The Motley Monk's fave economists, Dr. Thomas Sowell, has published some of his random, passing thoughts.

Many of Dr. Sowell's thoughts are "spot on." But, one in particular caught The Motley Monk's attention, especially in terms of how Dr. Sowell succinctly sums up completely different worldviews by asking three questions.

According to Dr. Sowell:

What do you call it when someone steals someone else's money secretly? Theft.
What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery.
What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice.

Then, there's this "teaser" to motivate reading Dr. Sowell's entire column:

Can you imagine a man who had never run any kind of organization, large or small, taking it upon himself to fundamentally change all kinds of organizations in a huge and complex economy? Yet that is what Barack Obama did when he said, "We are going to change the United States of America!" This was not "The Audacity of Hope." It was the audacity of hype.

Let the discussion begin...

To read Dr. Thomas Sowell's random, passing thoughts, click on the following link:
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/12/27/random_thoughts/page/full/

Unemployment benefits and welfare queens...

2011-12-27T08:07:00.000-05:00

This morning, The Motley Monk read the Bloomberg News report discussing the plight of John Reat, 62. Reat lives in Worthington, Ohio, a Columbus suburb. His job as a customer-support manager was eliminated in 2009.

For the past two years, Reat has been trying to find work. Reat is 1 of ~5M people nationally and an estimated 70k in Ohio whose "emergency unemployment benefits" of $375/week ($18k/year) will begin expire on December 31st if Congress doesn't extend them. An additional 95k Ohioans would lose the benefits in February and March 2012.

Reat's is a sad story and The Motley Monk has empathy for Reat as well as the many others who currently find themselves navigating such difficult straits.

At the same time, it is difficult to know exactly what the phrase "been trying to find work" means for many of the unemployed, especially since Congress extended benefits to 99 weeks (almost two years) and there now is talk of extending the benefits again. For example, the phrase could mean:

There really are no jobs to be found in particular locales, no matter how much and how hard an unemployed person searches.
The incentive to search for a job decreases as long as unemployment benefits provide a "cushion" that make low-paying, entry-level jobs that produce minimal cash flow less appealing.
The incentive to search for a job decreases as long as unemployment benefits provide a "cushion" that makes the idea of moving to locales where jobs are available (e.g., North Dakota, Texas) less appealing.

In an interview, Reat said he has been trying to figure out ways to make ends meet:

I'm trying to look at a lot of those things that you don't normally look at unless you're under duress.

What might "those things" include?

First: Reat is renegotiating his home mortgage.

The Motley Monk thinks that an excellent idea. To the degree that the lender is willing, lower those monthly payments and increase cash flow.

Second: Reat is thinking of tapping his retirement savings next month.

Whoa! "Tapping his retirement savings"?

What's this all about?

Does Reat have a stash of cash piled up in an IRA or 401k plan that he's been sitting on while receiving unemployment benefits of $375/month for the past two years?

Evidently so.

The Motley Monk doesn't "get it."

Yes, those savings are intended primarily for "retirement." But, those savings can also be used for a "rainy day" or, perhaps in this case, the dire consequences of an economic "tsunami."

Actually, the truth is that The Motley Monk does "get it."

Reat and those like him have legally "gamed the system" for two years. With their right hand, they collected from the largess of the federal government (actually, those who pay federal taxes) while with their left hand, they coddled their nest eggs to keep them nice and warm. Why should Reat and those like him tap into those "retirement savings" while the federal government is doling out the dough?

This isn't a matter of The Motley Monk being "cold hearted." After all, unemployment benefits represent a positive commitment on the part of society to provide a short-term safety net for the unemployed. But, when those benefits make it possible individuals like John Reat to game the system for two years and to claim say they are searching real hard and far and wide for a job, yet not renegotiate their mortgages, dip into their retirement nest eggs, or make the move to another locale where well-paying jobs are available, something is wrong with the system.

In another era, they were called "Welfare Queens."

Oh and lest The Motley Monk forget: Reat also said in his interview that he led a delegation to Washington earlier this month. Why? To lobby the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, John Boehner, an fellow Ohioan from West Chester, for help and to make the case that individuals in his home state are struggling.

Busy as he is searching for a job, just where did Reat find the time for that trip? And then, too, where did he come up with the spare cash to make the trip?

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Bloomberg News report, click on the following link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/emergency-unemployment-benefits-may-expire-for-5-million-at-the-end-of-the-year/2011/12/22/gIQA5X2jDP_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headline

The Motley Monk's Christmas 2011...

2011-12-26T14:58:00.000-05:00

In retrospect, it appears there might have been a conspiracy concerning The Motley Monk's Christmas gifts for 2011. Judging from several gifts The Motley Monk received from relatives and friends, it seems that people must have communicated among themselves to make it a "kitchen Christmas."

For example, take the "OCD cutting board" a friend and his wife from Tulsa sent to The Motley Monk:

While The Motley Monk has been called "fussy" and "fastidious" on many occasions, The Motley Monk didn't know he had "obsessive compulsive disorder." However, examining the board closely, perhaps he does. The board provides precise measurements for batonnet, allumete, julienne, and fine julienne slicing. Not bad! Then there's medium dice, small dice, brunoise, and fine brunoise. Even better! And as if that's not enough, everything that's to be sliced and diced can be sliced and diced in precise centimeters and millimeters as well as on 30, 45, 60, and 90 degree cuts. Wow!

Perhaps not OCD. But, the cutting board will be quite helpful as a guide to slicing and dicing!

Then, another friend gave The Motley Monk two microplaners:

The Motley Monk originally spied these microplaners at this friend's house while he was serving dinner. Evidently, lust was filling The Motley Monk's eyes...of the type that filled Ralphie Parker's eyes in "A Christmas Story" every time he saw a Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle whether in a daydream or on display at Higbee's Department Store.

The microplaner on the bottom is for grating cheese over salads, soups, and pasta dishes or into measuring cups for polenta, risotto, and the like. It works best for hard cheeses but does a fine job even with softer cheeses. The top microplaner is excellent for zesting. Quick, easy, and perfect little pieces of peel. Lemons, oranges, limes...whatever. No more using a potato peeler and then a knife to make fine zest.

These microplaners are much wider than many of the microplaners available at kitchen and hardware stores. Because of this feature, leftover fragments don't adhere and a gentle tap cleans the microplaners of most residue. The plastic covers are nice for storage, but aren't necessary.

Two great kitchen gifts for Christmas 2011!

But, neither can possibly meet the standard of what The Motley Monk's niece gave him as a Christmas gift.

When The Motley Monk first opened the package, he was a little dismayed. If there's something The Motley Monk did not need and wished he had first been asked about, it was another Dutch oven, especially one made of earthenware. The Motley Monk has an excellent Calphalon Dutch oven which he uses for braising short ribs, making pork and sauerkraut, and veal or beef shanks. It works perfectly and never fails to produce an excellent product.

So, The Motley Monk was feeling somewhat dejected because he'd prefer not to have doubles of kitchen utensils, tools, and cookware that he doesn't really need (or want). The weight of the Dutch oven also felt a little light, causing The Motley Monk to wonder if it would crack in the oven or if perchance he was to drop it. The Motley Monk was trying to figure out what he'd do with the gift. Maybe a planter? Then, too, what would The Motley Monk say to his niece?

With all of these worrisome thoughts coursing through his mind, The Motley Monk scanned to Dutch oven and was astounded when he turned it around to discover:

Tremendous!

Now The Motley Monk has to construct a shrine in the kitchen of HIH II for the best of all Dutch ovens! More on that later. The Motley Monk has also changed the headline banner on his cooking webpage. It's worth taking a look at!

Alas, there was no conspiracy. Serendipitously, 2011 ended up being a "kitchen Christmas" at HIH II.

Let the discussion begin...

Maricopa County, AZ, Sheriff Joe Arpaio: U.S. Attorney General Holder's "ace up the sleeve"...

2011-12-26T08:33:00.000-05:00

With Fox News reporting that a federal judge has issued a ruling that further restricts Maricopa County, AZ, Sheriff Joe Arpaio's authority to uphold federal immigration law, his deputies no longer can detain people based solely on the suspicion that they are in the United States illegally. This ruling follows upon the Justice Department's decision to forbid Sheriff Arpaio to exercise his federal powers.

More importantly, the ruling also awards "class-action status" to a lawsuit brought by 5 Latinos who allege that Arpaio's office has engaged in racial profiling during patrols of Maricopa County. Class-action status now allows other Latinos to enter into the case if they have been detained and questioned by Arpaio's deputies as either a driver or passenger in a vehicle since January 2007.

Why are the feds so determined to "tie the hands" of Sheriff Arpaio and his deputies, especially since the Sheriff is bound and determined to uphold federal immigration law?

In politics, an answer to a question like this is always opaque if not murky, allowing for multiple interpretation and plausible deniability as well. Perhaps the answer is found in one, both, or all three of the following interpretations:

No doubt about it, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is under heavy fire for his mishandling of "Operation Fast and Furious" and artfully deceptive sworn testimony to Congress. By deflecting the media's attention to its most detested sheriff, AG Holder is able to get his mishandling of the gun running operation to recede into the background and, hopefully, be forgotten. All that AG Holder has to do is to turn up the heat on Sheriff Arpaio incrementally. First, it required stripping the Sheriff' of his power to uphold federal immigration law. Second, it required facilitating a federal lawsuit alleging racial profiling under the Sheriff's supervision.
There's also the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. The former Democrat Governor of Arizona, Ms. Napolitano has no love for Sheriff Arpaio. He was a thorn in her side while she served as Governor, if only because the Sheriff was more popular than was the Governor. But, that would be pretty petty on Ms. Napolitano's part, no? She has much larger fish to catch and fry in Washington, DC, and spending time on this two-bit sheriff from some Podunk county in the middle of nowhere would be a waste of that time, no? Or, could it be that Sheriff Arpaio embarrassed the Governor because she was not fulfilling her duty to protect Arizona's citizens as he was...and in highly-publicized ways?
Don't forget about David Axelrod in Chicago. Raising a civil rights issue in Arizona helps the Democrat cause in 2012 because the party doesn't have a winning economic or foreign policy record. Making Sheriff Arpaio a "poster boy" for the racist Republican establishment is a very clever way to fire up the base and to gin up the vote.

So, what might the next step be?

The Motley Monk would look for an indictment to be brought by a federal grand jury. Forget the need for solid evidence because grand jury indictments are a dime a dozen. The goal here is to make Sheriff Arpaio appear guilty. That's the whole point. And, in the end, there will be no conviction because that's not what either AG Holder or Ms. Napolitano are interested in. For very different reasons, both want Sheriff Arpaio out. And, if they get their way, they will have Sheriff Arpaio out by smearing him and his office through their willing accomplices in the media:

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Fox News article, click on the following link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/23/arizona-sheriff-faces-new-setback-over-immigration/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

Economic progress requires a thriving free-market meritocracy not a dependency class...

2011-12-25T10:20:00.000-05:00

When it comes to which political philosophy "cares" most for the masses, The Motley Monk would observe that those on the political left relish any data set---whether it is honest or not doesn't seem to much matter---which they can seize upon to pillory their enemies on the political right. The argument typically advanced is an "Us-Them," the "Have Nots vs. Haves," or in its most recent iteration, the "99% vs. 1%." It's the classic Marxist dialectic.

As those on the political left view the electorate, the "Us" is the group that cares not just for themselves but also for the masses disenfranchised by the "system," namely, the poor, the downtrodden, and those suffering discrimination. The government is a tool the political left must seize to be successful in shifting the balance of power in favor of themselves and the disenfranchised by expanding the role and scope of the federal government.

The "Them" is business, in general, and free-market capitalism, in particular. Possessing an inordinate share of the nation's wealth, the political left believes the members of this group---the "Haves" and the "1%"--- cares only for themselves unless, of course, they decide to throw some crumbs in the direction of the disenfranchised.

The Motley Monk believes this view is, for the most part, overly simplistic and intentionally so.

First, it conveniently overlooks the fact that most of the nation's eligible voters do not vote, making it possible, in turn, for coalitions of pressure groups to gain control the federal government by winning elections, as the political scientist E. E. Schattschneider noted in his 1961 book, The Semi-Sovereign People.

Second, and more substantively, both the political left and political right are minority factions of the electorate. But the former has been most effective in forming a majority coalition to control the federal government for most of the federal elections during the 20th century. The political left did so by creating one dependent group after another, whose members live off of the federal government's largess. This group is not the "welfare state" as that term is used in the traditional sense. It consists of all those citizens who are dependent upon the federal government providing for their basic needs...food, shelter, energy, education, medical care, etc. Since 1960, this group's magnitude has been growing exponentially. Robert Samuelson has called this "giveaway politics."

A successful "war"?

According to a Senior Fellow with the Independent Institute, Robert Higgs, an "index of dependency" reveals that the metric increased from 19 in FY 1962 to 272 in FY 2009, meaning that in 1962, 21.7M persons were dependent upon programs run by the federal government while in 2009, 64.3M persons were dependent upon programs run by the federal government. That's a whopping 297% increase! By the way, these are conservative figures because the metric does not include all programs run by the federal government which provide assistance. A more liberal metric estimates that 100M (or 33% of the nation's population) are now dependent upon the largess of the federal government.

In the estimation of The Motley Monk, the important "take away" of Higgs's study is that these handouts exploit those who depend upon them by earning loyalty---through greater dependence and fealty---as well as repeated and unwavering vote counts. This outcome perpetuates the status quo the political left desires and, as a larger faction of the population relies on the federal government to provide for their livelihood, the more clout the political left possesses as its number of detractors dwindles. As Higgs notes, the political left is successful "because the welfare state allows the current regime to be the primary provider for an ever-growing body of dependents, and this dependency engenders loyalty."

The only bulwark capable of holding back this tide, Schattschneider noted in 1961, is the Republican Party which, the political left rightly argues, is controlled by the business community because its members know that they cannot afford to be isolated. They must win federal elections by forming a coalition among citizens whose shared interest is in a thriving free-market meritocracy where the government is of, by, and for the people, not a minority faction whose members seek to retain power by increasing the number of dependent persons.

As Schattschneider said of this contest between the two political minority parties:

The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent.

Let the discussion begin....

To read Robert Higgs' article, click on the following link:
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3199

Omnibus salutem plurimam dicit Caesar Clausius...

2011-12-25T06:00:00.000-05:00

On this Christmas day, The Motley Monk wishes everyone the warm embrace of family and many friends, with everyone seated around the dining room table (like The Motley Monk will be at HIH II) and celebrating what is most important: "God became human so that humans may become like God.

And, now for the motley part...

Omnibus salutem plurimam dicit Caesar Clausius!
(Caesar Claus wishes everyone many greetings!)

...and then, it's all to be followed by the digital version of "A Christmas Story"...

So, The Motley Monk is almost as stupid as is Governor Rick Perry?

2011-12-24T09:13:00.000-05:00

In response to a recent post, Mavronious wrote that The Motley Monk is "almost as stupid as Rick Perry."

So, just how really stupid is the three-term Governor of Texas?

The Motley Monk checked into the Governor's credentials and was delighted to discover the following stupidities:

In 2003, the Texas Legislature passed Texas' version of informed consent before an abortion, called the "Woman's Right to Know" law. The bill established a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion and also required that information be offered to women seeking abortion.
Also in 2003, just days after the bodies of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner, were discovered, Governor Perry helped move the "Prenatal Protection Act." As a result, Texas penal code recognizes unborn children at the moment of fertilization.
Under Perry's leadership, in 2005 Texas became the 10th state to fund alternatives to abortion in the state budget. The Governor has ensured that the program remains fully funded, if not increased.
Governor Perry also signed a small measure in a 2005 bill that overhauled the Texas Medical Board (TMB). Some House members added some amendments to the TMB bill to restrict third trimester abortions and to change the wording of the Parental Notification statute to parental consent.
In the 80th and 81st Legislative Sessions, Governor Perry buttressed adult stem cell research and cord blood banking in hopes of eventually matching the endless flow of private funds to the embryonic stem cell research. In sharp contrast to President Obama, Governor Perry recognizes the personhood of human embryos—including lives manufactured through scientific means in laboratories.
The recently adjourned 82nd Legislative Session produced a new sonogram law requiring abortion providers to share this vital piece of medical information with a woman before finalizing a decision to abort.
After eight amendments to the budget passed overwhelmingly in the State House taking $64M from the state’s family planning budget and diverting them to the abortion industry, Governor Perry told legislators who were writing the final version of the state's budget bill: "Not one cent was to be moved back to the abortion abnormalities."
Governor Perry partnered with Texas Right to Life to cut revenue to the abortion industry in the state's budget in the 2011 Legislative Session. As a direct result, six Planned Parenthood affiliated clinics have closed in North Texas.

Then, too, there's all of those stupid jobs and stupid economic prosperity that Governor Perry has drawn to Texas. Unfortunately, The Motley Monk doesn't recall the third stupidity. But, that matters not. The Governor of Texas is stupidly and unashamedly pro-life.

Come to think of it, Mavronious, The Motley Monk wishes he was not "almost as stupid" but was "more stupid" than you happen to believe the Governor is.

Let the discussion begin...

Once again, "It's all George Bush's fault"...

2011-12-24T07:46:00.000-05:00

In what's nothing short of a national tragedy, nearly 50% of the nation's public schools in 2010 failed to meet federal achievement standards. That's highest failure rate since President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001.

Sad to report: Things are getting worse, not better.

According to the Associated Press, a Center on Education Policy report indicates that in 2010, 43k+ public schools (48%) did not make "adequate yearly progress." The state sporting the highest failure rate was Florida (89%)---The Motley Monk had been led to believe that Governor Jeb Bush had turned things around---and the lowest failure rate was Wisconsin (11%)---that's the state that Governor Rick Scott is supposedly destroying.

While many NCLB critics blame the law's testing provisions for this outcome, The Motley Monk respectfully disagrees.

In 2001, the hope was that every student would be able to perform at grade level in math and reading within 12 academic years (that's three presidential terms). A noble and lofty goal, no? Tough, but maybe achievable. Certainly a "stretch" goal. But, America did put a man on the moon!

The testing provision would identify schools where there were problems, indicating that the school was not on track to meet the goal. Educators, then, could use the testing data to identify remedies to get their schools "back on track." Sounds reasonable, no? Like other professionals, educators would use the testing data to make decisions about much-needed improvements to the curriculum, teaching, and learning so none of their students would be left behind.

Additional funding could then be directed to those schools to provide assistance in that regard and, if that didn't help, a series of "carrots and sticks" would be used to ensure that students would be performing at grade level in math and reading by 2014. Makes eminent sense, no? Well, maybe not every school or every child would achieve the desired goal---everyone knew that---but even if 9 out of every 10 did, wouldn't that be great?

The Motley Monk thought so, but not the nation's public school teachers' unions and all of those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. No, they thought it a terrible prescription for remedying what was ailing public education.

So, here we are one decade later with the 2010 testing data indicating that nearly 50% of the nation's public schools are failing to make average yearly progress toward the NCLB goals.

Who or what's to blame?

Certainly not educators in the nation's public schools. No. Never. Impossible. They're highly trained professionals. They have all of the answers to all of the problems. Just increase their salaries and benefits and, voila, an educational miracle will occur!

Certainly not the parents or the children. No. Never. Impossible. They're all victims who need the federal government to tell them what to do and to provide them what the federal government says they need. After all, they're too stupid to figure all of this out for themselves.

No, according to Education Secretary Arne Duncan, NCLB is to blame:

Whether it's 50 percent, 80 percent or 100 percent of schools being incorrectly labeled as failing, one thing is clear: No Child Left Behind is broken. That's why we're moving forward with giving states flexibility from the law in exchange for reforms that protect children and drive student success.

Translation: "It's all George Bush's fault."

Yes, indeed. It's those darned tests he signed into law that continue to expose the scam for what it is not. It is not educating students.

The Motley Monk doesn't blame President Bush or Obama or the public school teachers' unions or the parents or the students. No, The Motley Monk blames the taxpayers.

Why?

Despite all of the additional billions of federal dollars that have been poured into the nation's public schools since 2000, only ~52% of the nation's schools get their students to read and do math at grade level.

That's an atrocious return on investment.

Why do the taxpayers continue to use their money to allow this tragedy to continue?

It just doesn't make sense.

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Associated Press report, click on the following link:
http://www.sltrib.com/csp/cms/sites/sltrib/pages/printerfriendly.csp?id=53116582

More on the repeal of sodomy and bestiality in the Armed Forces...

2011-12-23T07:39:00.001-05:00

The Motley Monk has been chronicling the politics surrounding the National Defense Authorization Act and Article 125 which bans sodomy and bestiality in the U.S. Armed Forces.

In the last post, PETA rebuked White House Press Secretary Jay Carney for being a bit too dismissive when he responded to a reporter's question at a White House press briefing about the 93-7 Senate vote that approved the bill repealing the ban.

It appeared Carney did not want to state President Obama's position on the issue.

Well, it just so happens that President Obama has clarified his position. Wanting the ban repealed, the President sent representatives of his administration to testify to a House-Senate conference committee to argue his position.

Despite the testimony, the members of the conference committee were not persuaded and voted to restore the ban in the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

According to a CNSNews.com article, the Executive Director of the Service Members Legal Defense Network (SNDL), Aubrey Sarvis, said his group was disappointed with the vote:

Dropping Article 125 has been recommended for more than a decade by SLDN and several groups, including the Cox Commission that includes distinguished legal scholars from the military and academia, as well as the Comprehensive Review Working Group.

The Senate was right to take this action, and it is unfortunate that their attempt to end Article 125 did not prevail. SLDN will continue to work with the Senate, House, and Department of Defense to bring about this needed change.

The Motley Monk doesn't believe this is the end of the road for those who lobbied hard for the repeal. Once Congress passes NDAA, President Obama could veto the measure. Short of that, the administration could continue pressing for the repeal by getting "friendly" legislators to attach the repeal as a rider to bills they present during the second session of Congress.

The only thing standing in the way of success is the significant opposition in the House of Representatives to any efforts to decriminalize sodomy and bestiality. As The Motley Monk noted in the last post, forget the Senate. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) voted for the repeal and when asked about their votes, both said: "I know nothink!"

Let the discussion begin...

To read the CNSNews.com article, click on the following link:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/defense-bill-will-not-include-provision-legalizing-sodomy-bestiality-military-0

Unethical is as unethical does...

2011-12-23T07:09:00.003-05:00

It's pretty easy to "pin the tail on the donkey" of unethical capitalists, as the Occupy Wall Streeters have been doing for the past couple of months. No doubt about it, there are more than a number of them belonging to the 1%, at the expense of the 99%. It's a difficult truth to deny.

Would that the whistleblowers were equally as honest about pinning the tail on the donkey of unethical scientific practice!

Consider the science behind the so-called global warming "findings."

According to an article published by the National Association of Scholars, H. Sterling Burnett argues that "climategate" offers textbook cases of complete lapses in professional ethics.

How?

As any public school student in the United States should know by 8th grade, science is the pursuit of truth and development of knowledge through objective observation, testing, and experimentation. The goal is to explain, describe, and/or predict natural phenomena. Progress results from a rigorous process which includes proposing a hypothesis and developing a theory to explain or understand certain phenomena, testing the hypothesis against reality, and analyzing and interpreting the data. Science doesn't "prove" anything, however. It provides evidence that "x" is the case, given a level of probability of error.

"Climategate" consists of two sets of emails, linked by the fact that some of the world's the most "acclaimed" scientists were promoting the idea that humans are the cause of what will be catastrophic global warming.

In November 2009, the first set of e-mails revealed that these scientists were attempting to suppress or alter inconvenient data, destroying raw data so that others would be unable to analyze it, and trying to suppress dissent by undermining the peer review process. The second set of e-mails contained little new information, but did indicate that scientists were heavily involved in hiding data.

The Motley Monk knows that the two sets of e-mails do not disprove that humans are causing potentially catastrophic global warming. That is not the point. What the emails demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the scientists who claimed that the consensus of their peers is that humans are the cause of potentially catastrophic global warming are unconscionably unethical.

The ethical duty of administrators of any institution of higher education where such malpractice occursis clear: Those who commit malpractice should be removed from their positions.

That's not likely to happen in this case, however.

Why?

Environmentalism is a set of sacred tenets whose adherents are undeterred in their pursuit of doctrinal purity. When "scientific findings" are said to support the doctrine, why ever would they hold accountable those who have distorted and suppressed the truth to the ends of promoting their false ideology?

Let the discussion begin...

To read H. Sterling Burnett's article, click on the following link:
http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?Doc_Id=2319

Yet even more about "We have to pass the bill for you to see what's in it"...

2011-12-22T08:09:00.000-05:00

Two healthcare cases crossed The Motley Monk's virtual desk this week:

First: The Case of a Neurosurgeon

Bob Laird writes in LifeNews.com about an individual identifying himself as a neurosurgeon who called The Mark Levin Show on WABC New York. This caller recently attended a meeting in Washington, DC, where representatives of the Department of Health and Human Services presented their proposal for treating neurological patients under various scenarios.

This caller noted two things. First, the HHS representatives substituted the term "unit" for "patient." Second, the standard treatment for a 70-year-old "unit" who arrives in an emergency room suffering from a brain aneurysm will be "comfort care," that is, unless more comprehensive care is authorized by a medical review board.

The outcome: a neurosurgeon will have to wait for a medical board from an insurance organization to review the case. Doing what is right to save a life will no longer provide the standard for decision making.

Second: The Case of the Oncology Nurse

A New York Times article written by an oncology nurse describes the very sad case of a young mother who had cancer for as long as her youngest child had been alive.

No one knew long the mother would live, but continued hospital care was clearly pointless as was going home because she needed more attention than her family could provide. Everyone---her physician, the husband, the palliative care team, and nurses---agreed inpatient hospice care was necessary and should be provided as close to home as possible. The complicating factor was that there a hospice facility near her house, but it would accept the mother only if she would die within six days.

However, had the mother's physician or a family member said "do everything" to keep her alive as long as possible through intravenous medications and hydration and, ultimately, to send her back to the intensive care unit on a ventilator, it would have cost thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. But, most insurance companies would consider it a legitimate care option.

While costly inpatient hospice care made sense medically, financially, and psychologically for this patient, the system didn't allow it.

Both cases depict problems inherent in the so-called Obamacare "reform," in particular, issues surrounding death and panels whose members determine whether or not what is necessary, makes sense, and decreases the costs of patient healthcare will be provided. In the case of the neurosurgeon, the time it would take for a panel to render a decision cocnerning the 70-year-old suffering from a brain aneurysm could be the difference between life and death. In the case of the woman suffering from terminal cancer, the best decision requires that the physician tell a lie in order that unnecessarily expensive hosptial care, not to mention the waste of medical resources, be provided.

As bad as that is, The Motley Monk is most bothered by the "linguistic twist" that HHS representatives are introducing. Renaming a "patient" a "unit" posssesses the power to communicate about patients as if a "person" is a "thing." Lakoff and Johnson discussed how "changing the metaphor changes the reality" in their important book, Metaphors We Live By. In turn, this depersonalization makes it possible to treat human beings as if they are commodities by enabling decision makers to feel no sense of ethical or moral responsibility for those people, as Adams and Balfour noted in their provocative book, Administrative Evil.

Like all of those German civil servants who took such great pride in making sure that the trains ran on time during the era of the Third Reich, they never felt the compunction to ask where all of those trains with all of those people were headed.

Is this depersonalization of patients what healthcare "reform" will ultimatley mean?

Let the discussion begin...

To read the LifeNews.com article, click on the following link:
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/21/no-neurosurgery-for-elderly-%E2%80%9Cunits%E2%80%9D-under-obamacare/

To read the New York Times article, click on the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/opinion/looking-for-a-place-to-die.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1

Divorce: The deadly spiritual disease it spawns in childen...

2011-12-21T17:24:00.002-05:00

A Pew Research Center analysis of the 2010 census data indicates that 51% of all adults who are 18 and older are married. That's down 6% from the 57% which the 2000 census indicated were married. This past decade, a record number of young adults have decided to live for today and to wed sometime in the future.

The data verify what is pretty well known and The Motley Monk has observed at numerous weddings over the past three decades: The median age when young adults first marry is increasing. In 2010, the census date indicate that median age was at an all-time high of 26+ years for women and ~29 for men. In 1960---when most baby boomers were children---72% of all adults were married. The median age for brides was ~20 years old; grooms were a couple of years older. In addition, 7.5M couples in 2010 were living together without being married. That's a 13% increase since 2009.

According to an article in the Washington Post, a Bureau of the Census demographer who specializes in household statistics, Rose Kreider, noted that the decline in marriage rates has affected people in every age and ethnic group. But, the sharpest decline is among the young and those who have not earned a college degree.

A 2010 Pew survey found that 4 in 10 Americans younger than 30 believed that marriage is a relic of the past. But, the other 60% do not intend to remain unmarried. Instead, they are focused upon career interests and waiting for that "special person" to come along.

But, what about this "career" focus and hope for that "special person"?

Let's consider another explanation, one implied in an interview appearing in the Washington Post article.

These young adults are the generation born and raised during a time of rising divorce rates in the 1970s and 1980s. Many of them watched on as their parents got divorces and desperately want to avoid going through that in their lives. A DC lobbyist, Kate Schorr, who is 30 years old and unmarried, said:

I come from divorced parents, and most of my friends do. It's a matter of not wanting to rush into something, get in over our heads and make a mistake. A lot of us saw our parents make mistakes. We're going to take our time and make sure we don't make the same mistakes.

Shorr's father advised her not to marry until she is at least 35 years old.

Whose heart is really broken by divorce?

Without doubt, The Motley Monk notes, attitudes about marriage are evolving in the United States. The 2010 census data indicate that the decrease in the number of married young adults means they are moving in the direction of becoming a minority.

The Motley Monk thinks this a bad omen.

Consider these statistics from PsychPage:

Among adult children of divorced parents, 60% marry, with 50% marrying before age 25 and most marrying people they had known only a short-time.
40% eventually divorce (that is, only 36% of children of divorce are happily married). Among adult children from intact families, 80% marry with 9% of them ending divorce (that is, 73% of children of intact families are happily married).
Among the adult children of divorced parents who never marry, 50% are women. Among the adult children from intact families who never marry, 33% are women.

Perhaps the 2010 census data reveal a spiritual problem, one that isn't being discussed much: The fear (a phobia) of making what marriage requires, namely, a full, free, and informed consent of will to be faithful to another human being.

The Motley Monk asks: Could it possibly be that children learn this spiritual lesson from only one source, their parents, and when their parents fail to live out their commitment, these children suffer an imperceptible spiritual wound from which recovery is very difficult, if not impossible.

Consider Matt Statler who is a 29-years-old accountant. In a Washington Post interview, he said:

I'd like to get married, some day. But I'm definitely in no hurry. It's just easier to date around and not be as emotionally invested in someone when I have other goals in life right now. Living together, that's a safer first step.

Nearly 30 years old, Statler wants to build a professional career, hone his photography skills. and travel the world. He doesn't want to feel trapped into spending time in a committed relationship.

Is that how 30-year-old should feel?

Let's assume that these young people are making a rational choice: All of those possessions can't break a person's heart.

Perhaps that imperceptible spiritual problem spawned by divorce---the dilemma confronting young people today---is that a successful marriage requires thinking about "us" ahead of "me," of self-giving rather than "amassing for the self"?

The Washington Post interviews suggest that today's young adults recognize this, yet feel themselves incapable of thinking this way.

Why?

They don't believe it possible for any human being to do so.

After all, if children don't learn this lesson from observing their parents, then who are they to learn this lesson from?

Let the discussion begin...

To read the Pew Charitable Trust report, click on the following link:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2147/marriage-newly-weds-record-low

To read the Washington Post article, click on the following link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/married-couples-at-a-record-low/2011/12/13/gIQAnJyYsO_story.html

To read the PsychPage information about divorce, click on the following link:

http://www.psychpage.com/family/mod_couples_thx/divorce.html

Well, "du-uh": Alcohol consumption directly impacts a person's intention to have "unsafe sex"...

2011-12-21T09:54:00.000-05:00

A study published in the January 2012 issue of Addiction summarizes the results of 12 experiments that systematically tested whether there is a cause-and-effect relationship between alcohol consumption and a person's intention to have "unsafe sex."

Guess what?

It does. That is, the more a person drinks, the stronger becomes that person's intention to engage in unsafe sex, the most important pathway to HIV infection.

Well, du-uh!

According to the study's lead researcher, Jurgen Rehm, what's significant about this particular study is that the data made it possible to determine whether alcohol consumption caused HIV via unsafe sex or whether certain personality traits in individuals, such as sensation-seeking or a disposition to risky behavior in general, lead to alcohol use and unsafe sex. The study concluded:

Drinking has a causal effect on the likelihood to engage in unsafe sex, and thus should be included as a major factor in preventive efforts for HIV. This result also helps explain why people at risk often show this behaviour despite better knowledge: alcohol is influencing their decision processes.

Well, a double "du-uh"!

Alcohol consumption and especially heavy drinking has long been associated not only with the incidence of HIV but also out-of-wedlock pregnancies. Yet, despite this knowledge and all of the efforts expended to prevent so-called "unsafe sex," guess what? HIV incidence in most high income countries (including the United States and the United Kingdom) has not changed since 2000 and, in some cases, has increased.

So, if The Motley Monk "gets it," men and women are continuing to drink alcoholic beverages---and for some, to an excess---and then are having "unsafe sex" because their minds are blurred and natural inhibitions are weakened.

Given the results of this study, if people are really serious about putting an end to HIV/AIDS in the United States, perhaps the passing a constitutional amendment called "prohibition" might prove more effective in eradicating the deadly disease than has been all of the taxpayers' money spent to date trying to achieve that end.

Since that's not likely to happen, then how about cutting federal funding for HIV/AIDS prevention as part of the overall project of cutting the federal budget?

Let the discussion begin...

To read the study, click on the following link:
Rehm J., Shield K.D., Joharchi N. and Shuper P.A. Alcohol consumption and the intention to engage in unprotected sex: Systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. Addiction 107, 51-9, doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03621.x

Low inflation? Look at the monthly electric bill...

2011-12-20T09:19:00.003-05:00

Contemplating the November 2011 electric bill for HIH II and then comparing it to the November electric bills for the past 10 years, The Motley Monk is wondering if the "Era of Hyperinflation" has already arrived.

When it comes to the cost of electricity, a USA Today article indicates that the era of hyperinflation has not arrived...but there is serious inflation.

In 2010, U.S. households paid a record $1,419 on average for electricity. This payment represents a nearly $300 increase (26.8%, or 5.3%/year), the largest sustained increase in the price of electricity since the 1970s. The cost of electricity now represents 1.5% of a household's after-tax income, the largest percentage since 1996.

What is especially frustrating to The Motley Monk about this "higher than the rate of inflation" increase is that it comes even as The Motley Monk's use of electricity at HIH II has remained relatively stable across the decade.

Of course, this inflation took place during the past 5 years. Just wait until the President's promise kicks into high gear!

Let the discussion begin...

To read the USA Today article, click on the following link:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-13/electric-bills/51840042/1?loc=interstitialskip