Kiersten Marek offers a rare opportunity to highlight — in productive, conversational terms — what liberals and conservatives see differently in one of the topics over which they wrangle:
I know some at Anchorrising.com and the head of the Rhode Island Republican party, Giovanni Cicione, complain of the strong poverty advocacy lobby in the state, but when I read statistics like those above, it seems to me that our poverty advocacy lobby is not strong enough.
The statistics to which she refers are the various room and board payments to foster households in the Southern New England states, among which Rhode Island’s are substantially lower than the others. I’m not inclined to argue against increasing in-the-field payments; rather, the phrase that draws my attention is “strong poverty advocacy lobby.”
Like many who share my general ideology, I’m suspicious of these catch phrases not only because they’re grammatically vulgar (as if somebody’s advocating poverty), but also because the linguistic contortions just give the impression that they’re disguising emphases. I don’t think, for example, that many people on my side of the aisle are opposed to strong advocacy on behalf of those in need. (Otherwise, I’d find my church a much less hospitable place.) The complaint is that having a “strong poverty advocacy lobby” doesn’t mean that the worthy cause is being advocated with particular strength or effectiveness; it means that the lobby wields strength on its own behalf.
If advocacy on behalf of the poor were strong, it wouldn’t rely so heavily on those who stand to benefit financially from increasing budgets, but would treat service providers as another group that must be lobbied for the benefit of those who receive services. As Marc, especially, has been pointing out, lately, the funds are there, and I’d suggest to Kiersten that the goal of lobbying shouldn’t be a bottomless pit of taxpayer resources, but accountability and effectiveness of the entire system, from the tax collector through to low-rung state employees.
In a letter to the editor in Saturday’s Projo, Reverend Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, defended his organization’s position in favor of government censorship of print media. Americans United has filed an IRS complaint against the Diocese of Providence for publishing Bishop Thomas Tobin’s criticism of Rudolph Giuliani’s public stance on abortion in its weekly newspaper, the Rhode Island Catholic. Writing that “free speech is not a plausible defense” (of course, to censors, it never is), Rev. Lynn cited a 1992 court case that he believes set a precedent limiting the content that religious newspapers are allowed to publish…
In 1992, a church in New York ran newspaper ads advising people not to vote for Bill Clinton. The IRS revoked the church’s tax-exempt status, and the church sued to get it back. A federal appeals court ruled unanimously against the church, rejecting its free-speech argument.However, for this precedent to apply, you have to accept the view that newspaper op-eds are forms of paid political advertising, implying — if you really believe in treating religious and non-religious organizations without bias — that secular, corporate-owned media should also be prohibited from editorializing on political candidates since campaign finance laws expressly prohibit corporations from making expenditures “expressly advocating the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s) or the candidates of a clearly identified political party”.
In other words, if Rev. Lynn believes that the IRS should crack down on the Rhode Island Catholic for using Mayor Giuliani’s name in an op-ed, shouldn’t he also believe that the FEC should crack down on the Belo Corporation for doing the same?
The only way to apply the 1992 precedent to Bishop Tobin’s op-ed without making a case that all political discourse on American op-ed pages needs to be shut down is to assert that diocesan newspapers like the Rhode Island Catholic are not entitled to the full range of First Amendment protections enjoyed by “real” newspapers, i.e. that religious newspapers are second-class media organizations entitled to fewer first-amendment protections than non-religious ones. Does advocating for restrictions on the free-press rights of religious newspapers sound like a reasonable interpretation of the “separation of church and state” to you, or does it sound more like Americans United for Separation of Church and State represents a fringe that believes not so much that government should be neutral towards religion, but that government should actively discourage the expression of religious belief in public? [Open full post]
Partly as an excuse to fiddle with the technology, I’ve recorded an MP3 reading of some musings about being a carpenter on the Bellevue/Ocean Drive beat (available as a stream or a download).
[Open full post]For those who might have missed it (whether by accident or by design), I’ve got a piece in today’s Providence Journal that considers some of the discussion that Bishop Tobin’s reflections on Rudy Giuliani inspired.
[Open full post]Having watched Michael Moore’s latest bit of propaganda — Sicko, about the evil of American healthcare in comparison to saintly socialism — a bit more closely than is probably healthy, David Gratzer felt compelled to offer another view:
Consider, for instance, Mr. Moore’s claim that ERs don’t overcrowd in Canada. A Canadian government study recently found that only about half of patients are treated in a timely manner, as defined by local medical and hospital associations. “The research merely confirms anecdotal reports of interminable waits,” reported a national newspaper. While people in rural areas seem to fare better, Toronto patients receive care in four hours on average; one in 10 patients waits more than a dozen hours.
This problem hit close to home last year: A relative, living in Winnipeg, nearly died of a strangulated bowel while lying on a stretcher for five hours, writhing in pain. To get the needed ultrasound, he was sent by ambulance to another hospital.
In Britain, the Department of Health recently acknowledged that one in eight patients wait more than a year for surgery. Around the time Mr. Moore was putting the finishing touches on his documentary, a hospital in Sutton Coldfield announced its new money-saving linen policy: Housekeeping will no longer change the bed sheets between patients, just turn them over. France’s system failed so spectacularly in the summer heat of 2003 that 13,000 people died, largely of dehydration. Hospitals stopped answering the phones and ambulance attendants told people to fend for themselves.
No wonder, Gratzer observes, single-payer systems worldwide are beginning to make way for private healthcare, even as Western dead-enders push for the only fair system — one in which the wealthy can travel great distances and pay high prices for rapid service while the average shmoe is forced into compliance with Darwin’s prescription.
Sheesh! What do we plebs think “privilege” means?
There can’t be any serious dispute that this is, well, odd:
Before beginning the [twelve-hour] drive, Mitt Romney put Seamus, the family’s hulking Irish setter, in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon’s roof rack. He’d built a windshield for the carrier, to make the ride more comfortable for the dog.
Then Romney put his boys on notice: He would be making predetermined stops for gas, and that was it.
The ride was largely what you’d expect with five brothers, ages 13 and under, packed into a wagon they called the ”white whale.”
As the oldest son, Tagg Romney commandeered the way-back of the wagon, keeping his eyes fixed out the rear window, where he glimpsed the first sign of trouble. ”Dad!” he yelled. ”Gross!” A brown liquid was dripping down the back window, payback from an Irish setter who’d been riding on the roof in the wind for hours.
As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway. It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management.
However, although one shouldn’t presume to hold Ana Marie Cox to standards of fairness or, really, journalism, it’s conspicuous that her mention of the incident fails to note for Time readers the custom-built doggy windshield or to clarify that the excrement release appears to have occurred only once during the entire trip. Whatever the case, any dog-owner with presidential ambitions would probably do well to ensure that his or her pet has prime seating on long car trips, preferably with access to a window through which to stick its head.
[Open full post]Will Ricci, East Providence Republican City Committee Treasurer, National Federation of Republican Assemblies Regional Vice-President, and most importantly, frequent Anchor Rising commenter was able to attend today’s Presidential visit to the Naval War College in Newport. Will sends along his impressions, observations, and a photograph from the event…
Will Ricci: I had the opportunity to attend the President’s address at the Naval War College earlier today as a guest of the Governor, with a handful of other local Republicans. The audience was heavily populated with Navy officers, with a great many guests from other countries. I was seated less than 50 feet away (about ten rows) directly in front of the President’s podium. The program began a little late at about 11:15 am.
There was a funny moment right at the beginning, when the unseen announcer said, “Please welcome the President… of the Naval War College, Rear Adm. Jacob Shuford”. Everyone broke out in laughter. The admiral made some brief remarks and then quickly introduced the President, who then appeared on stage with Gov. Carcieri to the sounds of Hail to the Chief. After a long standing ovation, everyone was seated. Gov. Carcieri then delivered some welcoming remarks behind the Presidential podium (he looked comfortable there), and then the President dove right into his speech.
The speech was heavily focused on terrorism, with an emphasis on what’s going on in Iraq right now. Much of it had to do with sharing information that the mainstream media doesn’t like to cover, such as that we’re winning! I won’t go heavily into the substance of the speech, as I assume the local media will cover that ad infinitum. The President showed some very interesting maps and diagrams on the monitors behind him demonstrating the progress that we’ve made, both before and during the surge. All I can tell you is that he had the audience at his full attention for the entire speech, which lasted about an hour, and that he covered a considerable amount of detail. He was not using a teleprompter, and used his notes only sparingly. It made me feel pretty good that he had such a clear understanding of what is at stake in Iraq and elsewhere. He didn’t make any gaffes or other “Bushisms.” He came off as human, genuine, and very engaged.
After the speech ended, I think he surprised everyone by asking the audience for questions. They weren’t planted questions. He stayed for about another 15 minutes or so and answered all sorts of questions ranging from relations with Great Britain and Columbia, to ongoing diplomatic efforts with North Korea, and the use of naval forces around the world in the future. He made an effort to single out Venezuela and Cuba as places of interest in this hemisphere, and made a comment which I think the media might pick up on regarding Fidel Castro. I believe it started with “when the Lord calls Fidel … away” (not home). It got a few approving nods.
PS As for protestors, unless they were hiding, there were virtually none. We saw ONE protestor at the main gate coming in, and I believe three outside when we left. It was paltry in any case. [Open full post]
