Sunday, September 22, 2013

Thursday, September 19, 2013

The Pope says something sensible and kind

Yeah, I couldn't believe it either, but its true, he did:
Six months into his papacy, Pope Francis sent shock waves through the Roman Catholic church on Thursday with the publication of his remarks that the church had grown “obsessed” with abortion, gay marriage and contraception, and that he had chosen not to talk about those issues despite recriminations from critics
.... “It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time. The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.
“We have to find a new balance,” the pope continued, “otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”
The pope’s interview did not change church doctrine or policies, but it instantly changed its tone.
 And what are the chances he will withstand the absolute shitstorm about to rain down from the pearl clutchers and moral scolds?

Sunday, September 08, 2013

I'm shocked, SHOCKED!

"Y-O-U-N-G at UBC, we like 'em young, Y is for your sister, O is for oh so tight, U is for underage, N is for no consent, G is for go to jail."
So now the media finds out that teenagers at UBC are using the exact same Frosh Week chant as the St. Mary's students on the other side of the country.  Maybe they're all doing it.
What?  Teenagers saying stuff that is offensive to grown-ups?  And not just saying it, but shouting it at the top of their lungs?  
Maybe the media should stop clutching its pearls and we should all remember being 18 and how much fun it was to say something shocking.
Kids today have it harder because there's not much these days that will shock adults.
When I was 18, all I had to do was tell my parents I wanted to take a class at Berkley.

Monday, September 02, 2013

Sending a message

Daily Kos: And away we go:

I wonder if Obama backed off a unilateral strike against Syria at least partly because the usual gang of idiots jumped out of the blocks to support it?
So now he's taking the problem to Congress, and the right-wing is in a tizzy -- they don't want to support Obama but they don't want to say no to John McCain and Bill Kristol, either.
Oh well, they just found a photo of Kerry having dinner with Assad four years ago, so they can chatter about that for a while.
Juan Cole sums it up: Friday, Obama had painted himself into a box with repeated statements that he had to attack Syria because of the gas attack. But as he looked behind him, the troops he was leading had thinned out faster than Custer’s at the Little Bighorn....
Obama made a clever political calculation. The Tea Party and the GOP in general had been demanding that he submit the Syria file to them. So he obliged them. If they say ‘no,’ as the British parliament did, then Obama is off the hook. If they say ‘yes,’ then they are full partners in any failures that result. Either way, the issue is taken off the agenda of the 2016 election and Democrats are held harmless....
It is remarkable how important the Iraq experience has been in the debates on Syria, and how decisive. Even if the US goes ahead with the strike, it is likely to attempt to keep the action narrow and symbolic, and to avoid troops on the ground, and indeed, generally to stay out of the conflict thereafter as long as no more chemical attacks are launched. Whether it is possible to bomb Syria and then walk away like that isn’t clear; but it is the maximal Obama plan. The minimal one is to be able to blame the Tea Party for isolationism and cold disregard of the regime’s violation of international law.
I'm not sure whether you could call such a result "win-win", but perhaps its not "lose-lose" either.