Author Archives: Dana Pico

Posted on by

You cannot tell the truth in The Philadelphia Inquirer

Around 10:00 AM yesterday morning, I read the story Archdiocese of Philadelphia spins off Downingtown psychiatric center where pedophile priests were sent in The Philadelphia Inquirer, and I made two comments. Several hours later, my initial comment was still there:

This article ignores one important point: the accused priests sent to Vianney couldn’t be reported to law enforcement, due to patient privacy laws. Accusations made to the archdiocese could be reported, but it was the archdiocese, not the Vianney Center, which took the decisions as to what to do with accused priests after receiving reports from the Vianney Center.

The Inquirer’s website does not provide separate links to individual comments.

However, I made a second comment, which the system accepted, and was posted, noting that the majority of victims of the predatory priests were teenaged boys, yet that couldn’t be mentioned, because it might be seen as condemnatory of homosexuality. By 5:12 PM EST, that comment has disappeared, but there were, at that time, nine red tabs noting “comment disabled.”

Now there’s a new article up, Former adviser to Monaco’s royal family and DeSales University priest charged in Philly child porn case. In it the readers are told that the Rev. William McCandless, from the Wilmington-based religious order Oblates de St. Francis De Sales, has been arrested on possession of child pornography charges.

But the charges unsealed Wednesday were not the first time McCandless had been accused of misconduct. In fact, his overseas assignment in 2010 was announced the same summer the clergy sex abuse watchdog group Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests called for his suspension, saying his name had surfaced in an ongoing clergy abuse lawsuit.

According to the organization, a sex abuse victim said in a sworn deposition filed in Delaware courts that McCandless had once admitted to him that he abused a 14-year-old French boy attending a church camp.

Details of that deposition could not be immediately confirmed on Wednesday.

At the time, McCandless had been assigned to the Salesianum School, a Catholic private high school in Wilmington. He had also previously served for seven years as a chaplain at North Catholic High School in Philadelphia.

I am surprised that the article author, Jeremy Roebuck, mentioned that there was an allegation that Father McCandless molested a “14-year-old French boy” rather than just a “14-year-old.” The story said to check back later; I wonder if that part will be changed.

The John Jay report noted that sexual abuse cases studied between 1950 and 2002 indicated that, rather than prepubescent children, abusers targeted older children:

The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14.

The Inquirer doesn’t have a nifty masthead tagline like The New York Times’ All the News That’s Fit to Print or The Washington Post’s Johnny-come-lately Democracy Dies in Darkness, added after the horrible Donald Trump was elected, but if it did, it should read something like All the News That’s Politically Correct . . . and noting that the sexual abuse problem among the Catholic priesthood is primarily one of homosexual attraction to teenaged boys is anything but politically correct.

The credentialed media like to believe that they are the guardians of truth and the defenders of a democratic society, but what so many of them have become is the guardians of truthiness. When the facts are inconvenient, when the truth does not fit the editors’ notions of what can be said, when the facts upset the #woke, well, the Inquirer has its problems with the idiots, and Executive Editor and Senior Vice President Stan Wischnowski was fired resigned because he published the article “Buildings Matter, Too,” which expressed concern that some historic buildings in Philadelphia had been and more could be damaged in the #BlackLivesMatter protests.

If we cannot expect the Inquirer to print the truth when the truth is not what they want their readers to see, how can we have any confidence that what they do print is the truth, rather than just some shaded version of it?
_____________________________________
Cross-posted on RedState.

Posted on by

Democrisy: It seems that Democrats in government don’t believe the rules they set for others apply to themselves

It was mostly an internet meme, circulating through the evil reich-wing communities, but, eventually, the credentialed media had to take notice; the election being over, it wasn’t as harmful to their causes anyway.

Politicians across U.S. eat own words after dining out, taking trips

by Juliet Williams, Associated Press | December 3, 2020 | 7:00 AM EST

SAN FRANCISCO — Their messaging has been clear: wear a mask; stay 6 feet apart; and, most importantly, stay home!

But their actions aren’t living up to the rhetoric, creating a real political problem for some of the most vocal leaders in California’s fight to contain the coronavirus.

First came Gov. Gavin Newsom, who won plaudits for issuing the first statewide stay-at-home order in the U.S. back in March. He broke the state rules when he and his wife were caught dining with 10 others at the posh French Laundry restaurant in Napa in early November with lobbyists and others from numerous different households, sitting close together, mask-less.

San Francisco’s mayor, London Breed, was at the same $350-a-plate restaurant a day later, dining with a San Francisco socialite and six others. Breed has also won accolades for imposing some of the strictest rules in California, keeping coronavirus rates relatively low. Her spokespeople haven’t responded to queries about how many households were there — state rules cap those at three. Her spokesman rubbed salt in the wound by saying she has been trying to support local restaurants. The French Laundry is 60 miles out of town.

The Associated Press article makes it sound like Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) was the first, but he wasn’t. Newsweek posted an article listing some of the others:

  • Mayor Steve Adler (D-Austin)
  • Governor Kevin Stitt (R-OK)
  • Mayor Michael Hancock (D-Denver)
  • Mayor Muriel Bowser (D-Washington DC)
  • Mayor Sam Liccardo (D-San José)
  • Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D-Chicago)

The article also noted that Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) was preparing to break his own rules, but when it became public in advance, he cancelled his plans due to the political backlash.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was caught on tape going to a private hair salon, for which the lovely Mrs Pelosi did not apologize, but simply claimed that she’d been set up by an evil reich-wing activist.

Of course, the people on the list are all over very large areas. I’m guessing that a lot of smaller city mayors and city councilmen, etc, have also violated the rules, but they aren’t important enough to have made the national news.

There is one Republican on the list, but Newsweek also stated that:

Republican governors have faced fewer accusations, largely because they have not implemented as many of the restrictions that public health experts have called for.

Translation: they have had more respect for our constitutional rights.

In his concurring opinion in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v Cuomo, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote:

Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis. At a minimum, that Amendment prohibits government officials from treating religious exercises worse than comparable secular activities, unless they are pursuing a compelling interest and using the least restrictive means available. Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles. . . . .

What could justify so radical a departure from the First Amendment’s terms and long-settled rules about its application? Our colleagues offer two possible answers. Initially, some point to a solo concurrence in South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, in which the Chief Justice expressed willingness to defer to executive orders in the pandemic’s early stages based on the newness of the emergency and how little was then known about the disease. At that time, COVID had been with us, in earnest, for just three months. Now, as we round out 2020 and face the prospect of entering a second calendar year living in the pandemic’s shadow, that rationale has expired according to its own terms. Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical. Rather than apply a nonbinding and expired concurrence from South Bay, courts must resume applying the Free Exercise Clause. . . . .

In the end, I can only surmise that much of the answer lies in a particular judicial impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis. But if that impulse may be understandable or even admirable in other circumstances, we may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack. Things never go well when we do.

COVID-19 is serious, a highly contagious disease that can be, and is, fatal, though in only about 1% of the cases. Hospitalization rates are much higher than that.

But the damage being done to our constitutional rights is far, far greater. The precedent being set, that government can set down rules which would otherwise be unconstitutional because of some ’emergency’ simply leaves it to elected officials to decide just what emergencies outweigh our constitutional rights. Many are already wanting to abridge our constitutional rights under the Second Amendment because some bad people are wrongly using firearms. The New York Times published an OpEd by Parker Malloy, himself a male who thinks he is female, claiming that “Twitter’s Ban on ‘Deadnaming’ Promotes Free Speech.” There will always be such very good reasons to suspend or restrict our constitutional rights, when those rights are left for other people to decide. If the left can somehow ban ‘hate speech,’ what other speech can they ban? The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act actually sought to ban political speech in favor of one candidate or another prior to an election, because, well just because.

Brave men fought, and died, for our rights. At least six of my known ancestors fought in our Revolution, for the rights they were denied by King George and his Parliament. At least twenty-one of my known ancestors came to these shores, risking their lives on the open ocean in small wooden ships, for the right to worship God as they chose, and not be oppressed by King James and King Charles for not being Anglicans. Can I really support governors restricting our freedom of religion over a disease far less deadly than an ocean voyage to an untamed continent in the 1620s and 1630s?[1]Fifty-one of the 102 passengers on the Mayflower either died at sea or in that first New England winter and spring.

Our great country was founded in danger, by people fleeing tyranny in England, and by brave men and women who risked their lives on the frontier, and in war, yet our political leaders today, primarily but not exclusively Democrats, would have us quaking in fear and trashing the freedoms and liberties for which our ancestors fought and died. We dishonor our ancestors when we allow their sacrifices to be wasted.
___________________________________
Cross-posted on RedState.

References

References
↑1 Fifty-one of the 102 passengers on the Mayflower either died at sea or in that first New England winter and spring.
Posted on by

Fighting to the end * Updated! * The end has come Kentucky coffeeshop owner defies Andy Beshear's executive orders

I have previously noted the defiance of Andrew Cooperrider to the draconian orders of Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY) closing down all inside commercial dining for three weeks. The Lexington/Fayette County Health Department went to court to try to force Mr Cooperrider to close his coffee shop, after Mr Cooperrider refused to close his shop despite Health Department orders. The Health Department requested that the Lexington Police Department be allowed to enforce their orders.

Judge’s order to close hasn’t stopped a defiant Lexington coffee shop yet. Here’s why

By Jeremy Chisenhall | December 2, 2020 | 12:15 PM EST | Updated: 1:20 PM EST

The battle between a defiant Lexington coffee shop and the Lexington health department continued on Wednesday as the shop continued to serve — and got business from Lexington police officers in uniform.

Brewed, a coffee shop that opened in Lexington during the pandemic, defied Gov. Andy Beshear’s executive order to shut down indoor dining at restaurants and bars. Beshear said the order was issued in an effort to slow the spread of COVID-19 in Kentucky.

Brewed was ordered to close by a Fayette circuit judge Tuesday after a several-day battle of ignored closure orders from the Lexington-Fayette County Health Department and a lawsuit seeking an injunction.

But the judge’s order didn’t take effect until the health department paid a $5,000 bond. Once the bond has been paid, Brewed has to be served with the order. So Brewed wasn’t violating the judge’s order yet when it opened for business Wednesday morning.

Some snitched called the Lexington Police on Brewed, but the LPD, after discussions with the Health Department, determined that it was a civil rather than criminal manner, and could not take action. Mr Cooperrider responded by offering ‘first responders’ a 50% discount, and, according to WKYT-TV:

Judge (Thomas) Travis did not make a decision on whether or not police needed to enforce his ruling, and already Wednesday morning we’ve seen two uniformed Lexington Police officers get their coffee at Brewed, as well as a Fayette County Public Schools officer.

Of course, while the rank and file might support Mr Cooperrider’s right to remain open, the bosses might just be viewing that poorly:

“Lexington police expects all personnel to be aware of their actions, particularly while in uniform, and how those actions reflect on the department as a whole,” (LPD spokeswoman Brenna Angel) said. “Reports have been made that two officers were seen patronizing Brewed Wednesday morning. We will address this report with any officers involved.”

While I’d like to read a report stating that all 633 sworn officers and 150 civilian personnel went to patronize Brewed, I’m sure that won’t happen. Fayette County is one of only two counties carried by Joe Biden in the election, but he did so by a wide margin, 90,600 (59.25%) to 58,860 (38.50%), and the county voted 73,397 (65.51%) to 36,915 (32.95%) for Mr Beshear in the 2019 gubernatorial race, so one might guess that a significant number of LPD officers are Democrats. 🙁

It’s difficult to see how Mr Cooperrider wins this in the end, but he’s still alive and still fighting.
______________________________
Update: December 3, 2020:

Sadly, the end of Mr Cooperrider’s defiance has come. The Lexington Herald-Leader reported that “A Lexington coffee shop that has repeatedly and publicly defied health department instructions related to COVID-19 restrictions will now follow a judge’s order to cease food and beverage services.”

I did say that it would be difficult to see how Mr Cooperrider could win in the end.
______________________________
Cross-posted on RedState.

Posted on by

Philly starts December off with a bang!

I had planned on doing an article on Philadelphia’s prodigious murder rate yesterday, but got involved with other things. I did, however, tweet about it.

So, 454 homicides through the end of November. I checked my go-to site for those statistics, and shazamm! Philly banged off three more corpses on the first day of December.

The math is simple: 457 homicides in 336 days yields 1.36 killings per day. With 30 more days, including today, left in the year, that works out to a projected 40.8 more dead bodies on the streets. 41 + 457 = 498!

In 1990, the City of Brotherly Love saw 505 homicides, up from 489 the previous year, and 460 in 1988. With 457 homicides so far this year, 2020 is already in 4th place, with 1988’s number to be surpassed in just a few days.

The crime rate is supposed to decrease as the year wanes, and colder weather keeps more people inside. But as recently as October 22nd, we noted that the homicide rate was 1.325 per day, and the projected total would be 485 for the year. Now the average has increased to 1.360 dead per day, which might not seem like much, but from October 21st through December 1st, a period of 41 days, 66 people bled to death in the streets, and that’s 1.61 per day. When the weather turned cooler, the homicide rate went up, not down. If the City of Brotherly Love keeps up with 1.61 per day, it could actually tie the 1990 record of 505, though maybe there’d be an * by the number since, being a leap year, 2020 has an extra day in which to kill people.

Of course, ” rel=”noopener” target=”_blank”>The Philadelphia Inquirer, a proud newspaper from its inception in 1829, and Pennsylvania’s newspaper of record, hasn’t even noticed the increased murder rate this fall. I searched the Inquirer’s website, and while there was a story which noted that shootings were up 53% from last year, I found nothing which indicated that the editors of the newspaper had noticed that the already high murder rate had ticked up a bit. They’ve been great on covering the election and its aftermath, and COVID-19, but when it comes to the daily killings in the city, well, that just isn’t news anymore.

Posted on by

Not just no, but Hell no! Why is it that every time the left think they have a good idea, they want to make it mandatory?

I have to take this one with a grain of coarse kosher salt, because Seth Dillon says that he is CEO of The Babylon Bee, a very good satire site, but here’s the tweet:

Perhaps Mr Dillon’s eyesight is going, because rather than a grown man in his twenties, it was obviously Senators Edward Markey (D-MA) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CN) who accosted his son.

Senators Markey and Blumenthal announce national face mask mandate legislation

Bill would require states to implement mask mandates, promote “the most powerful public health tool” the nation has against the coronavirus

November 25, 2020

Washington (November 25, 2020) – Despite guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), millions of Americans are traveling for the Thanksgiving holiday, giving rise to concerns about continued spread of the coronavirus as the country already is suffering a terrible surge of cases and deaths. Senators Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) today announced introduction of the Encouraging Masks for All Act, legislation that would encourage states to require the use of face masks in all public spaces and outside when one cannot maintain social distance. The legislation provides an additional $5 billion to the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund available to states who implement masking requirements. States can use this additional funding for efforts to prevent the transmission of the coronavirus. Additionally, the legislation authorizes $75 million for grants to states for promotion of universal mask wearing. The legislation also mandates mask use on federal property. Recent research suggests universal masking could prevent 130,000 deaths from COVID-19. Nonetheless, 15 states do not have mask mandates.

“Masks and face coverings are the essential public health tool to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic” said Senator Markey. “As President-elect Biden recognizes, we need to use every technique available to us to encourage mask use, from clear communication of the need for masks, to providing masks to those who need them, to leading by example, and even to mandating mask use nationwide. Our legislation would move us closer to goal of ensuring universal mask adoption during these dangerous winter months. It would also ensure that essential workers in transit, health care, and retail settings all over the country are protected with face masks. Mask up!”

“Wearing a mask should be considered a moral and health mandate—our primary defense against the coronavirus,” said Senator Blumenthal. “With cases skyrocketing as we head into the holidays, the Encouraging Masks for All Act would bring us closer to ensuring every American has a face mask and wears it. Even with a vaccine, mask wearing is an essential tool in conquering COVID-19, along with physical distancing and other common sense public health steps. This bill gives states the resources to encourage mask wearing in public and outdoors, to provide masks to those who need them, and to enforce mask mandates to protect public health.”

According to Newsweek, the two New England Fascists leftists bemoaned that a third of the states do not have any mask mandates.[1]Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming The two looney lefties names it the Encouraging Masks for All Act, but “encourage,” in this use, is defined as “to attempt to persuade.” Perhaps Senator Blumenthal, who once “encouraged” the people of Connecticut to vote for him by falsely claiming he was a Vietnam veteran, which he brushed of as “misplaced words” and having “misspoken”, meant that the bill was meant to “encourage” the states to mandate masks, or miss out on federal funds, but it certainly isn’t meant to “encourage” the public to wear them; it is an attempt to get the states to force people to wear masks.

Why is it that every time the left think they have a good idea, they want to make it mandatory? In the novel The Once and Future King, author T. H. White proposed a similarly worded rule as the rule of totalitarianism: “Everything which is not forbidden is compulsory.” The Pico Corollary of that is, “The Democrats support freedom of choice on exactly one thing.”

If Messrs Markey and Blumenthal recognize that the ‘authority’ to require people to wear masks — an authority I deny that any state has over free citizens — belongs to the states, why don’t they recognize that different states might legitimately choose differently? Oh, I’m sorry, that’s right: they don’t believe that the states could legitimately choose differently from how they see things, so they simply have to force those which don’t do what they see as the right thing.

This is why the Democrats cannot be trusted. They never want to ask people to do things, they want to order people to do things. If Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY) had asked me to wear a face mask, and made his case for doing so, I would have happily complied. But when he ordered such, any free man would rebel, any free man would see not complying with the Governor as a proper act of independence and defiance.

Jonathan Edwards might have said it best:

Some man’s come he’s trying to run my life, don’t know what he’s asking
Working starts to make me wonder where fruits of what I do are going
When he says in love and war all is fair, he’s got cards he ain’t showing
How much does it cost? I’ll buy it!
The time is all we’ve lost–I’ll try it!
He can’t even run his own life,
I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine-

References

References
↑1 Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming
Posted on by

Social Justice Warrior vs Social Justice Warrior

Despite today’s Democrats not being working class friendly at all, labor unions have been a Democratic Party mainstay for decades. But it seems that the left’s having gone all-out #SocialJustice is putting them in conflict with labor unions. From The Philadelphia Inquirer:

Controversial tax abatement bill pits Philly building trades unions against concerns for immigrant workers

by Sean Collins Walsh | November 30, 2020 | 7:03 PM EST

Councilwoman Maria Quiñones-Sánchez (D-Philadelphia) Public Domain, Link

A City Council bill designed to prevent unscrupulous contractors from receiving construction tax benefits sparked a debate about whether it could also open the door for a crackdown on undocumented workers in an unusually contentious committee hearing on Monday.At issue was a bill by Councilmember Bobby Henon that would prohibit projects using construction firms that improperly classify workers as independent contractors from qualifying for the city’s residential property tax abatement, which provides 10 years of tax benefits on the value of new construction and renovations.

“How do we ensure that the application of this isn’t discriminatory toward undocumented workers who have no recourse?” City Councilmember Maria Quiñones-Sánchez said during a Finance Committee hearing on the bill. “There’s no other way for the communities that I represent to see it any other way than they are potentially being targeted.”

After heated debate, the committee eventually approved the bill in a rare divided vote of 6-3, but not before Henon was forced to provide assurances that, before the bill comes to the Council floor for final passage, he would work to identify regulations that would ensure it does not endanger immigrant workers.

Bobby Henon used to be political director of Local 98 of the powerful International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Philadelphia is a union town. Unions have tried to retain a stranglehold on all construction in the city, and they make projects more difficult for non-union contractors. [1]This is something I have seen first hand, having jobsite experience while working for a non-union ready-mixed concrete supplier in the Philadelphia suburbs, while providing concrete for a few … Continue reading Kensington, where Maria Quiñones-Sánchez’s[2]While the 2020 election in Pennsylvania was, according to the Democrats, completely free of fraud, Mrs Quiñones-Sánchez herself said that “the ward leaders opposing her have a history of … Continue reading district is based, was 38.9% Hispanic according to the 2010 census. While the exact percentage of the population which is in the United States illegally isn’t known, in 2016, the Rev John Olenick, then pastor of Visitation Blessed Virgin Mary (BVM) Roman Catholic Parish in Kensington, said that his “parish consists of many undocumented people from places like Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, [the] Dominican Republic, and other countries.” Visitation BVM Church celebrates one Mass in English on Sundays, but three Masses in Spanish, which lets you know just how busy the parish is.[3]According to the church bulletin, the church has a Pastor, two Associate Pastors, another Redemptorist priest in residence, and a deacon. That’s more staffing than any parish of which I have … Continue reading We may not know the exact percentage of legal vs illegal immigrants are in Mrs Quiñones-Sánchez’s district, but it’s clear that there are a lot of them.

Henon said the bill was not meant to target immigrants and that it was merely meant to ensure construction firms were following employment law.

“This is not penalizing workers in anyway. This is protecting workers,” he said. “I am always open to having a conversation to try to work out some of the unintended consequences with our Revenue Department.”

But Quiñones-Sánchez said that filing as an independent contractor is the only option available to undocumented immigrants — who make up between 15% and 25% of the local construction workforce, according to a 2018 estimate by the city controller — aside from working completely off the books.

Quiñones-Sánchez said if Henon was primarily interested in safety, he would propose a bill aimed at ensuring undocumented workers are protected by safety rules, not one that would keep them off job sites.

Mrs Quiñones-Sánchez has just pointed out, though I doubt she meant to do so, that the illegal immigrants haven’t broken the law only by having crossed into the United States illegally, but continue breaking the law, every day, because they have to work for a living, but they have to violate our employment and tax laws to do so. Either they are presenting forged documents to employers to work on the books, which is a felony, or they are working off the books, for cash, meaning that they are breaking our income tax laws, another felony.

Economically, labor unions bargain for higher wages through the law of supply and demand. If they can force a company or an industry to use only unionized workers, they have effectively reduced the supply of potential workers to the population of union members. For non-unionized workers, allowing illegal immigrants[4]I do not use the mealy-mouthed adjective “undocumented” to soft-peddle the fact that such immigrants are here illegally. to compete for jobs is to increase the supply of workers vis a vis the demand for them, which exerts negative pressure on wages in general.

Mrs Quiñones-Sánchez, a liberal Democrat, opposes the ideas of Mr Henon, another liberal Democrat, because, as will inevitably be the case, the goals of the #SocialJusticeWarriors are inevitably contradictory. I just enjoy watching them fighting with each other.
________________________________
Cross-posted on RedState.

References

References
↑1 This is something I have seen first hand, having jobsite experience while working for a non-union ready-mixed concrete supplier in the Philadelphia suburbs, while providing concrete for a few projects in the city itself. Unions can make it difficult for non-union workers to get to the jobsite, and concrete is a perishable product.
↑2 While the 2020 election in Pennsylvania was, according to the Democrats, completely free of fraud, Mrs Quiñones-Sánchez herself said that “the ward leaders opposing her have a history of Election Day shenanigans and campaign finance violations.” WHYY, the NPR station in Philadelphia, reported: “After the election, the city’s Board of Ethics found that the 7th Ward/Friends of Angel Cruz and Quiñones-Sánchez campaign committee had committed campaign finance violations for accepting excess contributions from other political committees.” Both campaigns, and Mrs Quiñones-Sánchez personally, had to pay fines levied by the city’s Ethics Board. Who knew that there were ever ethics in Philadelphia?
↑3 According to the church bulletin, the church has a Pastor, two Associate Pastors, another Redemptorist priest in residence, and a deacon. That’s more staffing than any parish of which I have been a member.
↑4 I do not use the mealy-mouthed adjective “undocumented” to soft-peddle the fact that such immigrants are here illegally.
Posted on by

Conservatives today vs conservatives during the Bush Administration.

On The Pirate’s Cove, the commenter currently styling himself Elwood P Dowd wrote:

We were responding to Kye who had typed: And I’d love to hear the names of conservatives who wanted war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some Republicans, many, many Democommies but no conservatives.

The invasion of Iraq was a Republican project. If Republicans wish to argue that there are no conservatives extant, I have no opinion. Have at it. But it sounds like a “No True Scotsman” argument.

The two wars are not alike. Afghanistan was precipitated by an attack on American soil, led by a group hiding in Afghanistan. Going after and destroying al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden was a war of necessity.

Iraq, on the other hand, was a war of choice. As I have said previously, it would have been completely avoided had the elder George Bush not ended the first Iraq war too soon. The younger George Bush wanted to finish that job, and poor intelligence gave him a reason.

But both wars had the same problem: what do you do with a country after you have defeated it in war? Americans of all political stripes learned the wrong lesson from World War II, that a Western-style democracy could be imposed on a defeated foe. Germany and Japan were so thoroughly destroyed, the fighting aged men killed or injured, and the boys soon to reach fighting age so shell shocked, that there was no resistance left, and despite neither nation having any significant democratic experience, the imposition of democracy was successful. In Germany, it was aided by democratic tradition in its neighbors, while in Japan, the orders to the people by the Emperor Hirohito, helped General Douglas MacArthur’s imposed democratic government.

In Iraq, our overwhelming force quickly defeated Saddam Hussein, but really killed relatively few of his soldiers. The fighting aged men, and the boys growing into fighting age over the sixteen years of our presence, were able to think they could resist Westernization successfully. In Afghanistan, we kicked the Taliban out of power, but that place is simply ungovernable by any outsiders, as first the British and then the Soviets learned, and really, by Afghanis themselves; it is not really a nation, but a region of tribes. Westerners deceive themselves into thinking that every ‘nation’ must actually be a nation.

The younger President Bush was, if not a neo-conservative himself, greatly influenced by the neo-cons, and by Natan Sharansky, who wrote in The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, that once people experience democracy, they will continue to want it for themselves. The argument sounds persuasive, but experience has taught us the bitter lesson; some cultures are not so ready for democracy that they will not willingly surrender to a strongman. The various Iraqi factions, all militarily defeated several times, kept coming back to life as new leaders sprung up and more boys grew into men. Then, when Da’ish arose, hundreds of thousands of Syrians and Iraqis simply fell into line, just as so many Iranians willingly turned themselves over to the terror of the mullahs.

This was a hard lessons, but conservatives have (mostly) learned it: one nation cannot simply impose its values on another, at least not as long as there are any tough men left alive. The neoconservatives, who were really only ‘conservative’ when it came to a strong military and the willingness to use military power, are almost gone now, just part of the ‘never Trumper’ movement.[1]Via Wikipedia: “In an opinion piece for Foreign Policy in September 2017, Max Boot outlines his political views as follows: “I am socially liberal: I am pro-LGBTQ rights, pro-abortion … Continue reading

Today’s conservatives are not the conservatives of fifteen years ago. Not only have conservatives learned some lessons, but many older conservatives have moved into retirement, or gone to their eternal rewards, while newer ones became adults. Domestically, they still believe in the same things: a nation subject only to God, a social order founded on Judeo-Christian values and morality, and that the rights of the individual cannot be subjugated by the state. The libertarian outlook, which has always been part of conservatism, is becoming more pronounced. This is why I have said that, like the TEA Party, the future for libertarians, and the Libertarian Party, is to fold itself into the Republican Party.

One of the things that Libertarians, and note that I use upper-case Libertarian to refer to Libertarian Party members, and lower-case libertarian to refer to those with a basic libertarian philosophy but who don’t belong to the official, hapless, Libertarian Party, have long favored is a withdrawal of American forces and power to our own shores, something totally anathema to the neo-conservatives. While such is not generally part of the Republican Party, President Trump’s America First ideas have pushed that notion into more widespread acceptance among the Republican voters outside of Washington DC. The concept of defending our national interests abroad rather than at our own borders makes a lot of sense; what American wouldn’t rather see the destruction of war in some other land rather than our own?

But that forward defense has led us into wars less of defense than of protecting our sphere of influence, to invading Iraq to prevent Iraq from obtaining nuclear weapons. Israel used the same notion when it attacked the Iraqi nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981, and somebody sponsored the surprise assault which killed Iran’s nuclear program’s top scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. I do not in any way disapprove of the killing of Dr Fakhrizadeh, not if it sets back Iran’s attempts to build nuclear weapons. That’s a lot smarter ‘forward defense’ than sending thousands upon thousands of soldiers into Iran to beat down the Iranian army. I suppose that statement would definitely put me at odds with the Libertarian Party.

The conservatives of 2004 would simply not win much support in the Republican Party of today, as former Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL) found out in the 2016 Republican primaries. Hillary Clinton’s campaign simply assumed that Mr Bush would win the nomination, and actively wanted, and helped, Donald Trump to win the Republican nomination. Mr Trump won because, among other things, he wanted to lead the GOP exactly where Republican voters wanted it to go. The Republican elite, and the Democrats, simply did not understand that then, and I’m not sure that they understand it now.

Is there anything more telling that the elder President Bush voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, while the younger President Bush voted for “none of the above” in 2016, and would not disclose his vote this year? Conservatives of 200 and 2004, who pushed the younger Mr Bush’s candidacy strongly enough to defeat Senator John McCain (R-AZ) for the nomination in 2000 are simply not the conservative mainstream of today. Given the tremendous support for President Trump within the GOP, 95% prior to the election and still 90% now, indicate how strongly conservatives of today have moved away from those twenty and sixteen years ago.

The soft heart of conservatism has been burned away; what remains is the cold logic, the logic which says that conservatives must stay the course, for the good of our country, and not wimp out because some people won’t like it or some people will get hurt. It is the logic of the free market and capitalism, which provides an opportunity for people to succeed greatly, but also allows people to fail, and fall, into the depth of despair, knowing that such is the best and most prosperous system for the vast majority of Americans.[2]I am in no way opposed to private charity, and my own charitable contributions are in the four figure range, but I believe that private charity should be, and stay, just that: private.
________________________________________
Cross-posted on RedState.

References

References
↑1 Via Wikipedia: “In an opinion piece for Foreign Policy in September 2017, Max Boot outlines his political views as follows: “I am socially liberal: I am pro-LGBTQ rights, pro-abortion rights, pro-immigration. I am fiscally conservative: I think we need to reduce the deficit and get entitlement spending under control. I am pro-environment: I think that climate change is a major threat that we need to address. I am pro-free trade: I think we should be concluding new trade treaties rather than pulling out of old ones. I am strong on defense: I think we need to beef up our military to cope with multiple enemies. And I am very much in favor of America acting as a world leader: I believe it is in our own self-interest to promote and defend freedom and free markets as we have been doing in one form or another since at least 1898.

In December 2017, also in Foreign Policy, Boot wrote that recent events—particularly since the 2016 election of Donald Trump as president—had caused him to rethink some of his previous views concerning the existence of white privilege and male privilege. “In the last few years, in particular, it has become impossible for me to deny the reality of discrimination, harassment, even violence that people of color and women continue to experience in modern-day America from a power structure that remains for the most part in the hands of straight, white males. People like me, in other words. Whether I realize it or not, I have benefited from my skin color and my gender — and those of a different gender or sexuality or skin color have suffered because of it.”

Does that sound like a conservative to you?

↑2 I am in no way opposed to private charity, and my own charitable contributions are in the four figure range, but I believe that private charity should be, and stay, just that: private.
Posted on by

Out of juice What happens when you can't find a working charging station for your plug in electric vehicle?

My good blogging friend, William Teach, has pinch hit for me in the past, and while I haven’t needed his help since I was forced to reconstitute this site, he just published one I have to steal reference:

Who’s Up For A 130 Mile Trip In An Electric Car That Takes 9 Hours?

By William Teach | November 28, 2020 | 3:00 PM EST

The climate cultists at the UK Guardian try to put a rosy face on this, but, ‘taint working

‘Why did it take nine hours to go 130 miles in our new electric Porsche?’

A Kent couple love their new car – but their experience suggests there are problems with the charging network

Miles Brignall | Saturday, 28 November 2020 | 3.30 EST

A couple from Kent have described how it took them more than nine hours to drive 130 miles home from Bournemouth as they struggled to find a working charger capable of producing enough power to their electric car.

Linda Barnes and her husband had to visit six charging stations as one after another they were either out of order, already had a queue or were the slow, older versions that would never be able to provide a fast enough charge in the time.

While the couple seem to have been “incredibly unlucky”, according to the president of the AA, Edmund King, their case highlights some of the problems that need ironing out before electric car owners can rely on the UK’s charging infrastructure.

The couple, who love their new fully electric Porsche Taycan 4S, which has a range of about 250 miles, contacted the Guardian to describe how difficult it is to recharge a car away from home. Their journey would have taken two and a half hours in a conventional car, they say.

In a portion that Mr Teach did not quote, the couple stated that they left Bournemouth on the return trio with 45 miles of charge remaining, so they must have burned through some electrons while in Bournemouth. Perhaps electric car owners need to be a little bit more conservative in planning their travels.[1]As I have pointed out previously, electric cars have far lower ranges when the weather is cold.

Must be nice. That car starts at $185,000. See, these very rich people don’t worry about giving up fossil fuels like the peons

“Electric vehicle consumers want more interoperability, more chargers, greater reliability and a contactless experience. To really help the revolution get to full power before 2030 we need a concerted effort from local authorities to take up the charging point grants – only one in six do, according to AA research, and for those premises providing chargers to ensure they work. Driving an electric vehicle is great fun and can save you money and save emissions. Let’s make sure the future network can help save range anxiety,” he says.

See, we need Government to really build all these charging stations and stuff, so the rich folks aren’t inconvenienced with their expensive toys

The Guardian’s story said that the Taycan Turbo 4S has a range of about 250 miles, but that’s significantly higher than EPA ratings, which state the range to be 192 to 201 miles. The Taycan 4s (not the Turbo 4S), with the upgraded Performance Battery Plus, has a slightly longer listed range of 203 miles, and is actually less expensive, at $103,800 MSRP. Note that The Guardian article wasn’t really very specific about exactly which model the Barneses owned.

A parishioner at my church has a plug in Chevy Dolt Bolt. Given that there are no electric car charging stations in our rural county, he has to have a charging station at his home. If I had a plug in electric, I do have an easy and convenient place in which I could install a 50 amp, 240 volt charging station, something within my skill set, but many, and perhaps most, people do not have a dedicated and secure garage in which they could install such a charger. And, of course, if they don’t have the knowledge and the skills and the tools to install one themselves, they’d have to shell out a couple hundred bucks to a sparktrician to do it for them.

The Guardian article noted that there are more than 11,600 public charging sites in the United Kingdom, but, as the Barneses found out, far too many of them are out-of-service at times, and it can take a long, long time to recharge the vehicle. On Black Friday of 2019, Tesla drivers in the Pyrite State found themselves stuck in hours-long lines trying to recharge.

Plug in electric vehicles might be OK for tooling around town, but if you are like most Americans and at least occasionally take longer trips in your automobile, you had better have a second, gasoline powered vehicle. The Barneses have learned that the hard way.
_____________________________
Welcome Instapundit readers! And thanks to Donald Douglas, who’s probably the one who made it possible.

References

Posted on by

Andy Beshear continues to try to restrict Freedom of Religion * Updated! * Sadly, he is succeeding

As we previously noted, federal Judge Gregory van Tatenhove ruled, in Danville Christian Academy v Beshear, that Governor Andy Beshear’s (D-KY) executive order closing all Kindergarten through grade 12 schools in the Commonwealth cannot be applied to private religious schools.[1]The Catholic bishops in Kentucky were not part of that lawsuit, and have decided to go along with the Governor’s order. The parochial schools had opened on time this year, ignoring Mr … Continue reading

But Governor Beshear, in his determination that his Führerbefehle not be denied, has done what he said he would do, and appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:

Lexington Christian Academy plans to open Monday. Beshear appeals judge’s ruling.

By Valarie Honeycutt Spears and Jack Brammer | November 27, 2020 | 4:37 PM EST | Updated: November 28, 2020 | 12:06 AM EST

Lexington Christian Academy will open on Monday as a result of a federal court ruling allowing in-person instruction at Kentucky faith-based schools despite an order to close from Gov. Andy Beshear.

But Beshear is fighting to keep the Lexington school and others in the state closed to keep COVID-19 from spreading.

The Democratic governor has filed an emergency 45-page appeal with U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati of U.S. District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove’s decision Wednesday to grant a preliminary injunction to 17 private Christian schools that had filed against a lawsuit against Beshear’s restriction to curb the coronavirus pandemic.

In addition to that, several other religious schools that filed another federal lawsuit against the Governor, filing an amicus on behalf of the schools that initially sued Mr Beshear. That suit is also attempting to overturn the Governor’s order restricting indoor gatherings to no more than eight people, from two different households. I am happy to inform you that while our Thanksgiving dinner did have fewer than eight people, the two household limit was exceeded. No Governor, no President, no one at all has any authority to say that I cannot associate with whomever I choose, in whatever numbers we decide.

The Herald-Leader story stated that the responses to the Governor’s appeal must have been filed by 10:00 AM EST.

Churches have won in part and lost in part in their challenges to the Governor’s orders at the Sixth Circuit. Facially, unlike the recent Supreme Court decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v Cuomo, the Governor is not treating private or religious schools any differently than public schools; he ordered them all to close. Due to this, it is quite possible that Governor Beshear will win his appeal. The Sixth Circuit, in partially rejecting the Governor’s orders last May, did not go as far as the appellants had requested, to allow in-person church services rather than drive-in only services, saying:

The breadth of the ban on religious services, together with a haven for numerous secular exceptions, should give pause to anyone who prizes religious freedom. But it’s not always easy to decide what is Caesar’s and what is God’s — and that’s assuredly true in the context of a pandemic.

However, it should be noted that the Governor’s great concern for K-12 students isn’t quite as extensive as it appears. On Friday night, the state high school football playoffs continued. If you are an offensive guard, you will have a defensive lineman lined up across from you, his face and yours, both unmasked, just inches apart. When the ball is snapped, you will get really up close and personal, exerting yourselves, exhaling through your mouth. Social distancing is not a part of football.

If you are a quarterback or running back or receiver, the defense will be doing everything it can to hit you, to get right up into your face, to break up the blocking or tackle the runner.

If it is so very, very vital that physical contact be limited, face masks be worn, and social distancing be observed, to reduce the spread of COVID-19, why would Mr Beshear have allowed the playoffs to continue? Apparently the Governor’s concerns about the spread of the virus do not go so far as to cancel football.

Pre-kindergarten instruction has been allowed to continue, even though children that young cannot be anywhere close to as responsible as older ones to observe COVID-19 restrictions. And the state’s colleges and universities have been allowed to remain open, despite most students living away from home and parental guidance. I have previously noted, the ‘authorities’ have been very, very surprised that college students returning to college campuses have had college parties. 🙂

I would not speculate on how the Sixth Circuit might rule, but I hope that they will rule for the free exercise of religion and the right of the people peacefully to assemble.
_____________________________
Updated: Sunday, November 29, 2020 | 10:30 AM EST

Sadly, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Governor Beshear:

Federal appellate court agrees with Beshear’s order to close all Kentucky schools

By Jack Brammer and Valarie Honeycutt Spears | November 29, 2020 | 10:14 AM EST

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear was successful Sunday in getting a federal appellate court to side with him in his order to close religious schools and others in the state during a surge in the coronavirus pandemic.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati granted the Democratic governor’s request to shelve temporarily a judge’s ruling that would have allowed 17 private Christian schools to reopen. Those schools filed a lawsuit over Beshear’s restrictions and won a preliminary injunction Wednesday from U.S. District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove. . . . .

But the three-member appellate court said Sunday that Van Tatenholve’s preliminary injunction should not have been entered because the schools are unlikely to succeed.

The appellate court said it is likely to rule that Beshear’s order was “neutral and of general applicability” in that all schools were affected.

Given that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v Cuomo was largely based on the disparate and harsher treatment of churches, there was room for the Sixth Circuit to rule as it did. This might be appealed to the Supreme Court, but with an appellate court ruling that the treatment of religious schools was no different than the treatment of secular ones, the Court would have to decide the case on the constitutional grounds of a restriction on the free exercise of religion and the right of peaceable assembly. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion was heavily based on the disparate treatment of churches, not freedom of religion, so his vote could be lost. Justice Samuel Alito’s recent statements indicate that he would vote in favor of a constitutional argument, but this is a case in which freedom of religion and assembly could lose to the statists.
_____________________________
Cross-posted on RedState.

References

References
↑1 The Catholic bishops in Kentucky were not part of that lawsuit, and have decided to go along with the Governor’s order. The parochial schools had opened on time this year, ignoring Mr Beshear’s request that in-person instruction in schools be delayed until September 28th. The bishops had earlier declined the Governor’s request — not order — that churches close down for three weeks.