Monday Open Thread

So near, yet so far.

46 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Duke Cox says:

    In a 5 to 3 vote, the Supreme Court has rejected the new abortion laws in the state of Texas!!  Yes!!!!

    • And both major parts of it that were challenged, too – building standards and admittance requirements. That's going to cascade back to other states who went all-out on anti-abortion legislation.

      I predict "Eggmendment V: The Anti-Abortionists Strike Out" any day now.

      • Conserv. Head Banger says:

        A victory for common sense conservatism as espoused years ago by the founder of the modern conservative movement, the late Senator Barry Goldwater: "(Abortion) is not a conservative issue, it's a matter between a woman and her doctor."

        • Duke Cox says:

          The Republican Establishment MADE IT a "conservative" issue, thereby snagging the "religious right"    Chickens, welcome home…

        • BlueCat says:

          Too bad the overwhelming majority of 21st century self identified Conservatives don't agree.

          • Conserv. Head Banger says:

            "Too bad the overwhelming majority……."   There you go again. And just what do you, as a liberal, know about modern day conservatism? It's not a monolithic entity.

            Regardless of your opinion, I and others like me will continue to work in the trenches.

            • Duke Cox says:

              “It’s not a monolithic entity.”

              neither is "progressivism"…eh?

              and you think , “overwhelming majority” implies a “monolith”?

            • Voyageur says:

              Unfortunately, the very term conservative, has been

              hijacked by nihilists like Grover Norquist.

              • Duke Cox says:

                Unfortunate for genuinely conservative folk like CHB ( and I think you are generally quite sincere, Banger. I always respect that.), the nomenclature has been getting tumbled for so long, who knows what the fuck anything means? Republicans like Frank Luntz (slimy operative turned "media strategist"  (he sure saw this one coming…) have been turning black into white and logging into "Healthy Forests " and burning coal into "Clear Skies" for a long time.

                 

            • BlueCat says:

              What Duke said.

              I didn't say monolithic but when you look at the way self identified conservatives vote, what they support and what they oppose, you can't seriously dispute my use of "overwhelming majority'.

              What percentage of self identified elected conservative individuals are pro-choice? Even a blip on the screen's worth? And it's not in defiance of the self identified conservatives who support them, nor is this something the majority of self identified conservatives except in their candidates only because they agree on economic issues. Quite the opposite. These pols know that  to take any other position would mean being primaried and losing. 

              I can tell you exactly what is the percentage of self identified conservative majority legislatures at every level nation wide that support choice.  Zero.

              There you go again.

                

            • Curmudgeon says:

              The key there is the term "self identified".   

  2. Duke Cox says:

    And, on a different note…

    Thank you, God, for this man we call Papa Frank. He has changed the world with a simple question…"Who am I to judge?".  Bless you, Father….may you be with us for a very long time to come….. 

     

    and for my atheist friends…ain’t we some lucky motherfuckers to have this guy running the Holy See?

    • BlueCat says:

      Pretty sure there's never been a Pope more affectionately regarded among Jews, observant or secular.

      • Voyageur says:

        I can't speak for Jews, BC, but John XXIII was an amazing man ..  As a Catholic boy at the time, he filled us with joy and purpose.  If Francis can institutionalize his reforms, as John did with the Vatican Council, he may at last bring the church into the modern world.  

        • BlueCat says:

          I can't speak for all Jews either but I personally don't know any who particularly gave a damn one way or the other about any other Pope. I never heard a message anywhere near as inclusive from any other including John XXIII, although he was certainly considered cooler and more charming than previous ones.

          The thing about Francis is you don't have to be Catholic or even Christian to feel included in his loving message. Trust me, that's never been the case with any other Pope for those of us not, as are the overwhelming majority of Americans, either some kind of Christian or from some kind of at least nominally Christian background.

          I certainly wouldn't dream of telling Catholics which Pope they ought to prefer. Nor would I expect you to understand the extent to which growing up as a Jewish kid means being on the outside of mainstream culture looking in or how warmly so many of us regard this Pope to whom no one is an outsider, not even those to whom the entire concept of Jesus means absolutely nothing, and who doesn't even think we need to accept Jesus to be "saved".  

          Personally, it's just really nice to have a Pope in the world who, when push comes to shove, explicitly doesn't think I'm going to hell because I'm so wrong in my core beliefs. Didn't get that message, much less so explicitly, from your fave.

          Not to put too fine a point on it but why should I, a secular Jew, care anywhere near as much (if at all) about John's filling Catholic youth with joy and purpose? Nice for you. Francis is a thousand times nicer for me.

          • Voyageur says:

            Pope John became pope in 1958.  You would have been about six — that's a little young to feel the burn.  He died in 1963.  I was 13 when he became pope, 18 when he died, the perfect time to feel his inspiration.  Frankie is a good man but I left the Catholic Church 53 years ago and he has little influence on my thinking today.  As for Jews John was key in putting paid to the ancient libel that the Jews were collectively guilty of killing Christ.  The guilt there lies withh the Romans.  Pilate was a roman judge and Crucifixion a roman punishment.  John's ecumenical outlook and rejection of antisemitic libels were far. ahead of his time and greatly appreciated by jews in his day.

            • BlueCat says:

              Forget it already.  I Remember him and the excitement around this modern Pope well. I was almost 12 by '63 and come from a famliy where politics, culture, art,world, national and and local news were discussed constantly. I remember the election of 1960 very well.

              Give it up.  I don't speak for all Jews but you have no idea what it feels like to grow up as a tiny non-Christian background minority and I'm pretty sure I have a better connection with Jewish feeling about Pope Francis v other Popes than you do.

              I'm not telling you how you should feel. Don't presume to know more about Jewish attitudes than I do. Everybody in my large network of  extended family and Jewish friends is crazy about this Pope. That's a first. I'm not interested in either converting you to our view or arguing any more. 

              • Voyageur says:

                I don't understand your iron determination to make this a manichean contest that is, of course, ultimately all about you.  John was a very good man.  The reforms he set in motion never quite died and even though conservatives followed him, his ideas have reemerged in Francis.   Basically, this pope is the second coming of John.  You don't have to bash the first to hail the second.

                • BlueCat says:

                  I'm not the one with the iron determination here. Didn't I just say I didn't want to  argue about this anymore?  I just mentioned that this is the first Pope Jews I know feel very, very warmly about. Period.

                  You're the one bound and determined to get me to say … I don't even know what… that Jews should feel just as warmly about John? That I'm somehow wrong to feel the way I feel?  That John was objectively as great greater?

                  I said warm feelings, affection. I didn’t bash your guy. I have no problem with anything he said or failed to say. I just prefer the things Francis has said. The fact that you even think there's something objective to prove about the two of them one way or the other in terms of my feelings and the feelings of people I know, for God's sake, is utterly baffling to me  

                  So… my last word. You may take my word for it or not that Francis is the most beloved Pope ever among my Jewish circle. You may think whatever you want about that. You may have the most special place in your heart for whatever Pope most floats your boat. There's nothing to prove or disprove here.  There is no right or wrong preference. Nobody is going to hell if you can't "save" them over to your view. It won't affect your healthcare, your retirement security, your rights, the economy, the election, the Supreme Court, the future of your children and grandchildren. Relax. Have a beer or something.  Jeesh!  I'm sorry I don't like your papal hero best. Happy now?

          • mamajama55 says:

            Papa Frank is also building that rainbow bridge of reconciliation with LBGT folks.

            "We Christians have to apologise for so many things, not just for this (treatment of gays) but we must ask for forgiveness, not just apologise! Forgiveness! Lord, it is a word we forget so often!" he said…….

            He told reporters on the plane "there are traditions in some countries, some cultures, that have a different mentality about this question (homosexuals)" and there are "some (gay) demonstrations that are too offensive for some".

            But he suggested that those were not grounds for discrimination or marginalisation of gays.

            Vger's fave John Paul XXIII not so much with the reconciliation. He refused to ordain gay priests, enforced the code of silence on allegations of sexual abuse, and his Humanae Vitae tried (unsuccessfully) to keep Catholic families from using contraception.

            The pope after him, though, John Paul II,  was even worse on those issues of personall choice:

            Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.”

            • Voyageur says:

              You are way off base, mj.  There was no john paul 23.  John 23 died in 1963 and if you are pushing for homosexual priests in that era, good luck.  He was followed by Pope Paul, the very short lived John Paul, then John Paul II, the still living Benedict and the current Frankie.  John 23 followed another conservative, Pius, and paved the way for the ecumenical movement with his Vatican Ii, Sadly, he died before it ended.  

              • BlueCat says:

                Wow. Guess mj got me off the hook. Enjoy your new sparring partner. Have fun, you two.devil

                 

                • Voyageur says:

                  At the risk of setting you off again, BC, you might want to read the section in mj second reference about the many jews that Roncalli saved from the holocaust.  That is one of several reasons your current. fave, frankie, had John declared a saint without waiting for the required second miracle.

                  • BlueCat says:

                    Looks like you're setting yourself off there, buddy. I'm not disputing anything you base your preference on.

                    I just made an innocent remark about warm feelings toward the present Pope, feelings that surpass anything I've ever seen among the Jewish people I know for any other, without denigrating any other Pope or insisting that you should feel the same way I do. I'm not the one using dismissive diminutives either. WTF is your problem?

                    I honestly have no clue why you're so obsessed with this.

                    Please carry on with mama. She seems as determined as you are to prove something here.

                    • Voyageur says:

                      Calling Francis Frankie is affectionate not dismissive.  He is one of only two popes I am an unreserved fan about.   He is also a great fan of John and personally pushed his canonization as a saint.  

                      Mama somehow discovered a Pope John Paul 23, and then said John Paul II was his successor, both howling errors.  She wasn't even alive when John 23 was pope and I'm afraid her first foray into papal goggling went far astray.  Her second one did at least get the right wiki reference for John 23.

                      I am far from obsessed, I just think both John and Francis are very good men, separated in time by a half century of retrograde leadership, albeit one of whom, JPII, did play a historic role in ending communist rule in eastern Europe.

                      Pax vobiscum

                    • BlueCat says:

                      Had to use my own reply as we're out of new ones. I'm just glad that you are over your temporary insanity over my perfectly harmless expression of warm feelings for our present Pope. Perhaps the vitriol from mj snapped you out of it. Shalom. 

              • mamajama55 says:

                Vger wrote:

                I can't speak for Jews, BC, but John XXIII was an amazing man ..  

                That would be this John XXIII. We're writing about the same pppe. Not that I really care.  My point is that I agree with BC and Duke that Francis is a transformational Pope, and that we are lucky to be living now when he is leading so many back to the radical roots of Christianity, as evidenced by his latest words about gay people.

                I'm not a Christian, I'm a heathen lapsed-Pagan tree-hugging ethnically Jewish Unitarian. So Popes come and go, and don't affect my life much. This one does.

                Now onward to the V-free rest of my day.

                • Voyageur says:

                  Well, on your second try, mj you did at least find john 23.  On your first try,  where you created the nonexistent john paul 23, you seem to have confused him with the real, though much later, john paul 2.  JP2 was much more conservative but is himself a titanic figure who helped bring about the fall of communism.

  3. Duke Cox says:

    So near, yet so far. 

    Just guessing here that you are referencing election day…amirite, Alva?

  4. Voyageur says:

    For readers not familiar with the way rogue government officials can steal your money, your car and even threaten to take your children as part of the War on Drugs, this New Yorker article is enlightening.

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken

  5. Voyageur says:

    Hillary's growing lead over Drumpf is mostly Democrats uniting behind her.   Far from defecting to Trump, Bernie's voters are congealing behind Hillary much faster than Hillary folks came to Obama in 08.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/26/donald-trumps-bad-month-just-got-worse-because-bernie-backers-just-rallied-to-clinton/

    • BlueCat says:

      Not every one of my most diehard Bernie Or Buster FB friends but more every day. Many young Bernie fans who went to see HRC and Warren in Ohio were pretty instantly converted, not to just accepting that HRC was their only choice other than Trump but to real enthusiasm. Warren raises the roof wherever she goes and will be invaluable whether as VP or simply continuing in her present 1st cheerleader/Trump attacker roll. I still hate to see us risk a single Senate seat for any VP choice. 

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.