Obsidian Wings

The Marrying Kind

by von

Rod Dreher wants to allow married Catholic Priests (h/t Andrew Sullivan): 

.... I don't think there's any serious ground for believing that the Catholic sex abuse crisis was caused by celibacy (after all, married men can be child sex abusers too). But the older discipline of allowing married priests is a healthy one, it seems to me. I have learned so much about married life and family life from having been a husband and a father that I find it hard to imagine a priest who hasn't lived through these experiences being able to fully relate to them in counseling. I have known at least one Catholic priest who is good at this, but I think that's got to be exceptional. It's just so complex. On the other hand, I don't know how a priest's wife and kids do it, with dad having to be on call and open to others all the time.

I think it would be good for the Catholic Church if Benedict would reverse the Roman discipline and allow priests to marry married men to become priests, if they feel called. It would bring a lot more young men into the priesthood, I'm betting.

This seems so blazingly obvious to me that it is difficult for me to see the other side of the argument.  I once considered myself a pretty insightful guy who knew a lot about a lot of things.  Then I got married.  Then I had kids.  I. Knew. Nothing.  (OK, not "nothing," but not a lot.) 

I've now been with the same woman for the last fifteen-plus years and have been married for the last ten (almost).  I am still reminded, nearly every day, how utterly unqualified I am to give relationship advice to anyone.   

When a man who has never married and never raised children offers an opinion on marriage or child-raising, I roll my eyes.  I can't help it.  I appreciate that a priest is trained and thinks deeply about these things.  I get that there are certain similarities between the priestly life and married life.  I understand that we are all human, with the same foibles and failings.  But what the priest knows is, at best, an approximation.  It's not reality.  Worse, to cite the Rumsfeldian koan, a priest doesn't know what he doesn't know.  He has no way of discerning what he's missing. 

I don't want to overstress the point and lapse into arrogance myself.  I'm not Catholic.  I have met priests who have a lot of humility and who do a lot of good.  I'm not qualified to opine on Catholic doctrine or whether celibate, unmarried priests are better keepers of that doctrine than married ones.  I don't mean to suggest that unmarried, celibate priests have nothing to say or that we should privilege experience over all else.  Indeed, claims to experience are limited to one experience -- yours -- and experience can be a hinderance if you think that your experience is the only valid one. 

But if you lack certain core experiences, it strikes me that you don't have much of a claim to expertise.  And I don't think that one needs to be a Catholic to see this fact.  After all, I don't have to be black to know that I'm unqualified to discuss the African-American experience in anything other than limited terms. 

For me, it boils down to a single question.  Who gives better advice about a road: one who has walked it or one who has viewed it from afar?

I would like to hear from priests and Catholics in comments.  (Or comment over on Dreher's blog, if that's a friendlier environment.)  What's going on here?  What am I missing?

UPDATE:  To be sure, I am not suggesting that there aren't other valid reasons why a priest should not marry (because of workload or doctrine or some other reason).  I am focused on the counseling aspect.

You Only Come by When You Need Something

by Eric Martin

The GOP is deeply unserious about addressing health care issues.  Here is Senator John Cornyn on plans to repeal "parts" of the recently passed HCR legislation, while keeping other provisions:

"There is non-controversial stuff here like the preexisting conditions exclusion and those sorts of things," the Texas Republican said. "Now we are not interested in repealing that. And that is frankly a distraction."

Here's the problem with simply prohibiting denial for pre-existing conditions and "those sorts of things" (which I assume means other popular provisions like bans on rescission): if you implement those prohibitions, no one will buy health insurance until they get sick.  After all, why would anyone?  If the insurance company cannot deny potential customers who have pre-existing conditions, people will just save the money they would have spent on premiums until they need expensive medical treatment, then buy insurance.

Insurance companies would go bankrupt practically overnight.

The current HCR plan mitigates that possibility by mandating that everyone buys insurance now, thus insurance providers are able to increase pool size and spread costs for when some customers (including those with pre-existing conditions, and those it can't rescind) eventually and inevitably require large payouts.

Don't get me wrong, it would still be cheaper to offer a broad public insurance program (cuts out the costs executive salaries, dividends, demands for profit margin, harmonizes hospital record keeping, and other costs associated with private middlemen), but you can't just require private insurers to do these things without giving them a way to remain financially viable.  At least, you can't do that without a public option available to the public when those private carriers inevitably go bust.

Senator Cornyn either knows this and is lying, or he is frighteningly ignorant. 

Building a Better Mousetrap

by von

Charles Mudede of The Stranger writes (some hyperlinks added):

Dan [Savage] points out that Palin is calling for "a conservative third party." The healthcare reform bill, the stabilizing of the economy, and the brilliant maneuvering of the president (the GOP fell into a trap he beautifully set—he tried to reach out, and made a big show of this; the right refused to budge even an inch, and made big show of this), we can now expect the realization of a prediction I made in 2008: the split of the GOP into, one, the base, and, two, the business class. Because the base (our Al-Qaida) will have no ties to the center of politics, America will be solidly center-left in its orientation.

What's this?  My Unicorn Warrior of Destiny has arrived?  I thought that he would never get here.  Oh, my.  [Swoon] [And ..... scene!]

I do not know how many different ways to say this.  I expect Obama to get a good bump in the polls.  I expect Democrats to try to leverage this health care bill to the max -- though, as Megan McArdle points out, folks who promised that lives would be saved by this bill now suddenly seem less willing to stand behind their prognostications.  But you don't fundamentally reshape the political landscape of the United States in a single day.  Obama had large majorities in Congress and had run on health care reform, but he still had a helluva time getting this bill passed even after moderate Democrats gutted its most liberal-pleasing parts. 

And the Republican party?  Yes, it's fractured along business and "tea party" interests.  But Mudede (and Savage) are overreading Palin's call for a third party.  She's really pushing for contested Republican primaries to elect conservative Republicans.  And what Republicans want more than conservatives are folks who oppose the Democratic agenda.  Don't just take my word for it.  Look at Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA):  tea party hero and liberal Republican.

The trap Mudede should be concerned about is not any trap that Obama set.  It's the trap that Mudede sets for himself:  his belief that one thing -- one bill, one man -- has finally reshaped the universe to his liking. 

But, then, I never was a believer.  So perhaps I shouldn't discourage Mudede (and others).

And that's Just in the First Friedman Unit!

by Eric Martin

Karoli at Crooks and Liars has compiled a list of HCR improvements that will take place in the next six months alone.   Imagine if the Obama administration were as aggressive in touting the benefits:

1. Adult children may remain as dependents on their parents’ policy until their 27th birthday
2. Children under age 19 may not be excluded for pre-existing conditions
3. No more lifetime or annual caps on coverage
4. Free preventative [sic] care for all
5. Adults with pre-existing conditions may buy into a national high-risk pool until the exchanges come online. While these will not be cheap, they’re still better than total exclusion and get some benefit from a wider pool of insureds.
6. Small businesses will be entitled to a tax credit for 2009 and 2010, which could be as much as 50% of what they pay for employees’ health insurance.
7. The “donut hole” closes for Medicare patients, making prescription medications more affordable for seniors.
8. Requirement that all insurers must post their balance sheets on the Internet and fully disclose administrative costs, executive compensation packages, and benefit payments.
9. Authorizes early funding of community health centers in all 50 states (Bernie Sanders’ amendment). Community health centers provide primary, dental and vision services to people in the community, based on a sliding scale for payment according to ability to pay.
10. AND no more rescissions. Effective immediately, you can't lose your insurance because you get sick.

And Karoli doesn't even mention the Death Panel registration and processing, or the socialist revolution.

Ten Books

by von

The meme can't be denied.  I am not going to give you the ten books that most influenced me, however.  That I'm not qualified to judge; I'm too close to the subject.  Rather, I'll give you ten books -- or, in one case, speech -- that I like a great deal.  Some probably had an influence on me.  But I can't be sure.  I never really wanted something to believe in, so I never went looking for it.

The ten books are below the fold.  They are provided with minimal commentary in no particular order.

Socialism!!!!

by Eric Martin

Actually, it's not socialism when you do it like this.  This is the magic of the free market:

As Lehman Brothers careened toward bankruptcy in 2008, the New York Federal Reserve Bank came to its rescue, sopping up junk loans that the investment bank couldn't sell in the market, according to a report from court-appointed examiner Anton R. Valukas.

The New York Fed, under the direction of now-Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, knowingly allowed itself to be used as a "warehouse" for junk loans, the report says, even though Fed guidelines say it can only accept investment grade bonds. [...]

The Valukas report found clear evidence that the New York Fed knew that Lehman was sending it garbage that it had no intention to market. In other words, the baskets of assets were created for the specific purpose of selling to the Fed for far more than they were worth.

Also, we really need to end this class warfare and increases in social safety net spending which is as unfair to the uber-wealthy as it is destructive to our society - creating a moral hazard and encouraging laziness and other bad behavior.  Also, bankrupting us.

Only in America do working class people rise up in anger at the thought of government regulated/subsidized health insurance, but nary a peep about the abuses of massive corporate welfare and giveaways.

(via)

The Greatest Generation, Minus One

by Robert R. Mackey

All,
First, sorry it has been a bit since I last posted. Work has been heavy, and my son is getting ready to start at George Mason this fall. Unlike his wastrel father (BA, Political Science), the boy is somewhat more motivated (Applied Computer Science, Simulations Design). So, I've been putting off anything extra lately, including blogging, to get some actual work done.

I was reading Fark.com this morning (always good for a Monday morning chuckle from the reader-submitted headlines), when I ran across this link.

Like many of you, I've spent the last two Sunday nights enjoying the HBO miniseries The Pacific. Very well done and a good companion piece to their Band of Brothers miniseries. One thing has always stuck in my mind about 'the Greatest Generation'--and I do believe they were exceptional--where are all the women at?

We all know about the role of women on the homefront (Rosie the Riveter, et al). Of mothers with blue (in service) and gold (killed in action) star flags hanging in their windows. Dear John letters, "Don't Go Under the Apple Tree," USO shows and so on. What about the women like Mrs. Nash? They didn't get the medals or the recognition. No homecoming parades for them. We all recall nurses on the battlefield, and the occasional female pilot or other service role that women played in World War II. But we tend to forget about the women who served, who went overseas, and came back home and attempted to rebuild their lives, just as their male counterparts did.

I wonder how many women suffered from PTSD or other effects from their war service, but were never really recognized for what they did.

I encourage you to visit the obit site for Mrs. Nash and send a note to her family. Just reading her obituary makes me feel quite sad that I could never spend an afternoon just talking to someone who had lived a life that full. One of the sad parts of studying history is that you rarely have the opportunity to speak with your subjects. As a Civil War historian by preference, this has always greatly bothered me--just being a generation or two off of talking to someone who had actually been at Gettysburg or Vicksburg.

We are losing our World War II veterans--men and women--at an alarming rate. Within a decade, most will be gone. For those of you who are lucky enough to still have relatives who lived through those years, spend some time with them. Ask about what it was like to be at home, in a factory or in a warship or bomber. What it was like when the war started, and when it ended.

Mrs. Nash was just one woman of that generation. One whose story will most likely never be written, which is truly tragic.

The Unicorn Warrior of Destiny

by von

I still haven't much heart to fight over last night's health care bill.  But what am I supposed to do with hagiography like this?

Now that it’s done, Barack Obama will go down in history as one of America’s finest presidents. It’s always possible of course that, like LBJ, he’ll get involved in some unrelated fiasco that mars his reputation. But fundamentally, he’s reshaped the policy landscape in a way that no progressive politician has done in decades.

Is Yglesias serious?  Or did I miss an ironic emoticon?

The Democrat reform bill is big, no doubt, but it barely addresses the fundamental problems in health care and entitlements.  The deficits it runs are still unsustainable.  You want to see the kind of fundamental change that's required in this area?  Take a look at Rep. Paul Ryan's bill.  It may be unpalatable in its particulars, but it demonstrates the degree of change that's needed here. 

President Obama had a good day yesterday.  Yglesias is right that the policy landscape has shifted to a degree.  Republicans are going to talk up all of the bad aspects of Obamacare and make all kinds of pledges to repeal it, but the winning message will be a message of repeal and reform.  That's mostly because there are parts of the Democratic bill that Republicans like ("Well, Chris, you know, most of the things you mentioned [in the bill] are not controversial, and Republicans would agree to those. ...").  Put another way, the Erick Erickson suggestion that the Republicans adopt a strategy of "no" is a loser.  (This will annoy Erickson, but don't cry for him:  being annoyed is how Erickson makes his living.)

But claiming that President Obama "will go down in history as one of America’s finest presidents" at this stage?  Ridiculous.  This bill is not the final word; it's the first shot.  The structure is going to change -- it has to -- at a fundamental level.  Declaring that the war is over and Obama has won is a little like awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize based on what might happen in the future rather than his actual deeds so far (oh, wait). The Democratic bill is an opener in the debate, but the debate is far from over.  As is the final status of President Obama in the Washington pantheon.

Your Unicorn Warrior of Destiny has not yet been crowned. 

Consequence

by von

I am not going to blog about the Health Care bill.  I told you my mind as we've traveled.  Other than remarking that I don't think that the Democrats' bill is particularly good, there is little point in rehashing old arguments.  And I have neither the heart nor the inclination to handicap.  At least not tonight. I don't much care if Democrats are hurt or helped by passing this bill in the next election cycle. Nor do I have much in common with the teapartiers. They just ain't my people, y'know?

But the concept of failure -- which the Democrats dallied with for quite some time -- is an interesting one for me.  So I'm going to write about that.  Because there were other failures on display tonight  in the NCAA tournament.  Some were as meaningful as political failure.  

I trust the readership to recognize that I'm not drawing parallels to any political debate.  I ain't James Joyce and, in case you were confused, this blog ain't Ulysses.  There is no symbolism in this post.

We do a lot to make sure that failure doesn't occur.  We mitigate and mini-max.  We create redundancies.  We demand tolerances that are far above anything that we are likely to ever need.  We put traction controls on sports cars so we don't slide too much and buy tires with more grip than we could possibly require.  And then we add an airbag, a fire suppression system, and a parachute to be sure.

To be clear, I don't disagree with doing any of that.*  By and large, I'm in favor of people not dying, not getting hurt, and not suffering. 

But not always. 

You would think, perhaps, that I'd be smarter than this, but I didn't really understand why I never liked the NBA, with its seemingly endless series of games to decide its championship, until tonight.  (Bear with me; I'm still on topic.)  Tonight I was watching the Purdue/Texas A&M game in the NCAA tournament.  It was a great game in a tournament that is already full of great games. And I realized:  A player can be worn down in a seven game series, like the NBA has to decide its championship.  A player can be beaten in a seven game series.  Soundly so.  But a player can't fail in a seven game series.  At least, a player can't fail as starkly as he can fail in the NCAA tournament, when he gets exactly one game in each round, and his team either goes to the next round or loses it all.

And the same of course holds true in the women's NCAA tournament, despite what you've been told about the UCONN Huskies ("the Huskies still tower over all else, and perhaps tower over all rivals in history," says one reporter.)  Maybe even moreso for UCONN, should they lose.

The song goes:  Fail with consequence, lose with eloquence, and smile.  Remarkably, despite being composed by Germans, there's some truth in that line.  Well, maybe not about the smiling bit.  But I do think it's important to have a single chance to win or lose -- and to lose, despite your best efforts.  Sometimes, at least.

Builds character, someone might say.

*Although I do require that there be an off switch for traction controls on the modern car.  Sometimes, in a safe environment, I like to put a car sideways (or nearly so).  If you haven't tried it, you should:  being in good position to kill yourself really sharpens the mind.

Open Thread: Baby Blogging

by Eric Martin

Daddy shows off some fancy harness work (what he won't admit is that his wife had to tie it):

This one looks like some kinder, gentler version of Alien (note the dark circles under my eyes - we know who to blame for that):

And finally, something for a campaign leaflet, "Father and son, forward looking, intrepid, braced for whatever the future has to offer...Vote Martin/Martin"

 
Chat amongst yourselves...