Monthly Archives: June 2017

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

Two days ago I ordered for my living room a framed portrait of His Holiness Pope Francis, Bishop of Rome, Sovereign of Vatican City, and 226th Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church. It is evidence of what strange times we are living in that my decision to hang the pope's picture, once a staple of dining rooms and parlors the world round, will be regarded by many of my fellow Catholics as a regrettable home dcor move at best.

I am not one of those ultramontantist Catholics who pretend that every word that falls from the papal lips is a piece of heaven-sent wisdom to be cherished, but I do believe that the pope is Christ's Vicar on Earth and that he deserves our affection every bit as much as he demands our obedience. We call him by the familiar title of "Papa" because he is our spiritual father; dumping on your father in public is not a good look.

This is not to say that I am not concerned about the well-being of the Church under Francis. So far from feeling sanguine, I believe that the Church is more than half a century into her worst climacteric since the Reformation, a period of doctrinal chaos and pastoral uncertainty comparable to the Arian crisis of the fourth century. I also maintain that this crisis is the direct result of the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass, which I hope to see disappear in my lifetime and replaced with the old Roman Rite of St. Pius V in its ancient fullness. I am not, in other words, a happy-clappy liberal Catholic.

But neither is Pope Francis.

Indeed, I would go so far as to say that both of his predecessors, St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, had more of the saccharine "Spirit of Vatican II" about them than Francis has. The current pope is a hard-headed practical man, with no illusions about human nature. Nor is he much of an intellectual, though his environmental encyclical Laudato si' is one of the most important pieces of theological writing to have appeared in my lifetime.

His is a decidedly peasant spirituality of intense Marian devotion. He loathes pomposity with the fervor of his ascetic namesake, St. Francis of Assisi. While he is famous for not getting on well with mainstream traditionalists like me, the so-called rigorists and doctors of the law whom he has subjected to endless (and sometimes deserved) ridicule, he clearly has a soft spot for the much-maligned Society of St. Pius X, whose founder was shamefully and perhaps invalidly excommunicated by John Paul II. His gradual reintroduction of these battered and pious misfits into the wider life of the Church is the answer to many prayers.

Much of the opposition to Francis is ostensibly a response to another of his missions of mercy, namely his streamlining of the annulment process, and what some consider his loosey-goosey views about admitting Catholics who have been civilly divorced and remarried to Holy Communion. I agree that in the hands of unscrupulous bishops in Europe and parts of the United States Francis's earnest entreaties for pastoral understanding of difficult situations could be used to justify sacrilege. But I am also realistic. Outside the neoconservative diocesan enclave of Northern Virginia where many of the pope's American critics live, the reality on the ground in many parishes in this country already resembles their fever dreams. At the parish in rural Michigan where my family attended Mass when I was in middle school, the lector most Sundays was a divorced and remarried Freemason. No one attended confession. Virtually everyone receiving the sacraments did so illicitly, with the full encouragement of the pastor. The worst has already come to pass, yet the Church somehow survives, just as Our Lord promised St. Peter it would.

These concerns about sacramental discipline would also be more credible if they were not accompanied by a frenetic, omnidirectional antipathy to Francis the man. Ostensibly traditionalist Catholic journalists subject the pope's every utterance to a kind of graspingly paranoid scrutiny; the most innocuous line from a homily is taken as evidence of a sinister mission to undermine and ultimately destroy the Church. Meanwhile, an eager chorus of anonymous whisperers echo their delusional claims and flatter them for their keen faculties of observation.

Far and away the worst piece of Francis baiting I have encountered so far is The Political Pope: How Pope Francis Is Delighting the Liberal Left and Abandoning Conservatives, a new book by an American journalist called George Neumayr. Crude, feverish, vague, poorly written, full of tabloid speculation, and hysterical prejudices with no basis in Catholic doctrine, this thinly sourced fire-breathing manifesto is, not to put too fine a point on it, one of the most absurd books I have ever read. Set aside for a moment the ludicrous conceit of treating the affairs of the Church in the crudely reductive categories of American politics as interpreted by talk radio (is Tim Kaine really "the left"?); the whole idea of a layman writing a book-length attack on the pope is ridiculous on its face, no matter how subtle its method. What could be more loathsome in the mouth of a Catholic than to repeat slanders of His Holiness made by Rush Limbaugh, a four-times-married childless serial philanderer who believes abortion is a states-rights issue?

The painful but delicious truth is that it is Neumayr and his followers who must answer to the charge of liberalism. It is they who believe that the clichs of the Republican Party have a higher claim on their consciences than the words of popes and bishops and that the hideous sorcery of neoliberal economists invalidates the Church's immortal teachings about usury, the just wage, the maintenance of the poor, and our duties to be prudent stewards of God's creation. That old saw about the mote in thine own eye has never been more appropriate.

Read more here:

Pope Francis is not a liberal - The Week Magazine

If the GOP health care bill passes, even progressive states could be forced into rolling back protections for preexisting conditions.

Patrick CaldwellJun. 12, 2017 6:00 AM

A Save Obamacare rally in Los Angeles, California on March 23, 2017.Ronen Tivony/ZUMA

When House Republicans passed a controversial health care bill that would allow states to opt out of Obamacares protections for people with preexisting conditions, some GOP lawmakers sought to assure voters that few states would actually take them up on the offer. Its very unlikely that any governor of any state will remove the preexisting conditions clause, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a member of the House leadership team, told NPR. Thoseprotections, after all, areone of the most popular partsof the 2010 health care law;70 percent of Americans oppose the idea of letting states do away with them.

But in interviews withMother Jones, health care experts warn that Cole is wrong: If the GOP bill becomes law, many states will indeed eliminate preexisting-condition protections and/or at least some of Obamacares requirements that insurance planscovera range of standard treatments, including maternity care and mental health. And it wouldnt just be states that voted for President Donald Trump. Under the GOP bill, evenprogressive statesmight have to take drastic measures to prevent theirhealth insurance markets from exploding.

In order to win over hardcore conservatives in the House, Republican leadersadded an amendment to their Obamacare repeal legislationthat could have dramatic consequences. The amendment would allow any state to rewrite Obamacares essential health benefits. States could also end community rating, the requirement that insurance companies charge the same premiums in a given area without discriminating against folks with preexisting conditions. If a state waived community rating, insurance companies would still be required to sell insurance policies to sick people, but the insurers could charge whatever price theywanted.The likely result: Insurance would simply become unaffordable for people with expensive medical conditions.

Experts say stateswould likely face enormous pressure to adopt at least some of the waiver options. In part, that wouldarise from insurance companylobbying;the industry spent tens of millions lobbying at the federal level in 2016 alone.But the basic market dynamics created by the GOPbill would play a role as well,potentially creating an industrydeath spiral if states refuse to allow price discrimination based on health conditions. Insurers would be putting pressure on states, saying, We cant operate in this market. We wont participate at all unless you start rolling back these protections,' says says Edwin Park, vice president for health policy at the liberal-leaningCenter on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Insurance companies would face an immediate crunch if the Republican bill became law. The legislationends Obamacares individual mandate this year, removing a majorincentive for healthy people to buy insurance. The bill also reduces the amount of money the government offers in subsidies to help lower-income people pay their premiums. With less help fromthe government, healthy people would have even more reason not to buyinsurance.

Before Obamacare, state insurance markets were lightly regulated, with 47 states and the District of Columbia allowing insurers to charge sicker people higherrates. The reason was simple: Unless you compelled healthy people to buy insurance and spent money to help them afford their premiums, there was no way to make premiums affordable while also charging everyone the same rate. The GOPbill would make the math even more daunting, since it would repeal Obamacares individual mandatewhile still requiring companiesto sell insuranceto anyone who wants it.If insurers cant charge sick people more under the scenario, they will likely end up charging everyone more, which, in turn, would drive even more healthy people out of the market. That would drive premiums even higher, causing the market to become unsustainable.

Most carrierslooking at a market where you have to take all comers, and theres no mandate and theres much smaller subsidiesmost carriers are going to look at that bargain and say this is not a viable market for us unless the state takes up this waiver option, says Sabrina Corlette, a professor at Georgetown Universitys Health Policy Institute.

While insurance companies arent fans of many of the Republicans other proposed changes, the waiver options are the sort of policy that the industry has generally been asking for, notes Linda Blumberg,a senior fellow in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute. They wanted fewer requirements on benefits. They wanted to design and tailor benefits to particular consumers as they did before. And they wanted to be able to do medical underwriting, Blumberg says. So these waivers would be popular with the core, the mass of the industry. Its how they did business before. Its how they see that they can keep their costs down.

So far, no governors haverushed forward to say theyd eagerly ditch preexisting-condition protections. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) briefly suggested he would take a look at the waiver options, but he immediately walked that back as a backlash began to brew. But even the governors currently saying they would never touch preexisting conditions might find themselves ina different position a few years down the line when insurance companies threaten to leave the state unless lawmakers change the rules and weaken regulations.

Its a Hobbesian bargain, Corlette explains. Either you are faced with major carriers leaving the market entirelywhich means that both healthy and sick people would lose coverageor taking up these waivers that would almost certainly mean that sicker people lose access to coverage. I think many state-level policymakers will look at that bargain and say, Well, I want at least some people to get coverage, and so well take up these waivers and give insurers some ability to protect themselves against the highest of high-cost enrollees.'

And it wont just be the insurance companies asking for these changes. Aspremiums rise, healthy people could also prove to be a powerful lobbying bloc. At any particular moment in time you have more healthy people living in your state than sick people, thats just the way of the world, Blumberg says. The shear numbers disparity could sway lawmakers otherwise inclined to helppeople with preexisting conditions. When youve got the bigger chunk of your population agitating in one direction because affordability has decreased, and youve got insurers moving in the same direction to reduce their risk and be able to sell more policies to more people, its a pretty powerful combined force, Blumberg says.

When the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the GOPs bill last month, it estimated that half of Americanswould live in states that adopted a waiver to tinker with the definition of essential benefits. An additional one-sixth of the country would live in states that changed the preexisting-condition ban. The CBO projects that premiums across the country would at first rise much higher under the GOP bill than under current law20 percent higher in 2018, and then 5 percent higher in 2019. That trend would change as states begin implementing the waivers. Starting in 2020average premiums would depend in part on any waivers granted to states and on how those waivers were implemented and in part on what share of the funding available from the Patient and State Stability Fund was applied to premium reduction, the CBOs stated.

But the CBO only looked at the first decade of the laws existence. Every health expert Mother Jones contacted noted that the pressures on state markets will only grow as time goes by. The problem will become especially acute starting in 2026, when the state stability funda pot of money the bill would provide tostates to addressvarious problemstotally dries up.

You wouldnt see all these progressive states going after a waiver in year one, but within a couple of years after that I think you would, Blumberg says. The tension and frustration of consumers would start emerging quite quickly, so changes might happen in a year, or it might take a couple of years. But then youre really in a situation that is not going to make anybody happy.

Mother Jones is a nonprofit, and stories like this are made possible by readers like you. Donate or subscribe to help fund independent journalism.

Read the original:

Think Your Liberal Governor Will Protect You From Trumpcare? You're Wrong. - Mother Jones

President Donald Trumps top adviser, Kellyanne Conway, slammed reports that she was a White House leaker during a Monday appearance on Fox News Fox and Friends.

Co-hostSteve Doocy addressed reports alleging that Conway was overheard sharing sensitive White House information with reporters and colleagues during a Washington, D.C., party Friday night.

A Twitter account alleged that Conway was overheard criticizing Trump, White House legislative affairs director Marc Short, and White House chief of staffReince Priebus.

An account with the handle @KellyanneLeaks tweeted photos of Conway speaking with reporters and others during the party.

The account alleged that Conway was overheard criticizing Short.

Honestly, what the f*** does Marc Short do all day? she reportedly asked.

The account also claimed that Conway was told by Trump to go out there and say that booted FBI Director Jim Comey is going to have to wait and see about the tapes.

Onlookers allegedly witnessed Conway mocking Priebus telling White House staff to refrain from leaking information to the media.

Politico also reported similar information Saturday:

Kellyanne Conway was overheard Thursday night talking about her West Wing co-workers to fellow revelers at a party. Conway was having an off-the-record conversation with a group of reporters and other attendees at the British Embassy at their election-night watch party. She said President Donald Trump told her to go out there and say Jim Comey is going to have to wait and see about the tapes.'

It turns out youre the big leaker from the White House! Doocy said about leak reports.

Conway shotback: If I were a great leaker, I would get much better press, dont you think? Part of why I dont is because I wont leak confidential information.

She saidthat she never reveals any information from or about the president.

I never divulge what the president tells me, Conway said. I never would.

Despite tweets and reports to the contrary, White House press secretary Sean Spicer discounted the Twitter allegations and Politico reports.

Link:

Kellyanne Conway demolishes liberal 'leak' agenda with one phrase - TheBlaze.com

Credit: Paste Magazine

By Bill Adams

Mainstream news media has long been accused of having a liberal bias. Some studies have supported this belief. Liberal bias may be inherent in news journalism for reasons that arent flattering to conservatives.

Defining Liberal and Conservative.While political views are neither immutable nor binary, certain characteristics have remained relatively consistent. Broadly speaking, liberal policies support labor, equality and a strong social safety net, strong public institutions, progressive taxation, diplomacy and the avoidance of military conflict, and protection of the environment.

Conservatives emphasize protection of business interests, military strength, lower and flatter taxation, deregulation of the economy, and privatism. Even more generally, conservatives tend to emphasize trickle-down or supply-side economics and liberals in trickle-up or demand-side (or Keynesian) economics. Conservatism, in its definition, is conservation of the status quo. It tends toward preserving the existing economic and social hierarchy.

In contrast, the first definition of liberal in the Oxford Living Dictionary, means [w]illing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from ones own; open to new ideas. Liberalism is often focused on change to gain parity and rights for those who are disadvantaged by the existing hierarchy.

To begin with, Journalism particularly investigative or news journalism is the investigation, understanding, and dissemination of facts and information via news media. The First Amendment ensuring freedom of the press was intended to act as a check on power and was uniquely made to empower the general public.

Similarly, the definition of liberal, with its emphasis on respecting different opinions and being open to new ideas is essentially what freedom of the press is all about; and what makes freedom of the press a threat to conserving the entrenched powers. Thus, to the extent that liberal has generally aligned with equality and speaking truth to power, journalism is an inherently a liberal endeavor.

A Washington Post opinion piece supported the conclusion that more journalists tend to lean to the left politically than to the right, quoting retired Indiana University journalism professor David H. Weaver. (For a countervailing journalist tendency, see false balance.) The piece ventured several theories for liberal bias, ranging from the source of new journalist hiring (liberal Northeastern colleges) to the location of major media outlets in liberal cities. Most of these reasons could be categorized as extrinsic causes and assume that but for these influences, journalism would appear more politically neutral.

However, the article missed perhaps the most obvious and significant reason for journalisms appearance of liberal bias. Unlike the reasons ventured in the article, which likely have some merit, the most significant reason is intrinsic to journalism. The reason itself sounds biased: Good journalism and liberal/progressive values align more closely than do good journalism and conservative values. Good journalism is intrinsically a liberal endeavor.

The broad definition of journalism simply means the occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news or of conducting any news organization as a business. This definition includes tabloid journalism as well as truth or fact-based journalism.

However, with the evolution of news journalism, the profession came to adopt various codes of ethics. Wikipedia notes that these codes tend to have the following principles in common: truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability. Thus, the term good journalism is shorthand for journalism guided by journalistic ethics.

More in-depth understanding of issues inevitably leads to more nuanced and complex views, or views that challenge the status quo and conventional wisdom. More often than not, a fuller understanding of an issue will tend to align with liberal values. Consider the following categories:

Profiles of individuals or groups of people: A fuller understanding of a person or group, particularly those who are undergoing great difficulty, will typically result in some level of compassion. Additionally, compassion can temper or replace previously held prejudice or resentment. Thus, good journalism, to the extent it evokes compassion and challenges conventional prejudices through greater understanding will appear to have a liberal bias.

Environment: Scientific data consistently supports the need to preserve and restore the environment. Environmental conservation has consistently been more a liberal cause than a conservative one. Thus, fact-based journalism on this topic will appear to have a liberal bias.

Business and the Economy: While conservatives tend to think of themselves as economic pragmatists, the economy tends to be a much more neutral proposition. The arguments for Keynesian economic policies and Friedman or Supply-side economics dont favor conservatives. Moreover, supply-side economic policies have a poor track record for balancing the national debt or balancing the budget. Regulations are another common target of conservatives. However, any serious discussion will acknowledge that regulations are also important to sustaining the economy, protecting competition, and preventing financial disasters. Thus, good journalism in topics of business and the economy should appear relatively neutral.

Sports: Perhaps the only topic in which reporting is generally deemed apolitical.

International Affairs and Conflict: Nationalism is a substantial part of most military conflicts. Nationalism, aka patriotism, most often comes from the conservative wing. At the same time, passivism has not proven to be a good defense against the military aggressions of other countries. Thus, journalism in this topic should appear relatively neutral. Nevertheless, decisions to engage in military conflict often involve behind the scene agendas that run contrary to the popular narrative. Additionally, the carnage and human toll of war undermine patriotic narratives of heroism and purity of purpose. These topics are central to reporting on military conflicts, and thus give the appearance of liberal bias.

Generally speaking, the liberal mainstream media has not had a liberal agenda dictated from its ownership or management more often the contrary has been true. This circumstance has changed somewhat as media outlets have attempted to emulate the success of Fox News by repositioning themselves as its liberal equivalent, e.g., MSNBC.

However, for the most part, mainstream media has attempted to adhere to journalistic ethics of objectivity, neutrality, and seeking truth. Reporting has been influenced by public opinion and the topics of interest of the period. For example, in the 1980s when media often focused on topics that remain at the core of conservative beliefs excess government spending (remember the $600 dollar toilet seats) or welfare cheats they were still accused of having a liberal bias.

However, the perceived liberal bias emanates as much from the nature of journalism as anything else. At the time, those stories were as much about speaking truth to power, and thus liberal, as current reporting is about Trumps excesses.

Thus, media entities which concern themselves with journalistic ethics, objectivity, and the pursuit of truth, will always appear to have a liberal bias.

If good journalism is inherently liberal, what is conservative journalism? This is not meant to be a rhetorical question because conservative journalism is not necessarily bad journalism. It can be sincere and high-level journalism, as in the case of the National Review or the Weekly Standard. Its just not investigative or news journalism. Its opinion and analysis. In these latter two publications, its not meant to be objective reporting any more than is Mother Jones or The Nation.

In almost all major conservative media outlets, the bias comes from on-high in the organization. All conservative bias in media is dictated from the top down. Objectivity is not part of the program.

Such media outlets come in different forms. There are the aforementioned conservative intellectual publications, which focus on opinion and analysis. Then there are populist and tabloid publications. The Murdoch (21st Century Fox and News Corp.) publications like Fox News and Wall Street Journal are particularly interesting. They pretend to be objective but adhere to a strict top-down conservative agenda. The opinion and commentary sections are obvious.

Less obvious is the news reporting, in which the bias is accomplished by filtering news that is reported so that it supports the conservative agenda. Fox is famous for its laughably false claim to be fair and balanced. The Wall Street Journal recently encountered internal dissension when management sought to influence the way its staff reported on Trump.

Fox News, in particular, has been extremely successful and profitable. It applies many of the strategies Rupert Murdoch learned in his Australian and British tabloid publications, The Daily Telegraph and The Sun. Murdoch, and his former Fox CEO Roger Ailes, recognized that these strategies could be successfully combined with a populist brand of conservatism by provoking white resentment and fears.

Thus, unlike the Weekly Standard and the National Review, Fox News seems less concerned with serving an ideology than with exploiting it for profit. The country and even the Republican Partys agenda have paid dearly for Murdochs exploitation of populist conservatism.

As for publications like Breitbart or radio commentators like Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones: no reasonable person goes to these outlets for news. They are ideological rallying sources.

Thus, in that conservative journalism intentionally as part of its program discards the journalistic ethical canons of objectivity and unvarnished truth, it is not journalism as we have come to expect from real news outlets.

Freedom of the press is a liberal value. It preserves the right to speak truth to power. It is the common citizens check on the powerful. Conservatives endeavor mightily to reframe their cause as that of the common citizen against the elites. But that unnatural distortion is never sustainable.

The current alliance of Republican billionaires and the white working class attacks educators and subject matter experts (elites), people of color, and immigrants; and thus is still an alliance of the more privileged against the less privileged. In the end analysis, conservatives always support the existing privileged class; and it is the purpose of the First Amendment to check abuses of power by that class.

In the current political climate, populist conservatism is open in its disdain for academics and scientists as intellectual elites, and racial and cultural sensitivity as political correctness, and compassion as bleeding heart liberalism. Thus, now more than ever, good journalism journalism that seeks truth and evokes understanding, tolerance, and compassion is inherently liberal.

Bill Adams is the founder and chief editor of UrbDeZine. He is also a partner in the San Diego law firm of Norton, Moore, & Adams, LLP. He has been involved with land use and urban renewal for nearly 25 years, both as a professional and as a personal passion. He currently sits on the Boards of San Diego Historic Streetcars, The San Diego Architectural Foundation, The Food and Beverage Association of San Diego County, andThe Gaslamp Quarter Association Land Use Planning Committee.

Read the original post:

Why Good Journalism is Liberal - San Diego Free Press

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Monday, June 12, 2017, 2:00 PM

Slamming Mayor de Blasio as a quintessential limousine liberal who cant understand straphangers woes because he doesnt take the subway, mayoral candidate Sal Albanese proposed hiking the citys capital contribution to the MTA to $1 billion a year.

The former Brooklyn city councilman and longshot Democratic primary candidate said he hopes to become the mass transit mayor, hitting de Blasio for taking two chauffeured SUVs from Gracie Mansion while largely shunning a subway system that has sunk into crisis in recent months.

He could show some leadership by using the train once in a while, Albanese said at a press conference outside Gov. Cuomos Midtown office, where he dropped off a letter offering to up the citys payments if elected. Hes a limousine liberal, basically. Hes someone who rides around in a limousine and tells working people, Hey, take the train. Thats Bill de Blasio.

He said the issue is more than just symbolic, since it stops de Blasio from grasping just how badly the recent spate of transit meltdowns have affected New Yorkers quality of life.

Malliotakis says de Blasio should spend more to fund failing MTA

Hes missing the fact the trains are packing people in like sardines. Hes missing the delays, the signal breakdowns that happen on a regular basis, said Albanese, who regularly tweets about his subway trips and said last week it took him an hour and a half to get to his office, when it should have taken twenty minutes. So, hes missing that.

The state, not the city, controls the MTA, a fact de Blasio is quick to point out.

But Albanese said the issue is serious enough that the mayor should dive right in anyway, and said the city should more than triple its annual contribution to the MTAs capital improvements, with the number one priority being updating the outdated signal system that frequently stalls trains.

The state has not done enough, Albanese said. Cuomo could be much more proactive when it comes to mass transit. However, hes holding all the cards, so you gotta work with him.

Busted track switch in Penn Station delays LIRR trains

De Blasio said last week hed have his reps on the MTA board come up with their own plan to fix the subway system if Cuomo does not, though he did not specify when that would happen.

The last time he answered the question, he said his last subway ride had been April 18, to a Midtown press conference on smoking.

The time is coming soon? Sure, so is Christmas. Bottom line is the mayor has neglected this important service. Hes been missing in action and totally kinda cavalier about it, Albanese said.

This is a bread and butter issue. This is not some esoteric issue, he added, saying the meltdown threatens the citys economy and its growth. Its also important to keep people in the city. Eventually young people who want to come to New York City will get disgusted with being stuck on a train on a regular basis.

Ex-Councilman Albanese announces 2017 NYC mayoral run

A rep for the mayor defended his record.

"Mayor de Blasio made a record $2.5 billion capital contribution MTA to support new buses, subway cars, signal and station improvements, while introducing a citywide ferry system, and expanding bike lanes and CitiBike. That's a transit record we are happy to compare with anyone," said de Blasio spokesman Dan Levitan.

View original post here:

Mayoral hopeful Sal Albanese calls de Blasio a 'limousine liberal' who doesn't understand MTA issues - New York Daily News