The Pope’s tongue gets forked when he requires so much explanation

Company Man

John Allen predicts reaction to coming encyclical on the environment, starting with headlines saying Pope “backs strong limits on greenhouse gas emissions,” as if he “issued a political manifesto aligning himself with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, if not Greenpeace.”

That won’t be “entirely wrong,” says Allen.

Francis is indeed likely to accept the scientific consensus [sic] that global warming and climate change are real, and that human activity is the main cause. He’ll almost certainly call on nations to take strong action to address it. [Italics added]

Ah relevance, that will of the wisp that draws even supreme pontiffs into its orbit.

Question: Accepting this so-called consensus (consider the rascally deniers if you dare), will the Pope say why he accepts it? Will he invite discussion? (Heh: When do preachers invite discussion of anything?)

Will he become an important source for the global scientific community…

View original post 336 more words

Pope Francis’ heart is in right place, but he’s wrong about capitalism

Company Man

What he should do is read a book by a fellow South American, Hernando de Soto, a Peruvian who came back from a long stay in Europe, saw how poor Peru is, and wondered why.

He might have knit his brow, come up with a theory, and set about to prove it. Instead, he “made an honest search for the truth with an experiment,” writes publicist and former White House speechwriter Mark W. Davis for U.S. News.

His experiment was to open a business in Lima without bribing anyone. It would be a small garment factory — two sewing machines — which he would register with a government agency as required.

Sure he would, after standing in line and filling out forms for 289 days. It’s how small businesses get started all over the have-not (developing) world — everywhere “a paper jungle.” Which makes it impossible, so they…

View original post 133 more words

He may be an actor, but he’s from Chicago — and speaks the unspeakable about guns . . . more

. . . arguing the obvious, that bad guys ignore no-gun signs:

Vince Vaughn Wants Guns In Schools: Tired of hearing about school shootings? Actor and former Chicagoan Vince Vaughn apparently thinks more guns would help stop the heinous acts. Politico shares part of an interview the actor did with British GQ, where he suggested that schools would be safer if guns were allowed:

“In all of our schools it is illegal to have guns on campus, so again and again these guys go and shoot up these f——ing schools because they know there are no guns there,” he told the magazine.

He’s clearly not been keeping up with the news in Chicago, where more than 300 people were shot, 37 fatally, in May.

Instead, we moan and groan (correctly) but refuse to recognize the Wild West situation.

The presumed quick rebuttal misses the mark, telling how many were shot. Vaughn argues the more-guns-less-crime case, which precisely aims to reduce the bloodshed.

What the heck is it to be conservative?

From today’s Sardonic Ex Curia posting:

Parents may not be consenting to their moral relation; but consenting or not, they are bound to a long train of burdensome duties towards those with whom they have never made a convention of any sort. Children are not consenting to their relation, but their relation, without their actual consent, binds them to its duties; or rather it implies their consent because the presumed consent of every rational creature is in unison with the predisposed order of things. – Edmund Burke

How about that “predisposed order of things”? A conservative bedrock.