Although they get it wrong sometimes, I think the Catholic church is among the most admirable religious groups when it comes to some of their activities in the political realm. They have been at the forefront of building our infrastructure though good works in the form of hospitals and other charities and organizations. Now the Kansas Archdiocese is taking a stand against inappropriate role modeling and indoctrination of the young by tossing their cookies—-Girl Scout cookies, that is. :–)
The Archdiocese of Kansas City recently announced they are severing ties with the Girl Scouts. And that means no more Girl Scout cookies, too. Say goodbye to Thin Mints and Do-Si-Do’s.
The Archdiocese says Girl Scouts is no longer a compatible partner when it comes to issues like virtue and values.
The Washington Post reports that Catholics fear the Girl Scouts’ programs and materials are “reflective of many of the troubling trends in our secular culture,” and that the organization is “no longer a compatible partner in helping us form young women with the virtues and values of the Gospel.”
The Archdiocese said some of the material used in the past has been offensive, disturbing and age-inappropriate.
Debra and Cheryl, Here is the idiocy from last night’s Tweet. He said: “Perhaps Trump just ran a great campaign?” No educated observer believes that. All would agree that his general election campaign (and specifically his own performance, lack of preparation, and lack of discipline) was historically bad. Hilariously, Hillary own campaign and Hillary herself (with a slight assist from Russia and Wikileaks) turned out to be even worse.
I saw the piece on the Girl Scouts, pretty interesting. I grew up in that organization — found plenty of the memorabilia in the big garage clean-out this week — but apparently the group has been drifting leftward with a more politicized agenda, thanks to the adult leadership that has taken the reins in more recent decades.
Ricky, he ran a campaign that worked. Whether or not it was a “traditional” campaign, he connected with people and brought out unprecedented numbers to vote. I thought the numbers of people voting in the 2016 election would be historically low–most people, it seemed, being more interested in voting “against” Hillary or Trump than “for” their person, and “anti” elections not being good for turnout. I myself didn’t vote for either, a first for me. But the numbers say otherwise–people came out in huge numbers and voted for Trump. Since he didn’t even get a popular-vote majority, it was clearly a very motivated electorate.
Thus, like him, tolerate him, or hate him, one must grant that yes, he ran an effective (great) campaign.
Cheryl, In modern America “idiotic” does not mean unsuccessful. My son and my wife have for months said Trump was a Kardashian. I have never seen the ads, movies or other media in which those people appear, but I understand that they are both idiotic and “successful” as that term is currently defined by Americans.
And here I thought O’Reilly’s next book was to going be “Killing My Career.” The story of how my constant sexual harassment of the ladies cost me my sweet gig at Fox.
“A bill which finally made it through the House this week provides yet another example of how Democrats (and the unions which essentially own them) can find a reason to oppose anything which actually helps workers. The bill is designed to allow hourly workers who are eligible for time and a half pay for overtime the option of either taking the extra pay or banking paid time off for later use. (Washington Post)
On Tuesday afternoon, the House of Representatives voted to pass a bill that Republicans have promoted since the Newt Gingrich era, one that would allow private-sector employees to exchange overtime pay for “compensatory time” off, electing to accrue extra hours off rather than extra pay in their wallets. The bill passed 229 to 197, largely along party lines.
The bill — which supporters say would add flexibility to hourly workers’ schedules while opponents worry it doesn’t do enough to protect employees — is not a new idea. It seeks to take a similar provision that has been available to government workers since 1985 and extend it to private-sector employees, making it legal for them to choose between an hour and a half of paid comp time and time-and-a-half pay when they work additional hours.
It’s pretty straight forward, really. This doesn’t mandate anything and employers aren’t even forced to do it. It’s just an option which they currently can’t offer in some cases (though federal government workers are exempt and have had this option for decades). And if they do choose to offer it, the choice remains in the employee’s hands. So who could oppose such a measure? Pretty much every Democrat in the House. And the reason they give is a doozy.
Though the bill includes language that bans employers from “directly or indirectly intimidating, threatening, or coercing or attempting to intimidate, threaten, or coerce an employee” to choose comp time over pay, many Democrats and advocates for workers say they are concerned that people will feel pressure to opt for the comp time and may not have the resources to seek legal help if they are coerced.
“Under current law, if an employee wants to work overtime, put the money in the bank where it can earn interest and use it to cover the cost of taking some time off later with the permission of the employer, he can do that today — without this bill,” said Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.), the ranking Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, on the House floor Tuesday.”
US 101 is the only road connecting my town, Crescent City, CA with the rest of CA. The only other way to get to CA is by going through Oregon. I would be in favor of letting the guys working on it work for 10 or 12 hours a day, 6 days a week while it is not raining and bank the overtime hours for when they are not working so they can spend that time with their families, down south and yet still get paid.
By the way, everyone knows that the rerouting of the highway won’t happen until the road drops into the ocean and someone dies. It has happened before.
Has anyone seen Pope Francis’ remarks on libertarianism? Not only were they not favorable, they were also not accurate. (Sharing this not to “push” libertarianism, which I only partially embrace, but to correct a false impression many have.)
“”An ideology that asserts these things would indeed be terrible. It’s hard to imagine that such an ideology could ever become “fashionable” at all. But of course the Pope only gets away with claiming such things because he defines libertarianism in a way that makes it incredibly easy to attack – which is a solid indicator that the opposed position has been mis-rendered.
And sure enough, what the Pope claims libertarians believe is not only untrue; in some respects, it is actually the opposite of what libertarians believe.
Let me offer my own definition of libertarianism. It is the political theory that freedom and peace serve the common good better than violence and state control, thus suggesting a normative rule: societies and individuals must be left unmolested in their associations and commercial dealings so long as they are not threatening others. . .
This concern over the “common destination” of goods seems to be at the core of Pope Francis’s concern. He believes that libertarianism pushes the rights and interests of individuals against the common good. This is a frustrating point to make because it has been the major project of the liberal tradition (from the Scottish Enlightenment to the present) to argue that these are not inconsistent, that one need not be set against the other. The seeking of the good of all does not require the violation of individual rights and interests, and the assertion of individual rights and interests need not conflict with the good of all.”
Kizzie, I view libertarians as being the last remains of the Enlightenment era, ever in search of the lost state of nature as John Locke described it, where humans are free “to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature.” In view of in The Fall and the description of what people were like before the Flood, Locke’s description sounds unlikely. Both Locke and libertarians are naïve about nature. The pope’s condemnation is a bit surprising, however, since Catholic doctrine does not hold to total depravity, so they view man, though he has a sin nature, as capable of responding to the grace of God. I could see a Calvinist condemning libertarians more readily.
Roscuro – What I have observed from my libertarian friends online is that there are those who hold to a pure libertarian doctrine (somewhat naively, I believe), & a whole bunch of others who have more realistic ideals.
From Ricky’s link @6:50
“Somebody should be prosecuted for letting Anthony Weiner have access to classified intelligence,” Sen. Lindsey Graham said.
Comey replied: “There’s no Anthony Weiner statute. ”
Funny. And apparently there’s no statute to cover gross negligence either. It’s interesting that someone who deliberately leaks classified information because they think Americans have the right to know it gets life in jail. Someone who leaks from gross negligence doesn’t even get charged or pay a fine; she gets nominated for President. Negligence pays well.
Wandering Views 
The beginning of Day 2 without idiocy.
[Ricky, I left a response to your last on yesterday’s thread] :–)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Although they get it wrong sometimes, I think the Catholic church is among the most admirable religious groups when it comes to some of their activities in the political realm. They have been at the forefront of building our infrastructure though good works in the form of hospitals and other charities and organizations. Now the Kansas Archdiocese is taking a stand against inappropriate role modeling and indoctrination of the young by tossing their cookies—-Girl Scout cookies, that is. :–)
https://stream.org/kansas-city-catholics-banish-girl-scouts-cookies/
LikeLiked by 5 people
Debra and Cheryl, Here is the idiocy from last night’s Tweet. He said: “Perhaps Trump just ran a great campaign?” No educated observer believes that. All would agree that his general election campaign (and specifically his own performance, lack of preparation, and lack of discipline) was historically bad. Hilariously, Hillary own campaign and Hillary herself (with a slight assist from Russia and Wikileaks) turned out to be even worse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘Hillary’s own campaign’
LikeLike
Bad but perhaps intuitive in a way we didn’t see?
I saw the piece on the Girl Scouts, pretty interesting. I grew up in that organization — found plenty of the memorabilia in the big garage clean-out this week — but apparently the group has been drifting leftward with a more politicized agenda, thanks to the adult leadership that has taken the reins in more recent decades.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ricky, he ran a campaign that worked. Whether or not it was a “traditional” campaign, he connected with people and brought out unprecedented numbers to vote. I thought the numbers of people voting in the 2016 election would be historically low–most people, it seemed, being more interested in voting “against” Hillary or Trump than “for” their person, and “anti” elections not being good for turnout. I myself didn’t vote for either, a first for me. But the numbers say otherwise–people came out in huge numbers and voted for Trump. Since he didn’t even get a popular-vote majority, it was clearly a very motivated electorate.
Thus, like him, tolerate him, or hate him, one must grant that yes, he ran an effective (great) campaign.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Huge
LikeLiked by 3 people
Cheryl, In modern America “idiotic” does not mean unsuccessful. My son and my wife have for months said Trump was a Kardashian. I have never seen the ads, movies or other media in which those people appear, but I understand that they are both idiotic and “successful” as that term is currently defined by Americans.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honey Boo Boo, The Kardashians, Trump, Joel Osteen, Jersey Shore, Fast and Furious 21. I think I see the pattern.
Colleges will soon offer courses in Successful Idiocy.
O’Reilly’s next book will be Killing Rationality.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Huh.
And here I thought O’Reilly’s next book was to going be “Killing My Career.” The story of how my constant sexual harassment of the ladies cost me my sweet gig at Fox.
For obvious reasons…. 😀
LikeLiked by 5 people
Thoughts?
And what about salaried employees who already work more than 40 without OT? Do they get this too, or are they still getting the shaft?
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/05/03/flex-time-not-robbing-american-workers/
“A bill which finally made it through the House this week provides yet another example of how Democrats (and the unions which essentially own them) can find a reason to oppose anything which actually helps workers. The bill is designed to allow hourly workers who are eligible for time and a half pay for overtime the option of either taking the extra pay or banking paid time off for later use. (Washington Post)
On Tuesday afternoon, the House of Representatives voted to pass a bill that Republicans have promoted since the Newt Gingrich era, one that would allow private-sector employees to exchange overtime pay for “compensatory time” off, electing to accrue extra hours off rather than extra pay in their wallets. The bill passed 229 to 197, largely along party lines.
The bill — which supporters say would add flexibility to hourly workers’ schedules while opponents worry it doesn’t do enough to protect employees — is not a new idea. It seeks to take a similar provision that has been available to government workers since 1985 and extend it to private-sector employees, making it legal for them to choose between an hour and a half of paid comp time and time-and-a-half pay when they work additional hours.
It’s pretty straight forward, really. This doesn’t mandate anything and employers aren’t even forced to do it. It’s just an option which they currently can’t offer in some cases (though federal government workers are exempt and have had this option for decades). And if they do choose to offer it, the choice remains in the employee’s hands. So who could oppose such a measure? Pretty much every Democrat in the House. And the reason they give is a doozy.
Though the bill includes language that bans employers from “directly or indirectly intimidating, threatening, or coercing or attempting to intimidate, threaten, or coerce an employee” to choose comp time over pay, many Democrats and advocates for workers say they are concerned that people will feel pressure to opt for the comp time and may not have the resources to seek legal help if they are coerced.
“Under current law, if an employee wants to work overtime, put the money in the bank where it can earn interest and use it to cover the cost of taking some time off later with the permission of the employer, he can do that today — without this bill,” said Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.), the ranking Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, on the House floor Tuesday.”
LikeLike
AJ, Per the 10th Amendment, I would let such decisions be made at the state and/or local level. I know that is an archaic idea.
LikeLike
Bossy Democrats, bossy bossy.
US 101 is the only road connecting my town, Crescent City, CA with the rest of CA. The only other way to get to CA is by going through Oregon. I would be in favor of letting the guys working on it work for 10 or 12 hours a day, 6 days a week while it is not raining and bank the overtime hours for when they are not working so they can spend that time with their families, down south and yet still get paid.
By the way, everyone knows that the rerouting of the highway won’t happen until the road drops into the ocean and someone dies. It has happened before.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Has anyone seen Pope Francis’ remarks on libertarianism? Not only were they not favorable, they were also not accurate. (Sharing this not to “push” libertarianism, which I only partially embrace, but to correct a false impression many have.)
“”An ideology that asserts these things would indeed be terrible. It’s hard to imagine that such an ideology could ever become “fashionable” at all. But of course the Pope only gets away with claiming such things because he defines libertarianism in a way that makes it incredibly easy to attack – which is a solid indicator that the opposed position has been mis-rendered.
And sure enough, what the Pope claims libertarians believe is not only untrue; in some respects, it is actually the opposite of what libertarians believe.
Let me offer my own definition of libertarianism. It is the political theory that freedom and peace serve the common good better than violence and state control, thus suggesting a normative rule: societies and individuals must be left unmolested in their associations and commercial dealings so long as they are not threatening others. . .
This concern over the “common destination” of goods seems to be at the core of Pope Francis’s concern. He believes that libertarianism pushes the rights and interests of individuals against the common good. This is a frustrating point to make because it has been the major project of the liberal tradition (from the Scottish Enlightenment to the present) to argue that these are not inconsistent, that one need not be set against the other. The seeking of the good of all does not require the violation of individual rights and interests, and the assertion of individual rights and interests need not conflict with the good of all.”
https://fee.org/articles/pope-francis-has-forgotten-the-church-s-own-grand-libertarian-legacy/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kizzie, I view libertarians as being the last remains of the Enlightenment era, ever in search of the lost state of nature as John Locke described it, where humans are free “to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature.” In view of in The Fall and the description of what people were like before the Flood, Locke’s description sounds unlikely. Both Locke and libertarians are naïve about nature. The pope’s condemnation is a bit surprising, however, since Catholic doctrine does not hold to total depravity, so they view man, though he has a sin nature, as capable of responding to the grace of God. I could see a Calvinist condemning libertarians more readily.
Interesting commentary from a Christian historian on recent remarks: https://faithandamericanhistory.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/president-trump-and-the-cause-of-the-civil-war/
LikeLiked by 3 people
Roscuro – What I have observed from my libertarian friends online is that there are those who hold to a pure libertarian doctrine (somewhat naively, I believe), & a whole bunch of others who have more realistic ideals.
LikeLike
Highlights of Comey’s testimony:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/05/03/politics/comey-senate-hearing-highlights/index.html
My respect for him continues to grow.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David French on Colbert and the current state of political discourse:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447317/stephen-colbert-donald-trump-jokes-crude-discourse-meets-audience-demand
I have to believe Colbert is going to face some discipline, maybe from the FCC.
LikeLike
LikeLike
From Ricky’s link @6:50
“Somebody should be prosecuted for letting Anthony Weiner have access to classified intelligence,” Sen. Lindsey Graham said.
Comey replied: “There’s no Anthony Weiner statute. ”
Funny. And apparently there’s no statute to cover gross negligence either. It’s interesting that someone who deliberately leaks classified information because they think Americans have the right to know it gets life in jail. Someone who leaks from gross negligence doesn’t even get charged or pay a fine; she gets nominated for President. Negligence pays well.
LikeLike