Catholicvote.org Censors Posts

I am a rather "liberal" practicing Catholic. I sometimes purposefully engage conservative Catholics in on-line forums and work very hard to ensure that the words I choose are as fact-based and as dispassionate as possible. I engage with a mind very open to learning more about the alternative points of view and I believe it important for both sides of such arguments to be heard. I recently engaged in just such a dialog on the site "catholicvote.org". This is the group that endorsed Sen.Rick Santorum for President. I'd never heard of them until they made news with the endorsement. During a very civil dialog, one poster asked why I said Santorum would legislate Catholic doctrine and referred me to a CNN interview where Santorum clearly states he would not. Here's my reply:

You're buying Santorum's back-peddling. I did not say he would legislate it. I said he had no problem with legislating it. He has stated repeatedly that the states have a right to outlaw contraception - and the video footage makes it impossible to deny. You will never convince me that the federal government should not supersede and prohibit such a heinous violation of civil rights. This is clearly indicative of his stand on states rights vs federal protections and is obviously strongly influenced by his Catholic faith - though he is too smart a politician to say so directly. I'm open to moral debate on abortifactant methods but a blanket ban on, say, using a condom is beyond the pale and would not be characterized as anything but extreme by the vast majority of Americans - including a majority of Catholics. Here's just one link to video footage: Santorum Link

OK, emphatic, yes -- but I don't believe it could be construed as offensive by any reasonable person. Certainly some disagree and that's fine but it is not the point. I've posted many times on this site over the past week or so and never had a technical problem and have never been turned away for violating their posting rules. Posts are moderated and generally appear within an hour or so of being sutmitted if submitted during the day. Late postings always show up the next morning. I've now submitted this post at least 6 times over the course of the last two days. It still has not been posted despite the fact that much later postings by me and others have appeared. This morning, before the 6th attempt, I sent them an e-mail asking why:

I've tried the same post 5 times now over the last two days. I've never had a post fail to go through before. There is nothing in the post that could even remotely be considered outside of guidelines. The only problem you might have with it is that it reflects, I believe rather poorly - but completely factually - on your endorsed candidate. I expect to see the post or would appreciate a reasonable explanation as to why it is not being posted. If neither happens by the end of business today I have no choice but to assume I'm being censored - and will begin publicizing that fact in other on-line Catholic venues.

I don't even think I'd mind so much if I were starting a new thread but this is a reply to a direct question that was asked of me -- twice. Refusal to post my reply makes it look like I'm ignoring the question and conceding the point by default.


They've never acknolwedged their active refusal of the post and they've not given me the courtesy of a reply with their rationale - not even an excuse about it being somehow outside their guidelines. They've never acknolwedged me at all. I have no problem with people taking strong issue with my views. I'm accustomed to it, even expect it in today's too-polarized environment. I simply accept it for what it is. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am severely hesitant to accuse them of censorship - but I feel I have given them ample opportunity to explain themselves so I don't see how it could possibly be anything else. While they explicitly state that they "reserve the right to remove or edit a comment for any reason", I feel it is certainly fair and valid for potential readers of this site to know that one of those reasons is selective censorship.


In case anyone is interested here's a link to the full thread: Catholicvote.org

On the Debt-Ceiling crisis

The Tea-party caucus wants what it wants when it wants it with no regard for anyone else or the consequences of their actions. If they were kids - we'd accurately call them spoiled brats. Also like spoiled brats, it wasn't enough to get almost everything they wanted - they have to have absolutely all or nothing. I'm sick of the obstructionist temper tantrums. Government, by design, requires compromise to work. If a member of congress is unwilling to compromise - they've chosen the wrong profession and are incompetent to perform the requirements of their job.

It is silly, and dangerous, to say or even imply that the U.S. will not pay the bills it has already incurred. That is ALL a debt ceiling increase does. It does not authorize one penny of additional spending. I'm all for sane, thought-through spending cuts and entitlement reform but there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. This is the wrong way.

60 Votes

I am sick of the way wrangling takes place in the US Senate. I see pundits consistently say that 'the will of the people' is behind killing real health care reform. Balderdash! The will of the people, in a democracy, is represented by 50% plus 1. The 60-vote requirement in the Senate to kill a filibuster and allow a bill to be voted on has nothing to do with the will of the people. Without the 60-vote requirement, REAL health care reform would have passed months ago as clearly desired by the majority of senators representing the true will of the people. This long standing Senate rule (click here for a brief explanation and history) can certainly have it's advantages but I believe, in today's reality, it has long outlived it's usefulness. The 60-vote rule is currently being used for exactly one purpose -- obstruction. It is, in fact, a way to prevent the will of the people. Getting a 60 vote majority on any issue of substance these days is nearly impossible. Even if the Republicans held a majority I would feel the same way. I might not like the result in all cases, but what I dislike more than anything is the inability of our government to take decisive action on the tough choices. I am disgusted by the 'gimmes' Senators are walking away with in order to 'sell' their vote toward the magical number 60. I am disgusted by the process which allows it, but I am even more disgusted by the Senators who will 'negotiate' for such things instead of voting their conscience OR the will of their constituents. I understand this is legal, fully in keeping with Senate ethics and even encouraged as the standard traditional way business is conducted in the Senate, but that doesn't make it right. Negotiation and compromise are good and necessary things. Obstructionism and self-serving sellouts are not.

I am fully aware that there is not a snowball's chance of this rule changing, but -- for a long time there wasn't a snowball's chance of Barack Obama being elected President either! I've never been one to advocate because a position is popular. My opinions reflect my informed position of conscience and no amount of bribery, legal or otherwise, is going to change that! Kill the Filibuster!

On Obama's First Year

I've been asked why I don't blog much any more. The basic answer is simple... My guy won! Much of my ranting in recent years has been largely therapeutic. Lost in a sea of overwhelming 'conservatism', I felt as if the voice of those with views similar to my own were being irrationally dismissed. Knowing I was largely speaking, or yelling, for myself - it felt good to yell. I knew I would not change minds or hearts. I knew that the whole thing was really an exercise in self-indulgence. Now that my own ideal candidate is in the White House, my need for yell-therapy is greatly diminished. Hey, those who've heard me in person get... shall we say 'intense'... would much rather I yell in writing than in their faces! 8)

As President Obama approaches the end of his first year in office, I just want to stand up and say that, despite news hype about his base support leaving him, this liberal could not be happier with President Obama's performance. That's not to say I'm happy with all the results. I'm just a realist who understands that the massive machinery of government moves slowly, political capital must be spent wisely and the power of the presidency is limited by design.

In the final analysis, it is not about left/right, liberal/conservative or even right and wrong. It is about what we value. It is about how we prioritize that which is important to us in life. From the moment I finished 'Audacity of Hope', I knew this was a man who's values were nearly identical to my own. I bask in the knowledge that my voice is being heard because Barack Obama's voice is the closest to my own of any political figure in my lifetime. This book is required reading for all who honestly seek to understand before passing judgment.

I'm content in the absolute knowledge that President Obama is doing everything in his power to change the world according to those shared values and I will continue to support him in any way that I can.

On the death of Senator Kennedy

I mourn the loss of "the greatest legislator of our time," as he was eulogized by President Obama. For those of us who remember the Sixties, Ted Kennedy's passing represents the end of more than an era. As the sole surviving Kennedy brother, this passing also brings to a close the 'Kennedy mystique' that I grew up with. For those who are too young to remember both the idealism and tragedy of that era, the JFK assassination is nearly as removed as Lincoln's. For those who were there, however, the values represented by the better nature's of all the Kennedy brothers represented the very best this country could hope to be.

Senator Kennedy was well loved by Republican colleagues as well as Democratic. He worked hard at true bipartisan cooperation and negotiation despite his generally liberal perspective. It is my hope and prayer that the memory of his political life and service may inspire a renewed effort toward finding common ground among our political leaders.

One of Senator Kennedy's lifelong goals and priorities was health-care reform. Debate over this tremendously important issue is appropriate and necessary. Honest divergence of opinion will always exist. It is impossible for me to honor the memory of this great American, however, without expressing disdain for the way in which our current health care debate is being conducted. It is unquestionable that factual discourse is not valued by, or even relevant to, many of those opposing health-care reform. Many are purposefully spreading lies to incite wholly irrational fear for their own gain. These tactics disgust me. I am certainly no expert but, from personal observation and common sense analysis, here are a few thoughts:

• Anyone who believes that government has a lock on wasteful, inefficient bureaucracy has not spent enough time in Corporate America. The only difference between public bureaucracy and private bureaucracy is that private corporations are, by definition, motivated by profit. Profit is not inherently bad, but neither is government. For-profit entities do, however, prioritize the bottom line above all else. It is their reason for existence and their responsibility to their stockholders.
  
• Anyone who believes our current health care insurance industry represents free-market capitalism must be blessed with a quickly disappearing model of employer-provided health care. As a self-employed consultant, I pay ridiculous premiums for nothing more than catastrophic care. I am prevented from competitive shopping for alternatives due to pre-existing condition rules. Others I know of suffering a catastrophic health crisis have been canceled by their insurance companies. This is not insurance - it's a prepayment plan where the insurance companies have free reign to do whatever they like to maintain their profit margins. If you don't believe there is a health-care crisis then I don't believe you're seeing the situation for what it is.
  
• Medicare, a federal government program, is generally held in very high regard by many health-care professionals I know as a well run program - more efficient and effective than the vast majority of health-insurance providers they must deal with.
  
• The Lewin Group is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group - one of the largest health insurance companies. This source for many of the statistics used to blast the idea of any government health care intervention claims to be fully independent and states on their web site that they have complete editorial autonomy from their parent organization. Even if I accept this as true there is still no doubt in my mind that the employees of this company also know who provides their salaries. Every employee of this company has a clear conflict of interest and is undoubtedly motivated to make the source of their livelihood look good. I know I would be. It doesn't mean they're lying but it is certainly only simple common sense to know that they are at least selective with the statistics they choose to publicize.
  

Every citizen of this great nation has the duty be as well informed on the issues as they can possibly be -- has a duty to look past the sound bite and try to distill fact from fiction. I am not favoring any particular solution to the health-care crisis here. I am simply asking everyone to get past the stereotypes, past the fear-mongering, past the lies and try to be as objective on the issue as possible. Senator Kennedy was hated by many for his belief that government must take an active role in social justice issues. Even if you disagree with his philosophy, I ask you to honor the memory of this veteran's half-century of service to our nation by honestly taking a step back and considering his lifelong advocacy of health-care reform. Challenge yourself to look closely for the lies you may be believing, for the fear you may needlessly be feeling.

Iranian Proxy Server

Wow. I have put my geek-ness into action.

Perhaps some of you have seen the news reporting that much of what we know about events following the Iranian elections is being provided directly by Iranians via the Internet. This is true despite the fact that the Iranian government is censoring Internet access. This is happening because of a thing called a 'proxy server'. Proxy servers allow the Iranians to access censored material by doing it through an alternative web address which serves as a proxy for the real thing. The proxy server goes to the censored site, retrieves/sends the material, and feeds the results back into Iran - all via a seemingly innocuous internet address.

I am proud to say that I have put my values and my geeky talents into action and set up just such a server. I will not provide details here but have done so to the appropriate channels. The Iranian government is doing everything it can to find these proxy servers and shut them down.

Of course this does present some level of risk. The machine I am using as a server has nothing on it that is either secure or irreplaceable. If it is hacked -- there is nothing they can hurt. The rest of my network is fully fire-walled. I've taken every sane precaution while still taking action.

I know little about Iranian politics. What I do know is that the relative freedom of information is one of this country's most precious and productive gifts to its citizens. Without accurate information - accurate conclusions are impossible. I see this act as simply facilitating the free flow of information.

Affirmative Action

I have written about Affirmative Action on a previous blog. The current heightened media coverage, however, prompts me to do it again. Even the most liberal of media outlets do not cover this topic correctly - and it surprises me. Affirmative Action is completely misunderstood by the vast majority of US citizens. This is not opinion -- it is a fact. I am not a lawyer, but I happen to be associated with a Washington D. C. law firm that specializes in employment law. The following are facts:

• Discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin is illegal.
  [Notice that sexual preference is not a legally protected class of citizens. This is one reason gay rights is currently such a hotly debated topic.]


• So-called 'Reverse Discrimination' is also illegal. There is absolutely no distinction in the law that provides preferential treatment for anyone.


• Quotas are illegal. Quotas favoring women over men, for example, are obviously reverse discrimination. Discrimination against a white man is exactly as illegal as discrimination against a black woman. Discrimination is illegal.

Affirmative Action is designed to prevent discrimination... not institutionalize it. The Affirmative Action reporting requirements for federal contractors do sometimes result in the establishment of placement goals. These goals are based upon the percentage of minorities and females (aka 'protected classes') in the qualified labor pool using census data by geographic area and occupation, as well as, the labor pool inside the company for internal promotions. These goals are only established when the incumbent population of a protected class for a given group of employees is significantly less than the qualified labor pool. The following are facts regarding these placement goals:

• Expressed as a percentage, the goals represent the expected rate at which the protected class would be hired/promoted based upon the qualified labor pool.


• Goals are not quotas.


• Goals do not provide justification for:
  1. Extending preferences to any individual
  2. Selecting any particular individual
  3. Adversely affecting any individual's employment status on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin


• Goals may not be used to supersede merit principles

In other words, employers have the full legal right to always and only hire the absolute best qualified candidate for the job. Period! If a placement goal was not met, the employer is only obligated to demonstrate with adequate record keeping the reasons that one candidate was chosen over another. As long as these reasons are merit-based, an employer has broken no laws and has nothing to fear.

If anyone believes they have been discriminated against or been given preferential treatment because of Affirmative Action, they are factually mistaken.

If your employer has stated or behaved otherwise then your employer has acted illegally. Though I am confident in my facts here, I am also confident that the gross misunderstanding of these facts certainly extends to employers who have violated these laws. My intent here is not to deny the reality of reverse discrimination. Rather, my intent is to inform. Reverse discrimination certainly exists. Like ALL discrimination, however, it is illegal.

If you think I'm wrong, consult a good labor attorney. I'm not. If you care about facts instead of propaganda, you will spread these facts in any conversation about Affirmative Action and call out the propaganda for what it is!