More than half of all children in California are Latino according to the latest census figures. Barely one-quarter of children in the state are non-Hispanic whites. Needless to say, most of those Latino children are Catholics.
In Winconsin, they attack unions. In Florida, the GOP controlled state government is attacking former felons and their right to vote.
This morning's Washington Post reports that Gov. Rick Scott and the state's executive clemency board voted to revoke rules adopted under his Republican predecessor that made it easier for former felons, once they had completed their sentence, to regain their voting rights. Since 2007, 154,000 ex-felons have had their rights to vote restored.
You would think that helping an ex-felon get reconnected with his community through the exercise of the most basic right and duty of citizenship would be just the kind of thing you would want an ex-felon to do. But, not if many of those ex-felons are minorities who might vote for the Dems.
Well, the Wisconsin Republicans finally showed their true colors. In a brazen, and potentially unconstitutional, move, yesterday they stripped the provisions eliminating collective bargaining rights for most state employees from the budget bill, avoiding the necessity of a three-fifths quorum, and then passed the union-busting bill as a stand alone measure.
This is in direct contradiction to the values set forth by the Wisconsin bishops, who had written to the state legislators arguing that the budget such not be balanced by stealing away fundamental rights to organize and collectively bargain. Indeed, as the bishops acknowledged, the need to balance the budget might require some concessions from all, but it cannot entail abandonment of a fundamental right. The Wisconsin State Senate has gone one further. It has attacked the fundamental rights of workers in a way that is unrelated to the budget at all. Governor Scott Walker is expected to sign the measure as soon as it clears the GOP-controlled House.
It never occured to me that the President of the United States would issue a statement marking Ash Wednesday, although there are surely people who work in the West Wing that would better be able to check their pride if they recalled on a daily basis that they are dust and unto dust they shall return.
But, just back from my orning walk, this was in my inbox:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 9, 2011
Statement by the President on Ash Wednesday
Michelle and I join with millions of Christians here and across the world to mark Ash Wednesday. As we observe the season of Lent, we receive with thanksgiving this opportunity for grace and repentance, recommit ourselves to our faith, and remember our obligations to one another.
Over at Whispers, Rocco has a comment from a bishop, who chose to remain anonymous, that explains just how angry the other bishops are at Cardinal Rigali. Why, oh why, can bishops not speak up, on the record, and say such things that are so obvious to the rest of the planet? I am delighted that this bishop thinks what he does, but until we crack through the culture that says a bishop cannot speak the truth plainly just because the truth might cause a brother bishop, and an influential cardinal, to take offense, we will be strengthening a sick culture that cannot bear the truth.
The truth does not offend. Cardinal Rigali offends.
So, Mark Silk, a professor at Trinity College and blogger at "Spiritual Politics" wrote a column in which he actually agreed with Bill Donohue and, ever the gentleman, Donohue responds by blasting Silk. You can find the latest post, with embedded links to prior ones, here.
What to say? I guess Donohue did not get the memo about Nostra Aetate, or Pope Benedict's recent comments about the Jews, because his suggestion that Silk lacks moral standing to discuss theology because he is a Jew not a Catholic is so offensive, it is shocking, even to me, and I had thought I was past the point where anything Donohue could say would shock me.
There is a place for the Catholic League. But, might we not get someone at the helm who is at least a little bit smart?
The announcement yesterday that 21 priests in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia were being placed on administrative leave demonstrates conclusively that the U.S. bishops' Dallas norms for the protection of children have failed. Last Sunday, those 21 priests presided at Mass in their parishes. Last Sunday, those 21 priests were in active ministry. The charges against them had been examined before and...what? They were either wrongly exonerated or diocesan officials decided to look the other way.
Gene Robinson has an op-ed that makes one of the arguments I made yesterday about Congressman Peter King's upcoming hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims: the hearings will only help the jihadists in their propaganda and recruitment efforts.
And Richard Cohen elaborates on a different point I made yesterday, that this is just bigotry.
Harold Pollack at the New Republic looks at ways Republican governors are trying to change Medicaid, courting disaster for a program that has helped the poor receive adequate medical care for almost fifty years. Keep an eye on this issue: It will show just how ridiculous is the GOP belief in the market's ability to solve all problems. And, Catholics should begin making noise: We defend the poor when no one else will. Hands off Medicaid!
One of the things state legislatures must do this spring is draw new congressional districts. According to a report at Politico this morning, Tea Party activists have engaged the fight in several states although not always in the same way. In New Jersey, they appear to oppose gerrymandering that has created an essentially safe district for long-time Congressman Frank Pallone, while in Louisiana, the Tea Partyers are engaged in some gerrymandering of their own on behalf of their favorite Rep. Jeff Landry. In the event, to the extent the Tea Partyers oppose gerrymandering, that is a good thing: In more balanced, evenly divided districts, their influence diminishes. Their power resides in their ability to win a GOP primary, putting forward a more extreme candidate in an essentially safe GOP district. As we saw in the Senate races in Delaware, Colorado, Alaska and Nevada last November, where there is no gerrymandering, the kind of Tea Party candidate that can win a GOP primary can't win a general election in November.