Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday at the AIPAC conference: “The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 years, and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today,” …. Jerusalem is not a settlement; It’s our capital.”

Juan Cole, professor of history at University of Michigan, specializing in Middle Eastern history: “… if historical building of Jerusalem and historical connection with Jerusalem establishes sovereignty over it as Netanyahu claims, here are the groups that have the greatest claim to the city:
A. The Muslims, who ruled it and built it over 1191 years.
B. The Egyptians, who ruled it as a vassal state for several hundred years in the second millennium BCE.
C. The Italians, who ruled it about 444 years until the fall of the Roman Empire in 450 CE.
D. The Iranians, who ruled it for 205 years under the Achaemenids, for three years under the Parthians (insofar as the last Hasmonean was actually their vassal), and for 15 years under the Sasanids.
E. The Greeks, who ruled it for over 160 years if we count the Ptolemys and Seleucids as Greek. If we count them as Egyptians and Syrians, that would increase the Egyptian claim and introduce a Syrian one.
F. The successor states to the Byzantines, which could be either Greece or Turkey, who ruled it 188 years, though if we consider the heir to be Greece and add in the time the Hellenistic Greek dynasties ruled it, that would give Greece nearly 350 years as ruler of Jerusalem….”

Cole’s more detailed account: http://www.juancole.com/2010/03/top-ten-reasons-east-jerusalem-does-not.html

Here is a Ha’aretz account of Netanyahu’s DC visit: http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1158341.html

Here is Bernard Avishai on East Jerusalem: “I confess feeling a twinge of pathos when I heard on Reshet Bet radio this morning how Benjamin Netanyahu told his AIPAC audience in Washington that the Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3000 years ago, would continue doing so today, and then hearing the crowd roar its delight. These are not stupid people. They are serious people. They know, surely, that the construction in contention is in East Jerusalem neighborhoods that threaten to entirely cut off 300,000 Palestinians from their families and commercial opportunities in the West Bank. They know that any effort to keep these neighborhoods, or preserve the status quo, will result in Bosnian style violence. They know that this violence would further undermine American interests in the region.”

Enough terrorists to go around: MJ Rosenberg noting the frequent mention of the Palesinians memorializing one of their terrorists  has this to say. “At the AIPAC confab today, both Secretary of State Clinton and Prime Minister Netanyahu deplored a Palestinian memorial to a vicious terrorist who killed 38 innocent Israelis in 1978. A lovely park was named after the killer. And who would argue with their condemnation? One has to be sick to commemorate the killer of innocent civilians.

“Of course, the Israeli government allows settlers (Netanyahu’s favorite Israelis) to commemorate Dr. Baruch Goldstein. He is the a mass murderer who, in 1994, killed 29 Palestinians while at prayer at one of Islam’s (and Judaism’s) holiest sites: the mosque where Abraham is buried. Goldstein’s grave  is a shrine just like the memorial square to the monster who killed innocent Israelis. One would think the government would tear down the shrine. It doesn’t. And, even if it did, the settlers and their ilk would celebrate the great killer.
“What’s the difference? None.”
You can read it here: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/22/bibi_forgot_israelis_celebrate_murderer_of_29_pray/#more

Bart Stupak calls their bluff. One of last night’s most gratifying moments.

Try this for a thought experiment: place yourself back in the heady months of the 2008 presidential campaign, a time when Catholics bitterly argued with one another about whether it was morally licit to vote for what some called “the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history.”

 Imagine that I had told you at the time that this (future) president and a strong Democratic majority in both houses of Congress would pass comprehensive health care reform legislation with the following features:

 –Coverage for abortion would be specifically excluded from the standard package of benefits that all insurers would be required by law to offer.

 –That existing restrictions on the use of federal funds appropriated via the HHS appropriations bill (a.k.a the Hyde Amendment) would be maintained.

 –That the federal government, acting in its capacity as both a civilian and military employer, would continue to exclude abortion coverage from the policies it offers to its employees.

 –That the new health exchanges would be required to offer at least one policy that did not cover abortion, something not available in the individual policy market in many places.

 –That states would have the option of preventing insurers in their state from offering plans through the exchange that cover abortion.

 –That federal premium subsidies could not be used to purchase insurance coverage for abortion.

 –That while individuals purchasing coverage through the exchange would have the option to use their own funds to purchase abortion coverage, they would have to make a separate premium payment to do so.

 –That all of these elements would not only be contained in the legislation, but would be reaffirmed by the President of the United States in a high profile executive order issued hours before the legislation’s passage.

I suspect that if I had laid this out as a likely scenario under a Democratic administration and Democratic Congress, I would have been laughed out of the room and seen as carrying water for the “Party of Death.”

By any reasonable standard, the pro-life movement ran the table this year.  The pro-choice movement was soundly defeated on issue after issue.  These folks had actually hoped at one point that health care reform would be a vehicle to expand health insurance coverage for abortion by including it in the standard package of benefits that all insurers would be required to offer.

Instead, the pro-choice movement is facing the likelihood of further erosion of insurance coverage for abortion, particularly in the individual market.  First of all, I deem it likely that a number of states in the South, Midwest, and Inter-Mountain West will exercise their option to prevent insurers in their exchanges from offering abortion coverage.

Secondly, even in those states that do not exercise that option—and thus require at least one plan to provide abortion coverage—individuals will have the choice of forgoing that coverage.  I suspect that people who see themselves at low-risk of needing abortion coverage will opt out.  That kind of risk selection may raise the cost of the rider, discouraging buyers who may be on the fence about whether to opt in.

As an aside, I think this will play out differently in states with different social and political cultures.  In states my like home state of California, where support for abortion rights runs strong, I expect some insurers to differentiate themselves by how easy and seamless they make it for women to obtain supplemental abortion coverage.  They might even be willing to use it as a loss leader.  (see comment below) I think this is much less likely in states like Missouri or Alabama.

On a more fundamental level, the pro-choice movement has suffered a significant philosophical defeat.  Since its inception, the movement has argued that “abortion is health care,” i.e. that abortion is part of the spectrum of reproductive health care services and should not be treated any differently from other medical procedures. 

The health care reform bill approved yesterday–which will shape the nation’s health care marketplace for decades to come–does not embrace this position.  Abortion is treated differently from all other health care services.  It is not considered part of the basic package and there are moderate obstacles placed in the path of obtaining coverage.  To the extent that a key aim of the pro-choice movement has been to “normalize” the practice of abortion, yesterday’s bill must be considered a significant setback.

None of this would have happened without the leadership and tenacity of pro-life Democrats like Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE).  Pro-life Democrats have exercised more influence within the party over the past two years than they have in the previous twenty. 

There is a risk, though, that the pro-life movement’s anger at the outcome of health care reform could lead it to actively oppose Democratic members who have historically been staunch allies.  Punishing people who vote with you only 90 percent of the time is generally not the way to build a successful social movement.

In the end the question is simple: can the pro-life movement take “yes” for an answer?

There was a lot of boiler plate about eternal friendship and the bad Iranians in the Secretary’s address to AIPAC, but there was also this:
“New construction in East Jerusalem or the West Bank undermines mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides want and need. It exposes daylight between Israel and the United States that others in the region could hope to exploit. And it undermines America’s unique ability to play a role – an essential role, I might add — in the peace process. Our credibility in this process depends in part on our willingness to praise both sides when they are courageous, and when we don’t agree, to say so, and say so unequivocally.
“We objected to this announcement because we are committed to Israel and its security, which depends on a comprehensive peace. Because we are determined to keep moving forward along a path that ensures Israel’s future as a secure and democratic Jewish state living in peace with its Palestinian neighbors, who can realize their own legitimate aspirations. And because we do not want to see that progress jeopardized.” Here’s the whole thing: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/03/138722.htm

In his response to something I wrote here yesterday, the National Review‘s Ramesh Ponnuru points out that I mispelled his last name. (“Matthew Boudway is so indignant over a post of mine that he can’t even type straight.”) I apologize to him for that. A Boudway can never be too careful about names. Anyway, it was not for lack of familiarity with his work: I think Ponnuru is one of the bright spots at NR, even if I disagree with him most of the time.

In my post, I remarked that Ponnuru presented no arguments about whether the Senate bill would fund elective abortions, and I criticized him for instead focusing on what he called “politics”: the question of whose arguments most prolifers were likely to trust — not whose arguments were better, nor even whose argument should be trusted. I had also faulted the Weekly Standard piece he recommended for suggesting, without evidence, that community health centers performed abortions. Ponnuru responds:

1) You don’t have to offer an argument when all you’re doing is endorsing someone else’s. 2) I don’t see why we should credit the claim of an association of community health centers that not one of its members has ever performed an abortion absent some explanation of how it purports to know this alleged fact. 3) Even if the fact is stipulated it tells us nothing about how some of the CHCs will in the future respond to some activists’ concerted efforts, already underway, to get them to offer abortions. 4) I argued that most pro-lifers were going to trust the National Right to Life Committee rather than, say, Commonweal on these issues and that this fact would have political implications. Boudway calls this passage “a textbook example of the ad hominem argument.” Not if the textbook has an editor.

To which I’ll answer with four points of my own. First: When all you’re doing is endorsing someone else’s bad arguments for your conclusion, you should not be surprised if people ask you to provide some good ones instead.

Second: Ponnuru gets the burden of proof exactly backward. It is up to people on his side of this debate to produce evidence that community health centers have performed abortions. Those who represent the centers claim they haven’t, and that claim has been widely reported in the media as a fact. Perhaps Ponnuru could tell us what sort of evidence would satisfy him on this point.

Third: The fact that prochoice activists would like community health centers to start performing abortions doesn’t mean they probably will — any more than the fact that I spelled his name “Punnuru” means that he’ll probably start spelling it that way himself, or the fact that I would like him to start presenting good arguments instead of recommending bad ones means that he will. (That “concerted efforts, already underway” is a gem: those efforts have been “underway” — and unsuccessful – for decades.)

Fourth: An ad hominem argument is one about the character of an argument’s source rather than its merit. This is precisely the sort of argument that Ponnuru was making: What right-thinking prolifer would ever trust the arguments of Commonweal? By opposing talk of politics to the question of an argument’s merits, Ponnuru is identifying politics with irrationality, ignorance, and prejudice: Who knows who’s right, and who cares? These people will believe whatever the National Right to Life Committee tells them, and thank God for that. That way of approaching the question does indeed have political implications, and they aren’t good.

E. J. Dionne’s column on last night’s vote is online now. The passage of health-care reform, he says, is a major victory for Democrats:

To understand how large a victory this is, consider what defeat would have meant. In light of the president’s decision to gamble all of his standing to get this bill passed, its failure would have crippled his presidency. The Democratic Congress would have become a laughingstock, incapable of winning on an issue that has been central to its identity since the days of Harry Truman.

This is why Republicans decided to put everything they had into an effort to defeat the measure. They said its passage would hurt the Democrats in November’s elections. They knew that its failure would have haunted Democrats for decades.

Read the rest of this entry »

Bart Stupak’s brief defense of voting “yes,” on health-care reform was a moving moment in yesterday’s debate (whether or not someone yelled, “baby killer” is another matter). He got what he was after in banning federal funds for abortion. Will the bishops agree and congratulate him for hanging tough and getting what they wanted? It would be a good move and create some distance between the bishops’ conference and the NRLC who wanted to kill the bill.

­Earlier tonight a reader wrote to ask me to post some thoughts after the vote.  My head is swimming—partly due to a case of the flu—so I don’t know if I can cover everything in one post.

To be honest, I’m not sure that my fevered brain can come up with words sufficient to the occasion.  Ted Kennedy wrote before his death that universal health insurance was the major piece of unfinished work of our society.  I have always agreed.  One can certainly debate the appropriate scope of the modern welfare state, but I would argue that health insurance is a foundational part of it.  It’s been clear for some time that the private health insurance market was going to collapse without significant reform and that this reform could not be pursued apart from efforts to reform our existing public insurance programs and transform our health care delivery system.  Today’s legislation will not solve all the problems we face in health care, but it goes a long way toward solving the most important ones.

I also need to say for the record that I was wrong.  I wrote a post in January where I said that health care reform had—once again—been defeated.  I wrote that in the midst of the Democratic strategic meltdown in the wake of the Massachusetts Senate election.  Based on my past experience, I thought the legislative window had closed.  I was wrong.

It’s pretty clear that a significant amount of the credit for keeping the window open goes to Nancy Pelosi.  From all accounts, some of President Obama’s chief advisors were advising that he start over with a more incremental bill.  Pelosi argued with the White House in favor of a comprehensive approach and argued with her own caucus members who deeply disliked the Senate bill.

I would also say that—ironically—some of the credit for keeping the window open belongs to the Republicans.  Their unified and unyielding opposition to any serious reform legislation convinced many moderate and conservative Democrats that the Republicans simply weren’t serious about reform.  If even a few Republicans had been willing to break ranks—either last summer or after the January Senate election—they could have convinced enough moderate and conservative Democrats to embrace less sweeping legislation.  The Republicans are hoping to be vindicated in the November elections, but there is no question they have suffered a stunning legislative defeat.

The historical irony of this is that—in many ways—this is a very Republican bill.  Many of the elements of this bill—health exchanges, individual mandates, subsidies, etc—were embraced by President George Bush during the 1992 presidential race.  While the financing is public, the delivery system and the insurance system remain private and the bill tries to leverage consumer choice and market forces to improve cost and quality.

There is a lot of implementation work that needs to get done now.  One of the challenges the new law will face is that there are a lot of moving parts—setting up the exchanges, setting up the structure to administer the subsidies, getting rolling on the various Medicare pilot programs on delivery system reform.  There is a lot of anxiety out there, so public education is going to be a critical component.

Nor are the politics completely over.  I don’t think repeal is an idea with serious legs, but a number of Republicans plan to run in November on it.  There will also be a number of court challenges, particularly on some of these state laws that have been passed to “nullify” certain aspects of reform.  I tend to think that issue was settled at Appomattox 150 years ago, but the possibility of an activist decision from the Roberts court cannot be completely ruled out.   

There are two people who are in my thoughts tonight who have gone to the Lord and who I wished were around to see this.  The first is a guy named Bert Seidman, who was for many years the Director of Employee Benefits at the AFL-CIO.  By the time I got to DC, Bert had retired and was serving as an advisor cum organizer for the National Council of Senior Citizens.  Bert had been working on health care going back to the Truman Administration and had lived through many failed attempts at health care reform.  After reform went down to defeat in 1994, I thought of Bert a lot.  I figured that if Bert could keep working for this after so many failed attempts, I shouldn’t complain.  Bert died in 2004.

The second person who is in my thoughts is the woman who first got me interested in health care, Peggy Connerton who was Director of Public Policy at the Service Employees International Union.  She hired me right out of graduate school in 1993.  The funny thing is that she promised me that I’d be able to work on policy issues other than health care, which was not my major interest at the time.  Peggy was a little economical with the truth there, because I was swiftly swept up into the campaign for health care reform and there was little time for anything else.  But I had the time of my life travelling around the country, going to the White House for meetings, and writing reams and reams of Congressional testimony and briefing papers.  I would not be working in health care today if not for that experience.  Peggy was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1995.  She died only three years later, and it was hard to lose someone who had been both a mentor and a friend. 

So Peggy and Bert, this one’s for you.  You were footsoldiers in America’s army of conscience.  We couldn’t have done what we did tonight without you.

I’m setting up an open thread for folks who want to comment on the House debate on health care reform (currently live on C-SPAN and MSNBC).

I just finished reading the EO.  My key takeaway is that it doesn’t do much more than restate the relevant language of the Senate bill.  For those of us–myself included–who think the Senate language provides sufficient protection on the issue of abortion, that’s not a problem.  But if you have a problem with the Senate language, the EO is unlikely to change your mind.

One of the odd things about the recent debate is how the issue of Community Health Centers has soaked up most of the oxygen in the room.  The EO clarifies that the Obama Administration will interpret the law so as to impose Hyde Amendment-type restrictions on the new funding stream for Community Health Centers.  As we’ve noted in these precincts earlier, such language was not explicitly included in the Senate Bill.  In truth, though, the idea that the Senate bill would have mandated CHCs to start providing abortion–something they have never done–was just absurd.

What the EO doesn’t change, though, is the Senate bill’s provision that those who purchase insurance through the exchanges will be able to choose plans that cover abortion as long as the cost of that coverage is borne entirely by the enrollee.  The EO reaffirms this and instructs the OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop regulations for health plans to ensure the segregation of funds.  It should be said, though, that this would have happened even in the absence of the EO because HHS is going to have the responsibility of drafting all the regulations necessary to implement the bill.

As argued several weeks ago, I think that these provisions of the Senate bill (what I called at the time the “Nelson Amendment”) meet the test of “neutrality.”  At the time, though, it seemed that Rep. Stupak (D-MI) did not agree.  So I am still not certain what in the EO changed his mind.  I’m glad that he did change his mind because I think his earlier interpretation was wrong, but I can understand why some of the Republicans who joined him in opposition to the Senate language might be feeling a bit frustrated. 

Stupak has said that he plans to insert the EO into the Congressional Record as part of the legislative history.  That will be important because it will encourage the courts to resolve ambiguities in the law (of which there are likely to be several) in favor the Hyde restrictions.  I’m fairly certain, though that those court decisions would have come out the same way even in the absence of the EO.

In the end, then, I would say that the impact of the EO is more symbolic than substantive.  It provided the public commitment of the Obama administration that the pro-life holdouts among the Democrats needed to support the reform bill.  Substantively, though, if those folks are comfortable now, they should have been comfortable 24 hours ago.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life Action, has responded to the Stupak deal with the following statement:

This deal to pass the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade is a tragedy for America.  We believe that Mr. Stupak’s choice to succumb to the intense pressure of the last week has resulted in his endorsement of a charade that does not even begin to address the anti-life provisions in this legislation. The American people do not support taxpayer funding of abortion and Speaker Pelosi and the President have undermined representative democracy by working to pass this legislation with this unprecedented contortion of the legislative process.

The AUL has herewith lost whatever credibility it still had as a nonpartisan prolife organization.

John McCormack of the Weekly Standard takes issue with our editorial, “Crying Wolf“:

The editors of Commonweal try to claim that the Hyde amendment would apply to the community health centers:

“since such money will in any case be channeled through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), where the Hyde Amendment obtains, there is no good reason to suppose that it will be exempt from the amendment’s constraints. [...] the Hyde Amendment works only if it covers everything HHS spends.”

But the Hyde amendment does not say that “none of the funds channeled through HHS” may pay for elective abortions; it says “none of the funds appropriated by this act” may pay for elective abortions. A Hyde-like amendment needs to be included in each different act authorizing public health programs, or the programs will end up paying for abortions, just as Indian Health Services did long after the Hyde amendment was on the books.

McCormack doesn’t mention that current federal regulations prohibit ”any programs or projects supported in whole or in part by federal financial assistance, whether by grant or contract, appropriated to the Department of Health and Human Services and administered by the Public Health Services” from performing elective abortions (42 C.F.R. 50.301, 50.303). President Obama and Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, have promised to maintain these regulations. (As I write, it has just been announced that the President will formalize this promise with an executive order.) But some prolife critics still aren’t satisfied with such assurances. Regulations, they say, are no substitute for statutes, and wherever statutes fail to prohibit the federal government from paying for elective abortions, it’s a safe bet the courts will force it to pay for them.

Now, the funding for community health centers appropriated by the Senate bill is to be added straight to HHS funding already subject to the Hyde Amendment. That amendment would become totally ineffectual if HHS could simply take out of one pocket what Hyde prevents it from taking out of another. If the courts did force HHS to use the money appropriated by the Senate bill for abortion services, they would in effect be nullifying the Hyde Amendment — and there is absolutely no reason to think the courts are inclined to do this.

Read the rest of this entry »

During a Q&A session about health-care reform on the Washington Post Web site this afternoon, columnist E. J. Dionne gave us a shout-out: Read the rest of this entry »

TalkingPointsMemo.com is reporting that Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and the White House have reached agreement on an executive order which will clarify that federal funds authorized under the health care reform bill cannot be used for abortion.  The text of the EO is provided after the story.

Whoever watched the “PBS New Hour” last evening, knows that David Brooks was almost apoplectic regarding the possible use of the deem and pass tactic; and even genial Mark Shields deemed it less than desirable.

Well, it seems someone was listening:

With the ground shifting by the hour, House Democratic leaders said they would drop a plan to approve the Senate health care bill without taking a direct vote on it. That proposed maneuver had outraged Republicans and caused consternation among some Democrats.

Instead, Democrats said they would vote Sunday first on revisions to the Senate bill — included in a budget reconciliation measure — and then directly on the Senate bill itself. Many House Democrats had said they would oppose the Senate bill without the revisions.

Democrats said the outcome would be the same: the Senate bill would be sent to Mr. Obama, who would sign it into law, and the reconciliation bill would go to the Senate, which could take it up within days.

Can it be that Speaker Pelosi also dips into dotCommonweal on the sly?

The story is here.

The NYT reported last Thursday that Arizona–facing a large budget deficit–is the first state to completely eliminate its Children’s Health Insurance Program, eliminating coverage for 47,000 low income children.  The state will also roll back Medicaid coverage for childless adults, which will eliminate health insurance for 310,000.

State leaders said they were left with few choices because of a $2.6 billion projected shortfall next year. But hospital officials and advocates for low-income people said they were worried that emergency rooms would be overrun by patients who had few other options for care, and that children might suffer enduring developmental problems because of inadequate medical attention.

The cuts also mean the state will forgo hundreds of millions of dollars in federal matching aid, and could lose far more if Congress passes a health bill that requires states to maintain eligibility levels for the two programs.

Ms. Brewer, a Republican, has warned that more cuts will be needed if voters do not approve a referendum in May to raise the sales tax by a penny for three years, to 6.6 cents per dollar.

I don’t think Arizona will be the last state to do this.  The fiscal situation facing the states–including my home state of California–is dire.

The NY Times has an interesting piece on the nuns’ letter in support of the health care reform.  Here are a few nuggets:

“It is an utter mystery to me” how religious groups that oppose abortion could read the same bill so differently, said Sister Simone Campbell, the executive director of Network, a Catholic social justice lobbying organization that supports the bill.

Sister Simone, who described herself as anti-abortion, said she did not believe that the Senate version of the bill would make abortion more widely available. She did not directly criticize the bishops, but said “some people could be motivated by a political loyalty that’s outside of caring for the people who live at the margins of health care in society.”

I have to admit that I sympathize with Sr. Simone’s puzzlement about this whole controversy, and I share her suspicion that some people could be motivated by political loyalties that operate wholly apart from the abortion issue.  The kicker in the story was this:

As for Mr. Stupak, he is in a fair bit of trouble with nuns for his remarks [questioning the nuns' influence].  “We have a number of nuns in his district, and they’ve been calling him,” said Sister Regina McKillip, a Dominican nun who lives in Washington. “Who’s been on the ground, in the field? Who knows the struggles people have to deal with? It’s the sisters.”

Pope Benedict has sent his awaited Pastoral Letter to the Church in Ireland. Here is part of his opening comments:

On several occasions since my election to the See of Peter, I have met with victims of sexual abuse, as indeed I am ready to do in the future. I have sat with them, I have listened to their stories, I have acknowledged their suffering, and I have prayed with them and for them. Earlier in my pontificate, in my concern to address this matter, I asked the bishops of Ireland, “to establish the truth of what happened in the past, to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent it from occurring again, to ensure that the principles of justice are fully respected, and above all, to bring healing to the victims and to all those affected by these egregious crimes” (Address to the Bishops of Ireland, 28 October 2006).

With this Letter, I wish to exhort all of you, as God’s people in Ireland, to reflect on the wounds inflicted on Christ’s body, the sometimes painful remedies needed to bind and heal them, and the need for unity, charity and mutual support in the long-term process of restoration and ecclesial renewal. I now turn to you with words that come from my heart, and I wish to speak to each of you individually and to all of you as brothers and sisters in the Lord.

The entire Letter is here.

In the days when grammar school children were taught civics (those golden days before “deem and pass”), New York youngsters thrilled to the State’s motto: “EXCELSIOR!” which, we were informed, meant “Ever Upward.” And we believed it — buttressed by incontrovertible proof: the Yankees of the DiMaggio-Mantle-Rizzuto-Berra-Lopat-Ford era.

Alas, times have changed. The new State motto might better read: “decelsior” — “ever downward” (translation subject to correction by the Latinists among us).

From today’s New York Times:

Five top state officials have now fled Gov. David Paterson’s side, the latest of them being his press secretary. The terms of their departure made it clear that they were either implicated in or appalled by what appears to have been an attempt by Mr. Paterson to suppress charges of domestic violence against one of the his closest aides.

It is always hard for us to believe that things can get worse in New York State’s so-called government, but Mr. Paterson keeps proving us wrong.

He has left Albany paralyzed, run in name only by a governor who appears to have little influence, and even less power, and is facing at least two investigations. In addition to the domestic violence case, Mr. Paterson also is in trouble for allegedly lying about paying for prime Yankees seats.

Meanwhile, the governor is clinging to his vow to stay in office until the next governor is sworn in, still refusing to be candid with the voters about what happened and failing to provide any evidence to refute the mounting evidence against him.

And the Times concludes:

We believe that the only way the governor can hang on to his job is to prove quickly and convincingly that he did no wrong in the matter of the abuse case or the Yankees ticket scandal. If not, he should resign.

Mr. Paterson is using the investigations as a shield. But the governor’s delay in talking straight to New Yorkers does not offer him the kind of protection he seeks. His silence only makes his departure look more inevitable.

On this President Obama was prescient!

An interesting piece via John Thavis at CNS regarding confession and absolution and sex abusers. The article is drawn from an interview in L’Osservatore Romano with Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary, a Vatican court that handles issues related to the sacrament of penance:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — A priest who confesses sexual abuse in the sacrament of penance should be absolved and should generally not be encouraged by the confessor to disclose his acts publicly or to his superiors, a Vatican official said…

…Bishop Girotti spoke strictly about the response of a confessor, and not about the wider responsibility to acknowledge and investigate priestly sexual abuse outside the confessional.

When a priest confesses such acts, “the confession can only have absolution as a consequence,” he said.

“It is not up to the confessor to make them public or to ask the penitent to incriminate himself in front of superiors. This is true because, on one hand, the sacramental seal remains inviolable and, on the other hand, one cannot provoke mistrust in the penitent,” he said.

“From the confessor, (the penitent) can only expect absolution, certainly not a sentence nor the order to confess his crime in public,” he said.

These things are beyond my competence, but my layman’s notion of confession (reconciliation) was that a penitent in fact could be given a penance of some sort as part of (rather than a condition of) absolution. It could be ten Haily Marys or a vow to tell authorities about one’s crime, etc. I know this is dodgy territory, given the free lunch that is grace, and the absolute confidentiality of the confessional. But enlightenment would be welcome.

Thavis’s article goes on to explore some of these sfumature:

Other Vatican officials, who spoke on background, said a distinction should be drawn between what a confessor requires of a penitent as a condition for absolution, and what the confessor may strongly encourage the penitent to do.

In the case of priestly sexual abuse, for example, a confessor may want to recommend that a priest discuss the situation with superiors in order to avoid the occasion of future sins, they said. Publicly admitting the sin might even be required of a penitent if it would clear the name of another person unjustly accused of the same act, they said.

So is it just a recommendation — and then go on your way, absolved? (Girotti also makes an interesting argument about why absolution for abortion is reserved to bishops, something I didn’t know, though the sexual abuse of children is not. I’d vote for changing that.)

In any case, these issues are very much in the news given the scandals spreading through Europe, and increasing questions about actions by, e.g. Cardinal sean Brady in Ireland and ongoing questions about Joseph Ratzinger’s role in a terrible case in Munich. It’s easy to fuel suspicion about secrecy and the church.

The whole CNS story is here.

University of Chicago political scientist, John Mersheimer wrote with Stephen Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Though the two took a lot of heat, the book in many ways opened the current conversation about AIPAC. The credentials and moderate views of the two made it possible to have a normal discussion about the American-Israeli relationship. Here is Mersheimer on the recent flare up and his assessment of what is likely to happen.

“There will be more crises ahead, because a two-state solution is probably impossible at this point and ‘greater Israel’ is going to end up an apartheid state. The United States cannot support that outcome, however, partly for the strategic reasons that have been exposed by the present crisis, but also because apartheid is a morally reprehensible system that no decent American could openly embrace. Given its core values, how could the United States sustain a special relationship with an apartheid state? In short, America’s remarkably close relationship with Israel is now in trouble and this situation will only get worse.” http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2010/03/17/john-mearsheimer/taking-sides/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3206

UPDATE: Here are the views of the non-governmental U.S. foreign policy establishment: A Council  on Foreign Policy round table: Elliot Abrams, Leslie Gelb, Daniel Senor, Steven Cook, and Steven Simon. http://www.cfr.org/publication/21671/usisrael.html

UPDATE: Charles Krauthammer announces that the whole thing is Obama’s fault!   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/18/AR2010031802747.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

On a post below I referred to a prudential judgment made with biblical “fear and trembling” regarding the health bill’s non-funding of abortion.

Today’s Washington Post views the financial aspects of the bill with the more secular-sounding “trepidation:”

For some on the left or the right, the smart betting might be clear. For us, and we suspect for many thoughtful Americans, the decision is not so easy. We believe stronger and more principled presidential leadership could have delivered a bill that was paid for from the start, rather than one that relies on budgetary gimmicks in the short term — and, for the long term, on presidents and congresses mustering greater courage than the incumbents have displayed. But if legislators are asked to cast an up-or-down vote in the next few days, our advice would be to vote yes. With trepidation, we would say that the benefits of acting outweigh the risks.

The rest is here.

The degeneration of the political/populist right has provided no end of hilarious and pathetic spectacles that could provide fodder for every other blog post — and often do over at Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish, which is where I just saw this. I usually resist, but this video by the Columbus Dispatch of a Tea Party rally and the treatment of a man who says he has  Parkinson’s and wants health care reform is really shocking. They make drunken frat boys look like angels. What the hell is happening to us?

Stupak dismisses the nuns’ letter:

Congressman Bart Stupak, D-Mich, responded sharply to White House officials touting a letter representing 59,000 nuns that was sent to lawmakers urging them to pass the health care bill.

The conservative Democrat dismissed the action by the White House saying, “When I’m drafting right to life language, I don’t call up the nuns.” He says he instead confers with other groups including “leading bishops, Focus on the Family, and The National Right to Life Committee.”  [emphasis added.]

If this isn’t the best answer to the New Atheists I’ve seen, it’s certainly the best three-minute-and-fifty-nine-second answer I’ve seen.

Daniel Kurzer, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, 2001-2005, has an essay in the current issue of The American Interest. It shows the tenuous legality of the West Bank settlements and the views of some Israeli officials with whom Kurzer negotiated that  those illegalities are what is undermining the legitimacy of the State of Israel. Sobering.

“Gorenberg has noted the vital role that settlers and settlements played in the pre-state period, concluding that the success of this Zionist enterprise was the declaration of Israel’s independence in 1948. At that moment, however, the national mission changed—from building the infrastructure of a state-in-the-making to the protection of that state and the achievement of its recognition and legitimacy. He [Gorenberg] argues that, by pursuing an unbridled settlement push in 2009, Prime Minister Netanyahu was deconstructing the very state he has sworn to protect, confusing the issue of what Israel is and isn’t.” http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=781

E. J. Dionne’s latest column is up on our Web site. When it comes to the Senate bill and its prolife provisions, he takes the side of the Catholic sisters who support it.

Dionne points out something that strikes me as important, especially in light of accusations that the Catholic sisters have disrespected the bishops by publicly questioning their conclusions about the Senate bill:

Rather astonishingly, the bishops’ statement misrepresented the view of the CHA, whose members include 600 Catholic hospitals and 1,400 nursing homes.

Cardinal George acknowledged that the bishops’ “analysis of the flaws in the legislation is not completely shared by the leaders of the Catholic Health Association.” Then he said: “They believe, moreover, that the defects that they do recognize can be corrected after the passage of the final bill.”

But Sister Carol, as she is known, said the latter assertion was flatly not true. “We’re not saying that,” she said. Her organization believes the bill as currently written guarantees that there will be no federal funding for abortion and does not need to be “corrected.” Why the bishops would distort the position of the church’s major health association is, to be charitable, a mystery.

At least one bishop has had to correct himself after relying on that inaccurate summary from the USCCB. St. Petersburg’s bishop, Robert Lynch, is also on the board of the CHA. But he was in the hospital as a patient when the CHA released its statement. Catching up with the debate, he backed the USCCB on his blog — until Sister Carol (“a good woman of the Church, no liberal trouble-maker by any stretch of the imagination,” he avers) contacted him to set the record straight. He did so, much to his credit, in another blog post.

The CHA did have some specific suggestions for what might be included in the reconciliation package, which they expressed in a letter (pdf file here). But they weren’t about abortion. However you may respond to Cardinal George’s “Midwestern parlance,” his line about “a pig in a poke” is based on a completely inaccurate understanding of what the CHA (and others) actually said.

Given what’s at stake, it is vitally important to get this right. If you’re inclined to give the bishops’ interpretation more weight simply because it comes from the bishops, this sort of thing should give you pause. Even bishops can make mistakes. But this is a matter about which we can’t afford to be careless.

It’s all the Palestinians’ fault.Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States (and a citizen of the U.S.) explains why this is not a crisis, and it’s not Israel’s doing. As my mother used to say, “this takes the cake.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/opinion/18oren.html

A contrary view summed up by Commonweal regular, Andrew Bacevich in Salon: “In a lengthy statement offered to the Armed Services Committee earlier this week, Petraeus ticked off a long list of problems in his AOR — AfPak, Iran, Iraq, Yemen — and then turned to what he called the “root causes of instability.” Ranking as item No. 1 on his list was this: “insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace.” Petraeus continued:

“The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.”

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/03/17/bacevich_on_petraeus_israel?source=newsletter

From the AP, endorsement of HCR by the leaders of 60 orders, representing 59,000 nuns:

Meanwhile, in a rare public disagreement that will reverberate among the nation’s 70 million Catholics, leaders of religious orders representing 59,000 nuns sent lawmakers a letter urging lawmakers to pass the Senate health care bill. Expected to come before the House by this weekend, the measure contains abortion funding restrictions that the bishops say don’t go far enough.

“Despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions,” said the letter signed by 60 leaders of women’s religious orders. “It will uphold longstanding conscience protections and it will make historic new investments … in support of pregnant women. This is the real pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it.”

UPDATE:  Here’s the letter.  (Thanks, Mollie!)

Looks like there are moves to step down: Clinton smiling at a State Dept. mike said the U.S. and Israel remained united in ensuring Israel’s security (no doubt). Ha’aretz reports that Netanyahu and Biden spoke on the phone long into the night Tuesday with Netanyahu’s advisers and the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. listening in (if Biden was forgiving that will leak to the Israeli media). On Tuesday’s Newshour the emerging trope: too bad about the mess-up but the U.S. has no policy in place to move the question; may as well go back to the status quo ante.

Is General Petreus proving to be the voice of reality? Before the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday, he said, “The conflict foments anti-American sentiment due to a perception of U.S. favoritism toward Israel.” Pretty straightforward. Here is a fuller account of Petreus’s views (posted earlier): http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/14/the_petraeus_briefing_biden_s_embarrassment_is_not_the_whole_story

Read Up:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/world/middleeast/17diplo.html?hpw
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1156807.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1157020.html

UPDATE:  “JERUSALEM — Israeli officials said on Wednesday that efforts were under way to calm tensions with the Obama administration and come up with a formula to diffuse a diplomatic crisis over building in contested East Jerusalem.

“The prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, hurried to distance himself from remarks made by his brother-in-law, Hagai Ben Artzi, in a radio interview on Wednesday, in which he described President Barack Obama as an anti-Semite. Mr. Netanyahu said that he “utterly rejected” the comments made by his wife’s brother, whose hawkish views are well-known.

“In a statement distributed by his office, Mr. Netanyahu added that he had a deep appreciation for President Obama’s commitment to Israel’s security and for the profound relationship between Israel and the United States.”  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/world/middleeast/18mideast.html?hp