I do not have to always agree with you, or with everything you say (well, if I could, we'd be the same person, wouldn't we?), to appreciate your monumental thoughtfulness and expressiveness. Plus the whole excellent-writing thing.
Since I’m not sure even *I* agree with everything I say, B, I’m not sure your doing so *would* make us the same person! Seriously, ever since I started writing, one of my driving impulses was to try to make different perspectives and worldviews (at least in their more reasonable forms) more intelligible to one another. Your appreciation means a lot to me. For what it’s worth, I suspect that you will agree with virtually every important element in my next piece—and *this* piece I wrote in part to help make *that* piece intelligible to other people, if that makes sense!
I do my best to be kind whenever I have the chance, and it seems to take less effort than it used to. Maybe I hang around with a better class of person than in the past.
(Though of course, as I like to note, my favorite thing that my Robert has ever said to me, about me, is: “You’re nice. Not as nice as you think you are, but nice.”)
I've always liked that twist you put on the Star Wars meme, but... if the choice is between Jar-Jar and Jabba, I'm not sure Jabba loses. Jar-Jar was the clumsy naïf who let himself be manipulated into giving Palpatine "emergency powers". Jabba... well, he's not a politician, but he at least seems to know how to run an organization. (Which, um, is more than can be said for Trump.)
I don’t disagree with anything you say, Peter, either about Star Wars or about Trump. As far as the meme goes, I think for most reasonable people and most ordinary politicians, Obi-Wan, Darth Vader, and Jar-Jar are humorously cartoony hyperbole. Whereas Jabba as Trump, particularly in the context of his lecherous humiliation of Leia, is … well, it’s funny, but it’s significantly less hyperbolic.
Can’t stand Trump. Voted Cruz in 2016. Voted for him in 2020 to keep Biden out. Probably not voting for him in November. Still, even for strategic purposes or balance of goods analysis I cannot countenance voting for full-party-line Democrats. Its compass is fundamentally anti-truth, anti-freedom, and anti-life and all its alignment with catholic teaching is incidental dressings as a fulcrum to achieve power it will then abuse much to the harm of catholic interests. It’s hard to say who will be worse but if Trump is worse it won’t be my fault for failing to cast a ballot against. There isn’t a “reason I’m voting” sub part of the ballot. A vote for Kamala is a vote FOR Kamala however it’s spun. I recommend no Catholic do that.
As I’ve written to previous commenters, Andrew, I have no brief in favor of voting for Harris! That said, I will defend the right of all Catholics, in accordance with principles of Catholic moral theology, to form a prudential opinion that the overall likely negative effects of either major candidate winning are bad enough to warrant voting for the other candidate to defeat them. People who consider Harris the greater threat may licitly vote for Trump (I think their prudential opinion is crashingly wrong, but Catholic moral teaching doesn’t forbid them to reach that conclusion), and people who consider Trump the greater threat may licitly vote for Harris (although they certainly don’t *have* to, and I support their right also to consider their ends best served by voting third party).
I'm a Catholic who definitely doesn't support Trump. Like you, I can point out plenty of negative points against him. His fans who have cult-like devotion to him scare and concern me. They either deny that there's anything wrong with him or minimize any wrong-doings.
I don't see how voting for Harris is pro-life though. The claim that pro-life laws prevent women from getting treatment for miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies is not true. That's medical neglect on the part of the hospitals. The law speaks against it. https://www.liveaction.org/news/four-women-pro-life-dnc-fact-check/
Harris tried to pass the Reproductive FACT Act that would require crisis pregnancy centers to post ads promoting where abortions are free or at low costs. Thankfully, the law was struck down.
When the Center for Medical Progress attempted to expose the illegal selling of body parts from aborted babies, Harris as California's Attorney General worked with Planned Parenthood to raid evidence of the act. She gave access to the undercover videos to National Abortion Federation lawyers. Harris wrote a bill with Planned Parenthood so recording conversations undercover with so called health care providers would be criminal. She wouldn't investigate the allegations of trafficking the human body parts.
"In 2016, she argued that a Texas law requiring abortion businesses to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers and for abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their facility 'undermines both public health and a woman’s right to choose.' The law was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2016."
Harris also put forth the "Do No Harm Act" in 2019, which would force doctors to do abortions and transgender surgeries regardless of their beliefs. The bill attempts to put religious charities that don't support such practices out of business. Also in regards to transgenderism, Harris says she wants the Equality Act to be enacted, which would get rid of protections for personal beliefs regarding gender ideology.
I wish that third parties had just as much of a chance of winning as Republicans and Democrats. The American Solidarity Party is in line with Catholic beliefs. I've voted third party each time that Trump has been on the ballot.
Thanks for your comments, Jenna. I hope it’s clear that I have not endorsed voting for Harris! Voters in 2024 have four choices, not one or two: voting for Trump, voting for Harris, voting third party, and not voting at all. I support the right of Catholics to make any of these choices—to vote for the viable candidate they consider less objectionable (Trump if that is Trump, Harris if it’s Harris); to vote third party (e.g., American Solidarity Party, mentioned in this essay); or not to vote at all. I think one of these options, voting for Trump, is the least prudentially defensible, and I’ve argued at length in my follow-up piece against that particular choice—but that is my opinion; I’m not saying it’s a sin to vote for Trump. Nor is it a sin to vote for Harris. It is always morally legitimate to vote for the least objectionable viable candidate!
I do not have to always agree with you, or with everything you say (well, if I could, we'd be the same person, wouldn't we?), to appreciate your monumental thoughtfulness and expressiveness. Plus the whole excellent-writing thing.
Since I’m not sure even *I* agree with everything I say, B, I’m not sure your doing so *would* make us the same person! Seriously, ever since I started writing, one of my driving impulses was to try to make different perspectives and worldviews (at least in their more reasonable forms) more intelligible to one another. Your appreciation means a lot to me. For what it’s worth, I suspect that you will agree with virtually every important element in my next piece—and *this* piece I wrote in part to help make *that* piece intelligible to other people, if that makes sense!
Utter sense. As always, I’m happy to hang on your every word.
You are so kind I can’t stand it!
I do my best to be kind whenever I have the chance, and it seems to take less effort than it used to. Maybe I hang around with a better class of person than in the past.
(Though of course, as I like to note, my favorite thing that my Robert has ever said to me, about me, is: “You’re nice. Not as nice as you think you are, but nice.”)
The people we live with have a different perspective on our strengths and weaknesses than the rest of the world.
I've always liked that twist you put on the Star Wars meme, but... if the choice is between Jar-Jar and Jabba, I'm not sure Jabba loses. Jar-Jar was the clumsy naïf who let himself be manipulated into giving Palpatine "emergency powers". Jabba... well, he's not a politician, but he at least seems to know how to run an organization. (Which, um, is more than can be said for Trump.)
I don’t disagree with anything you say, Peter, either about Star Wars or about Trump. As far as the meme goes, I think for most reasonable people and most ordinary politicians, Obi-Wan, Darth Vader, and Jar-Jar are humorously cartoony hyperbole. Whereas Jabba as Trump, particularly in the context of his lecherous humiliation of Leia, is … well, it’s funny, but it’s significantly less hyperbolic.
Can’t stand Trump. Voted Cruz in 2016. Voted for him in 2020 to keep Biden out. Probably not voting for him in November. Still, even for strategic purposes or balance of goods analysis I cannot countenance voting for full-party-line Democrats. Its compass is fundamentally anti-truth, anti-freedom, and anti-life and all its alignment with catholic teaching is incidental dressings as a fulcrum to achieve power it will then abuse much to the harm of catholic interests. It’s hard to say who will be worse but if Trump is worse it won’t be my fault for failing to cast a ballot against. There isn’t a “reason I’m voting” sub part of the ballot. A vote for Kamala is a vote FOR Kamala however it’s spun. I recommend no Catholic do that.
As I’ve written to previous commenters, Andrew, I have no brief in favor of voting for Harris! That said, I will defend the right of all Catholics, in accordance with principles of Catholic moral theology, to form a prudential opinion that the overall likely negative effects of either major candidate winning are bad enough to warrant voting for the other candidate to defeat them. People who consider Harris the greater threat may licitly vote for Trump (I think their prudential opinion is crashingly wrong, but Catholic moral teaching doesn’t forbid them to reach that conclusion), and people who consider Trump the greater threat may licitly vote for Harris (although they certainly don’t *have* to, and I support their right also to consider their ends best served by voting third party).
I'm a Catholic who definitely doesn't support Trump. Like you, I can point out plenty of negative points against him. His fans who have cult-like devotion to him scare and concern me. They either deny that there's anything wrong with him or minimize any wrong-doings.
I don't see how voting for Harris is pro-life though. The claim that pro-life laws prevent women from getting treatment for miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies is not true. That's medical neglect on the part of the hospitals. The law speaks against it. https://www.liveaction.org/news/four-women-pro-life-dnc-fact-check/
Harris tried to pass the Reproductive FACT Act that would require crisis pregnancy centers to post ads promoting where abortions are free or at low costs. Thankfully, the law was struck down.
When the Center for Medical Progress attempted to expose the illegal selling of body parts from aborted babies, Harris as California's Attorney General worked with Planned Parenthood to raid evidence of the act. She gave access to the undercover videos to National Abortion Federation lawyers. Harris wrote a bill with Planned Parenthood so recording conversations undercover with so called health care providers would be criminal. She wouldn't investigate the allegations of trafficking the human body parts.
https://www.liveaction.org/news/biden-drops-out-race-endorses-kamala-harris/
"In 2016, she argued that a Texas law requiring abortion businesses to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers and for abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their facility 'undermines both public health and a woman’s right to choose.' The law was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2016."
https://www.liveaction.org/news/biden-drops-out-race-endorses-kamala-harris/
Harris also put forth the "Do No Harm Act" in 2019, which would force doctors to do abortions and transgender surgeries regardless of their beliefs. The bill attempts to put religious charities that don't support such practices out of business. Also in regards to transgenderism, Harris says she wants the Equality Act to be enacted, which would get rid of protections for personal beliefs regarding gender ideology.
https://catholicvote.org/president-harris-what-catholics-need-to-know/
I wish that third parties had just as much of a chance of winning as Republicans and Democrats. The American Solidarity Party is in line with Catholic beliefs. I've voted third party each time that Trump has been on the ballot.
Thanks for your comments, Jenna. I hope it’s clear that I have not endorsed voting for Harris! Voters in 2024 have four choices, not one or two: voting for Trump, voting for Harris, voting third party, and not voting at all. I support the right of Catholics to make any of these choices—to vote for the viable candidate they consider less objectionable (Trump if that is Trump, Harris if it’s Harris); to vote third party (e.g., American Solidarity Party, mentioned in this essay); or not to vote at all. I think one of these options, voting for Trump, is the least prudentially defensible, and I’ve argued at length in my follow-up piece against that particular choice—but that is my opinion; I’m not saying it’s a sin to vote for Trump. Nor is it a sin to vote for Harris. It is always morally legitimate to vote for the least objectionable viable candidate!