Bless the independent contractor

The Vatican is currently claiming that its bishops are not employees. Does this mean that they are independent contractors; free to ordain female priests; free to endorse the pill; free to endorse the use of condoms to prevent the spread of aids? I rather doubt it.
It is silly to think of the bishops as independent contractors. They are appointed by the Vatican. I am sure they are carefully vetted as to their positions to be sure they are quite simpatico with the Vatican. Further, they are the group from which cardinals are selected; likely in no small part because of their now tested conformity to the Vatican policy line. The Vatican does not pay their salary, it is true. But if the bishop thought he was worth at least twice as much as any other bishop, true or not, could he adjust his pay? The Vatican certainly would not let it happen.
How does the Vatican divorce, oops, separate itself from its bishops? Are we to believe that there is a moral difference, if the bishop’s actions or non-actions are based on their employment status? What does it mean that the Vatican is seeking to shield itself from any effects from the pedophile priest problem, while publicly trying to give the image of acknowledging and atoning for its responsibility in the matter? Is this what they teach in the confessional, that responsibility is conditional?

I Got Questions

The mayor of New York City just visited London’s ring of steel, a system of thousands of cameras, which photograph London’s citizens and visitors, usually tens of times a day. The mayor is working up to installing such a system in New York. I understand the security that is intended. I just don’t understand the loss of privacy that will result. Privacy is a right that the citizens of the United States value highly.

I also have questions. Does such a system really prevent terrorists’ attacks? Are the terrorists, many of whom are prepared to go with their bomb, afraid of being seen on camera before demonstrating their imbecility? Certainly it is an aid after the fact, assuming the terrorists did not die as a result. Is the city able to organize its security resources in time to stop the attack? Who is watching the camera output? How many observers are required? Are they trained police officers who are now not available on the street to respond? Which is the better deterrent, a camera or the presence of the police? How are terrorists recognized? Is it a facial recognitions software program? How good are these programs? Is there racial profiling? How many false positives? Will innocent people be erroneously stopped? Will this change the way democracy is practiced in this country? Will we lose that which we seek to protect by protecting it?

Consequences

There was a time that Senator John McCain projected himself as the “maverick” of the Republican Party, an independent thinker ready to let go of expediency and the party line to address issues in a pragmatic way, such as immigration. Then the senator ran for President of the United States and it all changed. I was thinking about Senator McCain and the immigration bill that he co-sponsored and then he disavowed so he could stay far enough to the right to get the Republican Presidential nomination. Would the current troglodytic immigration law passed in his home state of Arizona have happened, had the immigration reform bill passed? I assume that the good people of Arizona wish to respect the fundamental principles of community that this country was founded on, but were pushed into some action, however reactionary, to address the problems that the state faced as a result of illegal immigration. Is this an unintended consequence of pandering to achieve what became an impossible dream? Would it have been less impossible, had he been able to maintain his principles? But why is he supporting the Arizona legislation now? If he is trying to get even further to the right to fight off the threat from his right, he‘s in danger of falling off the spectrum altogether and becoming a symbol of all that is wrong in what ought to be a noble profession.

Perhaps McCain needs to go back to being a “maverick;” take up the problem of immigration reform again and bring some sanity back to his home state, if not the country. Maybe it is his best chance at re-election.

To form a more perfect Union

I recently paid my taxes. It wasn’t much, but I’m always proud to. For me it is an act of community. Perhaps, other than voting, it is my only act of community. I do grumble a bit and wish they were a wee bit fairer, but I do not resent it. During the same week the Tea Party was in town. They are a mish mash of positions. They do not want to be thought of as racist or advocating violence, in spite of what is said by their more vocal members. The clearest positions are the sanctity of the Constitution and being tired of paying taxes that does not directly benefit them. I find that odd. You do not have to get too far into the Constitution, first paragraph of the preamble, before your read to “promote the general Welfare.” Notice it did not say the individual welfare. How do you believe two opposites at the same time and expect folks to take you seriously?

Taxes are covered fairly quickly too in Article I, section 3, “…direct Taxes shall be apportioned….” It is specified more fully in Amendment XVI. I wonder if these people have read the Constitution. Perhaps they just have diminished reading comprehension skills. Taxes for education may be to their benefit.

However, back to the racism, which they say we should sort of ignore, the same Article I, section 3 speaks of “three fifths of all other Persons.” Who might they be? Do they get to only pay three fifths of their taxes?