text:
Home Articles Politics & Power This Is My Son: Two Years Later
This Is My Son: Two Years Later
James Matthew Wilson
Devon, PA. Two years ago this week, President Obama delivered the commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame. Great numbers of students, faculty, alumni, and American Catholics protested the speech in the weeks preceding it, and some Notre Dame students would go on to boycott the official commencement ceremony and hold an "underground" one at the campus's Grotto.
The question that stirred the discontent was a familiar one for American Catholics. The Bishops of the United States had passed, several years previous, an instruction that forbade Catholic institutions from providing a platform for pro-abortion public figures, Catholic or not, as part of a document that sought to specify the responsibilities of Catholics in public life. This document further suggested the impropriety of any Catholic institution's seeming to endorse, or to appear as indifferent toward, public figures who reject or work to undermine the Church's core moral teachings. A responsibility to respect the sanctity of human life, and the prohibition of murder in any form including the surgical execution of the unborn are among those teachings. Bishop D'Arcy, then of the Diocese of South Bend-Fort Wayne, and dozens of other bishops from other American diocese publically stated that Notre Dame's invitation to Obama was at variance with these instructions. It was a cause of scandal that a Catholic University should honor, and indeed award an honorary degree to, a politician whose record so baldly served the culture of casual slaughter.
Several analysts — rightly to my mind — speculated that scandal was precisely what President Obama hoped to generate with his appearance. For those who use that word in only its colloquial acceptation, to give scandal, means to behave in such a fashion that it would likely lead others into sin. In hosting Obama with such fanfare, Notre Dame suggested to the world that it valued the Truth less than prestige; that it was all well and good to be a great Catholic university, but being a second rate Ivy in the middle of nowhere would be even better; that Church teachings may have a de jura force, but they do not affect how Catholics de facto should live their lives. If one was looking for evidence that Catholicism at Notre Dame and in America was often clung to as a sentiment but ignored as a binding truth, one had only to turn upon the spectacle taking place at the most prominent Catholic University in the country. Though there has not been a measurable Catholic bloc in the American electorate for a long time, the discension Obama created served to further dissolve its residue, undermining the authority of Bishops over their flock, and furthering the absorption of Christianity into the secular theocracy of liberal guilt and libertinism. It proved a great opportunity for the self-righteous Catholic Left to speak of "open-mindedness" and to pontificate upon the full "range" of vital life issues that the Church engages — a range not reducible to just one "issue."
The greatest metaphysician in the history of the world, St. Thomas Aquinas, would blush at such illogical mendaciousness. Prior to all other questions of human life is the question of life itself, of existence — to be or not to be. And so, in fact, the range of questions to which the Church does give definitive answer ultimately is reducible to one question, insofar as the question of the sanctity of human life is prior to all others. But that afternoon, it had to wait outside in the rain, as President Obama spoke about the importance of religion and dialogue to American life, and called for a "sensible" conscience clause for doctors and nurses who objected to the practice of abortion. Fr. John Jenkins, the University's president, did President Obama one better in his preening declarations that afternoon. Altogether, it was a demoralizing spectacle, a bit like dancing on someone's grave.
After CNN completed its telecast of the President's address, most Americans forgot about the event — presuming they had noticed it in the first place. But in the two years since, Notre Dame has not forgotten. Bill Kirk, Notre Dame Associate Vice President for Resident Life and the only senior administrator at the University to protest the Obama visit, was fired just over a year later. Few can doubt his dismissal after twenty-one years was an act of retaliation. Most faculty who had protested the appearance were associated with the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture (which is to Notre Dame what the Chinese underground Catholic Church is the Chinese Patriotic Association). According to the Center's director, Philosophy Professor David Soloman, the University began the process of gutting the Center and will be forcing him to step down in the near future. The Center is still operating now, indeed is scheduled to hold another of its amazing and joyful annual conferences at Notre Dame this November — but I have been told by several persons that this will be the end. Soloman has further claimed that the University plans to replace him, giving him no say in his successor (he would have appointed his close associate, the Historian, Fr. Wilson Miscamble, reportedly). Further, while the University has never directly financed the Center, it has said it would withdraw the support it did provide (facilities, etc.). On the day of the commencement, eighty-eight persons were arrested when they attempted to hold a prayer vigil on the campus. Notre Dame pressed charges of trespassing against them (among whose number was "Roe" of "Roe v. Wade"), and let the charges stand until last Thursday, when they were finally dropped.
Just this week, the Obama administration unveiled plans once again to attack conscience protections for doctors and nurses. And many of the same secularizing "social justice" Catholics who cheered Obama's appearance are playing tit-for-tat by protesting the invitation of House Speaker and Catholic John Boehner to speak at Catholic University's commencement. Their argument? Boehner's efforts — such as they are — to reduce the deficit will be borne "disproportionately" by the poor. I would immediately side with those who would protect meaningful programs to reduce the effects of poverty, and certainly halving the size of the military and getting the federal government out of the retirement business would be more efficacious than trimming the ever more slim slice of discretionary spending in the federal budget. But, let us be clear, it is in the nature of a state to make prudential decisions about how it will establish justice in a polity; it is not in the nature of a state to deny that certain persons have the nature of human being simply because they are very small and perforce silent. There is, therefore, no equivalence between the positions of the Speaker and the President — a claim that a culture committed to dissolving all rational distinction does not comprehend and delights in flouting. And so, for many persons, that shameful day did not simply fade into the past after Fr. Jenkins and President Obama had finished using each other for their own curiously related ends.
In the weeks leading up to the President's appearance, my wife and I were making preparations for the birth of our second child. Indeed, just before the commencement address, we saw that child for the first time through ultrasound imaging. We were delighted to learn we were having a son, and I was all the more pleased because it gave me opportunity to begin the campaign to have him christened, James Augustine. While I was ultimately victorious in that quest, it seemed a limited victory at a time when American Catholics and the University that I loved seemed to be abandoning the natural law with an almost obscene glee.
Discussing my family directly in writing is something about which I have long been riven with ambivalence, and yet on this occasion I felt a certain obligation: not to hold up my son as a mere protest against the events transpiring in those earliest days of his life, but as a witness to truths that others find it convenient and even profitable to deny. It was my foolish hope that such a gesture, added to all the other more visible gestures of the previous weeks, might persuade the President to cancel his appearance. It was my more well founded hope that the lasting image of my boy might stir someone grappling with their own ambivalence regarding abortion to see that it is not a "right," not an "issue," but a question of life and death, a question prior to all others we may ask. When our society answers that question with prevarications and a scalpal, it convicts itself in the eyes of God — and in the eyes of its children.
With these retrospective thoughts concluded, I invite the patient reader to visit, or revisit, This Is My Son:
This is my son. As you see him here, he has been alive for just about one-hundred-forty days and has, this and other ultrasound images suggest, my nose and not his mother's. I have not seen him any more closely than you have, have not held him in my hands, and will not hear him cry for about another one-hundred-forty days. As you see him, he has just drawn his arm up across his left cheek, as if to shield himself from the ultrasound. My middle brother used to make much the same gesture whenever Dad pulled out the super-8 camera with the spotlight fixed on top.
I did not learn anything from this ultrasound that I needed to know. But now that I have seen him, I turn to my wife more often, reach my palm out for her belly, and try to feel him there, growing within her. We have a name for him, and now I begin to associate a face with that name, small though it is, and shy though he is. We begin now, also, to ask his older sister, as she looks at a picture book or tries to draw a circle, "Will you read to him? Will you teach your little brother to draw?"
Such are the only changes this little picture stirs in us, because, without it, we already knew what sort of creature we were dealing with, what sort of creature we were waiting to encounter face-to-face: a child, a son perhaps, certainly a person.
The difference between this little son of mine and me, since it evidently will not be found in the shape of the nose, lies elsewhere. It is legal rather than genetic. I enjoy the full protection of the law. He does not.
My government operates a labyrinthine bureaucracy that might someday figuratively kill my soul, but it works quite ambitiously to keep my body alive. Its finances have more than once and indirectly also helped my son, young though he is, and yet that same government not only denies that to kill this child would be murder, but puts money in the hands of those who perform such killing with clinical efficiency. Never is it more clear that the eyes of government, the eye of the law, are merely metaphoric, than in this fact, because no human being could look upon this picture and deny what he sees is a fellow human being. And yet, that is precisely what my government says-and then turns away and leaves others to dig a grave, or rather, plow a landfill. True, the functionaries of power occasionally gown their denials of the humanity of unborn children like my son in the taffeta frippery of phrases like "sweet mystery," and they speak of the "terrible choice" of abortion without explaining why something "terrible" should remain a legal "choice." They unleash the dulcet strains and plangent tones of thoughtfulness and gravity on just those occasions when they most wish to avoid thinking altogether of the actual weight of the children their laws consign to the tin mass graves of trash cans.
All politics, Alasdair MacIntyre once said, begins with children. It ends with them, too. Discussing the Good or the "good life for man," in that hoary Aristotelian phrase, has to it a certain ring of abstraction. But, if we think of politics as the science of living in the world so that it resembles as closely as possible the kind of place in which we want our children to grow up, live well, and possibly grow old, then we will be talking about the same thing, only more concretely and more surely. Granted this description of politics, what happens when the dominant political spirit of an age becomes so truncated that it not only "begins with children" but ends there too, precisely in the sacrosanct, legal permission for childrens' murder at any point up to, and even significantly beyond, their "escaping" the womb?
Such a spirit is precisely what it appears to be. It is the philosophical offspring of those who wish to escape from politics-more precisely, of those who would escape the responsibility of having to act with children in mind. In cutting society and its politics adrift from children, such persons try to preserve themselves in a vague, Never-Never-Land, where adults may enjoy all the power and self-determination of their seniority while indulging their concupiscent desires without any sense of limitation, finitude, or purpose beyond a moment's pleasure and the prospect of its iteration. Open season on the unborn child, in other words, makes it convenient for adults to remain overgrown, over-libidinous children as long as they like-or at least as long as medical technology can prop them up.
Indignant hands with coat-hanger bracelets about their wrists immediately fly up in objection. "This is not about immaturity and pleasure; it is about rights, sovereignty, and vulnerable women." This is all rubbish, of course. If it were merely about "vulnerability," one would have to presume some kind of preferential option for the most vulnerable. Look at my son; is anyone more vulnerable than he and others like him?
It may indeed pretend to be about "sovereignty," as in the ownership of one's body. But no one is owner of himself, and our bodies are constitutive of ourselves rather than inert property over which we exercise complete control. Look again at my son. He is unimaginable apart from his body, small though it is; and the course of his life will be measurable and intelligible largely in terms of that body's growth, decay, loss, and resurrection. And his total dependence on his mother does not indicate something unique, temporary, and inhuman. He merely displays more obviously the dependence of all persons on others at all times. If dependency and weakness are child-like, then none of us ever ceases to be a child in this respect, even though we should hope to leave behind childish things in others. The murder of abortion and murder in the streets do not meaningfully differ; in each instance the fragility of human life consequent to its intrinsic dependence on others is on display because of an act of betrayal.
Finally, it cannot be about rights for at least two reasons. Practically speaking, if the legal protection and support of abortion was consequent to the protection of a right, one presumes it must be one of the venerable ones like "liberty," or one of more recent manufacture like "privacy." But how would one adjudicate between the claims of these rights and the equally venerable and more evidently foundational "right to life"? One cannot adjudicate between the two, so long as one operates with a meaningful definition of the word "right" as something that intrinsically belongs to a person regardless of his condition or actions, something "inalienable." When rights are in conflict, there is no rational resolution within the system of rights.
Theoretically speaking, it cannot be about rights, either. For the very concept of rights is a crude modern teratoma, a ghastly fiction, sprung from peculiar misapprehensions of natural law. Human beings have found very little in their history that speaks of a right to life-for life is patently "alienable" from human beings and our cemeteries are everyday reminders of that alienation in spades. We speak of "rights" to make ourselves feel more secure, less fragile, and less dependent on others, than in fact we are. Gravestones inform us that it is not death that we are in a position to condemn or "forbid," but only those who bring death about in certain ways. They tell us that the execution of the guilty may be just, the slaying of the enemy in battle may be valorous, and that the slaughter of the innocent is always murder. That portrait of my son does not silently speak of rights, but certainly proclaims a primeval innocence. We would have to look elsewhere-to the clinics of Planned Parenthood, to the Supreme Court, to the Oval Office-to see other portraits that embody the evil of legislated, juridically sanctioned, administratively manufactured murder.
And so, the defenses of abortion are not arguments but prevarications. They clothe murder-for-convenience in the knickers and periwigs of American liberal respectability.
The violent arms of the "right to choose" fly up again. Once more, they proclaim, abortion is not about convenience, but about the necessities of the desperate. If that is the case, then let us look at this image of my son and speak, as W.H. Auden once did, of the "necessary murder." "Necessary" is a common word; do we know how to use it? No such slaughter could be necessary, for that would mean it could not possibly be otherwise. Are there really no alternatives to the killing of children in the womb? What precisely is the evil so grave that such killing is its only counteraction? Early and un-idyllic maternity? A strain on the budget? The burdens of a deformed or retarded child? "Excess population"? The loss of a mother's life in giving life to her child? These are conditions of various gravity and sorrow, to be sure. Some of them are the kinds of fictions in which those filled with avarice and who crave an ethereal worldly domination routinely trade. Only one of them even approaches a condition of "necessity" and that one confirms in pain what we nearly all profess in comfort: love entails sacrifice.
In recent days, some in the media have decried the protests against President Obama's invitation to Notre Dame, to deliver the commencement address and receive an honorary degree, as mere "political partisanship." To be sure they are correct, but not for the reasons they believe. I am partisan in desiring the same legal protections for my son that I myself enjoy. I am partisan in believing that the best world for mine and others' children is one that welcomes them into life as sacred gifts rather than objects of property available for free exchange, manufacture, genetic strip-mining, domination, and elimination. I am politically partisan in believing that, because all politics begins with children, any politician who would turn the arms of the law against the children for whom they should exist in service is one who participates in an intrinsic evil. Any political official, but especially the one who holds the "highest office in the land," should be viewed as such, and so long as he persists with the grave looks of eternally suspended "thoughtfulness," with the sly smile of political maneuvering ("That's above my pay grade"), or with the hunched shoulders of feigned ignorance ("Hey, we just don't know when life begins"), he should not be honored, but denounced as a villain.
I pray that by some miracle President Obama will not speak at Notre Dame this weekend. Some small degree of sincerity and self-knowledge should convince him to step aside. But, so long as he does not, and so long as he stands at the podium or holds in his hands an honorary Doctor of Laws degree, so long will this picture of an actual child-my child-be here as a reminder of the kind of American his law, American law, does not protect. Look at him. He is a person. And like every person, he is not merely a person, but this person. And this is my son.
Bill Kirk
Center for Ethics and Culture
David Soloman
Previous articleNever Mind the Umpire; Kill the Sound Effects Guy!
Next articleSimplicity "Bleg"
James Matthew Wilson is Associate Professor in the Department of Humanities and Augustinian Traditions at Villanova University. An award-winning scholar of philosophical-theology and literature, he has authored dozens of essays, articles, and reviews on subjects ranging from art, ethics, and politics, to meter and poetic form, from the importance of local culture to the nature of truth, goodness, and beauty. Wilson is also a poet and critic of contemporary poetry, whose work appears regularly in such magazines and journals as First Things, Modern Age, The New Criterion, Dappled Things, Measure, The Weekly Standard, Front Porch Republic, The Raintown Review, and The American Conservative. He has published five books, including most recently, a collection of poems, Some Permanent Things and a monograph, The Catholic Imagination in Modern American Poetry (both Wiseblood Books, 2014). Raised in the Great Lakes State, baptised in the parish of St. Thomas Aquinas, seasoned by summers on Lake Wawasee (Indiana), and educated under the Golden Dome, Wilson is scion of a family of Hoosiers dating back to the early nineteenth century, and an offspring of Southside Chicago Poles whose tavern kept the city wet through the Depression (and prohibition) years. He now lives under the same sentence of reluctant exile as many another native son of the Midwest, but has dug himself in for good on the margins of the Main Line in Pennsylvania with his beautiful wife, dangerous daughter, and saintly sons. For information on Wilson's scholarship and a selection of his published work, click here. See books written and recommended by James Matthew Wilson.
Patriotic Subversives: Distributism as a Political Problem
Abortion: Realpolitik, Kulturkampf, and Evangelization
Why Patrick Deneen Failed
As North Korea Goes Nuclear Far East Ambassadors Must Speak Up
Aaron Schroeder May 12, 2011 At 8:02 am
It's worth noting that as Catholics opposed the President's address at Notre Dame, they now stand in opposition to House Speaker John Boehner's scheduled address at the Catholic University of America.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/us/12catholic.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha24
John May 12, 2011 At 9:08 am
Actually, it's not really worth noting. None of the people on that letter, you can be sure, protested Obama. And no one protesting Obama at ND would equate Obama's record with Boehner's supposed breach of Catholic Social teaching in cutting spending.
John Gorentz May 12, 2011 At 9:16 am
If those are the same catholics who opposed the Notre Dame appearance, they are some very confused people who need to learn some community values. But the fact that either of those institutions would invite a government politician to speak shows some moral confusion.
Whether this recent Baehnor episode is worth noting or not, it had been my intention to do so in the essay. Unfortunately, as the midnight oil began to sputter, so did my mind. Per Aaron's comment, I have gone back into the essay to modify and extend one paragraph, which I paste in here for those who have already read the essay's benefit:
Just this week, the Obama administration unveiled plans once again to attack conscience protections for doctors and nurses. And many of the same secularizing "social justice" Catholics who cheered Obama's appearance are playing tit-for-tat by protesting the invitation of House Speaker and Catholic John Boehner to speak at Catholic University's commencement. Their argument? Boehner's efforts — such as they are — to reduce the deficit will be borne "disproportionately" by the poor. I would immediately side with those who would protect meaningful programs to reduce the effects of poverty, and certainly halving the size of the military and getting the federal government out of the retirement business would be more efficacious than trimming the ever more slim slice of discretionary spending in the federal budget. But, let us be clear, it is in the nature of a state to make prudential decisions about how it will establish justice in a polity; it is not in the nature of a state to deny that certain persons have the nature of human being simply because they are very small and perforce silent. There is, therefore, no equivalence between the positions of the Speaker and the President — a claim that a culture commited to dissolving all rational distinction does not comprehend and delights in flouting. And so, for many persons, that shameful day did not simply fade into the past after Fr. Jenkins and President Obama had finished using each other for their own curiously related ends.
Barry A. McCain May 12, 2011 At 11:18 am
"Pater dimitte illis, non enim sciunt quid faciunt."
"Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis, nunc et in hora mortis nostra."
Willliam May 12, 2011 At 11:36 am
The author might want to do just a bit of fact checking on Bill Kirk's firing. The conservatives and pro-life people assumed he was fired a year later because he protested the Obama speech. If some research had been done, it would have been determined that Kirk was likely fired because he had come under heavy fire from students, alums, parents of students for his draconian methods in how he ran the discipline arm of the school. I believe between the Obama speech and when he was fired, ND had hired a new boss that he was to report to and that new boss was not happy with the methods Kirk had used. Kirk has a terrible reputation with students and alums.
So it might be time to put the conspiracy theory about how ND fired Kirk for protesting Obama to rest.
James Matthew Wilson May 12, 2011 At 12:31 pm
One further addition, beyond that I added above, William's claims are certainly plausible. I know from my own days that Kirk was regarded as a disciplinarian, and others have voiced the possibility that he was forced out because of he held student athletes to the same behavioral standards as other students (which was very inconvenient for the football team's roster).
However, while I have been readily able to find assertions by persons close to the situation (such as Soloman) that I echo in the essay, I have not found any similar source for the counter that Kirk's firing was due to his job performance.
Thus, my claim cannot be regarded as a fact, but as an explanation of a fact; and I have more reason to accept that explanation than to accept others, even as I readily acknowledge that others are plausible.
Okay, that' s it for me . . .
Willliam May 12, 2011 At 1:40 pm
You think Soloman is going to give you an unbiased statement as to why Kirk was fired? How would he know the reasons for firing Kirk?
I would think that if you wanted to be fair and balanced that along with making the allegation Kirk was fired for protesting Obama's appearance you would have also mentioned he had come under heavy criticism for his job performance and that he had a new boss who was reviewing his job performance. Those would be some key pieces of information that would allow a reader to form an opinion as to why he might have been fired. I suspect if I had not mentioned it here, you never would have shared those with your readers.
It's obvious you want to get your digs in at Notre Dame, as evidenced by your football roster comment (in fact, Kirk came under fire not because he wanted to hold athletes to the same standards as regular students, but because in some cases, he made examples out of athletes to send a message to regular students. There were football players suspended for minor infractions that fellow classmates received minor punishments for).
I appreciate the message you are trying to send but your methods of going about it, and some subtle attempts to discredit Notre Dame with rumors being pushed as facts, seems suspect.
Jeffrey Polet May 14, 2011 At 7:56 am
Solomon would know in part because Kirk's wife Elizabeth worked very closely with Solomon at the Center. I don't know the exact reasons why Kirk was fired and neither, I suspect, does anyone else writing on these pages. But if you look at what has happened at the Center and those connected to it in the wake of the Obama protest, and you hear some of the behind the scenes stories, there is significant circumstantial evidence to suggest the administration of Notre Dame responded punitively. I took this to be the large point of James' piece, which of course is a tangential point to his overall argument, and a legitimate point to make.
Matthew H. May 12, 2011 At 1:47 pm
Kirk was not let go because he protested Obama. Kirk was let go because he was a poor and divisive administrator, who was excessively and maliciously punitive with students and reviled by alumni for his heavy-handed tactics on game weekends. Furthermore, his termination came as a result of some very secular political developments. He was under the political umbrella of a priest who was passed over for the presidency when Fr. Jenkins was awarded a second 5-year term. Shortly after he was passed over, that priest left his administrative position, and Kirk, who was not popular with others in the administration, was let go by the replacement. There is no "accommodationist" conspiracy here.
You mean Bill Kirk, the upstanding man who at one time obtained a Notre Dame Security Police badge with his name on it and went around campus hassling students by pretending to be part of that force (last I knew impersonating a police officer is illegal). You mean the Bill Kirk who sat in the pressbox on game days with binoculars trained on the student section looking for the mildest transgression. You mean the same Bill Kirk whose name appears on no trespass notices issued to hundreds of alums, banning them from campus for life for alledgedly being inebriated (including multiple cases of these notices being given to people who blew a 0.000 on the breathalizer tests administered by the NDSP). No, I'm sure he was fired for protesting.
My guess is he messed with a couple of influential alumni. It was no coincidence that he was fired not long after Father Poorman was replaced.
J.T. May 12, 2011 At 2:42 pm
Your one-sided characterization of Mr. Kirk is disingenuous and is not helping your cause. Beyond his unforgiving approach to student discipline, there is allegations (easily found via google search) suggesting that he has in the past unilaterally banned alumni from campus, conspired with security and police to harrass students, and impersonated a police officer. I admit I cannot confirm any of these allegations, but given my personal impressions of Kirk, I have no difficulty believing them to be true. "Back in my day," as you put it, I had interactions with Mr. Kirk in my capacity as RA. I witnessed a man who exhibited no empathy for students, varsity athletes or not. In is not difficult to see why his new boss would want to see him leave.
Of course, you are free to believe whatever you wish about Mr. Kirk's termination. In my view (and many others), you are calling a man a Martyr who is unworthy of the title.
John Gorentz May 12, 2011 At 4:58 pm
There are reasons for firing people and there are pretexts for doing so. I've never before heard of this Kirk person, but I've also never heard of a firing for political reasons for which there wasn't a justifiable pretext. Have you?
Nathan P. Origer May 12, 2011 At 5:45 pm
For what it's worth — although I hate to further such a trivial tangent —, my experience, as an r.a. who went to jail while on duty, suggest that Bill Kirk is, pace the things I see above that I heard as a student (both underclassman and r.a.), an incredibly fair-minded and reasonable administrator. A tough disciplinarian? Yes. "Draconian"? Not a chance.
Aaron Schroeder May 12, 2011 At 9:18 pm
It doesn't strike me that the point is whether the Catholics in opposition to one event are identical to those in opposition to the other. The point is that Democrats and Republicans seem to hold values essential to their party ideologies that, some Catholics think, are fundamentally at odds with doctrines essential to the Church. Whether those disagreeing Catholics are the same in each case is irrelevant. So, I think it really is worth noting.
As to Dr Wilson's amended paragraph, when you live under a social contract, the proper limitations of government are determined by what's agreed upon by 'signatories' to the contract. What this boils down to is that some think that the proper limitations of government are determined by some theory of natural law; other's don't. The point is that Dr Wilson seems to be attempting to exonerate the Speaker on the grounds that the Speaker's 'disagreement' with the Church is part of the natural function of government. And by contrast, President Obama's disagreement is about what the function of government is in the first place.
Yes, I agree that the distinctions in the differences that the President (as you've articulated them) and the Speaker have with the Church are categorical – though, no one claimed they weren't. But on what basis proceeds the claim that a categorical disagreement is somehow worse than a non-categorical disagreement? The idea is that the Speaker and the Church agree on the nature of government, and yet disagree on the proper role of government in human affairs. On what grounds do you claim that such a disagreement is 'better' than the disagreement the President has with the Church on the proper function of government, in the first place? (Well, you didn't say better; you said 'equivalence.' But then, equivalence in kind of disagreement wasn't part of the equivalence argument in the first place. All that's needed for the Speaker to be deserving of criticism is disagreement, full stop – not disagreement 'of the same order' or whatever as the President's.)
And on top of that…I mean, I don't want to get in to the abortion debate, but you're completely straw-figuring the liberal position here. Liberals do not deny that fetuses are of the kind "human being." What they deny is that being of that kind somehow affords a being moral status. On the liberal view, what affords you moral status is being of the kind "person," a kind to which fetuses do not belong.
The point is that, insofar as you've rendered the liberal position falsely, of course it is not the proper function of government to engage in the sort of denial you've mentioned, and thus, obviously, the liberals disagree categorically with Church doctrine. But, if you render the liberal argument as liberals actually make it, it becomes a lot more obvious that the abortion debate, from the liberal perspective, is one about justice, since it is a question of what sorts of demands a being without moral status may make upon a being with moral status, and determining the judicial boundaries in this question is in the nature of a state. To put the point differently, the President and Church may well agree about the nature of government – just as the Speaker Boehner and the Church agree – while they disagree on the nature of moral status, and thus on how the state might act justly. Either way, the disagreement between liberals and the Church is no more categorical than the one between the Speaker and Church, and so on these grounds, the Speaker is as deserving as was the President of the Church's criticism.
Aaron, I assume all your questions are directed at me. The point is that those liberals who think certain levels of entitlement spending on the poor is "essential to the Church" are wrong.
The basis on which I say that a categorical disagreement (human life and abortion) is worse than a non-categorical disagreement (scope of government spending on poor) is natural law and the teaching of the Catholic Church. Both hold true the sacredness of human life, with no exceptions. Neither hold true the sacredness of government spending on the poor, in any fashion. Your argument proceeds as if there is in fact a disagreement between Boehner and the Catholic Church on the scope of government. There is none. And even if there was some kind of disagreement, it wouldn't be as stark as the one between Obama and the Church and natural law on abortion.
I can see why you did not want to get into abortion. So a "fetus" is a human being, but is not a person? When that makes sense, your last paragraph will mean something. But as it stands, one who disagrees with the Church on the immorality of killing an unborn human being is of course in a worse position than one who understands the Church's treatment of the poor as not necessarily requiring a certain level of spending on Medicaid.
Aaron Schroeder May 13, 2011 At 11:34 am
John, actually my questions were directed at Dr Wilson's first reply, and so, much of what I wrote is not really relevant to your post. But if you're willing to carry the petard here, that's fine with me. Audaces fortuna iuvat.
First, my argument proceeds as if there is a disagreement between the Church and the Speaker because Dr Wilson's amended response paragraph proceeds that way. And as I noted, the claim is subjunctive: if there is a disagreement between the Speaker and the Church, it's no more categorical than the disagreement between the President and the Church. I derived the antecedent of the subjunctive claim from Dr Wilson's comment – that he "would immediately side with those who would protect meaningful programs to reduce the effects of poverty" – that there was some meaningful disagreement between Catholics and the Republican platform, namely, with respect to the proper role of government in caring for the poor. If you don't believe that claim, which I repeat, I made on the grounds that Dr Wilson made it, then not much of my response will not be relevant to you.
Subsequently, here's how I see the geography of this argument. Maybe the Speaker disagrees with the Church, maybe he doesn't. Suppose he doesn't. Then, because Obama does disagree with the Church, Obama (obviously) is more deserving of criticism by the Church than is the Speaker.
But suppose the Speaker does disagree with the Church – a conclusion I drew from Dr Wilson's comments. Then, either Boehner is deserving of the Church's criticism or he isn't. If he is deserving of criticism, then fine, what Dr Wilson said here (though, he might say more, if so induced; maybe he'd say Boehner is less deserving of criticism) is wrong, and the letter writers are right to protest. But if Boehner isn't deserving of criticism despite disagreement with the Church, then his disagreement must differ from Obama's, given that Obama's disagreement warranted criticism.
How could that be, though? Well, Obama's disagreement would have to be worse then Boehner's disagreement – but, then, how could that be? This is, as I read him, Dr Wilson's point. The Speaker disagrees with the Church on some question of how the State might act most justly – a prudential rather than (say) metaphysical question; the President disagrees on a question that is not apt for the State at all. Thus, by this I mean the disagreement is 'categorical,' and therefore, worse.
But issues remain, and this is where I'm pressing. First: Maybe categorical disagreements are worse, maybe they aren't. If they aren't worse, then the Speaker is as deserving of criticism as the President. If they are worse, some explanation for the 'worseness' of categorical disagreements is wanting. Response, thus far, has come there none. But second: even if categorical disagreements are worse, why think that the President's disagreement is 'categorical' at all? Properly rendered, the liberal position constitutes appropriate grounds for decision by the state, and thus, the President's disagreement with the Church is no more categorical than is Boehner's disagreement with Church.
The burden of response, then, is two areas at least. You could say why you think that supposedly categorical disagreements deserve protest and non-categorical disagreements do not. Or, you could say why the proper rendering of the liberal position leaves it categorically distinct from the position of the Church, in a way that the Speaker's disagreement is not categorically distinct. Answers to either of those questions, I think, would be interesting and fruitful.
And as for person-human distinction, in the words of George Grossmith, "I'm baffled that you're baffled by it." It's not like it's crazy, or senseless, to believe that what makes humans morally valuable is that we can think, believe, desire, have first-person perspectives, make arguments, etc. – in short, that we have a certain arrangements of psychological properties. But this non-non-senseless position just is the ground for the liberal position. Because lots of non-human things (aliens, sophisticated computers, etc.) could have psychological properties, and lots of human things could lack them (fetuses, the brain dead, etc.).
Anyway, whether that view is the correct one isn't what's going to be decided in the comments section to an FPR blog post. All I'm trying to say is that a lot of people can 'make sense' of the view.
Dwight Lindley May 13, 2011 At 5:30 pm
Interesting comments all.
I don't really care to respond vis-a-vis the whole Bill Kirk thing: there is obviously a lot more at stake for a lot of my fellow commenters (bitter memories of party crack-downs, allegiance to college football teams, etc.) than there is for me.
But I do have a question for Aaron. Don't you think JMW is trying to address something like your person/human question when he makes his argument about rights? Your account of the liberal view of personhood makes it primarily have to do with legal rights, does it not? Certainly one needn't accept JMW's MacIntyrean argument against rights, and by extension against the primacy of the liberal account of personhood, but on the terms of his argument (which is what we're talking about, right?), it seems that there still is a categorical difference between the Church's view and the President's. (If by "categorical," we mean "direct, explicit, express, unconditional"–OED def. 1b) Obama subscribes to the view of personhood/rights you and JMW have layed out; the Church subscribes to a distinctly different one. The bishops, at any rate, seem to think it's categorical.
Or have I misunderstood you?
dave May 13, 2011 At 11:40 pm
"I am partisan in believing that the best world for mine and others' children is one that welcomes them into life as sacred gifts rather than objects of property " which reminds me of a conversation – one sided, I might add, with a good friend of mine who was talking about how the State had no right to intervene in a family, because, I think the argument went, the kids were the parents' kids. I did not know what to say in response, so after my friend finished we all went back to work.
I still don't know what to say about it; just curious. I believe an intact family to be the best environment in which to raise a child, but we exist within such a large spectrum. In many instances it is not best, and too often it is in fact a danger to the child. The question of ownership, or sovereignty, has always been one I can't quite get my head around.
Most people I know do not talk about families with children who may be in, say, the juvenile justice system, in moral terms, but in economic. It seems to me the arguments are mostly about taxes, and what most people want is the lowest cost option. The thing is, in many cases that means the State intervening in the family as early in the child's life as possible. It's just much more efficient to straighten out a young kid. If we're talking money, efficiency is important.
I say my kids are my kids out of convenience, but I've never really thought that way about them. I'm the container they outgrow, have outgrown. And to be honest, if I make it out for a run these days I feel kind of like a broken down peat pot. Anyway, that gift/ownership spectrum is making me think back to Polet's piece about the BYU player – both pieces addressing this sort of communal dimension. That issue of ownership.
What I can't see is a line that separates the State's ability to regulate abortion from the State's ability to intervene in a family. Either pro- or anti-, both sides seem to embrace a contradiction – overly simplified, that someone who is pro-life is less inclined to sanction State interference in a family, while someone who is pro-choice is more inclined to sanction State interference in a family.
As I wrote, I can't really get my head around it. Feels like I'm missing something big.
Sorry for the digression – just been thinking about for a time.
Aaron Schroeder May 14, 2011 At 12:52 pm
Hi Dwight,
I think that the difference between Dr Wilson's and the liberal position is a little deeper than rights v. natural law, although that difference rests on the deeper difference.
The deeper difference between the two positions is in how they answer this question: what is the nature of 'us'? What are we most essentially? To paint with a pretty broad brush, the natural rights position proceeds on the grounds that we are most essentially 'human.' 'Human' is a natural kind term, a biological term, the proper functioning of which is defined by it's biology and the social arrangements designed specifically to promote that proper biological functioning. Those definitions, as near as I can tell, just are 'natural laws.' The liberal, by contrast, believes that we are human, but that what we are most essentially are 'persons.' 'Personhood' isn't easy to define, but most offer some kind of psychological definition – a first-person perspective, some collection of memories, some collection of propositional attitudes, etc. "Rights" just are the name for "things we deserve" in virtue of being persons.
Anyway, the point is that the deep disagreement is only secondarily a disagreement about 'rights' v. 'natural law.' Primarily, it's a disagreement about the ways in which the different parties see the world – how they see 'us' in it most essentially. It's primarily, then, a metaphysical – not an ethical or moral – disagreement. Or, that was how I was taught to read the difference.
As to my objection to Dr Wilson's post, I was addressing the grounds on which he tries to exonerate the Speaker's disagreement with the Church and impugn the President's. He seems, on my reading anyway, to say that the Speaker and the Church disagree over a prudential question – how an agreed-upon definition of justice might best be realized – while the President and the Church disagree over a 'metaphysical' question – what is justice, and who gets it, in the first place? That, I suppose, is what I was trying to pin down with the term 'categorical.'
I think that the crux of my objection though is in questioning why it is that categorical disagreements are supposed to be worse than non-categorical disagreements. But, more importantly, even if categorical differences are worse than non-categorical ones, I think there's a way that the liberal position can be read such that its difference with the Church is not necessarily 'categorical,' and thus, as deserving of criticism as Speaker Boehner's position.
Has that clarified – or, ahem, obscured – my response?
D.W. Sabin May 14, 2011 At 3:20 pm
It seems quite obvious to me that the State, after erecting all manner of pseudo-pastoral protections for its oblivious charges would decide, in the fullness of time that said protections is damned expensive and hence, infanticide, rightly administered might be a fine cost saving enterprise. Couch said infanticide in notions of "liberty"…aka "rights" and one has all the makings of turning basic accounting into a political crusade.
The God of Modernity is Efficiency and if murder be entailed, so be it.
djr May 16, 2011 At 1:57 am
Well, Sabin is one of the few to whom I believe the usual liberal complaint about the incompatibility of anti-abortion politics and anti-statist politics might, in fact, apply. So I will pass over his oddness and address a simpler point in response to Schroeder:
It is revealing that Shcroeder uses the phrase "natural rights" as though it were synonymous with "natural law." It isn't, and it isn't precisely because of a difference between how "natural law" and "natural rights" theorists understand "us." In short, "natural rights" theorists — and here I am thinking in particular of the tradition that stems from Hobbes and Locke, for all their differences — think of rights as something that belongs to individual human beings *as such*, i.e., precisely as individual human beings. The Lockean strain — here Hobbes was far more consistent and rational than Locke — further departs from the "natural law" tradition by treating "rights" not only as something that individuals possess just as individuals, bu as something that individuals have prior to their relations with others, and as something which justify claims of the form "A person ought not to be treated in this way" (Why not? Because he has a right not to be treated that way; QED). Thinkers in this tradition have not failed to exercise a great deal of ingenuity in devising theoretical defenses of the view; whatever else one wants to say of it, it is not at all identical to the more traditional "natural law" view.
On that more traditional view, if I have rights, it is only because others have duties to me. In the first instance, I ought not to be wondering what rights I have — what I can rationally demand that others not do to me or that others not fail to do for me — but what duties I have to myself and to others. It turns out, on this view, that because human nature requires for its flourishing that we live together in inter-dependence in community, we owe certain forms of respect and assistance to one another. You ought not to kill me not because I have some basic natural "right" to life that you would be violating by killing me, but because your ultimate end as a human being is not to be attained by killing other human beings, but by living a kind of life to which respect for others — including, as a minimum, not killing them on a whim — is a basic and internal requirement. In short, the difference between you and a lion is that a lion would flourish by killing and eating me, while you would harm yourself far more than you would harm me by doing the same.
The point is just this: the difference between the natural law and the 'liberal' view on issues like abortion is indeed a metaphysical one, but it is not for that reason any less an 'ethical' or 'moral' question; nor is the difference really where you have located it (at the alleged difference between a 'person' and a human being). It is, much more importantly, at the question of what it is to be a person, which is, in contemporary English, really just a lame substitute for 'human being,' however open a question it remains whether 'human being' is co-extensive with 'member of the biological species homo sapiens.'
To djr's reply, I think this is going to become a game of inside-baseball exegesis pretty quickly here. Anyway.
I don't see how what I wrote conflates a natural rights theory with a natural law theory. Indeed, I wrote that the deep disagreement between the liberal and the natural law theorist was only 'secondarily a disagreement about "rights" v. "natural law," indicating that I took the positions to be conceptually distinct – which I do think. And further, I don't see how my construal of the natural rights and natural law positions differ significantly from your own construals.
The more important issue, though, seems to emerge in your last paragraph. You think that the deep disagreement between the rights theorist and the natural law theorist is not in that the rights theorist holds us to be persons primarily and the law theorist holds us to be humans primarily, yes? But rather, the two agree that we're primarily persons, and indeed they agree that we're primarily human. The deep disagreement emerges over whether species membership is to be taken as the definition of 'human' or whether 'psychological being' would suffice. Is this what you're saying?
If so, I honestly don't see where we're differing. I'm saying that the rights theorist holds that we're psychological beings primarily, and that the law theorist holds that we're members of a biological species primarily. If this is what you're saying, then we're saying, in this instance, the same thing. But, you must have something more in mind, because I can't see how this is anything over and above than a disagreement in the metaphysics of personal identity – and indeed, a metaphysical difference which leads to, and is thus presupposed by, ethical or moral differences.
[djr: I don't see how further discussion along these lines will prove germane to the original post. And while I find the discussion interesting generally, I'm not going to spend 30 – 45 minutes crafting posts for public consumption that don't further considerations introduced in the original topic, especially when several more are going to be necessary to get clear on just where you and I differ. Email me, though, at aaron.c.schroeder@gmail.com if you're interested in a more detailed discussion of the issues we've introduced here.]
JimWilton May 18, 2011 At 11:53 am
Congratulations on the birth of your son. I hope that he is well and driving you crazy, as two year olds will.
I respectfully disagree with your support of church doctrine on this point — unless the church is equally committed to excluding politicians who have expressed support for the death penalty. The death penalty, which involves direct state action to end life rather than state deference to moral decisions of individuals is, of course, a more direct and offensive legal position in terms of church doctrine or "natural law".
Of course, if you exclude both supporters of abortion rights and supporters of the death penalty, you will end up excluding most politicians as commencement speakers. This may not be a bad thing. Maybe church policy should be just to stay out of politics altogether.
Dom Watkins May 21, 2011 At 6:29 pm
The Obama / Notre Dame Speech was very polarizing. "Communion and Liberation" offered a statement around that time which for me speaks to the larger point beyond that polarization.
Read it here: http://beingornothingness.blogs.com/living/2009/04/communion-and-liberation-at-notre-dame-a-judgment.html
Test everything and hold on to what is good.
For us faith is not an ethical code nor an ideology but an experience: an encounter with Christ present here and now in the Christian community. Christian faith gives us a freedom and a passion for living that express themselves above all in the form of questions as we face reality, and an inexhaustible openness to everything human. Political and ethical categories do not define us; our life springs from belonging to a fact, to a story begun and
carried forward by an exceptional Presence in human history…
An invitation to a Catholic university – an invitation to anyone, especially to the President of the United States of America – should be an invitation to encounter that history, that method of relating to reality, and that experience of life and freedom.
James Matthew Wilson June 5, 2011 At 8:06 am
Update on the Center for Ethics and Culture: I have been able to confirm and get further detail on the claims I made in this essay regarding the Center's fate. I have edited the essay to reflect that information, so it now reads thus:
According to the Center's director, Philosophy Professor David Soloman, the University began the process of gutting the Center and will be forcing him to step down in the near future. The Center is still operating now, indeed is scheduled to hold another of its amazing and joyful annual conferences at Notre Dame this November — but I have been told by several persons that this will be the end. Soloman has further claimed that the University plans to replace him, giving him no say in his successor (he would have appointed his close associate, the Historian, Fr. Wilson Miscamble, reportedly). Further, while the University has never directly financed the Center, it has said it would withdraw the support it did provide (facilities, etc.).
P.S. From other friends at Notre Dame, I have news that the withdrawing of University support for the Center has left philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre without an office, but only the use of a cubicle over in Geddes Hall. I don't mention this as further evidence of the ND administration's malfeasance so much as a curious sight to imagine.
Siarlys Jenkins June 11, 2011 At 5:35 pm
It is a fact that most Americans who identify as Catholics violate one or more church teachings. That has probably been true for most of the history of the church.
I agree that doctors and nurses who object as a matter of conscience to participating in abortion should not be coerced to do so, nor, most particularly, lose their jobs. There are plenty of doctors and nurses willing to perform the necessary surgery, to meet the needs of those patients who seek it. Further, if NO doctor or nurse is willing to perform the procedure, well, nobody has a constitutional right to require them to do so. A woman has a right to consult with her doctor, without the interference of the STATE in her decision.
I can sympathize with the idea that no church-affiliated college should invite ANY politician to speak on campus, as a consistent matter of principle. In the absence of such a consistent policy, President Obama has acknowledged that patriotic American citizens can and do hold differing positions on abortion, and that each has a right to their place in the public square. Notre Dame was simply acknowledging that this is so, not endorsing abortion.
As a matter of fact, President Obama has never endorsed abortion. There is no record that his wife, or any other hypothetical woman he hypothetically might have impregnated, has ever, with or without his support, had an abortion. In his personal life, he is the most highly moral pro-family president we've had in a long time.
Eduardo August 19, 2011 At 3:33 pm
Here are two links which add perspective (to my mind at least) to the issues under discussion:
Catholic historian Garry Wills from 2007, 'Abortion is Not a Religious Issue':
http://www.latimes.com/features/religion/la-op-wills4nov04,0,2121538.story
Former Notre Dame Dean, Mark Roche, from 2004. Still pertinent if names are changed.
'Voting Ones Conscience, Not Ones Religion':
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/11/opinion/11roche.html
Best to all!
The Death of bin Laden: On Violence and Civil Religion
Politics & Power May 2, 2011
Politics in Kansas hasn't changed much. Still a wild and wooly...
The Emperor's Old Clothes


text:
Q: PHP check if field is empty I'm doing a register form and I'm trying to write a code that will show error if user does not fill all fields. It works okay but for some reason it works only if I enter email. If I leave all fields empty and click register, I don't get any error and with all fields empty my cursor goes to email field and gets activated (this field) when I click register button.
Something is wrong with this email but I cannot find any problem, so what is wrong?
PHP source code:
if(empty($_POST['fname']) || empty($_POST['lname']) || empty($_POST['email']) || empty($_POST['password']))
{
    $error="Fill all fields!";
}

HTML:
<form action="register.php" method="POST">
  <input style="margin-top:10px" type="text" value="First Name" name="fname" onblur="if (this.value == '') {this.value = 'First Name';}" onfocus="if (this.value == 'First Name') {this.value = '';}" />

  <input type="text" value="Last Name" name="lname" onblur="if (this.value == '') {this.value = 'Last Name';}" onfocus="if (this.value == 'Last Name') {this.value = '';}" />

  <input type="email" value="Adres e-mail" name="email" onblur="if (this.value == '') {this.value = 'Adres e-mail';}" onfocus="if (this.value == 'Adres e-mail') {this.value = '';}" />

<input type="password" value="Password" name="password" onblur="if (this.value == '') {this.value = 'Password';}" onfocus="if (this.value == 'Password') {this.value = '';}" />

  <button type="submit" name="submit"> Register</button>

</form>

A: Because the other fields are type="text" and empty are considered as empty strings "". Try to check also if they are not empty. ;)
For example:
if(isset($_POST["fname"]) && (strlen($_POST["fname"]) > 0) && isset($_POST["lname"]) && (strlen($_POST["lname"]) > 0) && isset($_POST["email"]) && isset($_POST["password"])){
    //your code
}

For email and password you can skip empty I guess if you make them required in HTML5.

A: I don't think they are empty. They will either be undefined or "". Use print_r($_POST['name']) for each one and see what they come back as. Then you will see if they are empty or not.

A: you must you placeholder instead of value.
<form action="index3.php" method="POST" >

    <input style="margin-top:10px" type="text" placeholder="First Name" name="fname"
    onblur="if (this.placeholder == '') {this.placeholder = 'First Name';}"
    onfocus="if (this.placeholder == 'First Name') {this.placeholder = '';}"  />

    <input type="text" placeholder="Last Name" name="lname"
    onblur="if (this.placeholder == '') {this.placeholder = 'Last Name';}"
    onfocus="if (this.placeholder == 'Last Name') {this.placeholder = '';}"  />

    <input type="email" placeholder="Adres e-mail" name="email"
    onblur="if (this.placeholder == '') {this.placeholder = 'Adres e-mail';}"
    onfocus="if (this.placeholder == 'Adres e-mail') {this.placeholder = '';}"  />

<input type="password"  placeholder="Password" name="password"
    onblur="if (this.placeholder == '') {this.placeholder = 'Password';}"
    onfocus="if (this.placeholder == 'Password') {this.placeholder = '';}"  />

    <button type="submit" name="submit"> Register</button>

</form>

A: The onblur and onfocus events make the value of each input always populated so when you submit each field has its default value, or what you changed it to. A better solution to this would be using the placeholder attribute. This will keep the values empty until a user populates them.
<form action="register.php" method="POST">
  <input style="margin-top:10px" type="text" value="First Name" name="fname" placeholder="First Name" />
  <input type="text" value="Last Name" name="lname" placeholder="Last Name" />
  <input type="email" value="Adres e-mail" name="email" placeholder="Adres e-mail" />

<input type="password" value="Password" name="password" placeholder="Password" />

  <button type="submit" name="submit"> Register</button>

</form>

This also should function better for the password field because I suspect you previously had the password as 8 bullet points.
Server side you could verify this was the cause by outputting the $_POST array with var_dump or print_r, or by iterating over it foreach($_POST as $name => value).

A: First of all, your PHP Code is Correct. but your HTML Form have some Technical Error. you must set placeholder attribute for show Field name in input boxs, becasue when onBlur event was run, the value was set for field and string sent to server, and that NOT Empty ! in this way your PHP code does't work for check empty values. the secondary work you must do, check field in client side for not empty by easily set required attribute for each input element. I wrote correct html tags that you must use.

<form action="register.php" method="POST">
      <input style="margin-top:10px" type="text" name="fname" placeholder="First Name" required />

      <input type="text" name="lname" placeholder="Last Name" required />

      <input type="email" name="email" placeholder="Adres e-mail" required />

<input type="password" name="password" placeholder="Password" required />

      <button type="submit" name="submit"> Register</button>

    </form>

for PHP code you can use Foreach as simply way :
$error="";
foreach($_POST as $key => $value) {
    if(empty($_POST[$key]))
    {
        $error="Fill all fields!";
        break;
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


The definition of a single-page site is quite straightforward; it's a web site that uses just one HTML page. When all website content is placed on one page, click on a navigation link forwards users to an HTML anchor on this single page.
We have already covered ways to effectively arrange UI content in one of our previous articles. To recap, among visual hierarchy tools used for web design are size, colour, contrast, proximity, and repetition.
Many people don't find websites with parallax effect user-friendly. Avoid applying this design trend to selling and informative pages. Particularly if you're expecting repeat traffic or intention to convert.


text:
Biografia
Ordinato prete nel 1926, fu direttore spirituale del seminario di Madrid e vicario generale dell'arcivescovo.

Durante la guerra civile spagnola si dedicò a risolvere i problemi della città e, nel 1938, fondò la congregazione delle suore oblate di Cristo Sacerdote, per la santificazione del clero.

Fu vescovo ausiliare di Madrid dal 1950, poi vescovo di Huelva dal 1964 e nel 1969 fu trasferito alla sede metropolitana di Valencia.

Genealogia episcopale e successione apostolica
La genealogia episcopale è:
 Cardinale Scipione Rebiba
 Cardinale Giulio Antonio Santori
 Cardinale Girolamo Bernerio, O.P.
 Arcivescovo Galeazzo Sanvitale
 Cardinale Ludovico Ludovisi
 Cardinale Luigi Caetani
 Cardinale Ulderico Carpegna
 Cardinale Paluzzo Paluzzi Altieri degli Albertoni
 Papa Benedetto XIII
 Papa Benedetto XIV
 Cardinale Enrico Enriquez
 Cardinale Francisco de Solís Folch de Cardona
 Vescovo Agustín Ayestarán Landa
 Arcivescovo Romualdo Antonio Mon y Velarde
 Cardinale Francisco Javier de Cienfuegos y Jovellanos
 Cardinale Cirilo de Alameda y Brea, O.F.M.
 Cardinale Juan de la Cruz Ignacio Moreno y Maisanove
 Cardinale José María Martín de Herrera y de la Iglesia
 Patriarca Leopoldo Eijo y Garay
 Arcivescovo José María García Lahiguera

La successione apostolica è:
 Vescovo Jesús Pla Gandía (1971)
 Vescovo José Gea Escolano (1971)
 Vescovo Antonio Vilaplana Molina (1976)

Altri progetti

Collegamenti esterni

Fondatori di società e istituti cattolici
Venerabili spagnoli
Vescovi di Huelva

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Doug Ford promises 'huge' investment in Windsor, Ont., auto plant after shift cuts
Stellantis announced last week that it will cut its Windsor Assembly Plant down to one shift next spring in a move that will mean about 1,800 lost jobs.
Fiat Chrysler plant in Windsor, Ont., cutting 1,500 positions
The move to end the shift starting Sept. 30 is to "better align production with global demand," a spokesperson for the company said.
'It sounded like a shotgun': Sunroof in Toronto woman's vehicle explodes
Aimee Roy was driving on Highway 401 on Boxing Day when she thought she had come under attack. A loud explosion above her head sent the sunroof in her 2016 Jeep Cherokee shattering into pieces. Her situation is not the only case of problems with sunroofs as the automaker denies responsibility.
Fiat Chrysler announces $1 billion investment in US plants
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles said that it would invest $1 billion to retool and modernize two plants in the U.S. Midwest.
Ferrari parent company files initial public offering to list shares on NYSE
Parent company Fiat Chrysler Automobiles has filed paperwork with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, proposing an IPO of 10 per cent of Ferrari's shares.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Education Week's blogs > Charters & Choice See more Opinion
Arianna Prothero
Charter schools. School Vouchers. Private Schools. Home Schooling. Join the discussion as Staff Writer Arianna Prothero examines the implications of school choice for students, families, and education.
« Louisiana Schools Will Change Policy on Pregnant Students | Main | Georgia Schools Chief Opposes Charter Ballot Measure »
Ryan Sticks to GOP Line on DC Voucher Program
By Sean Cavanagh on August 13, 2012 1:01 PM | No comments
Congressman Paul Ryan's positions are being dissected from all sides now that he's been named Republican White House candidate Mitt Romney's pick for vice president. On one issue in the world of school choice, it's pretty clear that the Wisconsin lawmaker is ideologically in line with his running mate: private school vouchers in the District of Columbia.
Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, supports restoring funding for the D.C. voucher program, as do Romney and a number of GOP leaders on Capitol Hill. That's a break with the Obama administration, which proposed providing no funding for the program, currently funded at $20 million, in the president's fiscal 2013 budget
The administration said that the program has enough funding to continue, and to serve new students, because of money carried over from previous fiscal years and because of money saved as students leave the program.
House Speaker John Boehner quarrels with that reasoning, as does Ryan, who sees the D.C. voucher model as a "critical program," said William Allison, a spokesman for the Republican majority on the House Budget Committee.
By "refusing to reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, the president and his party's policies are restricting parental options and denying low-income students access to a high-quality education in the nation's capital," Allison said in a statement.
While a number of Republicans have praised Obama's education positions—particularly his backing for charter schools, merit pay, and linking teacher evaluations to performance—the president and the GOP remain sharply divided on vouchers. Romney has called for a major expansion of vouchers at the federal level, allowing parents of children in special education and Title 1 programs to use their share of that money for private school costs. The former Massachusetts governor also said the D.C. voucher program should serve as a "model for the nation."
It's probably worth noting that Ryan's home state, Wisconsin, has been one the nation's leading laboratories for private-school choice, most notably through a voucher model in place in the city of Milwaukee. Whether the program has had a positive effect on the city's schools and students is a source of contention.
California Governor Calls for Expert Panel on Charter Schools' Financial Impact
VIDEO: An 'Unschooling' Family Trusts Children to Guide Their Own Learning
VIDEO: 'Culturally Relevant' Education Drives African-American Family to Home School
VIDEO: Why This Military Family Home Schools
VIDEO: One Day With a Muslim Home Schooling Family
--- Select a Category --- Betsy DeVos (30) campaign 2012 (14) Charter and school choice research (70) Charter Management Organizations and Networks (29) Charter School Authorizers (42) Charter School College Persistence (6) Charter School Oversight (64) Charter school teachers unions (17) Charter Schools (633) charter schools and school choice lawsuits (19) civil rights (4) District-Charter Partnerships (2) Education Savings Accounts (34) Homeschool (29) Los Angeles Charter Schools (7) Magnet schools (6) Micro Schools (3) New Orleans Charter Schools (14) online charter instruction (20) Open Enrollment (21) Parent Engagement (16) Parent Trigger (35) Philanthropy and School Choice (30) politics and school choice (62) Private Schools (134) Regulation (47) Scholarships (2) school choice advocacy (12) School Finance (32) Special Education (23) State-run districts (13) Student diversity (9) Tax Credit Scholarships (75) Testing (8) Virtual Schools (31) Vouchers (252)
Select a Month... February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012


Recent autumn rains throughout the Dallas-Fort Worth area have played havoc with many folks plans. Such was the case when the Alliance Air Show in Fort Worth was cancelled, due to inclement weather, on Saturday, Oct. 13.
However, things cleared up Sunday, and the skies, which had contained rain clouds, found themselves filled with the roar of jets. Meanwhile, the ground was home to numerous spectators of all ages, who came out to marvel at the military machines on display.
Polo and his son were among the guests treated to fly overs and performances from the likes of the United State Air Force Thunderbirds, and the Canada-based Snowbirds team. Guests also had the opportunity to view the USAF F-35, a modern fighter jet.
The F-35, built by Lockheed Martin, is a "stealth" fighter jet designed for combat, whether providing air support or battling other aircraft. They also have the ability to take off in a standard manner, vertically and via a catapult off a carrier.
Polo said seeing the F-35 "was a real treat," adding that he grew up watching performances by the Thunderbirds and US Navy Blue Angels. The former has been a performance team since 1953, and were established seven years after the Blue Angels.
Each acrobatic team has been a regular participant at air shows throughout the nation and world, and the pilots are noted for being able to perform precision and dangerous maneuvers at high speeds.
"I think it's fun for kids to learn about the different planes and everything that we have," attendee Mia Aguilar said.
The Snowbirds represented Canada's military with an air show of their own. They are officially known as the 431 Air Demonstration Squadron, and more than 20 members make up the team that travels during the show season. The Snowbirds are also the lone major military aerobatic team that operates with no support aircraft.


I bought my vectra c sri cdti 2006 with 87k on the clock, from evan halshaws in doncater in dec 2012 and it has been in for its 7 year service today in evan halshaws vauxhall york, I was told when I bough the car from donny that the cambelt was due on at around 125k that is one of the reasons why I bought it, but on going to pick the car up from the york branch they are saying because it has clocked 90k it is due/over due a cambelt change? so I contacted the donny branch and they are saying 125k and the york branch are say 90k for the cambely change and nither is backing down? what am I to do??????
If it's never been done then I'd do belt and water pump soon as.
one of the reason I bought the car was because it didn't need it changing until 125k, I feel riped of a bit, but the dealer in donny is still saying 125k for changing, so don't feel like why I should pay for it?
1.9 is 100k or 10 years. But its not the belt that gives, its the water pump, and then take the belt and rockers with it.
Didn't Vx review this and recommend it be done at 80'000?
Alfa Romeo changed thier timing belt intervals from 72,000 to 36,000 or every 3 years on the petrol engined range.
Personally I use this as a guide for all mainstream manufacturer engines except Ford.
Needless to say they did that and a water pump change along with a service before I picked it up!
I wouldn't personally risk a Cam belt past 50k or five years just to be safe!
At the end of the day if you do wait until 125k and the belt does let go would the dealers at donny pay for the repairs, I'm guessing not and that the choice is upto you , depends if you are a gambling man and what mileage you choose to believe.
Cambelt change - Use VX dealer or independent?
Cambelt change; Is waterpump included at dealer?
Dealer Quote £350 for Cambelt - Any Good?
Approx price for CDTI cambelt change at dealer?


The Australian Masters starts tomorrow at Victoria Golf Club, one of Melbourne's sandbelt gems. There has been no media hype, but the quality of course and the field sets up for an excellent tournament. The lack of media attention has been deafening, with very little promotion and limited publicity. It was always going to be a hard sell after the Masters was unceremoniously booted from its November spot to a week before Christmas. Of course, something had to give in the hectic Presidents Cup period. Unfortunately the PGA played on a resort course was given more prominence than the Masters played on a classic sandbelt layout.
Very impressive stats from a player who is top of his game. Donald is also supported by Ian Poulter (always referred to as the Flamboyant Ian Poulter), Italian young guns Matteo Manaserro, and a host of top Australians including Geoff Ogilvy, John Senden and Greg Chalmers aiming for the triple having won the Australian Open and PGA.
It was great to see Luke Donald out here even though we didn't see him play his best golf.
Hopefully he will come back next year and be right there in the finish.
I agree Troy. Even though Luke Donald didn't play his best golf it was great to see him out here. It was a big 12 months for Australian golf and hopefully 2012 is even bigger.
It seems that all the top guys that were out here really enjoyed themselves so hopefully they all come back soon.


Many congratulations to Bessie Williams from Weston Super Mare who passed her Practical Driving Test with 5 minors on Thursday 7th March 2013 at Weston-Super-Mare driving test centre. All the best from your Driving Instructor Andy Skyrme and all the team at Starfish Driving. Now on with Pass Plus and skid pan training!?


text:
CampusNewsCoronavirus
Mask Mandate Update: after two years, CSUMB loosens mask requirements
By Arianna Nalbach
After a year and a half of online school, followed by a year of mandated mask-wearing, California State University, Monterey Bay (CSUMB) has updated its mask policy.
On Sept. 7, CSUMB President Vanya Quiñones sent out an email to students, faculty, and staff announcing the campus would move to be mask-friendly starting on Monday, Sept. 12. This means anyone who wishes to wear a mask is encouraged to do so, but it will no longer be required in most indoor spaces.
Masking will still be required when someone is COVID-19 positive, has COVID-19 symptoms and is living in student housing, or if someone is exposed to COVID-19, awaiting test results, or is fulfilling an isolation period.
Additionally, in any place where official signs state you must wear a mask, or while visiting campus health care settings, you will be required to wear a mask.
The mask policy update has received mixed reactions across the CSUMB community. Some are excited, but others are anxious about the policy change.
Fourth-year Barrett Reinhard welcomed the change eagerly.
"I am happy about it," Reinhard said. "I know many people are worried about it, but it's been three years. COVID is now endemic and with three booster shots, I think people shouldn't be that worried about it anymore. I think it's still smart to wear a mask and stay home when sick, but wearing it permanently is unnecessary at this point."
Fellow fourth-year Matthew Lencioni shared a similar sentiment with Reinhard and was excited about the change.
"The change is a breath of fresh air," Lencioni exclaimed. "Switching to a mask-friendly campus was long overdue; I'm glad they finally lifted the requirement. I'll finally be able to walk into a building and not have my glasses fog up instantly!"
Others were having mixed reactions to the news and were nervous about COVID-19 spreading or spreading it themselves.
"I'm not sure what to think yet," said third-year Katarina Cerda. "I will still be wearing a mask indoors on campus and in large crowds. I don't want to get sick, and I also have roommates I live with who I don't want to get sick."
Fourth-year Anthony Lopez-Zamora shared an opinion similar to Cerda and was a bit nervous about the change in policy, but understood the change.
"I personally like having masks inside. Outside it's whatever, we're all far apart. But then again, I don't really mind that they want to uplift it," he said. "It's gonna be different. I mean, I'm pretty sure we've all gotten used to it when it comes to things like going grocery shopping and nobody wearing masks, going outside, being with friends and nobody has a mask. Since we're already well adjusted, we might as well just take it off. Why not? Go back to normal."
Humanities and Communication Chair Sam Robinson expressed concern for immunocompromised individuals and those who came back to in-person classes assuming the requirements would continue.
"I believe most faculty members and students support this move. I don't know where most of the staff stand on it," said Robinson.
"I believe the key issues now are about the campus following policy and processes related to CFA, and its own committees such as the Public Health Committee," she continued. "We also need to make sure all students and faculty feel safe in the classroom. I hope that those who need an accommodation to keep a mask requirement due to health issues will be able to do so."
Communication Design Professor Amir Attia also shared his thoughts on the updated policy.
"I think giving the flexibility above masks is good, but I think it's a big decision for everyone. It's your decision whether to wear a mask or not and this decision might impact others, if you are sick," said Attia. "Even though I feel comfortable with this decision, I still think that it's the responsibility of each person to make the decision and to make sure they are safe and others are safe."
While the on-campus infection rate has remained extremely low, President Quiñones reminds the campus community to still be prepared to return to wearing masks indoors if campus conditions worsen or the Monterey County updates health and safety recommendations.


text:
England beat India in first Test to lead series
Edited By Odishatv Bureau Published By IANS On Aug 5, 2018 - 7:58 AM
Pic Credit- Getty Images
Birmingham: India were bowled out for 162 in their second innings, losing the first Test to England by 31 runs before lunch on the fourth day here on Saturday.
Chasing 194, India resumed the day at 110/5 but kept losing wickets, including the one of captain Virat Kohli (51), to fall short by 31 runs.
For England, medium-pacer Ben Stokes was lethal, taking the important wickets of Kohli and Hardik Pandya (31) on the day. The right-armer ended up with figures of 4/40 in the second innings for a match haul of six wickets.
England's rookie bowling all-rounder Sam Curran was adjudged the Man of the Match. The 20-year-old picked up a total of five wickets. This included a four-wicket haul in the first innings when he destroyed the much hyped Indian top order.
The youngster was impressive with the bat as well. He emerged as the highest scorer in England's second innings with a quick-fire 63 which propelled the hosts to a strong lead.
For the visitors, there was very little positives to take away from the series opener.
Just like the first innings, Kohli was the only saving grace for the visitors in the second innings as well. The Indian skipper scored a gritty 51 before being trapped lbw by Ben Stokes.
Apart from Kohli, star off-spinner Ravichandran Ashwin and pacers Ishant Sharma and Mohammed Shami were the only other Indians who managed leave a mark.
Ashwin troubled the England batsmen in both innings to emerge with a match haul of seven wickets. Ishant was impressive in the second innings with figures of 5-51 while Shami bagged three wickets during the hosts' first essay.
Team India Aims To Sweep Gold At Commonwealth TT…
BCCI invites application for coach's job, Shastri…
Overall, the Indian bowlers turned in a satisfactory performance while most of the batsmen failed miserably.
Starting the day needing 84 runs to win, the visitors' job was made even more difficult when Dinesh Karthik was caught in the slips after edging a delivery from James Anderson.
Hardik Pandya joined Kohli in the middle but the duo could could hold the England bowlers at bay for only around 10 overs before the latter fell victim to a misjudged shot.
As the Delhi batsman trudged back into the pavilion, India's hopes of winning the Test seemed to vanish along with him.
An England victory was only a matter of time from then.
Stokes, who was understandably ecstatic after dismissing Kohli, claimed Mohammed Shami's wicket later in that same over to plunge India into further trouble.
Ishant and Pandya were dismissed within a short span of each other as the hosts claimed a deserving victory.
England: 287 & 180 vs India: 274 & 162 (Virat Kohli 51, Hardik Pandya 31; Ben Stokes 4/40).


I was invited to the Disney Social Media Moms Celebration and as such received discounts and benefits from being an attendee. All opinions in this post are my own.
Two-years-ago I ran my first Disney running event. It was the GoGo squeeZ Fun Run during the 2015 Disney Social Media Moms Celebration at Walt Disney World Resort. I'll be honest, I hadn't tried GoGo squeeZ before, but I did then and my kids and I really liked it. We received a few samples at the event and they were great for taking into the parks as a quick and easy snack.
Along with being a sponsor for the Disney Social Media Moms Celebrations, they also play an important role in the Epcot International Flower & Garden Festivals. Perhaps you've visited their Educational Butterfly Pavilion? It's always one of my family's favorite stops! Disney and GoGo squeeZ make a great partnership because they both value healthy lifestyles and family fun and togetherness. With their values aligned, it was only a matter of time before they joined forces and just recently GoGo squeeZ was named the official applesauce of both Walt Disney World Resort and Disneyland Resort!
Not only are they perfect for enjoying on your Disney Parks vacations, but they go almost anywhere with you for a quick snack. As a busy mom of three, it's nice to have a delicious and nutritious treat I can throw in my bag–they're easy to eat and clean up is a breeze! They also offer several flavors to please everyone.
But guess what? There's more! Motherhood & Beyond has partnered with GoGo squeeZ and they're giving one lucky Motherhood & Beyond reader Four Boxes of GoGo squeeZ Applesauce! Use them for snacks-on-the-go, put them in school lunches, keep them in your diaper bag, car, or purse…you'll have plenty of pouches to keep your kiddos full and energized on your travels and everyday adventures.
I love that GoGoSqueez is fruit my kids will eat! And we love everything about Disney. Can't wait to go on Snow White and Seven Dwarves mine ride this year.
Sounds like we have a lot in common! Enjoy your trip and good luck!
Even though I don't have "little ones" anymore (my son is 14), this is still a great choice for a snack. It's for all ages!
Very much so! My tween loves them, too!
I love Go Go SqueeZ~~~They are for adults too! I like to take them when I travel for a healthy snack, and also for family lunches. Sometimes I use them for a dinner fruit. They are so yummy!
Absolutely, Carol! There's no shame in my Gogo squeeZ game! Good luck!
I love GoGo Squeeze! It's great for my allergies and such an easy snack!
Ooh! Great point! GoGo squeeZ is allergy friendly! Another reason why it makes such a great snack, especially to take to school! Thanks, Mindy, and good luck!
I love how easy it is to take and go!
Me too! It's the perfect size to pack a few snacks and not find them in a pile of crumbs in the bottom of my purse! Easy, durable and delicious!
Thanks, Deborah! Glad to hear you like GoGo squeeZ as much as we do! Good luck!
We love GoGo Squeez! It's the perfect snack to carry around in your bag while you're in the Parks! My daughter also loves it in her lunchbox!
It really is and it will be so nice to have it readily available all throughout Walt Disney World and Disneyland. Thanks and good luck!
We love gogo squeez and Disney. It is the perfect snack to take to Disney. My son always enjoyed them there.
We love both brands too, and their focus on healthy life-styles and family togetherness! Good luck and thanks for entering!