Shaun Kenney

A rarity here: a Raising Kaine two-fer, this time regarding the death penalty and Tim Kaine’s Catholicism:

Tim Kaine, of course, is – by his own description – a deeply religious Roman Catholic, a former Catholic missionary no less. And perhaps his deep Roman Catholic religious faith is the reason behind his moral objection to state funding of embryonic stem cell research, I don’t know. As someone who strongly support embryonic stem cell research in order to cure diseases like Juvenile Diabetes, Alzheimers, Parkinson’s, cancer and many others, I disagree vehemently with Gov. Kaine on this one, but at least I can (sort of) understand why he might have come to his (wildly incorrect) decision.

The problem is, Gov. Kaine’s being highly inconsistent in opposing embryonic stem cell funding while approving of executions. Both are opposed by the Catholic Church. On the death penalty, Pope John Paul II in 1999 said called it “both cruel and unnecessary.” And in a March 1995 encyclical, Pope John Paul II wrote, “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

Well, it just so happens that there IS such a “bloodless means.” It’s called “life imprisonment without the possibility of parole,” and it’s an option in just about every state in the country. Americans are deeply split on this issue, with a recent poll by Quinnipiac Univesrity indicating that 47% support the death penalty for convicted murderers, while 44% support life in prison with no chance of parole. But here in Virginia, apparently, it’s “all systems go” on capital punishment, even with all its flaws, and even with a “deeply religious Roman Catholic” governor (who can commute death penalty sentences for ANY REASON HE WANTS), whose church strongly opposes the death penalty. Can anyone explain this? I’m baffled.

I’m baffled as well. I mean, I don’t see Lowell raising these sorts of questions when Catholic teaching on say, abortion or gay marriage is at stake…

…but let’s not digress, because Lowell raises a valid point.

Catholic teaching on the death penalty for 1,950 years was consistent, though not as high on the social justice scale as items such as abortion. The death penalty was to be used in instances where the preservation of society required the act.

It was only the advent of the Second Vatican Council that asked the Church to look again at her relationship with the state. In doing so, the late Pope John Paul II placed the capstone of his thoughts on the matter in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae:

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.

Notice what you don’t read: a proscription against exercising the death penalty. Rather, Pope John Paul II emphasizes the relative lack of need for a death penalty in a modern incarceration system… a valid point.

Still, as with most encyclicals, they reflect and build upon Church Tradition. So while to outsiders such an act is simply a change (or worse, a flip-flop), within the Christian tradition it is given the much more apologetic term of development of doctrine.

So how has Catholic teaching on the death penalty developed up to this date? The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church outlines it this way:

112. [T]here is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that [the death penalty] be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of punishment which society inflicts is to redress the disorder caused by the offense (CCC, n. 2266). Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while … offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behavior and be rehabilitated (CCC, n. 2266). It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non existent. (Evangelium Vitae, n. 56)

In other words, the death penalty is accepted in cases of absolute necessity — not abolished.

Of course, the real catch in all of this is that though Lowell cites Evangelium Vitae as a source for opposition to the death penalty, the encyclical was very clear on three other topic that Catholics are required to oppose — murder, abortion, and euthanasia.

I doubt seriously Lowell (or most anti-death penalty proponents) would be as vociferous in their opposition to abortion… but again, I digress.

In the case of Governor Kaine, his personal opposition to all executions before his gubernatorial race is what is most upsetting IMO, because unlike Kennedy’s example where he stated he would resign if his faith conflicted with his presumed duties, Kaine let go of his principles for the sake of political palatabilty. If Kaine truly believes this as a matter of faith, he should have been willing to stand by his faith. That he made a promise to betray his principles was a mistake… one I sincerely hope he never repeats.

Kennedy’s position outlined in Profiles in Courage

is — I believe — a far more principled stand than what our governor has permitted himself to follow. I would be hugely impressed if, in the last months of his stewardship as our first Catholic governor, Kaine practiced more of his personal beliefs rather than what was politically expedient. Kaine would certainly find me first in line to support him in ending abortion, encouraging subsidiarity, protecting the rights of the working poor, and defending a culture of life. That would be a legacy worth all the trouble of public office.

As to his Catholicism, his support for abortion rights remains scandalous and greviously wrong. But for Kaine’s forebearance regarding the death penalty, his position (and the position of AG Bob McDonnell) to use it in the rare cases warranted is entirely Catholic.

I’m looking sharp on RK, not on the topic of paid bloggers, but “bloggers who make money” and continue their craft.

The short list:

*Shaun Kenney (Shaun Kenney): RPV, Bob Marshall for Senate

*Jon Henke (Q&O): George Allen for Senate, Mitch McConnell/Senate Republican Caucus

*”Loudoun Insider” (Too Conservative): Broad Run District Supervisor Lori Walters

*Vincent Harris (Too Conservative): Huckabee for President.

*Alton Foley (I’m Not Emeril): Jeff Evans for Senate 2007 (consulting)

*Brian Kirwin : Martin Williams for Senate 2007, Nick Rerras for Senate 2007, past Treasurer for Del. Bob McDonnell. (others added)

*James Walkinshaw (James Walkinshaw): Bruce Roemmelt, Andy Hurst, Gerry Connolly

*Josh Chernila (RK): Webb for Senate

*Lowell Feld

(RK): Webb for Senate, Feder for Congress 2008, Bowerbank for LG 2009, South Dakota Democratic Party

*Eric Grim (RK): Bowerbank for LG 2009

*James Martin (RK, Virginia Progressive): Colgan for State Senate, Whipple for State Senate, Mathieson for Delegate, Rishell for Delegate, MacIver for Delegate, Heretick for State Senate, Oleszek for State Senate, Pollard for State Senate

*Jerome Armstrong (MyDD): Mark Warner, Brian Moran

*Kenton Ngo (750 Volts): Former campaign manager for the Ramona Morrow for School Board campaign.

Of course, I never worked for Bob Marshall for Senate (though I was a huge supporter) and I never took money to blog on SK.com for RPV (or anyone else for that matter). And I’m certainly not taking money for Ken Cuccinelli’s 2009 AG race or McDonnell/Bolling ’09 either, but I’ll certainly blog about it.

Which is why Lowell is talking about the ethics of “bloggers who make money” rather than those individuals who take money to blog at the behest of their superiors

.

It’s one thing to make money in politics and blog about the surrounding world. It’s something quite different to push a story, an opinion, a piece of misinformation, or a smear — for a paycheck.

Now I don’t have too many problems with paid bloggers… so long as they are upfront about their status (Lowell falls into this category plainly). Bloggers who have since travelled on beyond their craft and earned jobs aren’t “paid bloggers”.

For instance, if Lowell had never been up front about his status with the Webb campaign in 2006, I’d have called shenanigans too. That he is “making money” from his book deal I don’t find scurrilous at all. In fact, more power to him.

Lowell makes one worthwhile point:

What’s even funnier about all this is that, back in 2005, Waldo Jaquith proposed a “blogger code of ethics” at the Sorenson Institute’s blogger conference, and I clearly remember a number of Republican bloggers objecting. Gee, I wonder why… 🙂

Most libertarian-streaked bloggers in the room (left and right) objected at the time because there was a sense we could self-police our own. Of course, the camaraderie between Democratic and Republican bloggers back in 2005 was much more substantive than it was post-Webb campaign… and the rift has sadly never quite healed.

Short version: If you take money to issue information on behalf of someone else, be up front about it and don’t have the temerity to paint it as something else. Think of it this way — it’s the difference between “paid journalists” who talk about stories for a check bribe, and journalists paid to write about stories. Credibility isn’t a resource that should be sold cheaply.

Joseph Bottom at FIRST THINGS talks about the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae

. The encyclical — which outlines the Catholic Church’s position on abortion and contraception — is fundamental to understanding why Catholics believe what they believe on pro-life issues.

Leslie Carbone is gearing up for a tutorial on writing well

.

It’s a rarity, to be sure.

Jim Hoeft and I talk about all things Virginia politics on the weekly VPOD podcast , PTI style.

Here’s the text:

FAIRFAX, VA – In a statement issued today, 11th District Congressional Candidate Keith Fimian announced the release of his new campaign website.

“This is one campaign that technology will not leave behind,” Fimian said. “The internet is becoming one of the best media I can use to communicate with the people of the 11th District. I want to demonstrate to the voters that I am here to engage in solid communication with them. There is no way I can physically meet and talk with every voter, so we have built a website for the people of the 11th District to interact with me and for me to interact with them.”

The new website allows voters to sign up and become “Fimian Fans.” They will then be able to access a personalized homepage and receive up-to-date news, information, and opportunities to get involved. Fimian Fans also have the opportunity to volunteer from their home by directly accessing the phone bank through their homepage.

“My campaign has been built on grassroots support. We want to empower our volunteers with the best and most efficient technology we can offer. Whether voters are using our automated Letter to the Editor feature or entering an endorsement, our supporters have unparalleled opportunities to be involved and informed,” said Fimian.

A small businessman, Fimian is the father of three grown daughters and lives in Oakton, VA with his wife of 26 years, Cathy. He is the Republican nominee in Virginia’s 11th Congressional District.

Notice a problem? Try finding a link in the release…

There is a line in a book I am reading (The Road to Monticello) that reflects on how Thomas Jefferson chose an education over a college degree, and did not continue attending William and Mary.

William Deresiewicz reflect on a variation of that theme on how higher education is creating careers, not educated minds:

It didn’t dawn on me that there might be a few holes in my education until I was about 35. I’d just bought a house, the pipes needed fixing, and the plumber was standing in my kitchen. There he was, a short, beefy guy with a goatee and a Red Sox cap and a thick Boston accent, and I suddenly learned that I didn’t have the slightest idea what to say to someone like him. So alien was his experience to me, so unguessable his values, so mysterious his very language, that I couldn’t succeed in engaging him in a few minutes of small talk before he got down to work. Fourteen years of higher education and a handful of Ivy League dees, and there I was, stiff and stupid, struck dumb by my own dumbness. “Ivy retardation,” a friend of mine calls this. I could carry on conversations with people from other countries, in other languages, but I couldn’t talk to the man who was standing in my own house.

True, there are a handful of my friends that I would attribute to being in the role of both common man and everyman. In a strange irony, most of them hail from either the University of Virginia or the United States military — two institutions upon which Thomas Jefferson had a great deal of influence in their formation (think USMA).

Yet for all of the people bearing diplomas, it is typically what they have done beyond their education that separates them from the pack.

Still, I look at my wife’s UVA diploma with a small degree of envy. While I attended Catholic University, I never graduated. While I read virtually every book I can lay a hand upon (ask Mrs. Kenney what she thinks about my library), one fact does bear reckoning — much of what I have learned in an impromptu education has had no course, no guidance, and no mentor.

That above all else is what is missing. Most every “great” in history can point back to an exceptional teacher who laid the foundations, someone who guided that pupil to greatness.

Perhaps in the end that is the secret… a self-motivated learner and an exceptional teacher to guide the student. I suspect that exceptional teachers can do more to help create the former, though I doubt that the current American education system at any level provides for this.

How many professionals would love to teach, but refuse because they can make more in the professional sector? Similarly, how many career-oriented college grads are trained specifically in pedagogy (i.e. an education major)? Worse still, is it serving anyone at any level — teachers, students, administrators, or the school system?

No quick fixes. Just raising questions.

Eric Cantor makes the top four — vote NOW!

I was wondering when this problem was going to be raised:

Rainer Brüderle, deputy leader of the opposition Free Democrats, said Obama’s advisers had little idea of the historical significance of the Victory Column. ‘It was the symbol of German superiority over Denmark, Austria and France,’ Brüderle told the newspaper Bild am Sonntag.

The monument was built in 1864 to commemorate Prussia’s victory over Denmark. When it was inaugurated, Prussia had defeated Austria during the Austro-Prussian war in 1866 and the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71.

Get ready for all the “this isn’t the first time a motivating speaker campaigned on hope and change in Berlin” commentary from the polemicists. Still, the choice of the Siegessäule was a bit surprising to me, to say the least, though it’s more concerning that Obama’s upper-level staff couldn’t do the research to know better.

D.J. McGuire blasts a hole in Warner’s legacy, doing the grunt research/reporting one used to expect out of the MSM:

The numbers are mind-boggling. The extra $1.5 billion for FY05-06 is more than Warner’s entire tax hike. Over the entire eight years, the difference is $6.7 billion – $2.2B more than raised by Warner’s tax hike over that six year period. Imagine how that $2.2 billion could have been improved, say, our transportation network.

So, if you want to know why your taxes went up, and (for Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads) why you’re snarled in traffic, today’s debate gave the answer: it was so Mark Warner could knock out low-income private health insurance and expand government controlled health care.

With tabled goodness. Why the MSM has chosen to whistle past the graveyard on this one is to be expected… but with numbers this stark, if you’re not outraged you simply don’t know what’s going on.