Stephen Roney's Blog, page 37

How Electoral Democracy Really Works

 

Three-term London mayor Sadiq Khan

Conventional wisdom is that in a democracy, being a minority means being oppressed. What could be more obvious? Democracy means majority rule. And so we institute all manner of preferences and handouts for minorities. In the name of “equity.”

But this is not how an electoral democracy actually works. In order to achieve public office at any level, you need an army of committed volunteers; you have to belong to a committed, close-knit, well-organized group with a shared agenda. For generations, every mayor of Toronto was a member of the Orange Order. A Greek alderman explained how it worked to a political newbie: you need to belong to some minority to get volunteers.

Of course, this describes a political party. But it also describes a minority ethnicity. And within the political parties, the way to get the local nomination is with your army of ethnic volunteers and people who will bus in to vote for one of their own. Even if there is no nomination contest, the political party will want a candidate with some strong local ethnic ties, because they want these volunteers in the election proper.

Accordingly, members of minority ethnicities have a built-in advantage. They automatically have an army of volunteers who will support and work for them on the basis of their religion, skin colour, or cultural affiliations. The average majority Canadian does not have that. They must build it from scratch, if they can. And this is still without considering the benefits of an ethnic block vote—as Quebec, for example, has used effectively in Canadian federal politics.

In power, these special interest groups are then able to vote themselves special privileges. So we have the edifice of multiculturalism, affirmative action, special handouts based on race, and the like.

To be fair, there is as well a second factor: if some group of people has extra time on their hands, they have the time to organize and agitate for their special interests. This is why retirees have always had an outsize voice in our political life. They have the time to engage in politics.

This is also the key advantage of farmers and teachers, who also always get priority for their interests in our political life. They will insist that they work hard, and they do, but their work is seasonal. They have an off-season for organizing and agitating. 

The free time available to suburban women has always been behind feminism’s success. They will insist that women have been traditionally oppressed and overworked; the opposite is the truth. Publishers of books and magazines, TV networks and film distributors, have known for generations that the vast majority of their audience is female—only women have enough leisure time. Freidan’s essential complaint, that launched the feminist revolution, was boredom. Women have time to organize to get what they want.

And it is why homosexuals have an outsize influence. Because they do not have kids and families, gays have fewer responsibilities; and so more time to devote to political action. 

We may not be able to fix this problem of minority rule. It may not even, overall, be a bad thing; at best, it can counterbalance possible discrimination against a minority. Multiculturalism, on the other hand, certainly makes it worse.

But at the very least, we should be aware of what is going on.  The special interest groups are not being given preferential treatment because they are or were oppressed, but because they hold power. They can take what they want, and so they do.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The Trump Verdict and the Next Election

 

The prisoner in the dock

Someone must have been telling lies about Josef K., he knew he had done nothing wrong but, one morning, he was arrested. 

The conviction of Trump in the recent New York felony trial makes it a patriotic duty for all Americans to vote for Trump next November. It does not matter if you don’t like Trump. I myself was inclined to Ron DeSantis at the start of this cycle. Trump is always chaotic, and that was not attractive to me. But once they started persecuting him, it became necessary to move to Trump.

The problem is, if the Democrats get away with this, they will do it again. America will never have another honest election. Even if Trump wins, but only narrowly—the Republicans will be tempted to do it, as payback, and the practice of lawfare to fix elections becomes established. Trumps needs to win resoundingly, so that both parties get the message that this tactic will not work, but will blow up in their face.

Since February 2021, it has been a patriotic duty for all Canadians to vote for the Conservative Party and Pierre Poilievre. The message must be clear to both parties—to all three parties—that declaring the Emergencies Act to suppress dissent will not work. Otherwise Canadian democracy is finished too.

Poilievre is not perfect; you might not like aspects of the Tory platform. But the vote must coalesce around one candidate for the Liberal defeat to be decisive. Poilievre is the only available vehicle. Not Singh, who has allied with Trudeau; not Bernier, who has no realistic chance of power. It must be Poilievre.

Vote for your children, and your children’s children. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

To Whom Do You Listen?

 

Who do you trust? Now that all the conventional authorities are shown to be liars?

Who are your favourite commentators among the streamers? A topic at a recent meeting I was unable to attend.

I recently watched a “Backstage” round table from the Daily Wire, and was impressed with the intellectual level of the conversation. This is what university ought to be like, and isn’t. Daily Wire has been taking a lot of criticism lately from other parties on the right: Candace Owens, Steven Crowder. I suspect this has mostly to do with the greater antisemitism: Daily Wire is just too good and too successful. It provokes envy among others on the right.

I especially love to listen to Michael Knowles. I am a liberal; he is a conservative. But it is fascinating to hear the conservative position. He has a background in Italian literature. He is schooled in theology and the traditions of Western thought. I learn from him. But he is also soothing to listen to: he always has an upbeat attitude.

I love Andrew Klavan. He obviously also has a strong background in the Humanities. I loved to hear him arguing with Knowles about what Dante really meant. He adds great wisdom; in part, I expect, from his more advanced age. I do not always agree with his take on Christianity and Christian ethics; but then, he is an Anglican. They tend to be pretty loose on these things. His monologues are always intensely funny.

Ben Shapiro is great. Everyone knows Ben Shapiro is great. He talks fast and never wastes your time. He can always hold my complete attention. Because he is deeply schooled in Judaism, he can often teach me new things and new perspectives. What Would Moses Do?

Speaking of talking fast, I love to listen to Brett Cooper. She doesn’t have nearly as much to say; her purview is more pop culture and relationships. But like Michael Knowles, she has a sunny attitude, and rock-solid common sense.

I am put off by Matt Walsh. His gruffness irritates me; his tone is authoritarian. I think his instincts are authoritarian. I also seem to learn nothing new from him; perhaps in part because we agree on so much. This makes him less interesting to listen to. 

Jordan Peterson: an associate at Daily Wire. I admire his courage; but I have always found Peterson vague and philosophically ungrounded; not intellectually rigorous. He is, after all, a psychologist, and all psychology is like this. A clear thinker would not have entered the field. So time spent listening to Jordan Peterson, I’m sad to say, is time wasted.

Candace Owens has always put me off. Now that she is feuding with Daily Wire. I think categorically that she is in the wrong. She is infected with the poison of antisemitism. She is also not on the same intellectual level as the others; she is prominent because she likes to fight. The point is to stir things up, not to seek the truth. Yellow journalism.

Which brings us to Alex Jones. Like Owens, but more so, his main interest is in stirring things up and being controversial. He is a brilliant entertainer, and a lot of fun to listen to, so long as you understand what he is about—I just don’t have the time. But attempts to ban him or sue him are pure evil. 

Steven Crowder is also primarily an entertainer. He is often fun to listen to; but he is not particularly deep in his analysis. I generally do not have the time.

I find myself listening often to Tim Pool—and wondering why. I find him irritating, for the same reason I love Ben Shapiro. Pool always takes five minutes to say what should take one minute. And most of that is just repeating the same point in other words, and expressing personal opinions. His strength is that he is first with a comment on each news story. He is a news source.

Carl Benjamin, aka Sargon of Akkad, is good for keeping tabs on what is happening in the UK. He seems well grounded in the classical tradition. The main problem is merely that we do not hear from him that often.

Also from the UK, I like Calvin Robinson, from what I have heard; but I have not heard enough from him to say anything definitive.

Canadian commentators? I do want to see anything new put out by JJ McCullough. JJ is not that well schooled in a classical sense, but that is not his thing. His specialty is cultural literacy, meaning in his case pop cultural literacy. This is a special interest of mine, and relates to my work. He is also a great presenter.

Viva Frei is the best of Canadian streamers on politics and current events. Like Ben Shapiro, he talks fast, gets to the point, and does not waste your time. Even better are his sessions with the American lawyer Barnes. Barnes seems always to have an unexpected perspective on things, he is clear and unambiguous about it, and he is often right when I was wrong.

Whatsherface is absolutely brilliant for a comic take on the news. I must see each new video of hers as soon as it is out. Not deep analysis, nothing new learned, but both useful as an overview of the week and highly entertaining.

Mr. Sunshine Baby. He is all clickbait, all the time. But like Tim Pool, his strength is that he is always first on the scene. I often find myself watching his videos despite the low quality, for the news value.

Some other streamers worth mentioning: Joe Rogan comes across as a regular guy with common sense and street smarts. As an interviewer, he stands in for the average guy; nobody has ever done this better than Rogan. He seems to have no prejudices; you get the straight goods. I only wish I had more time to listen to his “long form” interviews.

Megyn Kelly often shows up in my feed. This is no doubt because she is highly active. A good news source, the straight goods, not great analysis. 

Everyone knows about Tucker Carlson. Enough said; a must-watch.

Bill O’Reilly is back with his own videocast. I have caught it recently, and find it worthwhile. I think he is a bit of a blowhard. But he has been around the block, and so can have some unique insights.

Dinesh DeSouza: do not like. I catch someone in a lie, and they lose me forever. DeSouza is not honest.

This is also why I’m soured on Scott Adams. He is at least honest about the fact that he is trying to manipulate you. And I am myself a student of rhetoric, and love it when it is well done. But truly good rhetoric must be strictly honest, and not manipulative. Adams manipulates. This also means he takes a great deal of time to make his points. More time than  I have to spare.

William Lane Craig: his purview is narrow, the issue of the existence of God, but he is the best at it. He is also a model of a fine debater—speaking of my interest in rhetoric. My one complaint is that he is too ready to appeal to authority.

Bishop Barron. I’d rather see him pope than Francis, and he often has valuable insights. But he turned me off like a switch with the declaration early in his series on Catholicism, the one that made his public name, that we are destined to become gods. That sounds to me satanic. He has since famously claimed that “we have reason to hope” that everyone ends up in heaven. Sounds like the same tendency to human arrogance.  So he is unsound on doctrine.

I usually make a point of listening to Jimmy Dore when he posts something new. He is a leftist; our basic attitudes and assumptions are different. That makes him interesting to listen to. Other than poisoning the well with terms like “war pig,” he does seem to try to be honest about things. 

I often find myself listening to Styxhexenhammer. Did I spell that right? His views on religion are apparently the opposite of mine, and he tends to be repetitious and to draw things out. But like Jimmy Dore, he is interesting in order to hear a different but thoughtful take on things. 

I’m sure I’ve missed some great ones. Please, by all means, add your own suggestions in the comments.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Bellevue House Decolonized

 

In a recent discussion among the hosts at Daily Wire, Andrew Klavan rightly argued that antisemitism is not like other forms of racism or discrimination. It is something special, and infinitely worse. The other hosts, even Ben Shapiro, the orthodox Jew, did not see this. 

As Ben Shapiro did point out, however, it is the form of discrimination most likely to end in genocide—arguably the only one.

In other forms of racism, the outsider group is considered inferior. Jews are hated, however, because they are perceived to be superior: “too powerful.”

You do not hate people you think are inferior to you. You are likely to feel sorry for them, and to reach out with. That is the actual experience of blacks or indigenous people. Granted, you don’t want them marrying your daughter. But you don’t hate them, and otherwise wish them well.

You only hate those you think are better than you. These are the people you want to harm or kill.

It is the story of Cain and Abel, repeated endlessly; the second sin of man. God seems to favour this people. Left alone, they always seem to succeed. They seem more intelligent and talented than you. 

Therefore, they must be kept down, or killed. 

To want to harm or kill another because they are more talented or intelligent than you is uniquely and gravely, as Klavan points out, a sin against God himself. God bestows talents. Antisemitism is perhaps the purest proof that someone is a bad person.

Not only Jews, to be fair, are Jews. While they are the obvious historical example, other groups are similarly hated for their accomplishments and talents. The Hakka Chinese in Southeast Asia. The Armenians in the Middle East. I suspect—I may be prejudiced—that this is behind the longstanding English determination to wipe out the Irish. It is clearly behind the current hatred of “straight white males.”

It is behind the Marxist/ socialist hartred for the rich, and ascription of all ills to “rich capitalists” and “greedy corporaions.”

And it directs hatred towards any unusually intelligent or talented or successful individual. Such as Sir John A. Macdonald.

The current frenzy of tearing down statues, renaming streets, and desecrating museums is the same impulse. Sir John A. Macdonald is hated not for any crime, but precisely for his accomplishments. It is worth pointing out that he was one of the greatest advocates in his day for Canada’s native people. As was Egerton Ryerson, another man whose statues have been torn down. Yet those who, like George Brown, actually opposed aboriginal interests, do not receive criticism. Their buildings are not renamed. Macdonald is actually envied for his greater moral goodness. Henry Dundas, similarly, was a leading abolitionist in England; yet he, and not the slavers, is condemned for slavery, and his name erased.

We live in an evil age. What is happening to day is what we will later have to apologize for, and will shamefacedly want to erase from our history books. Like the Cultural Revolution in China, or the Nazi period in Germany.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Farage the Islamophobe

 

There seems to be a firestorm in the UK over Nigel Farage’s recent comments that the UK is letting in too many immigrants who do not support “British values” and “loathe what we stand for.” He is being accused of “Islamophobia” for saying this.

Watch the original interview. It seems to me Farage is perfectly right, and the interviewer dishonest. He is trying to poison the well; Farage is not allowed to cite simple facts, or he is “Islamophobic.” This shuts down debate and leads to bad policy.

Farage here shows himself, once again, a true leader. He will not be intimidated.

Surely it is self-evident that Islam is a set of values. Are these values the same as traditional British values? Are they compatible with them? If not, is British culture and are British values worth preserving?

Let’s take these necessary questions in turn.

Are Islamic values the same as British values? 

They are not, in one essential way. Islam demands sharia law. Nothing, not even the English language, is more central to British culture than British common law; including the principles of Magna Carta and all the rest. 

Next to that, little is more central to British culture than parliamentary democracy. Islam demands a theocracy. There is a reason why there are no functioning democracies in the Muslim Middle East. 

Britain is an officially Christian country; the King is head of the church. Islam is obviously a different creed. Granted, freedom of religion is also a mainstay of modern British culture. But Islam is also doctrinally opposed to freedom of religion: death is the punishment for apostasy. Blasphemy laws apply to non-Muslims; no one may deny the truth of Islam. 

Can these Muslim values coexist with British values? 

On their face, no. And the history of Islam everywhere suggests they cannot. Because of the requirement for sharia law and theocracy, Islam must rule. If there is a substantial Muslim population anywhere, there is an immediate demand for segregation and independence: they will not integrate. 

Are, then, British culture and British values worth preserving?

Just consider the objective accomplishments of British culture. Science, democracy, the Industrial Revolution, Shakespeare, William Blake, the Salvation Army, the Boy Scouts, Dickens, the Brontes, Orwell, football, cricket, rugby, and so on. Suppose it is not the best culture in the world. Even so, surely it is worth preserving. Surely every people has a right to exist, to their culture.

But also consider the quality of the average person’s life in the UK, say over the past few hundred years, with that of the average countryman elsewhere worldwide. Look at the raw economic statistics, or the relative absence of violence and social turmoil.

The answer is obvious. If British culture is lost, it is unlikely to be replaced by something better.

All of these same considerations, of course, apply to Canada; or the US.

This is nothing against Islam. Different countries and different  cultures all have a perfect right to exist. Muslims are free to be Muslims in Muslim countries. British people simply deserve the same right.'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Pope Francis Lays It Out

 

Pope Francis has condemned “conservatism” as “wanting to cling to something, and not seeing beyond it.” “It is a suicidal attitude.” “Being closed up inside a dogmatic box.”

Merriam-Webster defines conservative as “support of established institutions”; “tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions”; “marked by moderation or caution.”

Francis is misdefining “conservative” to mean “obsessive.”

But he obviously intends to malign real conservatives. 

He is, therefore,  objecting to and condemning support of established institutions, existing views, and conditions. And he objects to moderation and caution.

This means the pope stands in opposition to the Catholic Church: there is no more established institution. He stands against the “deposit of faith.” The reason for the church to exist is to preserve and spread dogma, this set of revealed truths. He calls it a “dogmatic box.” And he stands against the virtue of prudence, aka moderation or caution, which both Aquinas and the ancient Greeks considered the mother of all virtues.

"Prudence is the foundation of all these things and is the greatest good. Thus it is more valuable than philosophy and is the source of every other excellence.” It is “the cause, measure, and form of all virtues.”

So the pope stands against the Catholic church as an institution, against Catholicism as a faith or set of beliefs, and against virtue. 

Is the pope Catholic?

Clearly not.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The Real World of Economics

 

Jagmeet Singh and the NDP organized a boycott of Loblaw’s supermarkets for the month of May, in protest over high prices and “corporate greed.” 

This made little sense on many levels, and much sense on none. 

Why Loblaw’s? Its profits were lower than those of some other chains.

Then the Conservatives uncovered the fact that Singh’s brother was a lobbyist for a competitor.

The standard evidence of Loblaw’s price gouging was that prices on comparable products were lower at Dollarama. 

But if so, why boycott? Just buy at Dollarama.

And attributing the rise in prices to “corporate greed” is anthropomorphising a corporation. Can an abstract concept or mechanism feel greed? This, from the side of the aisle adamant that corporations are not persons.

As for greed from individuals, the free market is our protection against it. Raise your prices, and your competitor takes your business. Greed bankrupts you. The places where greed has free rein, and where we need to worry about it, are those not held in check by competition: government bureaucracies, the professions. In sum, the Liberal and NDP constituencies. Making this talk of “corporate greed” look like cynical misdirection.

In other news, the Red Lobster chain has just gone under. At the same time, complaints are rising at the high cost of fast food. “Ordinary people just can’t afford to eat out any more.” Wendy’s is in trouble for trying to introduce “variable pricing,” lowering the price of their meals at slower times of the day. Apparently there is something unfair about this. Everyone should always pay the same price. And again we hear this all framed as a fight against “corporate greed.” 

No doubt the rising cost of ingredients is a part of this. In Canada, the carbon tax is also forcing up the cost of everything. But the same thing is happening in the US; and the rising cost of ingredients should hit home cooking as much as restaurant dining.

The real story is that the fast food chains, and midrange restaurants, are being priced out of their market by the rise in the minimum wage. Anyone could have seen that coming. We are, as a result,  by and large going to lose the convenient option of grabbing a quick meal on the go. Main streets and malls everywhere, already emptying out due to the move of consumers to shopping online, are going to lose their last potential tenants and revenue stream, restaurants. And huge numbers of workers, especially young people on their way up, are going to lose their jobs and their future.

As always, hardest hit will be the poor. The children of the well-off can go to university or community college and be qualified for jobs immediately on graduation. But those who cannot afford higher education enter the market with no skills. They must learn on the job and work their way up. They need these low-paying entry-level jobs. Now what? A life on welfare?

Are there any honest souls on the left?

 Or do they really just not understand economics?

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

A Turnip by My Side

 

If wishes were horses here’s what I’d ride:

The voters of the United Kingdom are in a terrible spot. The Conservative Party has let them down tremendously; but the only viable alternative is Labour, which is bound to be worse on the wokery.

The outcome I would hope for in the current campaign is for the Conservatives to be surpassed by Reform in the popular vote, so that at least at last a real alternative might exist. Then get Farage, Tice, Johnson, Truss, Rees-Mogg, Braverman huddled together there. Such shifts have happened in the past; Labour took out the Liberals long ago on the left.

America has reason to hope for a Trump win; and that is good. But even better if Kennedy were to actually outpoll Biden, and so free the American left from the backrooms and special interests. There used to be an honourable, hopeful, genuinely progressive left, in the days of JFK, of John XXIII, of the fight for civil rights, of the folk revival. It would be glorious to see it live again. 

In Canada, we are lucky. We are on track for the best result: a historic humiliation of the Trudeau Liberals at the hands of a competent and genuine opposition in the CPC. Should the CPC turn out to be a sham, like the UK Tories, we have the PPC at their heels. I feel it is vital to Canada’s future as a healthy democracy that Trudeau not only lose, but lose badly enough that he becomes a cautionary tale of how not to behave as prime minister; like Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon are remembered in the States. This looks as if it is likely to happen.

Can we have, after that, a rejuvenated Canadian left? Are there any honest leftists, in the Kennedy mold, still alive in Canada? Anyone left in the honourable if misguided line of David Lewis, FR Scott, Bryce Mackasey, Eric Kierans, Lester Pearson? Singh has destroyed the legitimacy of the NDP; no sparks there. There is Elizabeth May, Jane Philpott, Jody Wilson-Raybould, maybe Tom Mulcair. But they all seem now like figures from the past, not possible futures.

In the Vatican, I could wish for Pope Francis to have a conversion experience—we are, after all, in the business of miracles. That would be best. 

Second best, he dies soon or resigns. The conclave, aware of the problems, picks someone quite different; someone charismatic in the mold of JPII, with the doctrinal clarity of Benedict XVI.

I do think all of this is possible, if not likely.'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

What Have You Done for Jesus?

 

A cardiologist who sees many people revived after heart death believes that 50% of near-death experiences are bad ones. So much for the claim you sometimes here that everyone experiences gardens and flowers and a complete lack of judgment. That’s just what we want to believe. He thinks these bad trips are less often reported for obvious reasons: people are reluctant to tell others they have been judged evil and are bound for hell. But immediately after people revive, their reactions are less filtered. Terror is apparent.

We also hear often from hospice nurses of how people approaching death have visions of dead loved ones welcoming them to the next world. And we hear how comforting these are. But one study suggests that 30% of them are not comforting, but disturbing.

These are things we do not want to hear. But they conform with the wisdom of the ages. 

One man studying medicine when he had a “near death experience” was confronted by a figure in white whom he understood to be Jesus; and the figure asked him, “What have you done with your life? What have you done for me?”

And he was told that studying to be a doctor did not count.

What are we supposed to do with out lives? What does count?

We have written elsewhere of the commission Jesus gave to those he identifies in the Beatitudes as his own: 

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

“You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.”

As discussed elsewhere, “being salty” and “letting your light shine” has to mean the creation of art. Heaven is the New Jerusalem: it is an artifice, a town built on a hill. We build it together with God.

But what if we have no talent?

I came across a letter to Dear Abby recently, from a housewife who laments that she is not actually very good at anything. She has nothing to offer the world, so what is the point of her life?

Surely there are such people. Gifts are gifts; they are given to some, not to all. And God must have a plan for those he does not give gifts as well. Indeed, it must be at least as honourable.

And the mandate for those without talents is perfectly obvious. 

“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.”

That is what all of us “do for Jesus.” Moreover, as the Beatitudes make clear, there is no cause for those without talents to feel mistreated or disfavoured by God. The blessed given talents are given suffering to go with it: poverty, mourning, rejection, spiritual hunger.

Abby gives this distraught housewife just the right advice, and it applies to all of us who might feel our lives are meaningless: get involved in volunteer work with some charity. 

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Speak No Evil

 

“Denny went to Catholic school; Denny had tattoos. Even though the Catholics frowned on tattoos, Denny did not seem to resent this.”

This paraphrased from an unpublished manuscript I have been asked to look at.

Something is wrong here. Not just that the Catholic Church does not consider tattoos sinful. Suppose they did. Isn’t the rational response, for Denny, to wonder whether his tattoos were a good idea, and seek to justify them to himself; rather than trying to decide whether he can still tolerate in silence his teachers, his colleagues, presumably his parents who sent him to a Catholic school. and the accumulated wisdom of his ancestors for the past two thousand years?

Noting that nothing in religion is compulsory: nobody is making him do anything. His personal freedom is not at issue.

This seems to illustrate the narcissism and intolerance of our current postmodern milieu. 

You can see how this attitude might lead to violence; might lead to assuming the right to shoot up the school for not conforming to your wishes.

We see it spreading to matters other than morals. Now you can condemn your doctor for suggesting that you are morbidly obese, and your health is in danger if you don’t take steps. That’s “fat shaming.” How dare he?

How soon before doctors dare not diagnose cancer, for fear of prosecution?

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.