He did that too , pointing out that without the partners there probably wouldn’t be the beloved grandchildren to enrich her later years.

GoSlugs said:

One might also remind mother in laws to treat their children’s partners well as they are the partner of their child (says the son in law of a woman who was difficult (to put things mildly) from the birth of my spouse until her (MIL’s) final day).

Why Compassion Is Divisive

In the age of cancel culture, mercy makes enemies.

David French May 1

“There’s a damaging misconception that’s hidden within a common critique of Christianity. The critique is one that’s consistently articulated against Christian culture. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, “I believe in the teachings of Christ, but you on the other side of the world do not, I read the Bible faithfully and see little in Christendom that those who profess faith pretend to see.”

“The distinction between Christendom and Christ—the differences between the culture and institutions of the faith and the teachings of the savior himself—have been eloquently argued for generations. I’ve been influencedby Søren Kierkegaard’s searing Attack on Christendom, which dates back to the mid-19th century, and even that is a recent critique by the standards of an ancient faith.

“The gap between Christendom and Christ is sometimes vast, always grievous, and will persist to some degree throughout the entire life of the church. Fallen people will never be truly “like Christ” so long as we inhabit this earth. But hidden within that truth is a misconception—one that’s often extrapolated from a different Gandhi quote, “I like your Christ, but not your Christianity.”

“I’ve heard a version of this comment my entire life. We like Jesus, but we don’t like you. Why? Because you’re not like him. Setting aside the obvious fact that I’ll never be all that much like Christ, is it really true that Christianity would be more popular if its followers were more like Christ?

“I’d say no, because that experiment has been tried. No one was more “like Jesus” than Jesus himself. And while there were moments when the crowd celebrated him, it ultimately called for his head. Believers and nonbelievers alike rejected him, and the longer I live, the more I understand that they condemned him for the very virtues we now most say we admire, for virtues Christians ourselves often lack.

“That brings me to one of those virtues—compassion. We say we want it. We say we need it. We admire it in Jesus, but the sad reality is that it was divisive then, and it is divisive now. It’s a virtue that contradicts hate, but our hateful time and hateful culture cannot abide it. It’s also a virtue that contradicts pride, but our prideful time and prideful culture will not permit it. Let’s look at each truth in turn.

“First, compassion contradicts hate, and the hateful will not tolerate it. The ethos of our modern political culture can be summed up in a single sentence: “Do unto others more than they have done unto us.” This is the essence of cancel culture, for example. Are we bothered (or even hurt) by someone else’s speech? Then they should suffer not just public shame but economic catastrophe for what they’ve done. The punishment exceeds the crime.

“At the extreme levels, this leads to shocking amounts of schadenfreude at the suffering and even the deaths of our enemies. A broken man commits suicide? Fill the internet with stories of his worst days and worst moments. An anti-vaxxer dies alone and afraid in his hospital bed? Post about Darwin or tweet thoughts that begin, “It’s sad, but …”

“In this environment, compassion for your opponents or enemies can actually make people angry. How can you “fight fire with fire” if you insist on granting them mercy for their mistakes, even when they might never be merciful to you? How can you live by the principle “f— around and find out” if you insist on defending others’ rights, even when you strongly disagree with their speech?

“This is the heart of the claim that compassion represents a form of unilateral disarmament. Compassion represents a tangible way of loving your enemies, and it precisely models Christ’s example. When a mob seized him—and one of his disciples drew his sword and cut off a man’s ear—Christ healed the ear and went peacefully with the mob.

“When he was dying on the cross, unjustly executed by an imperial oppressor, among his last words was a plea for his killers: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they’re doing.”

“We love those stories 2,000 years removed from Roman rule, but do we value compassion now when it’s displayed towards the people we believe oppress us? The available evidence suggests no. The available evidence suggests that a culture that seeks vengeance despises compassion as weakness.

“Second, Compassion contradicts pride, and the prideful will not permit it. There is only one kind of compassion that everyone seems to like—compassion for ourselves when we know that we know we’re guilty of sin. Then we crave it. We’re desperate for it. But Christ extends compassion before we know we’re wrong. Then it can feel insulting. The very idea that we need grace can puncture our sense of superiority.

“One of the more mysterious passages of scripture is found in the book of Galatians, where the Apostle Paul refers to something he calls the “offense of the cross.” What’s offensive about the cross? Yes, it’s offensive that Christ was killed, but that’s not what Paul is referring to. He’s referring to the purpose of Christ’s death, for the atonement and remission of sin. Of my sin.

“Charles Spurgeon, the legendary English pastor and theologian, put it plainly. The cross, he said, “is opposed to all [our] notions of human ability. The man who is relying for salvation on his own strength, does not like the doctrine of the cross.” Spurgeon continued:

But there is another offence, which is a very sore one, and the world has never forgiven the cross that “offence” yet, it will not recognize any distinctions between mankind. The cross makes moral and immoral persons go to heaven by the same road; the cross makes rich and poor enter heaven by the same door; the cross makes the philosopher and peasant walk on the same highway of holiness; the cross procures the same crown for the poor creature with one talent that the man with ten talents shall receive.

“The cross, in other words, reminds us of our flaws.

“To make this all more concrete, let’s hearken back to what is perhaps the most Christlike Christian political in modern American history—the Civil Rights Movement and its philosophy of nonviolence. In a 2004 interview, the late civil rights leader John Lewis described the movement’s approach:

During those early days, we didn’t study the Constitution, the Supreme Court decision of 1954. We studied the great religions of the world. We discussed and debated the teachings of the great teacher. And we would ask questions about what would Jesus do. In preparing for the sit-ins, we felt that the message was one of love—the message of love in action: don’t hate. If someone hits you, don’t strike back. Just turn the other side. Be prepared to forgive. That’s not anything any Constitution say anything about forgiveness. It is straight from the Scripture: reconciliation.

“A movement rooted in love and forgiveness infuriated opponents who believed they were in the right. They unleashed hoses and dogs and worse on peaceful protest. But King’s branch of the civil rights movement didn’t just anger enemies. It could frustrate allies also, those with more violent impulses—those who did not want to forgive.

“Last month I wrote that I’ve been reading through scripture with a central fact in mind—every single syllable of the New Testament was written during a time of far worse disease, oppression, and danger than we endure today. The people of God suffered under imperial rule but lived under the firm belief that a messiah would take back the land from a godless empire.

“Yet many of the religious leaders of the time were hardly liberators. They were oppressed by the Romans and oppressors of their own people. Or, as Jesus said in Matthew 23, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You pay a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin, and yet you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness.”

“Christ’s compassion thus contradicted the religious leadership in two ways, both summed up in one of the most famous sentences of scripture: “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’” Christ extends grace both to the oppressor (the tax collector, an agent of Roman rule) and the oppressed (the sinner, shunned by the Pharisee class).

“The culture often claims it wants Christians to be like Christ, but does it really? The spirit of the age is better described by a famous quote by a Peruvian general and president named Óscar Benavides: “For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.” Christ responds with, “For my friends, mercy; for my enemies, mercy.”

“And what is our answer? “I don’t need it, and they mustn’t have it.” The world may say that it likes Christ and merely rejects the church, but I suspect that if Christ were walking among us now, much of the world and even many in the church would reject him again, for the same reasons believers and unbelievers did before. His compassion rebukes our hate and our pride”

Good read on a Sunday

An interesting post give your recent comments on other threads regarding the homeless. How do you reconcile the obvious contradictions?

ETA:  I saw your comment in the Rosegarden and responded there. 

Catholics are used to seeing people claim that they're interpreting something the Pope said, when they're just misrepresenting his position.

Now that's happening with claims by people making excuses for Putin in Ukraine. 

No, the Pople didn't say that "NATO provoked the Russian invasion". He recognized that Putin claims that he was responding to NATO, but the Pope blames Russia, not Ukraine or any other country. 

In response to @nohero's above reference to my Tweet, here are two of the reports that I relied in the Tweet. The reports are based on an interview in Corriere Della Sera.

I'll concede (as I did later on Twitter) that I should have written "NATO may have provoked the Russian invasion" instead of "NATO provoked the Russian invasion". On the other hand, the Pope is clearly suggesting that the prospect of NATO moving into Ukraine ("barking at Russia's gate") was a factor in Putin's decision. And this is something the US and/or NATO could have, but refused to take off the table, despite repeated warnings by experts over the last 30 years.

Finally, I'll note that also in the interview, the Pope reinforces the suggestion by saying: "I have no way of telling whether his (Putin's) rage has been provoked . . . but I suspect it was maybe facilitated by the West’s attitude".

Paul, I’m not sure if someone earlier linked to this last week, I feel it more clearly summarises the Pope’s position. (The quotes above sound out of context, used for shock value by the publishers)

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2022-04/cardinal-parolin-pope-book-against-war-presentation-helsinki.html 

“I will not enter into the merits of the decisions that various countries have taken to send arms to Ukraine, which as a nation has the right to defend itself from the invasion it has suffered.”   

joanne said:

Paul, I’m not sure if someone earlier linked to this last week, I feel it more clearly summarises the Pope’s position. (The quotes above sound out of context, used for shock value by the publishers)

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2022-04/cardinal-parolin-pope-book-against-war-presentation-helsinki.html 

“I will not enter into the merits of the decisions that various countries have taken to send arms to Ukraine, which as a nation has the right to defend itself from the invasion it has suffered.”   

Thanks for pointing that out, Joanne. Unfortunately, there are people who disregard context in order to "spin" any statement into one that supports their views.  In this case, we should read the Pope as just exploring what may be in Putin's mind (wrongheaded though it may be), before reinforcing his clear view about Putin's full responsibility.  

Others mistakenly read the Pope as spreading the blame around, as they want to.  I think the Pope's very direct comment to the Russian patriarch applies to them as well. 

Our local "Putin whisperer" is still using the Pope as justification for arguing that countries shouldn't try to protect themselves from Russia. 

Please stop inviting the nuts onto this thread.  Those of us who don't care for the Nan and Paul show should have some refuge.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/hong-kong-police-arrest-pro-democracy-catholic-bishop/

While Putin holds the world’s Center Stage, China makes plans.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/05/janet-yellens-grotesque-rationalization-of-abortion/

Janet Hellen’s cost-effective look at the abortion issue. Makes dollars and “sense” of the right to life for the poor and the rich.

mtierney said:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/05/janet-yellens-grotesque-rationalization-of-abortion/

Janet Hellen’s cost-effective look at the abortion issue. Makes dollars and “sense” of the right to life for the poor and the rich.

I can't read the article because I have exhausted my monthly of free articles.  What are key points of the article.

At the end of the day, I find it fairly grotesque to force women to carry a child to term if that is not what they want.  Under the best of circumstances, carrying a baby for 9 months and then delivering the baby is a major event in a woman's life.  And many women find themselves pregnant in circumstances that are far from good.

tjohn said:

mtierney said:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/05/janet-yellens-grotesque-rationalization-of-abortion/

Janet Hellen’s cost-effective look at the abortion issue. Makes dollars and “sense” of the right to life for the poor and the rich.

I can't read the article because I have exhausted my monthly of free articles.  What are key points of the article.

It's not even a "free article". You have to sign up for something called "NRPlus" to read it.

The subtitle of the article, which I can see, is: "The Treasury secretary’s comments to the Senate demonstrate progressives’ failure to understand that human beings are assets, not liabilities."

It's safe to say that respect for all human beings like that is far from a guiding principle in conservatism, especially as practiced by fans of the approach in National Review.

Main quote can be read here: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-u-s-treasury-secretary-janet-yellen-testifies-for-house-financial-services-hearing

Sorry to be late for this info…

The Treasury secretary’s comments to the Senate demonstrate progressives’ failure to understand that human beings are assets, not liabilities.

Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen made some comments about abortion during Senate testimonyyesterday that deserve our attention. Here’s what she said to Senator Tim Scott (R., S.C.):

What we’re talking about is whether or not women will have the ability to regulate their reproductive situation in ways that will enable them to plan lives that are fulfilling and satisfying for them, and one aspect of a satisfying life is being able to feel that you have the financial resources to raise a child, that the children you bring into the world are wanted and that you have the ability to take care of them. In many cases abortions are of teenage women, particularly low-income and often black, who aren’t in a position to be able to care for children, have unexpected pregnancies, and it deprives them of the ability, often, to continue their education to later participate in the workforce. So there, there is a spillover into labor force participation, but, and it means the children will grow up in poverty and do, do worse themselves. This is not harsh, this is the truth.

Senator Scott, of course, knows a thing or two about being black and being poor. “I’ll just simply say that as a guy raised by a black woman in abject poverty, I’m thankful to be here as a United States senator,” Scott told Yellen.

Scott’s objection to Yellen is that discussing abortion from an entirely economic point of view completely misses the point of the discussion. And he’s right. But Yellen wasn’t even considering the economic question in full.

It’s a hard sell to say that abortions, in general, have improved women’s economic prospects. The number of abortions in the U.S. has been declining for decades even as women have come to make up a greater and greater share of the labor force. There is probably no causal relationship in either direction here, but in any event, the idea that abortions make it easier for women to work doesn’t seem to be borne out by the data.

Yellen also fails to consider the other side of the ledger: women who got an abortion believing it would make their lives more “fulfilling and satisfying” and proceeded to focus on their careers, only to realize too late that they actually did want children. Much good has come from women’s participation in the workforce, but as Charles Krauthammer wrote in a 2000 column, “Like all great revolutions, feminism has its price and its victims.”

More fundamentally, Yellen’s view of human beings is incorrect: She views them as macroeconomic liabilities rather than macroeconomic assets. In her view, they take up space, consume resources, and impose burdens on those who care for them. And of course, they do those things. But they don’t just do those things. They also come up with new ideas, produce resources, and care for other people. On balance, they are assets, not liabilities.

This is a point that progressives have failed to understand for years. From the eugenics proponents of the early 20th century to the environmentalists of today, progressives have never believed that human beings are, as economist Julian Simon called them, the ultimate resource. They’re forever stuck in the zero-sum world of Malthus, where people are problematic mouths to feed, instead of the positive-sum world we actually live in, where people are a creative force to invest in.

People aren’t being irrational when they’re excited to have children or happy to be around and help care for other people’s children. There is a deep human desire for children to grow up, prosper, and have families of their own, and the adults in their lives are in many cases happy to sacrifice so that they might do so.

Sometimes those sacrifices entail forgoing higher education. Sometimes they entail leaving the labor force for a while. Those choices are common among people of every race, religion, and income bracket. They aren’t a problem to be solved — and even if they were, the solution would not be to prevent children from ever being born.

Children are not economic obstacles for adults to overcome, and Janet Yellen should not be talking about them as if they were in testimony before the U.S. Senate. They are macroeconomic assets, and we should want more of them.

mtierney said:

Sorry to be late for this info…

The Treasury secretary’s comments to the Senate demonstrate progressives’ failure to understand that human beings are assets, not liabilities.

Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen made some comments about abortion during Senate testimonyyesterday that deserve our attention. Here’s what she said to Senator Tim Scott (R., S.C.):

What we’re talking about is whether or not women will have the ability to regulate their reproductive situation in ways that will enable them to plan lives that are fulfilling and satisfying for them, and one aspect of a satisfying life is being able to feel that you have the financial resources to raise a child, that the children you bring into the world are wanted and that you have the ability to take care of them. In many cases abortions are of teenage women, particularly low-income and often black, who aren’t in a position to be able to care for children, have unexpected pregnancies, and it deprives them of the ability, often, to continue their education to later participate in the workforce. So there, there is a spillover into labor force participation, but, and it means the children will grow up in poverty and do, do worse themselves. This is not harsh, this is the truth.

Senator Scott, of course, knows a thing or two about being black and being poor. “I’ll just simply say that as a guy raised by a black woman in abject poverty, I’m thankful to be here as a United States senator,” Scott told Yellen.

Scott’s objection to Yellen is that discussing abortion from an entirely economic point of view completely misses the point of the discussion. And he’s right. But Yellen wasn’t even considering the economic question in full.

It’s a hard sell to say that abortions, in general, have improved women’s economic prospects. The number of abortions in the U.S. has been declining for decades even as women have come to make up a greater and greater share of the labor force. There is probably no causal relationship in either direction here, but in any event, the idea that abortions make it easier for women to work doesn’t seem to be borne out by the data.

Yellen also fails to consider the other side of the ledger: women who got an abortion believing it would make their lives more “fulfilling and satisfying” and proceeded to focus on their careers, only to realize too late that they actually did want children. Much good has come from women’s participation in the workforce, but as Charles Krauthammer wrote in a 2000 column, “Like all great revolutions, feminism has its price and its victims.”

More fundamentally, Yellen’s view of human beings is incorrect: She views them as macroeconomic liabilities rather than macroeconomic assets. In her view, they take up space, consume resources, and impose burdens on those who care for them. And of course, they do those things. But they don’t just do those things. They also come up with new ideas, produce resources, and care for other people. On balance, they are assets, not liabilities.

This is a point that progressives have failed to understand for years. From the eugenics proponents of the early 20th century to the environmentalists of today, progressives have never believed that human beings are, as economist Julian Simon called them, the ultimate resource. They’re forever stuck in the zero-sum world of Malthus, where people are problematic mouths to feed, instead of the positive-sum world we actually live in, where people are a creative force to invest in.

People aren’t being irrational when they’re excited to have children or happy to be around and help care for other people’s children. There is a deep human desire for children to grow up, prosper, and have families of their own, and the adults in their lives are in many cases happy to sacrifice so that they might do so.

Sometimes those sacrifices entail forgoing higher education. Sometimes they entail leaving the labor force for a while. Those choices are common among people of every race, religion, and income bracket. They aren’t a problem to be solved — and even if they were, the solution would not be to prevent children from ever being born.

Children are not economic obstacles for adults to overcome, and Janet Yellen should not be talking about them as if they were in testimony before the U.S. Senate. They are macroeconomic assets, and we should want more of them.

ladies and gentlemen, I give you white privilege.

mtierney said:

Senator Scott, of course, knows a thing or two about being black and being poor. “I’ll just simply say that as a guy raised by a black woman in abject poverty, I’m thankful to be here as a United States senator,” Scott told Yellen.

Scott’s objection to Yellen is that discussing abortion from an entirely economic point of view completely misses the point of the discussion. And he’s right. But Yellen wasn’t even considering the economic question in full.

It’s a hard sell to say that abortions, in general, have improved women’s economic prospects. The number of abortions in the U.S. has been declining for decades even as women have come to make up a greater and greater share of the labor force. There is probably no causal relationship in either direction here, but in any event, the idea that abortions make it easier for women to work doesn’t seem to be borne out by the data.

Yellen also fails to consider the other side of the ledger: women who got an abortion believing it would make their lives more “fulfilling and satisfying” and proceeded to focus on their careers, only to realize too late that they actually did want children. Much good has come from women’s participation in the workforce, but as Charles Krauthammer wrote in a 2000 column, “Like all great revolutions, feminism has its price and its victims.”

More fundamentally, Yellen’s view of human beings is incorrect: She views them as macroeconomic liabilities rather than macroeconomic assets. In her view, they take up space, consume resources, and impose burdens on those who care for them. And of course, they do those things. But they don’t just do those things. They also come up with new ideas, produce resources, and care for other people. On balance, they are assets, not liabilities.

This is a point that progressives have failed to understand for years. From the eugenics proponents of the early 20th century to the environmentalists of today, progressives have never believed that human beings are, as economist Julian Simon called them, the ultimate resource. They’re forever stuck in the zero-sum world of Malthus, where people are problematic mouths to feed, instead of the positive-sum world we actually live in, where people are a creative force to invest in.

People aren’t being irrational when they’re excited to have children or happy to be around and help care for other people’s children. There is a deep human desire for children to grow up, prosper, and have families of their own, and the adults in their lives are in many cases happy to sacrifice so that they might do so.

Sometimes those sacrifices entail forgoing higher education. Sometimes they entail leaving the labor force for a while. Those choices are common among people of every race, religion, and income bracket. They aren’t a problem to be solved — and even if they were, the solution would not be to prevent children from ever being born.

Children are not economic obstacles for adults to overcome, and Janet Yellen should not be talking about them as if they were in testimony before the U.S. Senate. They are macroeconomic assets, and we should want more of them.

If you stop and think a moment, this should be a surprising view for you given your oft-stated worries that the US cannot handle the number of people wishing to immigrate here. All human beings have value, but as you yourself have pointed out, the arrival of more human beings also implies the usage of more resources.

Unlike you, I believe the United States is perfectly capable of handling greater population growth through immigration, but I do agree with you on this point -- more people at minimum changes the distribution of resources.

Now when we're talking about individual people rather than a whole country, it's far less clear that a single person will have the resources needed for a new person. And if that new person is a newborn, they're not adding any material resources -- quite the opposite. So unlike, say, an adult arriving at the border willing and able to work, a situation you've worried puts undue strain on the resources of an entire country, here we're talking about a person who literally is only taking energy, food, and other material resources, and will be for many years.

Now one obvious connection I hope you'll make is that if it's not a problem for a country to take on new people, but is a challenge for an individual to take on a new person, maybe some of the resources of the country should be put toward helping the individual? And I'd say absolutely, and welcome to the political left.

The other conclusion I hope would be obvious is that it's best if individual can decide when and if they're going to have children, so that children can in fact not swamp the resources of individuals and can be provided with all the care, attention, and material goods they need to thrive. In other words, individuals need control over their own reproductive choices.

Isn’t it interesting that the majority of the immigrants at the border are Catholic? With kids? Because they don’t believe in abortion? 
Why are evangelical, Catholic, anti abortion conservatives so obsessed with preventing these immigrants looking for a better life?  If you’re so pro life why complain about these immigrants having many children here in the USA as anchor babies? 
If Joseph and Mary showed up at the border with baby Jesus would king Trumpenstein have put baby Jesus in a cage in Walmart and send Joseph and Mary back to Mexico? After all they weren’t exactly white European… unlike the statues we see in the cathedral. 
This world is full of people who disguise their hatred inside the houses of worship. 

I have learned over the years that it isn't necessary to make the arguments in favor of unfettered access to abortion to complicated.  As I said before, being pregnant and giving birth is a major disruption to a woman's life under the best of circumstances.  I hardly think society needs to be telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies, particularly in the early stages of pregnancy.  Why a woman might choose to end a pregnancy - health concerns, economic concerns, whatever - is none of my business.

And we know with a lot of Republicans, there is something more sinister at work with talk of restricting access to contraception.  I suppose more than few Republicans want women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.

Jaytee said:

Why are evangelical, Catholic, anti abortion conservatives so obsessed with preventing these immigrants looking for a better life?  If you’re so pro life why complain about these immigrants having many children here in the USA as anchor babies? 

I don't think most Catholics are anti-choice. The church hierarchy is. That and Catholics who are are the loudest give an impression that most Catholics are so.

Pro-choice is legal in many Catholic countries like Ireland and Italy where Catholics have pushed to prevent forced birth laws.

Evangelicals are a different story. With them its not just their hierarchy or leadership, its also their members who heavily support anti-choice.

RTrent said:

I don't think most Catholics are anti-choice. The church hierarchy is. That and Catholics who are are the loudest give an impression that most Catholics are so.

The Church hierarchy is also strongly anti death penalty.  Given the strong support for state sponsored executions amongst conservative Christians, I don't think theology can really explain conservative support for forced birth.

mtierney said:

 The number of abortions in the U.S. has been declining for decades even as women have come to make up a greater and greater share of the labor force. 

Amongst the principle reasons for this decline are easy access to birth control and a decline in the stigmatization of unwed mothers, both of which you oppose.

GoSlugs said:

mtierney said:

 The number of abortions in the U.S. has been declining for decades even as women have come to make up a greater and greater share of the labor force. 

Amongst the principle reasons for this decline are easy access to birth control and a decline in the stigmatization of unwed mothers, both of which you oppose.

Where did Mtierney say she opposed easy access to birth control?  Or is this by extension since she supports the white supremacist christianist dictatorship party?

tjohn said:

Where did Mtierney say she opposed easy access to birth control?  Or is this by extension since she supports the white supremacist christianist dictatorship party?

She's mentioned it a number of times over the years.  I think she believes it promotes loose ways amongst women and sluttishness.

ETA:  Mtierney, if I have mischaracterized your position on this issue, I apologize. Please feel free to correct me.

GoSlugs said:

She's mentioned it a number of times over the years.  I believe she thinks it promotes loose ways amongst women and sluttishness.

Ooh, reminds me, if I'm ever in Atlanta:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/2022/05/09/pinky-cole-slutty-vegan-profile-investment/

PVW said:

Ooh, reminds me, if I'm ever in Atlanta:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/2022/05/09/pinky-cole-slutty-vegan-profile-investment/

Damn, I kinda wanna try that, even though one of my favorite non-vegan burger places ever (Flip Burger Boutique) is also there.

It was announced today that the Pope is coming to Edmonton this summer.  I am kind of excited about this.

I guess he's a fan of malls?

PVW said:

I guess he's a fan of malls?

He's coming as part of the reconciliation effort surrounding residential schools.  It is in response to a meeting he had in Rome with a delegation of survivors and First Nations elders.

Ah, that's actually a really big move IMO (my comment was my attempt at an Edmonton joke. It's a limited repertoire.)