Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Thursday, February 27, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 725)

Pope-Francis-Argentina

Pope Francis drinks mate, an Argentinian drink, during his weekly general audience at St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican, June 18, 2014. (Photo: AP)

Two days ago, I contrasted the views of Pope Francis and Walter Williams about capitalism and morality. I explained that Walter had the upper hand because free markets are a positive-sum game based on voluntary exchange while redistribution (at best) is a zero-sum game based on coercion.

That’s the theoretical argument. Now let’s look at the empirical data, specifically focusing on which approach is best for the less fortunate. Thomas Sowell, the great economist at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is not impressed by the Pope’s analysis. Here some of what Prof. Sowell wrote this week for People’s Pundit Daily.

Pope Francis has created political controversy…by blaming capitalism for many of the problems of the poor. …putting aside religious or philosophical questions, we have more than two centuries of historical evidence… Any serious look at the history of human beings over the millennia shows that the species began in poverty. It is not poverty, but prosperity, that needs explaining. …which has a better track record of helping the less fortunate — fighting for a bigger slice of the economic pie, or producing a bigger pie? …the official poverty level in the U.S. is the upper middle class in Mexico. The much criticized market economy of the U.S. has done far more for the poor than the ideology of the left. Pope Francis’ own native Argentina was once among the leading economies of the world, before it was ruined by the kind of ideological notions he is now promoting around the world.

I briefly discussed the failure of the Peronist Argentinian model last month, but let’s take a closer look at Professor Sowell’s assertions about the U.S. and Argentina. My colleague at the Cato Institute, Marian Tupy, has put together a great fact-filled website called Human Progress, and it allows users to access all sorts of databases to produce their own charts and tables.

And here’s what the data shows about per-capita economic output in Argentina and the United States.

GDP per person Argentina vs United States

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the supposedly more compassionate system in Argentina.

As you can see from this table, Argentina actually was slightly richer than the U.S. back in 1896. But that nation’s shift to statism, particularly after World War II, hindered Argentina’s growth rates.

And seemingly modest differences in growth, compounded over decades, have a huge impact on living standards for ordinary people (i.e., inflation-adjusted GDP per person climbing nearly $27,000 in the U.S. vs an increase of less than $6,700 in Argentina).

GDP per person by country

By the way, this is not an endorsement of America’s economic policy. We have far too much statism in the United States.

But compared to Argentina, which generally has ranked in the bottom quartile for economic freedom, the United States has a more market-friendly track record.

To help make the bigger point about the importance of economic liberty, let’s now compare the United States with a jurisdiction that consistently has been ranked asthe world’s freest economy.

Look at changes in economic output in America and Hong Kong from 1950 to the present. As you can see, Hong Kong started the period as a very poor jurisdiction, with per-capita output only about one-fourth of American levels.

GDP per person 2014 United States vs Hong Kong

But thanks to better policy, which led to faster growth compounding over several decades, Hong Kong has now caught up to the United States.

What’s most remarkable, if you look at the table, is that per-capita output over the past 65 years has soared by more than 1,275 percent in Hong Kong.

GDP per person 2014 bby nation

Needless to say, if the U.S. is out-performing Argentina and Hong Kong is out-performing the U.S., then a comparison of Hong Kong and Argentina would yield ever starker results. I actually did something like that back in 2011 and the results further underscore that there’s a very powerful relationship between economic policy and economic performance.

argentina-hong-kong

(Source: Angus Maddison/International Liberty)

Which brings us back to the fundamental issue of what system is best for the less fortunate in society? I suppose that’s a judgement call, but poor people obviously have higher incomes and more opportunity when there’s strong economic growth. But as Margaret Thatcher famously explained, some people are so consumed by disdain for success that they’re willing to accept more suffering for poor people if they can simultaneously lower the incomes of rich people.

Hoover Institute Senior Fellow and economist Thomas

America Voters Say No Way to a Muslim for President

Carson-Meet-the-Press-Muslim-President

Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson said Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press with Chuck Todd that a Muslim should not be president, Sept. 20 2015.

The media had a meltdown when Dr. Ben Carson said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation” because Islam is not consistent with core values and American principles. However, according to a new Rasmussen Reports poll, the majority of Americans agree with Dr. Carson and say they would not be willing to vote for a Muslim president.

While 51% of likely voters said they would not vote for a Muslim president and 52% said most of their family, friends and co-workers also would not be willing to cast that vote, a whole fifth of the electorate (20%) said they weren’t sure. Rasmussen deduced “the large number of undecideds suggests that many voters are unwilling to reveal their opinion on what is seen as a controversial topic,” which I would absolutely agree with.

Unsurprisingly, by party, Democrats, who dominate the media, are on the other side of the fence when it comes to the question than their fellow Americans. Republicans are more than twice as likely as Democrats–73% to 35%–to say they would not personally vote for a Muslim president, and roughly half (48%) of voters not affiliated with either major party, agrees. However, considering the fact that a large number of unaffiliated voters say they are undecided, it can safety be assumed that a larger-than-reported number would not be willing to cast that vote, either.

Host Bill O’Reilly said Monday night in his Talking Points on “The O’Reilly Factor” that the media questioning Dr. Ben Carson on muslim presidents “is stupid.”

“All of this PC fog has shrouded important issues,” O’Reilly said, citing a report released by the U.S. Census Bureau last week that showed that median household income, adjusted for inflation, is nearly $1300 lower today than it was when Obama took office. “The liberal media largely ignores the facts. Instead trumping up dopey stuff about muslims.”

American voters unquestionably agree with Mr. O’Reilly’s Talking Points. A large majority (71%) of Americans believe political correctness is real a problem in modern America today, and 73% think Americans have to be careful not to say something politically incorrect to avoid getting pounced on by the PC police. Even more specific, 75% of American voters believe that the media is more interested in creating controversies about candidates than they are about reporting where they stand on the issues, for instance.

The results can be juxtaposed to when Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination in 2008, as roughly 80% of American voters said they could support and vote for a black president. But it is clear that is because they do not have the same concerns about black Americans than they have about followers of Islam.

Forty percent (40%) of American voters believe most Muslims around the world view the U.S. as an enemy, though that is down from a high of 49% measured earlier this year. Still, only 35% don’t think most Muslims see the nation as an enemy, and 24% say they are not sure. Fifty-two percent (52%) believe Islam as practiced today encourages violence more than most other religions. Seventy-five percent (75%) think Islamic religious leaders need to do more to emphasize the peaceful beliefs of their faith.

Carson, a Christian and now retired brilliant child neurosurgeon, doubled down on his comments even as he hoped to clarify them a bit. But, as the polling results indicate, he has no reason to fear a real political backlash from his statements. The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called for Dr. Carson to drop out of the race, but as Bill O’Reilly pointed out, that would not accurately reflect the political reality among the electorate.

“This country is devolving quickly, and it has nothing to do with a phony war on women, muslim presidents, or global warming. It has everything to do with staggering incompetence,” O’Reilly added. “The muslim line of questioning is stupid.”

According to a new Rasmussen poll, the

Pope-Francis-Capitol-Hill

Pope Francis imposed in front of the Capitol Building in Washington D.C. during his first trip to America. (Photo: Catholic News Agency)

Pope Francis addressed a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on September 24, 2015 during his first trip to America. Read the full transcript of Pope Francis’ address below:

Mr. Vice-President, Mr. Speaker, Honorable Members of Congress, Dear Friends,

I am most grateful for your invitation to address this Joint Session of Congress in “the land of the free asnd the home of the brave”. I would like to think that the reason for this is that I too am a son of this great continent, from which we have all received so much and toward which we share a common responsibility.

Each son or daughter of a given country has a mission, a personal and social responsibility. Your own responsibility as members of Congress is to enable this country, by your legislative activity, to grow as a nation. You are the face of its people, their representatives. You are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good, for this is the chief aim of all politics. A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. Legislative activity is always based on care for the people. To this you have been invited, called and convened by those who elected you.

Yours is a work which makes me reflect in two ways on the figure of Moses. On the one hand, the patriarch and lawgiver of the people of Israel symbolizes the need of peoples to keep alive their sense of unity by means of just legislation. On the other, the figure of Moses leads us directly to God and thus to the transcendent dignity of the human being. Moses provides us with a good synthesis of your work: you are asked to protect, by means of the law, the image and likeness fashioned by God on every human face.

Today I would like not only to address you, but through you the entire people of the United States. Here, together with their representatives, I would like to take this opportunity to dialogue with the many thousands of men and women who strive each day to do an honest day’s work, to bring home their daily bread, to save money and –one step at a time – to build a better life for their families. These are men and women who are not concerned simply with paying their taxes, but in their own quiet way sustain the life of society. They generate solidarity by their actions, and they create organizations which offer a helping hand to those most in need.

I would also like to enter into dialogue with the many elderly persons who are a storehouse of wisdom forged by experience, and who seek in many ways, especially through volunteer work, to share their stories and their insights. I know that many of them are retired, but still active; they keep working to build up this land. I also want to dialogue with all those young people who are working to realize their great and noble aspirations, who are not led astray by facile proposals, and who face difficult situations, often as a result of immaturity on the part of many adults. I wish to dialogue with all of you, and I would like to do so through the historical memory of your people.

My visit takes place at a time when men and women of good will are marking the anniversaries of several great Americans. The complexities of history and the reality of human weakness notwithstanding, these men and women, for all their many differences and limitations, were able by hard work and self- sacrifice – some at the cost of their lives – to build a better future. They shaped fundamental values which will endure forever in the spirit of the American people. A people with this spirit can live through many crises, tensions and conflicts, while always finding the resources to move forward, and to do so with dignity. These men and women offer us a way of seeing and interpreting reality. In honoring their memory, we are inspired, even amid conflicts, and in the here and now of each day, to draw upon our deepest cultural reserves.

I would like to mention four of these Americans: Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton.

This year marks the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, the guardian of liberty, who labored tirelessly that “this nation, under God, [might] have a new birth of freedom”. Building a future of freedom requires love of the common good and cooperation in a spirit of subsidiarity and solidarity.

All of us are quite aware of, and deeply worried by, the disturbing social and political situation of the world today. Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion. We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism. This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind. A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system, while also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms. But there is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners. The contemporary world, with its open wounds which affect so many of our brothers and sisters, demands that we confront every form of polarization which would divide it into these two camps. We know that in the attempt to be freed of the enemy without, we can be tempted to feed the enemy within. To imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place. That is something which you, as a people, reject.

Our response must instead be one of hope and healing, of peace and justice. We are asked to summon the courage and the intelligence to resolve today’s many geopolitical and economic crises. Even in the developed world, the effects of unjust structures and actions are all too apparent. Our efforts must aim at restoring hope, righting wrongs, maintaining commitments, and thus promoting the well-being of individuals and of peoples. We must move forward together, as one, in a renewed spirit of fraternity and solidarity, cooperating generously for the common good.

The challenges facing us today call for a renewal of that spirit of cooperation, which has accomplished so much good throughout the history of the United States. The complexity, the gravity and the urgency of these challenges demand that we pool our resources and talents, and resolve to support one another, with respect for our differences and our convictions of conscience.

In this land, the various religious denominations have greatly contributed to building and strengthening society. It is important that today, as in the past, the voice of faith continue to be heard, for it is a voice of fraternity and love, which tries to bring out the best in each person and in each society. Such cooperation is a powerful resource in the battle to eliminate new global forms of slavery, born of grave injustices which can be overcome only through new policies and new forms of social consensus.

Here I think of the political history of the United States, where democracy is deeply rooted in the mind of the American people. All political activity must serve and promote the good of the human person and be based on respect for his or her dignity. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776). If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot be a slave to the economy and finance. Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good: that of a community which sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests, its social life. I do not underestimate the difficulty that this involves, but I encourage you in this effort.

Here too I think of the march which Martin Luther King led from Selma to Montgomery fifty years ago as part of the campaign to fulfill his “dream” of full civil and political rights for African Americans. That dream continues to inspire us all. I am happy that America continues to be, for many, a land of “dreams”. Dreams which lead to action, to participation, to commitment. Dreams which awaken what is deepest and truest in the life of a people.

In recent centuries, millions of people came to this land to pursue their dream of building a future in freedom. We, the people of this continent, are not fearful of foreigners, because most of us were once foreigners. I say this to you as the son of immigrants, knowing that so many of you are also descended from immigrants. Tragically, the rights of those who were here long before us were not always respected. For those peoples and their nations, from the heart of American democracy, I wish to reaffirm my highest esteem and appreciation. Those first contacts were often turbulent and violent, but it is difficult to judge the past by the criteria of the present. Nonetheless, when the stranger in our midst appeals to us, we must not repeat the sins and the errors of the past. We must resolve now to live as nobly and as justly as possible, as we educate new generations not to turn their back on our “neighbors” and everything around us. Building a nation calls us to recognize that we must constantly relate to others, rejecting a mindset of hostility in order to adopt one of reciprocal subsidiarity, in a constant effort to do our best. I am confident that we can do this.

Our world is facing a refugee crisis of a magnitude not seen since the Second World War. This presents us with great challenges and many hard decisions. On this continent, too, thousands of persons are led to travel north in search of a better life for themselves and for their loved ones, in search of greater opportunities. Is this not what we want for our own children? We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation. To respond in a way which is always humane, just and fraternal. We need to avoid a common temptation nowadays: to discard whatever proves troublesome. Let us remember the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Mt 7:12).

This Rule points us in a clear direction. Let us treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be treated. Let us seek for others the same possibilities which we seek for ourselves. Let us help others to grow, as we would like to be helped ourselves. In a word, if we want security, let us give security; if we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities, let us provide opportunities. The yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick which time will use for us. The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.

This conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty. I am convinced that this way is the best, since every life is sacred, every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes. Recently my brother bishops here in the United States renewed their call for the abolition of the death penalty. Not only do I support them, but I also offer encouragement to all those who are convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of rehabilitation.

In these times when social concerns are so important, I cannot fail to mention the Servant of God Dorothy Day, who founded the Catholic Worker Movement. Her social activism, her passion for justice and for the cause of the oppressed, were inspired by the Gospel, her faith, and the example of the saints.

How much progress has been made in this area in so many parts of the world! How much has been done in these first years of the third millennium to raise people out of extreme poverty! I know that you share my conviction that much more still needs to be done, and that in times of crisis and economic hardship a spirit of global solidarity must not be lost. At the same time I would encourage you to keep in mind all those people around us who are trapped in a cycle of poverty. They too need to be given hope. The fight against poverty and hunger must be fought constantly and on many fronts, especially in its causes. I know that many Americans today, as in the past, are working to deal with this problem.

It goes without saying that part of this great effort is the creation and distribution of wealth. The right use of natural resources, the proper application of technology and the harnessing of the spirit of enterprise are essential elements of an economy which seeks to be modern, inclusive and sustainable. “Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving the world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the area in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good” (Laudato Si’, 129). This common good also includes the earth, a central theme of the encyclical which I recently wrote in order to “enter into dialogue with all people about our common home” (ibid., 3). “We need a conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all” (ibid., 14).

In Laudato Si’, I call for a courageous and responsible effort to “redirect our steps” (ibid., 61), and to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity. I am convinced that we can make a difference and I have no doubt that the United States – and this Congress – have an important role to play. Now is the time for courageous actions and strategies, aimed at implementing a “culture of care” (ibid., 231) and “an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature” (ibid., 139). “We have the freedom needed to limit and direct technology” (ibid., 112); “to devise intelligent ways of… developing and limiting our power” (ibid., 78); and to put technology “at the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral” (ibid., 112). In this regard, I am confident that America’s outstanding academic and research institutions can make a vital contribution in the years ahead.

A century ago, at the beginning of the Great War, which Pope Benedict XV termed a “pointless slaughter”, another notable American was born: the Cistercian monk Thomas Merton. He remains a source of spiritual inspiration and a guide for many people. In his autobiography he wrote: “I came into the world. Free by nature, in the image of God, I was nevertheless the prisoner of my own violence and my own selfishness, in the image of the world into which I was born. That world was the picture of Hell, full of men like myself, loving God, and yet hating him; born to love him, living instead in fear of hopeless self-contradictory hungers”. Merton was above all a man of prayer, a thinker who challenged the certitudes of his time and opened new horizons for souls and for the Church. He was also a man of dialogue, a promoter of peace between peoples and religions.

From this perspective of dialogue, I would like to recognize the efforts made in recent months to help overcome historic differences linked to painful episodes of the past. It is my duty to build bridges and to help all men and women, in any way possible, to do the same. When countries which have been at odds resume the path of dialogue – a dialogue which may have been interrupted for the most legitimate of reasons – new opportunities open up for all. This has required, and requires, courage and daring, which is not the same as irresponsibility. A good political leader is one who, with the interests of all in mind, seizes the moment in a spirit of openness and pragmatism. A good political leader always opts to initiate processes rather than possessing spaces (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 222-223).

Being at the service of dialogue and peace also means being truly determined to minimize and, in the long term, to end the many armed conflicts throughout our world. Here we have to ask ourselves: Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society? Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood. In the face of this shameful and culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to stop the arms trade.

Three sons and a daughter of this land, four individuals and four dreams: Lincoln, liberty; Martin Luther King, liberty in plurality and non-exclusion; Dorothy Day, social justice and the rights of persons; and Thomas Merton, the capacity for dialogue and openness to God.

Four representatives of the American people.

I will end my visit to your country in Philadelphia, where I will take part in the World Meeting of Families. It is my wish that throughout my visit the family should be a recurrent theme. How essential the family has been to the building of this country! And how worthy it remains of our support and encouragement! Yet I cannot hide my concern for the family, which is threatened, perhaps as never before, from within and without. Fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family. I can only reiterate the importance and, above all, the richness and the beauty of family life.

In particular, I would like to call attention to those family members who are the most vulnerable, the young. For many of them, a future filled with countless possibilities beckons, yet so many others seem disoriented and aimless, trapped in a hopeless maze of violence, abuse and despair. Their problems are our problems. We cannot avoid them. We need to face them together, to talk about them and to seek effective solutions rather than getting bogged down in discussions. At the risk of oversimplifying, we might say that we live in a culture which pressures young people not to start a family, because they lack possibilities for the future. Yet this same culture presents others with so many options that they too are dissuaded from starting a family.

A nation can be considered great when it defends liberty as Lincoln did, when it fosters a culture which enables people to “dream” of full rights for all their brothers and sisters, as Martin Luther King sought to do; when it strives for justice and the cause of the oppressed, as Dorothy Day did by her tireless work, the fruit of a faith which becomes dialogue and sows peace in the contemplative style of Thomas Merton.

In these remarks I have sought to present some of the richness of your cultural heritage, of the spirit of the American people. It is my desire that this spirit continue to develop and grow, so that as many young people as possible can inherit and dwell in a land which has inspired so many people to dream.

God bless America!

Pope Francis addressed a joint session of

new-home-construction-housing-starts

(Photo: Reuters)

The Commerce Department said on Thursday that new home sales in the U.S. rose more than economists’ expected in August, with the prior month revised to show stronger sales than initially reported. U.S. single-family home sales gained 5.7% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 552,000 units last month, but the increasing share of risk in the housing market is trending higher.

“The strong spring 2015 home buying season has been paced by outsized gains for first-time buyers,” said Edward Pinto, co-director at the AEI International Center on Housing Risk, as well as the former executive vice president and chief credit officer for Fannie Mae. “Unfortunately, these gains are fueled in part by liberalized credit standards, which is creating demand pressure and driving real home prices higher. This will lead to future instability.”

The composite National Mortgage Risk Index (NMRI) for Agency purchase loans clocked in at 12.14% in August, up 1% from a year earlier. The monthly composite index, which measures how mortgage loans originated month-by-month would perform under severely stressed conditions, has now gained on a year-over-year basis every month since January 2014.

Agency loan originations continued to migrate from large banks to nonbanks in August, a shift that has accounted for most of the upward trend in the composite NMRI. Nonbank lending is substantially riskier than the large bank business it replaces.

The Commerce Department said on Thursday that

jobs-line

Labor Department reports on weekly jobless claims, otherwise known as first-time jobless claims. (Photo: Reuters)

The Labor Department said on Thursday that the firing rate, as measured by the number of filing for first-time unemployment benefits, rose last week. Weekly jobless claims, or the number of initial jobless claims that serves a proxy for layoffs across the U.S., gained by 3,000 to a seasonally adjusted 267,000 in the week ended September 19.

However, economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had forecast claims to rise to 275,000 last week. The 4-week moving average–which is widely considered to be a better gauge of labor market conditions, as it irons out week-to-week volatility–was decreased by 6,000 from the previous week’s revised average to 2,251,750. The previous week’s average was revised up by 1,500 from 2,256,250 to 2,257,750.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 1.7 percent for the week ending September 12, unchanged from the previous week’s unrevised rate. The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending September 5 was 1,988,080, a decrease of 118,826 from the previous week. There were 2,222,661 persons claiming benefits in all programs in the comparable week in 2014. There were 11,497 former Federal civilian employees claiming UI benefits for the week ending September 5, an increase of 824 from the previous week. Newly discharged veterans claiming benefits totaled 17,437, a decrease of 382 from the prior week.

The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending September 5 were in Puerto Rico (3.3), New Jersey (2.7), the Virgin Islands (2.3), Alaska (2.2), Nevada (2.2), Pennsylvania (2.2), California (2.1), Connecticut (2.1), Massachusetts (1.9), and West Virginia (1.9). The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending September 12 were in North Dakota (+209), Oregon (+190), Minnesota (+93), Maine (+47), and Delaware (+17), while the largest decreases were in California (-5,286), Texas (- 3,569), New York (-2,938), Illinois (-1,986), and Pennsylvania (-1,860).

The Labor Department said there were no special factors impacting this week’s initial claims.

The Labor Department said on Thursday that

Mina-Stampede-Saudi-Arabia-Reuters

Members of Saudi civil defense try to rescue pilgrims following a crush caused by large numbers of people pushing at Mina, outside the Muslim holy city of Mecca in this handout picture published on Twitter account of the Directorate of the Saudi Civil Defense September 24, 2015. (REUTERS/DIRECTORATE OF THE SAUDI CIVIL DEFENSE/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS)

BREAKING NEWS: At least 717 people were killed and at least 807 were injured in Mina, Saudi Arabia by a stampede of pilgrims making the traditional hajj pilgrimage to the Muslim holy city of Mecca. An estimated 2 million people are participating in the journey.

Reuters reported that the circumstances of the stampede were not immediately clear. However, Thursday marked the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, which is apparently the most dangerous day of the pilgrimage because so many people attempt to perform rituals in the same place at the same time. The area is on the main road from the center of Mecca to the Hill of Arafat, which is highly revered by Islam, as it is believed to be the place where Muhammad gave his farewell sermon to Muslims who had accompanied him to Mecca near the end of his life.

“Please pilgrims do not push one another. Please leave from the exit and don’t come back by the same route,” an officer kept repeating through a loudspeaker at Jamarat.

This is not the first time there has been a crowd hysteria-induced tragedy during the hajj, which Muslims are required to undertake at least once during their life. In fact, there is a long history of such events. In 2006, 364 pilgrims were killed in a stampede in Jamarat at the entrance to a bridge leading to the site in Mina where pilgrims carry out a symbolic stoning of the devil by throwing pebbles against three stone walls. In 2004, 244 people were trampled to death on the final day of the hajj ceremonies.

 

Leading up to the hajj this year, at least 111 people have been killed already and countless others were wounded when a crane collapsed in bad weather and crashed onto the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Islam’s holiest site.

However, the deadliest recorded accident during the hajj pilgrimage uccured in 1990, when 1,426 were trampled, suffocated and crushed by their fellow Muslim brothers and sisters in a stampede located in an overcrowded pedestrian tunnel leading to Mecca’s holy sites.

At least 717 people were killed and

durable-goods-reuters

American workers at a manufacturing plant for long-lasting durable goods. (PHOTO: REUTERS)

The Commerce Department reported on Thursday that new orders for long-lasting manufactured durable goods fell 2% in August, matching economists’ forecasts. Excluding the transportation component, orders were unchanged from the month prior, compared to expectations for a 0.1% tick higher.

The Commerce report comes after two closely-watched surveys of regional manufacturing activity indicated contraction last month. The Philadelphia Federal Reserve’s regional Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey for the mid-Atlantic tanked to -6 in September from 8.3 the month prior. The Fed’s reading came in far below economists’ expectations for a drop to positive 6.

The Philadelphia Fed’s report marked the second major regional manufacturing survey released this week showing the sector contracting, as the Empire State Manufacturing Survey out Wednesday showed regional manufacturing activity contracted for a second straight month in September, remaining well below zero at -14.7.

The Commerce Department reported on Thursday that

Fox News Contributor and Catholic priest Father Jonathan Morris defended Pope Francis on FOX Business Wednesday during his holiness first visit to the U.S.

Pope Francis arrived Tuesday for a six-day historic trip to the United States, marking the first time the “slum pope” stepped foot in America. Despite telling reporters aboard the chartered plane that some in the media have given the impression that he’s “a little bit more left-leaning” than he truly is on economic issues, this pope has undoubtedly been an outspoken critic of capitalism.

The Economist recently called “the Peronist Pope,” referring to his known sympathies for Argentina’s failed, radical left-wing three-time president, Juan Perón. In 1946, when Juan Perón came to power, Argentina was one of the 10-richest nations in the world, as PPD contributor and CATO economist Dan Mitchell recently pointed out.

READ ALSO — Pope Francis and the Spirit of Capitalism</h4>

“Economic policy certainly wasn’t perfect, but government wasn’t overly large and markets generally were allowed to function,” Mitchell said. “But Perón decided to conduct an experiment in statism. The bottom line is that Perón was a disaster for his nation. Not only did he sabotage Argentina’s economy, he also apparently undermined the social capital of the country by somehow convincing a big chunk of the population that ‘Peronism’ is an alluring economic philosophy.”

“Sadly, Pope Francis appears to be one of those people,” Mitchell added.

Despite the empirical evidence, the left-wing sect of the Catholic Church driven by public opinion in the region has gained power and the ascent of Pope Francis is evidence of that shift.

“Pope Francis is part of a larger trend of the rise of the political left among Catholic intellectuals,” Hoover Institute Senior Fellow, PPD contributor and economist Thomas Sowell wrote in his column this week. “He is, in a sense, the culmination of that trend.”

Fox News Contributor and Catholic priest Father

Pope-Francis-Obama-Andrews-Air-Base

Pope Francis, right, is greeted by President Barack Obama, left, at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland just outside of D.C. on Sept. 22, 2015. (Photo: AP)

Congressman Thomas Massie, R-Ky., has invited me to the House of Representatives to watch Pope Francis address a joint session of Congress. This generous Methodist congressman has invited your traditionalist Roman Catholic columnist and cable TV guy to this grand event. I am going with joy because the pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and his presence in Congress is historically unique. But within me is fear and trembling over what he might say.

The papacy is an office created personally by Our Lord. Its occupants are direct descendants of St. Peter. Its role and authorities have evolved over the centuries, but the core of its responsibilities has always been the preservation of traditional teachings about faith and morals and safeguarding the sacraments. While the papacy is a monarchy, the teaching authority in the Church is “the bishops under the pope.” This means that a pope intent on change ought to consult with his fellow bishops.

Before the monumental Church changes of the 1960s and 1970s that trivialized the Mass and blurred the distinctions between the clergy and the laity, Popes John XXIII and Paul VI consulted their fellow bishops at Vatican II. The consultations were fractious and belligerent, but both popes got what they wanted: a watering down of liturgical practices and an easing of rules safeguarding the sacraments, so as to make the Church more appealing and accessible to former and to non-adherents.

The result was a disaster. Fewer Catholics went to Mass, confusion about former theological norms reigned, and a general tenor pervaded the faithful that the Church never really meant what it preached. Former Catholics continued to stay away, new Catholics barely showed up, and many traditional faithful became demoralized.

Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI attempted to roll this back. They succeeded in part by emphasizing traditional orthodoxy and personal piety to youth. Today, Catholic seminaries throughout the world are filled with young men who are more faithful to traditional practices and beliefs than many of their professors are.

Comes now Pope Francis to use moral relativism to take the Church in two dangerous directions. The first is an assault on the family, and the second is an assault on the free market — two favorite political targets of the left.

In the past month, without consulting his fellow bishops, the pope has weakened the sacrament of matrimony by making annulments easier to obtain. The Church cannot grant divorces because Our Lord used his own words to declare valid marriages indissoluble. But it does grant annulments.

An annulment is a judicial finding that a valid marriage never existed. This generally requires a trial, at which the party seeking the annulment must prove the existence of the marital defect from the beginning.

Fair annulment trials are costly and time consuming, often taking years from the initial filing to the final appeal. Until now. Last week, Pope Francis arbitrarily ordered the entire process to be completed in 45 days or fewer. For contested matters, a fair trial in 45 days is impossible. So, to meet his deadline, more annulments will be granted administratively, not on the merits.

It gets worse.

The Church has taught for 400 years that abortion is murder. Because the victim of an abortion is always innocent, helpless and uniquely under the control of the mother, abortion removes the participants from access to the sacraments. Until now. Last week, Pope Francis, without consulting his fellow bishops, ordered that any priest may return those who have killed a baby in a womb to the communion of the faithful. He said he did this because he was moved by the anguished cries of mothers contemplating the murder of their babies.

I doubt he will defend these decisions before Congress. He will, instead, assault the free market, which he blames for poverty, pollution and the mass migrations into Europe away from worn-torn areas in the Middle East.

In his papal exhortation on capitalism, Pope Francis spectacularly failed to appreciate the benefits of capitalism to the health, wealth and safety of the poor. Instead, he has reworked the Peronism of his youth to advocate government-mandated redistribution of wealth and to condemn those who work hard, employ others and achieve wealth — even when they give some of that wealth to the Church.

When he is in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City later this week, he should take note of the recent and beautiful $200 million facelift. It was paid in full by rich Catholic capitalists who employed hardworking artisans and laborers to do the work.

The pope probably also will tell Congress that the world is an inherently unhealthy place because of human work. He will embrace the highly questionable green science of those who want the government to tell us how to live, outside our homes and inside — more Thomas Piketty than St. Thomas Aquinas.

The pope has seriously disappointed those who believe the Roman Catholic Church preserves and teaches the Truth. The Truth is Christ risen and unity with Him. It is not a debate about the minimum wage or air conditioning.

Pope Francis is popular on the world stage, and the crowds love him. But if he fails in his basic duties as the pope, if his concern is more for secular than sacred, if he aids the political agenda of the atheistic left, he is a false prophet leading his flock to a dangerous place, where there is more central planning and less personal liberty.

Pope Francis uses moral relativism to take

Ellen Pao, Therese Lawless

Ellen Pao, right, leaves the Civic Center Courthouse along with her attorney, Therese Lawless, left, during a lunch break in her trial Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2015, in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

The 2015-16 academic year has opened with a predictable collection of demands for banning certain views, often involving sexual or racial matters. Many are couched in convoluted claims that disagreeable speech is making students feel “unsafe.”

Much of the squelching aims to fend off challenges to some of the more ludicrous theories of victimization. Well-constructed thoughts on social injustice can be defended in debates.

But the concern here goes beyond the issue of free speech. What do these bizarre definitions of sexual or racial harassment do to the students’ heads? They, too, are free speech, but when they are shielded from counterarguments, they take on the air of “facts.” The students leave school with “givens” that are not givens 5 feet outside the campus gates.

Case in point is the story of Ellen Pao. A hotshot Harvard-educated lawyer, Pao sued her Silicon Valley venture capital employer for gender discrimination. As evidence, she cited a partner’s referring to a porn star on a private jet.

Where would an otherwise worldly woman come to see a mere mention of porn-watching as evidence of sexual bias? No need to answer.

Brown University just issued another survey “finding” that about 1 in 4 of its undergraduate women have suffered “nonconsensual sexual contact.” It’s hard to know what the heck that means, but you wonder how the throngs of unescorted high-school girls roaming nearby Thayer Street manage to survive the evening.

Brown offers an exhaustive list of advice for men wanting to counter sexual violence. Item No. 9: “Refuse to purchase any magazine, rent any video, subscribe to any web site, or buy any music that portrays girls or women in a sexually degrading or abusive manner.”

Firstly, most pornography is legal, and school administrators have no business telling their scholars what is permissible reading.

Secondly, do the students have any time left to read Shakespeare? Come to think of it, they’d better not. (“Frailty, thy name is woman!”)

Over at Wesleyan University, “advocates” are trying to close the student newspaper for publishing an opinion piece critical of the Black Lives Matter movement. Author Bryan Stascavage wrote:

“If vilification and denigration of the police force continues to be a significant portion of Black Lives Matter’s message, then I will not support the movement. … I should repeat, I do support many of the efforts by the more moderate activists.”

Clearly not a scorched-earth portrayal, but it elicited demands for abject apology, diversity training for the newspaper staff, setting aside part of the front page for “marginalized groups/voices” and so on.

By the way, Wesleyan’s president and many of its students offered full-throated defenses of Stascavage’s right to speak his mind.

I actually feel sorrier for the students goaded into making tyrannical demands than I do the author of the piece. That’s because, to quote Shakespeare again, “the evil that men do lives after them” — especially in the Internet age.

College kids have forever made angry, unwise remarks. In olden days, that speech would end up forgotten, buried in a landfill on the yellowing pages of the student rag. Now the public cries are forever archived in the great cloud and easily retrieved by prospective employers and mothers-in-law.

And when a law firm, for example, Googles the name of the graduate who said an article mildly critical of her advocacy group made her feel “unsafe,” it might very well regard her as a risk not worth taking.

College administrators could spare themselves later heartache if they made clear from day one that no one has the right not to be offended. They might start with the professors.

Brown University just issued another survey "finding"

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial