LA Times Raises an Eyebrow at Ann Romney’s Horse?

It is, of course, the usual mainstream media free-assist that should probably be considered a kind of campaign contribution: the LA Times, read by Hollywood folk who air-condition their garages while telling the little people to make sure they hang their laundry out to dry, today tries to help the Obama campaign’s class warfare efforts by talking about Ann Romney’s equestrian hobby, which both the headline and the very first paragraph of the Times’ story points out, is “pricey.”

This is an article, I am sure, that will be of interest to Bruce Spiingsteen, whose daughter demonstrates her own equestrian skills every summer in the Hamptons.

We still do not know much about Barack Obama’s past, or his wife’s — we know only what they want us to, and the incurious media remains…incurious — but we know about Mitt Romney’s misguided hijinks from 50 years ago, his church’s misbegotten “militia” from 150 years ago, and now Ann Romney — who by the way has “never worked a day in her life” — gets an examination of past litigation (from which she was eventually dropped) examined, with a lengthy look at her love of equestrian dressage.

Really, this is a nothingburger of a story, but the examination of past litigation was really just an excuse for the paper to deliver a subliminal message: Oooooo…this wealthy person has a “pricey” hobby, while you’re eating a bologna sandwich and realizing you can’t even afford a “staycation.”

You know what else is a really “pricey” hobby?


Ted Kennedy, sailing the New England coast, his view of Nantucket unobstructed by ocean wind farms


John Kerry’s sailing yacht

Someone really needs to tell the press — and the Democrats they serve — that every time they want to play class-warfare by illustrating the offensiveness of the rich and “pricey” lifestyle of Mitt Romney, they will have to deal with illustrations of rich Kennedys on “pricey” sailboats; rich John Kerry’s “pricey” sailboats; rich Nancy Pelosi boarding a “pricey” private jet; rich Charlie Rangel napping at his “pricey” Costa Rican villa; rich Jon Corzine — somehow not in jail or even under investigation — hanging at his “pricey” summer house by the water, not far from rich Katie Couric’s “pricey” new digs; rich Michelle Obama vacationing somewhere exclusive and “pricey” and elite.

Really, the class warfare thing is very ill-considered, small-spirited and ultimately self-defeating. Most people do not begrudge the rich their “pricey” playthings, and many, many of the people seeking to sow these seeds of resentment are themselves the rich men and women of the media (who were not always considered the social equals of the elites, by the way) living lives quite out-of-touch with the lives most of us lead. When very rich people sneer at other very rich people — who just happen to belong to a different tribe — for the offense of being rich, it’s just a weird and self-indicting cognitive dissonance.

Wouldn’t it be better if we talked about creating jobs so more people can pursue their own potentialities and find their own pleasant hobbies?

John Nolte angrily notes:

The Los Angeles Times refuses to disclose the contents of a video tape in its possession that reportedly shows Barack Obama lavishing praise on his friend Rashid Khalidi, a close associate of Palestinian terrorist Yasser Arafat, at a 2003 Chicago dinner party sponsored by the Arab American Action Network and attended by Bill Ayers. The Times does, however, have all kinds of time to vet Ann Romney, going so far as to dig into a lawsuit she was part of involving a horse . . . At over the 1300 words — which is 1300 more than The Times has given the explosive allegation that the Obama campaign bribed Reverend Wright in 2008 — the piece purports to be a profile of a woman suffering from MS who finds what the headline calls, the “pricey private world” of dressage, therapeutic. But the language of the article is pure sneering smear and an obvious attempt to aid and abet the Obama campaign’s crusade to define the Romneys as out of touch elitists who can’t possibly understand the problems of the average American — you know, like a community organizer turned failed president can.

Silly Nolte; doesn’t he know that the only way to get the press to do their jobs is to put Republicans in office?

Breaking: OSV, Notre Dame, Others File Lawsuit -UPDATED

Our Sunday Visitor announced this minutes ago:

At 11 a.m. Eastern time today, 43 Catholic dioceses and organizations — including Our Sunday Visitor and the University of Notre Dame — filed religious liberty lawsuits against the federal government in a dozen different jurisdictions around the country.

At issue are regulations that require Catholic organizations, employers and insurers to provide or facilitate abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception — in violation of their consciences.

Equally troubling is the extreme narrowness of the government’s new test for determining which religious organizations are exempt from this mandate — which would appear to exclude Catholic schools, health care facilities, charities and others like Our Sunday Visitor.

Their strong editorial:

It seems to us hardly a coincidence that this suit is taking place in our centennial year. Founded 100 years ago by then-Father John Noll, Our Sunday Visitor from its beginning sought to inform Catholics about the issues of the day, form them in the Faith, and defend that Faith from attack. It was Father John Noll who stood up to those who attacked Catholic immigrants as un-American and seditious. It was Father John Noll who faced down false preachers who spread slanders about the Church. It was Father John Noll who resisted the power of the Ku Klux Klan when it was such a powerful political force. And it is in his courageous spirit that we invoke as we engage in this great struggle today.

We know that many Americans — and even many Catholics — are confused about this debate. Politicians and elements of the news media have sought to make it a war against women or contraception, and they have portrayed the Church as seeking to impose its values on others or as being covertly political.

We also acknowledge that many Catholics do not understand the reasons for the Church’s moral opposition to contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs. This lack of understanding points to a significant catechetical need that the Church should address internally.

We reiterate, however, that this is not about the legality of such practices in society, nor is it about how many Catholics understand the Church’s position. It is about the Church’s right to practice what it preaches.

You can find a pdf of the filing, and more, here

CNS report here

UPDATE: Over at the USCCB, Cardinal Dolan applauds

Bad Catholic: has fun with it

YIM Catholic has comments on the lawsuit from the President of Univ. of Notre Dame

Wow: Ed Morrissy has a very fast and very good roundup of reactions and related stories! Well done, Ed! He notes we didn’t go looking for this battle, and:

The institutions filing lawsuits don’t just comprise a few ultraconservative institutions, either. The University of Notre Dame hosted a speech by President Barack Obama in 2009, but today insists that Obama and his administration are attacking religious freedom in their complaint

MORE…

At dotcommonweal Grant Gallicho doesn’t understand why some schools and diocese who have been (or, will be — it’s promised!) “accommodated” and are thus “exempt” are participating in this lawsuit. Me, I think its because they understand that, “exempt” or not, “accommodated” or not, the government is fundamentally overstepping its bounds with this mandate which, as noted in the filing, contains no limiting principle to the government’s interference with religious freedom if the mandate stands.

That matters. A whole lot.

A breakdown of who is filing what, and where

Kathryn Lopez is particularly delighted with Notre Dame’s inclusion in action.

What An Extraordinary Talent

The repaint on this Holly Golightly doll is most impressive to me — it went from a standard-looking doll’s face to a clear and beautiful representation of Audrey Hepburn. Arwen is pretty remarkable, too — but they’re all really terrific. What a gift; what a fun way to make a living! Check it out!

Quick Reminder:

I am essentially offline and working on another project (or trying to… ). Although I am occasionally posting, comments will remain closed until June, as I have no time to moderate.

I would appreciate any spare prayers you having going unused…

“Putting Love where there is no love”

Tony Rossi has today’s must read.

Let Government Certify and Churches Sanctify – UPDATE

Last week before I left for this “working-vacation” I repeated an idea I’ve brought for years:

“. . . the churches should reconsider their roles in authenticating marriage. Governments issue birth certificates; churches issue baptismal certificates. Governments issue death certificates; churches pray the funerals. Governments issue divorces; Churches annul. Both work within their separate and necessary spheres, serving the corporeal and the spiritual. It is only in the issue of marriage that church and state have commingled authority. That should perhaps change, and soon. Let the government certify and the churches sanctify according to their rites and sacraments.”


The idea is to create a clear differential between contract and covenant
, between legalism/unions and theology/marriage. Our post-modern understanding of marriage may well need that differential in order to begin to re-appreciate that marriage is more than an expression of a mood that needn’t last. It also will afford some protections to the churches — for a little while, at least — against controversy, law suits and fines. For Catholic couples, it could actually encourage some healthy reflections on what they believe, why they believe it and what marriage actually means to them.

Today, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is writing similarly at Huffpo, and he’s envisioning how this same idea could actually help religion to highlight the value of its own understandings:

I think that when people are forced to confront the choice of wanting merely a government-recognized civil union before a justice of the peace, which addresses only legal status issues, or the opportunity to imbue their union with a deeper, more eternal spiritual dimension, they would see the benefit of having something with greater holiness impact their union. And they would be forced to confront the difference between a mere legal synthesis versus a spiritual orchestration of two haves into one whole. In other words, once they are forced to start thinking about their “vows,” they might just drift further into faith and religion.

Boteach says that with this idea, “the government would retreat further from our lives”. That, I think, depends on who is in power. I don’t care what Obama says when he needs to be politically expedient, actions speak louder than words, and all of his actions have moved against freedom of religion.

But I do think this solution would slow him down, a little, and I think it really would give the churches a chance to re-teach marriage, in a very positive way, emphasizing all the things marriage is, rather than saying “that’s not it.” The Holy Spirit has a way of teaching that often confounds us, of turning what seems like a “negative” into a vehicle for the furtherance of God’s purposes. This might be one of those times.

And as a society, we desperately need a little positive emphasis.

UPDATE: I should point out that while I can see strong reasons to go this route in order to protect the churches, the Bishops disagree, and they have sound arguments, too. What I keep thinking, though, is that God works in very mysterious ways. In any case, to quote Dorothy Day, “I am an obedient daughter of the church” and will remain so. I’m just making an argument, here.

Ah, Tuscany!

I wish I were there, right now. Rain and all!

YouTube Preview Image