Americans Are Like ‘Teenage Kids’

Steven Chu: Americans Are Like ‘Teenage Kids’ When It Comes to Energy - Environmental Capital - WSJ

When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, Energy Secretary Steven Chu sees Americans as unruly teenagers and the Administration as the parent that will have to teach them a few lessons. Speaking on the sidelines of a smart grid conference in Washington, Dr. Chu said he didn’t think average folks had the know-how or will to to change their behavior enough to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

"The American public... just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act," Dr. Chu said. "The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is."

The administration aims to teach them -literally. The Environmental Protection Agency is focusing on real children. Partnering with the Parent Teacher Organization, the agency earlier this month launched a cross-country tour of 6,000 schools to teach students about climate change and energy efficiency.

An update: Energy Department spokesman Dan Leistikow added: "Secretary Chu was not comparing the public to teenagers. He was saying that we need to educate teenagers about ways to save energy. He also recognized the need to educate the broader public about how important clean energy industries are to our competitive position in the global economy. He believes public officials do have an obligation to make their case to the American people on major legislation, and that’s what he’s doing."

-Wall Street Journal, 2009.09.21

Dr. Chu's words are plain enough, despite the subsequent clarification, which unconvincingly attempts to explain away Dr. Chu's condescension.

President Obama's opponents are violent racists?

Carter again cites racism as factor in Obama's treatment - CNN.com

"'I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American,' Carter told 'NBC Nightly News.'"

Does this mean that everyone who has expressed any strong disapproval of the President Obama's policies and actions is motivated by racism?

The CNN article states that Bill Cosby agrees with Jimmy Carter, so it must be true. And Nancy Pelosi warned us yesterday that the president's opponents are inciting violence.

Is there a coordinated effort to silence and discredit the president's political opponents by smearing them as violent racists?

Offended by Life, Death strikes a blow

Michigan Gunman Was Offended by Victim’s Pro-life Message -EWTN.com

A clash of world views:

1) A man peacefully holds a pro-life sign, advocating the right of each person to be permitted to live.

2) Another man, "offended" by the sign, shoots him dead, advocating a "right" to kill someone who offends or inconveniences him.

Fallen Czar: Van Jones blames "vicious smear campaign"

Controversy over fiery remarks fells Obama adviser -Lake County Record-Bee

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's environmental adviser Van Jones, who became embroiled in a controversy over past inflammatory statements, has resigned his White House job after what he calls a "vicious smear campaign against me."

Last week word got around that "Green Jobs Czar" Van Jones publicly described Republicans as "a**holes". Many people thought that this was a bit over the top for an official appointed by the president -even for the Obama administration. This, on top of increased awareness of Van Jones' past statements and activities, created enough heat to raise the temperature in the White House.

Many citizens, now awakening from their political passivity because of the threat of a federal deconstruction of the world's greatest health care system, voiced loud disapproval of Van Jones' unseemly outburst, and the White House responded by quietly announcing Van Jones' "resignation" this morning, on the Sunday of a three-day weekend.

Jones, of course, has his own view. It wasn't his own derogatory name-calling that cost him his job. His speedy de-czarification is a result of "vicious smear campaign against me." Obviously those who objected to his performance must be "a**holes".

Charles Rangel, D-NY, pays members investigating his ethics

Rangel-ing: Charlie Pays 'Angels' In Ethics Probe - wcbstv.com: "Harlem Congressman Gave Campaign Contributions To 3 Dems On Ethics Committee Charged With Investigating Him"

CBS 2 HD has discovered that since ethics probes began last year the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him.

Charlie's "angels" on the committee include Congressmen Ben Chandler of Kentucky, G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina and Peter Welch of Vermont. All have received donations from Rangel.

Only Welch sees something wrong with being financial beholden to Charlie.

"In an abundance of caution, he has returned all campaign contributions from Mr. Rangel," said spokesman Bob Rogan, Welch's Chief of Staff.

It amounted to nearly 20 grand...

Your government speaks: Republicans are "a**holes"

RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama's Green Jobs Czar Van Jones: Republicans Are "A**holes"



Question from audience: "How are the Republicans able to push things through, when they had less than sixty senators, but somehow we can't?"

Answer from Green Jobs Czar Van Jones: "Well, the answer to that is, they're a$$holes."

-From a lecture Van Jones gave at the 2nd Annual Berkeley Energy & Resources Collaborative (BERC) event, February 11, 2009, Berkeley, CA.

Why do I oppose the current Obama health care plan?

A few thoughts...

The "reforms" being pressed by the president and ruling party are very unpopular with the public... so much so that thousands of citizens who have never before been involved in political demonstrations are seeking out their congressmen to express their concerns, indignation, and anger. It's amazing to see the reaction of the public.

The democrats' plan is increasingly unpopular not because the plan is being widely misrepresented, but because people are increasingly realizing what the current proposals would bring. The plan is getting more public scrutiny than Congress and the president want, and the better people understand the plan the more they oppose it.

Public anger is increasing also because people who raise concerns or objections to the democrats' plan find they frequently are dismissed by elected officials and the media as misinformed freaks, lobbyists, or even racists. But the town hall videos I've seen recently show meetings attended mostly by intelligent, passionate, middle-aged and older citizens expressing their own concerns, not pawns operated by mustache-twirling lobbyists intent on putting down the poor.

Why are people so agitated about the "reforms"? Several big reasons:

• The democrats would like to provide health care coverage as a "right" to an additional 47 million individuals, and claim they will do so without increasing public debt. Does anyone believe this isn't a lie?
  
• Where are all the new doctors who will care for those 47 million individuals? Congress can't manufacture them.
  
• Many believe that under the proposed plan, their access to medical care and the quality of that care will decrease: millions more recipients will stretch thin the existing pool of medical providers.
  
• The so-called "public option" is hardly an "option". It would be the ONLY option permitted to people who don't already have coverage. They would be legally barred from buying private coverage.
  
• Who really believes that the government plan will not ultimately destroy the existing private providers, resulting in total government domination of health care? People increasingly view our federal government as insatiable in its appetite to nationalize one industry after another, and the medical industry is currently in the crosshairs.
  
• Does anyone really believe that the government can do a better job of providing health care than the private sector? In which countries has this been the case? Cuba? England? Canada?
  
• Many people do not believe it is just or fair to grant comprehensive medical benefits to illegal aliens -many of whom pay no taxes- and expect taxpaying citizens to pay the cost, especially when so many citizens are already struggling to provide for their own families.
  
• The American medical industry is the greatest in the world, despite its flaws. Who thinks that a government takeover really will improve it?
  
• Many people -myself included- deeply mistrust the federal government's ability to administer medical benefits fairly without violating the basic human rights of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly. The danger is that government will have a strong financial motivation to make medical decisions not to benefit individuals, but according to some other criteria.
  
• And why have the president and Congress been pressing for such rapid passage of such a monumental bill? If it's so important to get it right, why did they press so hard to pass it before the August recess, even before many members had had a chance to read it?
  

These are a few of the big concerns I have about the democrats' plan for the federal government to take over the health care industry, and they are reasons why I oppose the current plan. I'm persuaded that there are some things government should do to improve the health care system, but a massive take-over, a government-run "public option" would badly damage our system of health care which is second to none in the world.

Cash for Clunkers: spreading debt and chaos the socialist way

Cash for Clunkers Ends Monday

The Cash for Clunkers program... let us count its many wonderful benefits:

• All taxpayers are compelled to shoulder the cost of subsidizing the purchase of new cars for a few taxpayers. That's called, "spreading the wealth", and our president likes to do that.
  
• The "clunkers" are cars that were being used; they were working. They had some value. But now they will be destroyed, discarded not because they are worthless, but because the law requires it. Destroying private property and replacing it with federally funded property: our president likes that too.
  
• Car dealers benefit from this program -at least if they actually ever receive the promised rebates. Yet, other businesses and industries do not enjoy these benefits. Mr. President, how is it fair to use tax money to selectively benefit only certain sectors of the market?
  
• We are supposed to believe that the program benefits the environment and will save energy. Yet will energy actually be saved? How much energy was used to manufacture the new cars that will be sold to people who otherwise were not prepared to purchase a new car? How much energy is wasted in the premature destruction of the functioning "clunkers".
  
• Many citizens using this program perhaps would not have purchased a car at this time had the program not been in place. Why? Because for many, buying a new car is a big expense, and they had not judged it wise to make such a purchase at the time. Does a $3500 or $4500 reduction in the upfront cost of the car mean that it's no longer expensive to buy that new car? Of course not. So, many buyers will have been wooed by the program to make an expensive purchase at a time when things financially are pretty tough for many people.
  

Like many government programs, Cash for Clunkers does benefit a few... but at a high cost born by the many. The program produces not a net benefit, but a net loss. The total costs to individuals and businesses outweighs the total benefits.

And this is the curse of most every government program which meddles with the economy in order to "improve" it.

White House disables e-tip box

White House disables e-tip box - POLITICO.com

"Following a furor over how the data would be used, the White House has shut down an electronic tip box - flag@whitehouse.gov - that was set up to receive information on "fishy" claims about President Barack Obama’s health plan."

Apparently the White House received more than a small outcry of opposition to its "tip box".

Congress treads upon a dangerous serpent

Column: 'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate - Opinion - USATODAY.com

"...These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views - but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."

-Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer

Speaker Pelosi, here are some facts that You seem not to want to acknowledge:

The American people don't trust You, and they don't trust the plan for nationalized health care that Congress is hellbent on ramming down their throats.

Increasingly, Americans are horrified by the federal government's insatiable hunger to dominate the health care industry and other private sector industries. We're appalled that our government has become so insatiable, so overreaching, and so reckless in piling unsustainable debt upon future generations. And now it seems to be shedding any pretense that its members are required to listen to their constituents and represent their concerns. Rather, we are lectured about the predefined goals that Congress "must reach", "despite the disruptions" of a majority of citizens who strongly oppose the plans.

President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and all members of Congress, should take heed. Their actions are causing cries of alarm to sound throughout the nation: the alarm of citizens who see that their government is increasingly out of control, increasingly deaf to their voices, increasingly menacing to the future prosperity and security of the United States. The rising voices have an edge of defiance and patriotic anger that only fools will attempt to dismiss as "manufactured" and "organized". Common cause has organized this uprising, and a domineering government has started the machine which is manufacturing the newly minted resistance.

Continue to tread on us, and we will strike back. We will sweep You from office, we will find new public servants who will share our ideals and represent our concerns. We will find a way to restore democracy and rid government of those bad apples who view public office solely as a path to power and profit.

Press on, Congress, show Yourselves... and discover what mettle still stiffens the spine of the American people.

When government turns ugly

Peggy Noonan: ‘You Are Terrifying Us’ - WSJ.com

To: flag@whitehouse.gov

President Obama,

I call on You to disavow and shut down the flag@whitehouse.gov program, which is so clearly intended to intimidate and stifle voices critical of Your administration.

Until You shut down this program, and for as long as pursue Your nationalized health care plan and other programs harmful to this country, You can expect energetic opposition and loud criticism from me and many others who will not be cowed into silence.

Until then, You can add my name to the Dissidents List.

Sincerely,
John Robin
(address and phone number provided)

Is the White House building an "Enemies List"?

GOP Senator: White House Encroaching on First Amendment - The Note

Yesterday, White House director of new media Macon Phillips wrote a blog posting urging readers to flag questionable claims about health care proposals.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
-ABC News

To: The White House, flag@whitehouse.gov

Subject: Is the White House assembling an "ENEMIES LIST"?

Re: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/08/gop-senator-white-house-encroaching-on-first-amendment.html

I call upon President Obama to shut down this surveillance program in which citizens are asked to report directly to the White House (flag@whitehouse.gov) when they encounter private communication critical of the president's proposals and policies. Such a program, if it does not directly abridge the right to free expression, at least undermines and threatens this right, because it raises a legitimate concern that one's exercise of free speech, rightly or wrongly interpreted, may result in being counted a member of a government "enemies list", a target for harassment and retaliation.

Even if there is no intention to assemble such a list, the program reasonably can be perceived as a heavy-handed effort to stifle political opposition and intimidate those critical of the government. Is this really the image that President Obama wants to cultivate?

The president should shut down this citizen surveillance program immediately.

Sincerely,
John F. Robin
(address and phone number provided)

Compact Fluorescent Lamps -what are the real costs?

Jack, thanks for Your informative article, Compact Fluorescent Lamp.

Here’s a CFL concern I’ve been thinking about but really haven’t seen addressed elsewhere…

When I flip a wall switch at home to turn on one or more CFLs, I often hear a pretty large arc in the switch: “snap!”. It’s not just one switch, this happens on different circuits. I suspect that CFLs perhaps have a rather high inrush current, and this may cause accelerated wear of switch contacts. Time will tell whether a few years down the road people will begin to discover that light switches are failing prematurely and need to be replaced. Bad switch contacts can pose a fire hazard, but many people may never recognize such a problem or its risk. Among those who do, many may never decide to seek repairs.

CFLs offer attractive savings in energy use to the consumer, but I don’t see that the disadvantages of CFLs are being addressed seriously in the public square.

It would be good to see more evaluation and discussion of these CFL concerns:

• How much health risk does accidental CFL breakage pose to consumers?
  
• At a national and global level how much mercury is projected to be released into the environment through CFL disposal? How might we manage CFL disposal to minimize this environmental damage?
  
• What is the risk of fire and smoke damage due to failure and abnormal overheating of CFLs?
  
• How does the rate of catastrophic failure compare between CFLs and incandescent bulbs?
  
• How do CFLs impact the reliability of electrical switches?
  
• How can CLF manufacturers and users address the unpleasant color rendering of many CFLs in home environments?
  
• Do CFLs pose a risk of UV damage to fabrics, home, and office furnishings?
  
• How do all these risks impact the long term economic, environmental, and health costs of CFLs?
  
• How will widespread adoption of CFLs impact power generation and distribution (-an issue raised in Your report)?
  

Thanks again for Your report, which is a helpful contribution to this discussion.

Big blobs of mystery goo floating off Alaska coast

Big blobs of mystery goo floating off Alaska coast - McClatchy

Something big and strange is floating through the Chukchi Sea between Wainwright and Barrow.

Hunters from Wainwright first started noticing the stuff sometime probably early last week. It's thick and dark and "gooey" and is drifting for miles in the cold Arctic waters, according to Gordon Brower with the North Slope Borough's Planning and Community Services Department.

I think I know what it is. The scientific term is "mucosa terrestrium", but it's basically the chewy nougat leaking from the outer mantle of the earth through a bad gasket, and floating to the surface of the crust. This happens only every few hundred million years or so, but when it does it's a bit of a problem. The leak will worsen until the gasket is replaced, and if it's neglected too long then it will eventually cover most of the earth's marine surface. The last time this happened the dinosaurs couldn't agree on how to finance the repairs, and their inaction cost them their lives.

A project of this size can be tackled only by the federal government. Nancy Pelosi, please queue this up as justification for a second or third stimulus package.

Independence Day: why do we celebrate?

U.S. independence from England came at a high price, as did uniting the colonies into one nation. The HBO mini-series "John Adams", based on David McCullough's biography, is a fascinating insight into the life and times of one of the key founding fathers.

We live in momentous times. It's important to be clear about what's important, and what was important to those who devoted their lives to founding our nation.

McCullough's book is excellent. So is the HBO mini-series.

John Adams mini-series

"Gay pride" parade can't redefine marriage

Chicago's Gay Pride Parade dazzles - Chicago Breaking News
You want to live with your same-sex partner? Fine, go ahead. The law should not infringe upon your rights to pick your friends and those you live with. You claim to be gay? Who asked?

Parade or no parade... marriage by its nature is heterosexual. Homosexual relationships are not equipped by nature for producing either children or parents. Does this mean that gays should be treated as less than full citizens? Of course not, but it does mean that heterosexual marriage produces vital and necessary benefits that society has a just and legitimate interest to protect.

This is why traditional heterosexual marriage should be defended, and why not every partnership should be considered equivalent to marriage. Certain restrictions are necessary to protect both individuals and society.

You can't marry a 5-year old. You can't marry three people simultaneously. You can't marry someone who's already legally married, or your daughter, brother, or mother. You can't marry a person who is unable or unwilling to give free consent. You can't marry a dead person, or one who isn't yet born, or a squirrel or a tree. And you can't marry a person of the same sex.

For the good of society marriage should not be redefined to satisfy the demands of any interest group. And the law should make no attempt to recognize as "marriage" any relationship that is not between one woman and one man.

Chicago school to march in Pride Parade

Chicago school to march in Pride Parade - Chicago Tribune
It's tragic that the school children are being indoctrinated to think that engaging in immoral homosexual acts is normal and good, something to be celebrated.

Most people experience temptations to immoral and destructive behavior of one type or another. But a person who repeatedly gives in to destructive desires ends up hurting himself and those around him, and increasingly loses the ability to differentiate between right and wrong. He gradually becomes enslaved to his desires, and loses the ability to rationally choose his actions freely.

Homosexual feelings or desires are just that: feelings. Feelings are personal, but they don't determine your identity as a person any more than your taste in music. Like any feelings, they urge you to make a decision: to recognize what is good, and pursue it... or to recognize what is harmful, and to avoid it.

What children need to see is, yes, tolerance and respect toward all kinds of people. But they also need to be taught that not all actions are good, and not all desires are for healthy and good things. Some desires, such as homosexual inclinations, should be rejected as harmful and unworthy of mature consent.

True human freedom isn't the ability to do everything you desire. It's the ability and struggle to do what is good and avoid what is bad.

Slain Kansas abortion provider's clinic to close

Slain Kansas abortion provider's clinic to close

The Christian Taliban gets its way.

They hate our laws. They hate our freedoms. And just like their Islamic brethren, they are willing to commit acts of terror if their bleating is ignored.

-Comment by simkatu

"Christian Taliban"? Doesn't make a lot of sense. Christians strongly oppose killing the innocent, and most oppose killing the guilty, except in extreme situations such as those demanding lethal military action. Many are opposed to capital punishment even for the most heinous crimes. And they overwhelmingly condemn premeditated murder as a means of accomplishing their goals.

It is rather the pro-abort forces which might better be labeled as a sort of Taliban. For them, no amount of killing is enough -it's their right!- and they want the "freedom" to kill the innocent and defenseless for any reason or no reason at all. Although neither right reason nor any just law could ever justify such carnage, they have conjured from the "penumbra" of the Constitution a dark right to murder their own offspring.

And it's not enough to kill within in their own national borders: the Pro-Abort Taliban demand public money to export death around the world, funding coercive abortion "services" overseas through governments and private agencies.

Their sense of self-righteousness seems limitless, their contempt and religious indignation boundless, toward those who object to the killing. But they can not tolerate to have their acts discussed openly or brought into the light. All who insist upon speaking the obvious truth are labeled "hateful", "oppressive", "fundamentalist", "anti-choice".

In their wake lies a bloody path strewn with 50 million corpses.

To each according to his need -Karl Marx gets religion

To Each According to Need - Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good

"The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need." (Acts 4:32-35)

The Acts of the Apostles describe the Christ-like spirit of the first days of the Church. Acts 4:32-35 accounts for how the community provided for the material shortcomings of its members. How marvelous this scripture is to set side-by-side with the resentment of the tea partiers...

It's notable that the title, "To Each According to Need", while taken from Scripture, has also been used by others to justify coercive government programs which confiscate private property supposedly for the "common good".

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." -Karl Marx

These programs view citizens not as virtuous and generous individuals ready to voluntarily assist others, but as greedy "haves" from whom revenue must be squeezed to support the "have-nots".


The author acknowledges,

"It would be mistaken to read the text's argument for possessions "in common" as in some way equivalent to our contemporary notions of political ideas such as socialism."

Very true. Yet the author does not seem to let this fact enter his thinking when he directs his contempt toward "a pathetic and mean-spirited outpouring of resentment" by thousands of citizens at the recent "Tea Parties". Their offense? Many attended to demonstrate their opposition to super-sized government programs that perpetuate poverty and dependence, depleting the resources of the many while failing to effectively meet the needs of the few they claim to benefit. How dare they oppose ever-increasing deficit spending for social programs that are based on the false and unchristian premise that private property should be managed not by its owners, but by the state, and must be forcibly redistributed by politicians! How mean-spirited to insist on one's right to act as responsible stewards of the fruits of one's own labor!

As government spending increases and our taxes increase, this right of private ownership of property is increasingly denied. And as government takes a larger and larger portion of our income, we gradually lose the ability to support families, and provide help to those causes and individuals that conscience and discretion show to be most in need of our help. Can government do this better than the individual? Should government be permitted to usurp this responsibility?

The early Christians willingly donated money to the Church, which used it to assist the poor according to prudent Christian principles. Why do some Catholics now argue that this responsibility to care for the poor should be fulfilled primarily by the state? Why should the biblical model of voluntary alms for the poor, administered by the Church according to right moral criteria, be overturned in favor of morally flawed, wasteful government programs that depend on coercive taxation instead of willing generosity?

U.S. bishops push comprehensive healthcare plan for illegal aliens

US bishops back comprehensive health coverage for illegal immigrants - Catholic World News

The American Catholic bishops have apparently thrown their support behind a proposal to offer comprehensive health care to illegal immigrants.

In a May 20 letter to members of the US House of Representatives, Bishop William Murphy-- writing in his capacity as chairman of the Domestic Justice and Human Development committee for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)-- argues that the federal government should ensure 'comprehensive and affordable health care for every person living in the United States.' Bishop Murphy writes that individuals' access to comprehensive coverage should not depend on 'where they live or where they come from.' -CWNews.com

How does Bishop Murphy and the bishops at the USCCB suggest that the nation pay the staggering cost of such a plan? Predictably no answer is provided, because for statists the answer to funding every new program is taken for granted and is always the same: "the government". If You press for a more specific answer, it becomes, make "the rich" pay for it. And who are the rich? Well, anyone who has any money left after taxes are deducted.

Why does this bloated bureaucracy of bishops -does the USCCB itself pay any taxes?- why does this episcopal committee of little (if any) authority lobby Congress to support yet another gigantic federal program at a time when the entire nation is sinking under the weight of an unsupportable debt? Do they wish to destroy us, or have they simply given themselves totally to the gospel of socialism?

The bishops hail this socialist dream of universal healthcare as if it were the Great Commission handed down by Jesus... as if Jesus Himself announced that individuals should be compelled by Caesar beyond the limits of their generosity... as if He wanted on earth the State -not the Church- to be the first and best help of the poor, and to accomplish by policy, taxation, and bureaucracy what the Church has failed to do through leadership, generosity, and resourcefulness.

But Jesus didn't teach such things, and I'm quite sure that lots of Catholics won't agree that the bishops' proposal is the only way -or even a good way- to help the poor and advance the reign of Christ. Thoughtful Catholics realize that the poor are better served in a society that is prosperous and productive, rather than in one crushed by grinding debt and paralyzed by suffocating taxation. And we recall that while there are moral absolutes that must always be respected, political solutions to real problems are matters of opinion and debate.

Faithful Catholics desire their bishops to preach unambiguously the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to apply it with wisdom to the questions and circumstances of modern life.

What we don't want is for our bishops to: be used as pawns by those seeking to manipulate public opinion; promote reckless and economically disastrous government programs; confuse the Gospel of Christ with the gospel of socialism.

If bishops promote a political agenda that many Catholics consider doubtful, harmful, or even opposed to authentic Christian principles, we believers may begin to reconsider whether these bishops deserve our continued financial support or our energetic and vocal opposition.