The NFL fines players for excessive hits.  But shouldn't the players union itself start fining members for excessive violence against fellow union members?

Obviously, this is walking a very fine line.  The game is inherently violent.  But if the attitude of the union, in all other aspects of the game, is "we're all in this together," then I think the union should step up and police itself. 

The Saints' bounty program is a prime example.  How can the union possibly defend the players involved, as it is currently doing?  We have documented examples of union members deliberately attempting to maim fellow union members at the behest of management, and receiving incentives from management to do so!

If the union is so weak that it can't put a stop to that, then what in the world is the union good for?!

Katie, that's beautiful stuff.

When I lived in northern Virginia a couple years ago, I attended a parish in Chantilly-- St. Veronica-- that was heading in that direction as well.  Their 11 AM Sunday Mass was in Latin, with chanted parts led by a young choir director, and plenty of incense.  (It was always embarrassing when the five-year-old girl sitting across the aisle would chant the Gloria from memory as I struggled to keep up with the words out of the hymnal!)

Since I moved to Chicago's northwest suburbs, I have struggled to find any parish that even comes close to that.  Does anyone know how to find a traditional-minded Catholic parish around here?

St. John Cantius Parish in the city is devoted to this kind of worship, and should be famous nationwide.  A little too far away, though.

Russ Roberts this week?  Awesome.  My two favorite podcasts, together at last.

Sorry, Percival, but it had to be done.  When I first heard of "deem-and-pass", I instantly thought of "letting on".  The rest took care of itself.

This letter makes me proud of my Alma Mater.

Kathryn Lopez at the Corner linked an updated version of the letter Saturday afternoon.  More signatories have been added, among them Fr. Wilson Miscamble, CSC, who was a guest contributor to Ricochet several months ago.

Can one of the editors ask him to post some thoughts on the controversy, and possibly Notre Dame's place in it, on Ricochet?  It would be much appreciated.

I've noticed that Sec. Sebelius repeatedly uses the phrase "full range of reproductive health choices" when defending the administration's goals.  From their point of view, supposedly, Church organizations and other conscientious objectors are imposing obstacles on women, preventing them from exercising their freedom to control their "reproductive destiny" (a phrase I've seen elsewhere) completely unfettered.

But take note of what the law doesn't include.  HHS is not mandating insurance coverage (with no co-pay, co-insurance, or deductible) for pregnancy tests, pre-natal treatment, delivery, and post-partem care.

It is mandating "free" access to the full range of reproductive health choices, except for the one option that actually involves reproduction.

Party of Death, indeed.

Katie, if you're interested, here's the initial response to the directive from the University of Notre Dame's president.

As expected, it's pretty weak sauce.  But there are many, many alumni paying close attention to how the University deals with this, and I think the statements will get stronger over time.  Personally, I would expect them to actually engage in civil disobedience if it eventually comes to that-- offer insurance plans that comport with Catholic teaching, and simply ignore the mandate.  But I expect the courts to overturn the directive through the Belmont Abbey lawsuit before that becomes necessary.

Thanks for posting that, Brian!  That was magnificently entertaining.  As a philosophy-grad-school dropout, I was laughing out loud at several parts.  But, obviously, there were many, many serious points as well.  Stoppard is a genius.

It's like they say, if you criminalize nuclear weapons, only criminals will have nuclear weapons.

...

Though that was probably already true anyway.

Obama, 10/25: The Republican Party's governing philosophy is, "You're on your own."  We can't possibly ask people to shoulder that responsibility

Carney, 11/2: God's governing philosophy is, "[You're on your own.]"  We can't possibly avoid the duty to shoulder that responsibility.

Entirely predictable, if you remember how this thing got passed in the first place.

(Note: that narrative may not be entirely accurate.)

By what mechanism does a non-communicable disease grow into a world-wide epidemic?  And how can government interrupt that mechanism?

Can we optimistically hope that Paul Ryan, from his budget leadership position within a Congress of increased power, and with the full blessing of Speaker Boehner, will fill this role from his current position?  Because we need members of Congress to do that-- without legislators who can "articulate the argument for limited government", the Presidency wouldn't mean squat.

What we need to know (and this has been discussed on Ricochet before) is if Romney is willing to allow Congress to take the lead in designing national policy on entitlements going forward.  This is a crucial question.  I am wary of conservatives who buy into the cult of the Presidency, looking for the one person who will single-handedly seize the wheel and direct the country in the right direction.  I would much rather find a competent administrator to lead the Executive branch, and allow the Legislature to rise to its Constitutional role.

We need to learn if Romney is that.

I dismiss Hitchens' assertion out of hand.  Just 'cuz.

[Edit: And I see I'm not the first to do so.]

The most unseemly thing about this language, I think, is that Obama's real army is the actual Army.  It's as if Hoffa literally forgot that Obama is president of the whole country.

(Of course, the U.S. Army isn't Obama's army, but I think you know what I mean.)

What we have here is a union leader claiming exclusive possession of the U.S. President on behalf of his union members, a relatively small subset of the American population.  And Hoffa is backing up that claim using actual martial language, volunteering the members as ready to march against what he perceives to be an internal enemy, if his claimed leader would only give them the green light to do so.

Almost by definition, this is the most divisive public language I've ever heard.  It's sick.

Wishful thinking or not, I've been noodling around with this scenario for a few weeks as well.  I'd like to see this kind of philosophical question brought up in the remaining Republican debates: is the candidate willing or eager to let Congress be Congress?

It might be that the nature of the modern presidency prevents this kind of deferral.

It might also be that in modern political times, a president who lets Congress be Congress gets a heaping load of unchecked spending.

Or it might be that the Republican caucus in Congress has internalized the Tea Party viewpoint, and what we really need is a President who recognizes when it's time to get out of the way.

Under the last scenario, it changes the calculus in choosing a Republican candidate.  The Buckley rule adjusts a bit, I think-- rather than voting for the most conservative candidate who can win, the primary importance is choosing a candidate with the best chance to take Obama down, who is willing to follow a conservative Congress's lead.

The drawback would be crossing your fingers while waiting to see if the new president, handed all the power, opts to defer it.