Saturday, October 31, 2009

Today's Reading

Thank you for your time with my blogs and welcome back in the near future.

October 31, 2009

Saturday of the Thirtieth Week in Ordinary Time Lectionary: 484

Reading 1
Responsorial Psalm
Gospel

Reading 1
Rom 11:1-2a, 11-12, 25-29

Brothers and sisters:
I ask, then, has God rejected his people?
Of course not!
For I too am a child of Israel, a descendant of Abraham,
of the tribe of Benjamin.
God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.
Do you not know what the Scripture says about Elijah,
how he pleads with God against Israel?

Hence I ask, did they stumble so as to fall?
Of course not!
But through their transgression
salvation has come to the Gentiles,
so as to make them jealous.
Now if their transgression is enrichment for the world,
and if their diminished number is enrichment for the Gentiles,
how much more their full number.

I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers and sisters,
so that you will not become wise in your own estimation:
a hardening has come upon Israel in part,
until the full number of the Gentiles comes in,
and thus all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

The deliverer will come out of Zion,
he will turn away godlessness from Jacob;
and this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.

In respect to the Gospel, they are enemies on your account;
but in respect to election,
they are beloved because of the patriarch.
For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.


Responsorial Psalm
Ps 94:12-13a, 14-15, 17-18

R. (14a) The Lord will not abandon his people.
Blessed the man whom you instruct, O LORD,
whom by your law you teach,
Giving him rest from evil days.
R. The Lord will not abandon his people.
For the LORD will not cast off his people,
nor abandon his inheritance;
But judgment shall again be with justice,
and all the upright of heart shall follow it.
R. The Lord will not abandon his people.
Were not the LORD my help,
my soul would soon dwell in the silent grave.
When I say, “My foot is slipping,”
your mercy, O LORD, sustains me.
R. The Lord will not abandon his people.


Gospel
Lk 14:1, 7-11

On a sabbath Jesus went to dine
at the home of one of the leading Pharisees,
and the people there were observing him carefully.

He told a parable to those who had been invited,
noticing how they were choosing the places of honor at the table.
“When you are invited by someone to a wedding banquet,
do not recline at table in the place of honor.
A more distinguished guest than you may have been invited by him,
and the host who invited both of you may approach you and say,
‘Give your place to this man,’
and then you would proceed with embarrassment
to take the lowest place.
Rather, when you are invited,
go and take the lowest place
so that when the host comes to you he may say,
‘My friend, move up to a higher position.’
Then you will enjoy the esteem of your companions at the table.
For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled,
but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”


Friday, October 30, 2009

The Defining Moment

Thank you for your time with my blogs and welcome back in the near future.

October 30, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist


O.K., folks, this is it. It’s the defining moment for health care reform.

Past efforts to give Americans what citizens of every other advanced nation already have — guaranteed access to essential care — have ended not with a bang, but with a whimper, usually dying in committee without ever making it to a vote.

But this time, broadly similar health-care bills have made it through multiple committees in both houses of Congress. And on Thursday, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, unveiled the legislation that she will send to the House floor, where it will almost surely pass. It’s not a perfect bill, by a long shot, but it’s a much stronger bill than almost anyone expected to emerge even a few weeks ago. And it would lead to near-universal coverage.

As a result, everyone in the political class — by which I mean politicians, people in the news media, and so on, basically whoever is in a position to influence the final stage of this legislative marathon — now has to make a choice. The seemingly impossible dream of fundamental health reform is just a few steps away from becoming reality, and each player has to decide whether he or she is going to help it across the finish line or stand in its way.

For conservatives, of course, it’s an easy decision: They don’t want Americans to have universal coverage, and they don’t want President Obama to succeed.

For progressives, it’s a slightly more difficult decision: They want universal care, and they want the president to succeed — but the proposed legislation falls far short of their ideal. There are still some reform advocates who won’t accept anything short of a full transition to Medicare for all as opposed to a hybrid, compromise system that relies heavily on private insurers. And even those who have reconciled themselves to the political realities are disappointed that the bill doesn’t include a “strong” public option, with payment rates linked to those set by Medicare.

But the bill does include a “medium-strength” public option, in which the public plan would negotiate payment rates — defying the predictions of pundits who have repeatedly declared any kind of public-option plan dead. It also includes more generous subsidies than expected, making it easier for lower-income families to afford coverage. And according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, almost everyone — 96 percent of legal residents too young to receive Medicare — would get health insurance.

So should progressives get behind this plan? Yes. And they probably will.

The people who really have to make up their minds, then, are those in between, the self-proclaimed centrists.

The odd thing about this group is that while its members are clearly uncomfortable with the idea of passing health care reform, they’re having a hard time explaining exactly what their problem is. Or to be more precise and less polite, they have been attacking proposed legislation for doing things it doesn’t and for not doing things it does.

Thus, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut says, “I want to be able to vote for a health bill, but my top concern is the deficit.” That would be a serious objection to the proposals currently on the table if they would, in fact, increase the deficit. But they wouldn’t, at least according to the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates that the House bill, in particular, would actually reduce the deficit by $100 billion over the next decade.

Or consider the remarkable exchange that took place this week between Peter Orszag, the White House budget director, and Fred Hiatt, The Washington Post’s opinion editor. Mr. Hiatt had criticized Congress for not taking what he considers the necessary steps to control health-care costs — namely, taxing high-cost insurance plans and establishing an independent Medicare commission. Writing on the budget office blog — yes, there is one, and it’s essential reading — Mr. Orszag pointed out, not too gently, that the Senate Finance Committee’s bill actually includes both of the allegedly missing measures.

I won’t try to psychoanalyze the “naysayers,” as Mr. Orszag describes them. I’d just urge them to take a good hard look in the mirror. If they really want to align themselves with the hard-line conservatives, if they just want to kill health reform, so be it. But they shouldn’t hide behind claims that they really, truly would support health care reform if only it were better designed.

For this is the moment of truth. The political environment is as favorable for reform as it’s likely to get. The legislation on the table isn’t perfect, but it’s as good as anyone could reasonably have expected. History is about to be made — and everyone has to decide which side they’re on.

Today's Reading

Thank you for your time with my blogs and welcome back in the near future.

October 30, 2009

Friday of the Thirtieth Week in Ordinary Time Lectionary: 483

Reading 1
Responsorial Psalm
Gospel

Reading 1
Rom 9:1-5

Brothers and sisters:
I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie;
my conscience joins with the Holy Spirit in bearing me witness
that I have great sorrow and constant anguish in my heart.
For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ
for the sake of my own people,
my kindred according to the flesh.
They are children of Israel;
theirs the adoption, the glory, the covenants,
the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises;
theirs the patriarchs, and from them,
according to the flesh, is the Christ,
who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.


Responsorial Psalm
Ps 147:12-13, 14-15, 19-20

R. Praise the Lord, Jerusalem.
Glorify the LORD, O Jerusalem;
praise your God, O Zion.
For he has strengthened the bars of your gates;
he has blessed your children within you.
R. Praise the Lord, Jerusalem.
He has granted peace in your borders;
with the best of wheat he fills you.
He sends forth his command to the earth;
swiftly runs his word!
R. Praise the Lord, Jerusalem.
He has proclaimed his word to Jacob,
his statutes and his ordinances to Israel.
He has not done thus for any other nation;
his ordinances he has not made known to them. Alleluia.
R. Praise the Lord, Jerusalem.


Gospel
Lk 14:1-6

On a sabbath Jesus went to dine
at the home of one of the leading Pharisees,
and the people there were observing him carefully.
In front of him there was a man suffering from dropsy.
Jesus spoke to the scholars of the law and Pharisees in reply, asking,
“Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath or not?”
But they kept silent; so he took the man and,
after he had healed him, dismissed him.
Then he said to them
“Who among you, if your son or ox falls into a cistern,
would not immediately pull him out on the sabbath day?”
But they were unable to answer his question.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

US Economy Grows for First Time in More Than a Year

Thank you for your time with my blogs and welcome back in the near future.




29 October 2009

Bowman report - Download (MP3) Download
Bowman report - Listen (MP3) audio clip


US dollar The longest and deepest U.S. economic recession of the post-World War II era is over, according to government data released Thursday.

After four consecutive quarters of contraction, the U.S. economy grew at a 3.5 percent annual rate from July through September. The figure, released by the Commerce Department, showed the most robust expansion in two years.

Economists, like Kathleen Stephansen at Connecticut-based Aladdin Capital Holdings, hailed the news.

"Indeed, the recovery is in place. This is a good start," she said. "It is a little bit stronger than what the consensus [expectation] was."

Stephansen was speaking on Bloomberg television.

Fueling the economic growth were jumps in spending on large manufactured goods and housing. Both of those categories benefited from significant government subsidies for the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles and homes. But the so-called "Cash for Clunkers" automobile subsidy has ended, and the first-time home buyer tax credit is expiring. That has Kathleen Stephansen apprehensive about U.S. economic performance going forward.

"A lot of this consumer spending increase is thanks to government support. Seventy percent of this economy is still [driven by] the consumer," she said. "The consumer is still in a balance sheet repair-mode [favoring debt reduction over purchases]. And that means that he or she will be careful in spending, and wage income is not growing very fast. So, we still have major headwinds [challenges] here for the consumer, and that worries me."

Adding to the challenges going forward is the U.S. unemployment rate, which stands at 9.8 percent and is expected to go even higher in coming months despite the economy's return to positive growth.

The Labor Department reports 530,000 newly-laid off Americans filed for unemployment benefits last week, a slight dip from the previous week but still more than many economists had expected. On the other hand, the total number of continuing claims stood at 5.8 million, down by nearly 150,000 from a week ago.

Analysts say stubbornly-high unemployment will constrain U.S. economic expansion for the foreseeable future.

House health-care reform bill includes public option

Thank you for your time with my blogs and welcome back in the near future.


By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:04 AM

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) unveiled a health-care reform bill Thursday that includes a government insurance option and a historic expansion of Medicaid, although sticking points involving abortion and immigration remain unresolved.

The bill includes a version of the "public option" preferred by moderates and raises Medicaid eligibility levels to 150 percent of the federal poverty level for all adults, a steeper increase than in earlier drafts.

"Today we are about to deliver on the promise of making affordable, quality health care available for all Americans," Pelosi said, describing a bill that she said would insure 36 million more Americans. ". . . We are putting forth a bill that reflects our best values and addresses our greatest challenges."

The House legislation aims to provide health insurance of one form or another to 96 percent of all Americans at an expected cost just below $900 billion over 10 years, without increasing the federal budget deficit for at least 20 years, House Democrats said. Republican lawmakers quickly dismissed the bill as an attempted government takeover of healthcare. But Pelosi said the legislation "opens the doors to quality medical care for those who were shut out of the system for far too long."

House leaders abandoned an earlier effort to include a public option that would have established reimbursement rates to providers based on Medicare. Although the provision was backed by liberals, it lacked enough votes to pass. Rural Democrats strongly opposed that approach because of the potentially ruinous effect on doctors and hospitals in their districts, where Medicare rates are generally well below the national average.

Instead, Pelosi is offering a more moderate alternative in which rates would be negotiated between providers and federal health officials, similar to the way in which private insurance operates. Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said he would include a similar provision in the Senate bill, though with an "opt out" clause for states that don't want to participate.

A previous version of the House bill carried an estimated cost of $1.04 trillion over 10 years, but House negotiators were able to lower the price tag -- in part by expanding Medicaid coverage to a broader slice of the population, the equivalent of all individuals who earn about $16,200 per year. The original House legislation had sought an increase to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $14,400 per year, the same level proposed in the Senate bill.

The adjustment reflects findings by congressional budget analysts that covering the poor through Medicaid -- which pays providers far less than Medicare -- is much more cost-effective than offering subsidies for private insurance policies, something the bill would provide to middle class individuals who lack access to affordable coverage through their employers.

The main revenue sources in the House bill include a surcharge on wealthy taxpayers and changes to Medicaid and Medicare worth about $500 billion in cost savings over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Democratic House aides said party leaders had yet to resolve long-standing disputes over provisions to prevent federal funds from being used to subsidize abortions and to block illegal immigrants from receiving benefits.

Today's Reading

Thank you for your time with my blogs and welcome back in the near future.

October 29, 2009

Thursday of the Thirtieth Week in Ordinary Time Lectionary: 482

Reading 1
Responsorial Psalm
Gospel

Reading 1
Rom 8:31b-39

Brothers and sisters:
If God is for us, who can be against us?
He did not spare his own Son
but handed him over for us all,
how will he not also give us everything else along with him?
Who will bring a charge against God’s chosen ones?
It is God who acquits us.
Who will condemn?
It is Christ Jesus who died, rather, was raised,
who also is at the right hand of God,
who indeed intercedes for us.
What will separate us from the love of Christ?
Will anguish, or distress, or persecution, or famine,
or nakedness, or peril, or the sword?
As it is written:

For your sake we are being slain all the day;
we are looked upon as sheep to be slaughtered.

No, in all these things we conquer overwhelmingly
through him who loved us.
For I am convinced that neither death, nor life,
nor angels, nor principalities,
nor present things, nor future things,
nor powers, nor height, nor depth,
nor any other creature will be able to separate us
from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.


Responsorial Psalm
Ps 109:21-22, 26-27, 30-31

R. (26b) Save me, O Lord, in your mercy.
Do you, O GOD, my Lord, deal kindly with me for your name’s sake;
in your generous mercy rescue me;
For I am wretched and poor,
and my heart is pierced within me.
R. Save me, O Lord, in your mercy.
Help me, O LORD, my God;
save me, in your mercy,
And let them know that this is your hand;
that you, O LORD, have done this.
R. Save me, O Lord, in your mercy.
I will speak my thanks earnestly to the LORD,
and in the midst of the throng I will praise him,
For he stood at the right hand of the poor man,
to save him from those who would condemn his soul.
R. Save me, O Lord, in your kindness.


Gospel
Lk 13:31-35

Some Pharisees came to Jesus and said,
“Go away, leave this area because Herod wants to kill you.”
He replied, “Go and tell that fox,
‘Behold, I cast out demons and I perform healings today and tomorrow,
and on the third day I accomplish my purpose.
Yet I must continue on my way today, tomorrow, and the following day,
for it is impossible that a prophet should die
outside of Jerusalem.’

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you,
how many times I yearned to gather your children together
as a hen gathers her brood under her wings,
but you were unwilling!
Behold, your house will be abandoned.
But I tell you, you will not see me until the time comes when you say,
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”

Today's Reading

Thank you for your time with my blogs and welcome back in the near future.

October 29, 2009

Thursday of the Thirtieth Week in Ordinary Time Lectionary: 482

Reading 1
Responsorial Psalm
Gospel

Reading 1
Rom 8:31b-39

Brothers and sisters:
If God is for us, who can be against us?
He did not spare his own Son
but handed him over for us all,
how will he not also give us everything else along with him?
Who will bring a charge against God’s chosen ones?
It is God who acquits us.
Who will condemn?
It is Christ Jesus who died, rather, was raised,
who also is at the right hand of God,
who indeed intercedes for us.
What will separate us from the love of Christ?
Will anguish, or distress, or persecution, or famine,
or nakedness, or peril, or the sword?
As it is written:

For your sake we are being slain all the day;
we are looked upon as sheep to be slaughtered.

No, in all these things we conquer overwhelmingly
through him who loved us.
For I am convinced that neither death, nor life,
nor angels, nor principalities,
nor present things, nor future things,
nor powers, nor height, nor depth,
nor any other creature will be able to separate us
from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.


Responsorial Psalm
Ps 109:21-22, 26-27, 30-31

R. (26b) Save me, O Lord, in your mercy.
Do you, O GOD, my Lord, deal kindly with me for your name’s sake;
in your generous mercy rescue me;
For I am wretched and poor,
and my heart is pierced within me.
R. Save me, O Lord, in your mercy.
Help me, O LORD, my God;
save me, in your mercy,
And let them know that this is your hand;
that you, O LORD, have done this.
R. Save me, O Lord, in your mercy.
I will speak my thanks earnestly to the LORD,
and in the midst of the throng I will praise him,
For he stood at the right hand of the poor man,
to save him from those who would condemn his soul.
R. Save me, O Lord, in your kindness.


Gospel
Lk 13:31-35

Some Pharisees came to Jesus and said,
“Go away, leave this area because Herod wants to kill you.”
He replied, “Go and tell that fox,
‘Behold, I cast out demons and I perform healings today and tomorrow,
and on the third day I accomplish my purpose.
Yet I must continue on my way today, tomorrow, and the following day,
for it is impossible that a prophet should die
outside of Jerusalem.’

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you,
how many times I yearned to gather your children together
as a hen gathers her brood under her wings,
but you were unwilling!
Behold, your house will be abandoned.
But I tell you, you will not see me until the time comes when you say,
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

A Language of Smiles

Thank you for your time with my blogs and welcome back in the near future.

October 27, 2009, 9:30 pm


Say “eeee.” Say it again. Go on: “eeee.”

Maybe I’m easy to please, but doing this a few times makes me giggle. “Eeee.”

Actually, I suspect it’s not just me. Saying “eeee” pulls up the corners of the mouth and makes you start to smile. That’s why we say “cheese” to the camera, not “choose” or “chose.” And, I think, it’s why I don’t get the giggles from “aaaa” or “oooo.”

The mere act of smiling is often enough to lift your mood; conversely, the act of frowning can lower it; scowling can make you feel fed up. In other words, the gestures you make with your face can — at least to some extent — influence your emotional state.

(The notion that facial expressions affect mood isn’t new. Edgar Allan Poe used it in his story “The Purloined Letter”: one character reports that when he wishes to know someone’s mind, he attempts to compose his face to mimic the expression of that someone — then waits to see which emotions arise. And the idea was developed, in different ways, by both Charles Darwin and William James. But telling stories and developing arguments is one thing. Showing, experimentally, that making a face can make a mood is harder; it’s only in the past 30 years or so that data have started to accumulate.)

Exactly how frowns and smiles influence mood is a matter of debate. One possibility is classical conditioning. Just as Ivan Pavlov conditioned a dog to associate the sound of a bell with the expectation of food, the argument goes, so humans quickly come to associate smiling with feeling happy. Once the association has been established, smiling is, by itself, enough to generate happy feelings. Another possibility is that different facial gestures have intrinsic properties that make them more or less pleasant, perhaps by altering the way that blood flows to the brain.

But here’s what interests me. As anyone who has tried to learn a foreign language will know, different languages make you move your face in different ways. For instance, some languages contain many sounds that are forward in the mouth; others take place more in the throat. What’s more, the effects that different languages have on the movements of the face are substantial. Babies can tell the difference among languages based on the speaker’s mouth movements alone. So can computers.

Which made me wonder: do some languages contain an intrinsic bias towards pulling happy faces? In other words, do some languages predispose — in a subtle way — their speakers to be merrier than the speakers of other languages?

As far as I can tell, no one has looked at this. (It doesn’t mean no one has; it just means I haven’t been able to find it.) But I did find a smidgen of evidence to suggest the idea’s not crazy. A set of experiments investigating the effects of facial movements on mood used different vowel sounds as a stealthy way to get people to pull different faces. (The idea was to avoid people realizing they were being made to scowl or smile.) The results showed that if you read aloud a passage full of vowels that make you scowl — the German vowel sound ü, for example — you’re likely to find yourself in a worse mood than if you read a story similar in content but without any instances of ü. Similarly, saying ü over and over again generates more feelings of ill will than repeating a or o.

Of course, facial gestures aren’t the whole story of emotions; moreover, languages can potentially influence emotions in many other ways. Different languages have different music — sounds and rhythms — that could also have an emotional impact. The meanings of words may influence moods more than the gestures used to make them. And just as the words a language uses to describe colors affects how speakers of that language perceive those colors, different languages might allow speakers to process particular emotions differently; this, in turn, could feed into a culture, perhaps contributing to a general tendency towards gloom or laughter.

Separating these various factors will be difficult, and the overall impact on mood through the facial gestures of a language may well be small, if indeed it exists at all. Nevertheless, I’d love to know whether some languages, by the contortions they give the mouth, really do have an impact on their speakers’ happiness. If it turns out that there is a language of smiles, I’d like to learn it. In the meantime: have a giggle with “meeeeeee.”

Notes:

For a fascinating overview of experiments on frowning, smiling and mood, see McIntosh, D. N. 1996. “Facial feedback hypotheses: evidence, implications, and directions.” Motivation and Emotion 20: 121-147. This paper also discusses possible ways that facial expressions can influence emotions including both the conditioning idea and the blood flow idea. Further experimental results can be found in, for example, Kleinke, C. L., Peterson, T. R., and Rutledge, T. R. 1998, “Effects of self-generated facial expressions on mood,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: 272-279; see also Schnall, S. and Laird, J. D., “Keep smiling: Enduring effects of facial expressions and postures on emotional experience and memory,” Cognition and Emotion 17: 787-797; Flack, W. F. 2006, “Peripheral feedback effects of facial expressions, bodily postures, and vocal expressions on emotional feelings,” Cognition and Emotion 20: 177-195; and Duclos, S. E. and Laird, J. D. 2001, “The deliberate control of emotional experience through control of expressions,” Cognition and Emotion 15: 27-56.

Poe’s purloined letter can be read here. Darwin’s arguments about emotions can be found in his book, first published in 1872, “The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals”; James’s arguments are described in his book, first published in 1890, “The Principles of Psychology.”

For evidence that facial movements can affect the way blood flows to the brain, see McIntosh, D. N. et al. 1997, “Facial movement, breathing, temperature, and affect: Implications of the vascular theory of emotional efference,” Cognition and Emotion 11: 171-195.

For babies telling the difference among languages based on lip movements, see Weikum, W. M. et al. 2007, “Visual language discrimination in infancy,” Science 316: 1159. For computers being able to do this, see Newman, J. L. and Cox. S. J. 2009. “Automatic visual-only language identification: a preliminary study,” IEEE Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing vols 1-8: 4345-4348. A less technical account of the results are given here.

For my smidgen of evidence that the faces you pull when speaking a language can affect your mood, see Zajonc, R. B., Murphy, S. T. and Inglehart, M. 1989, “Feeling and facial efference: implications of the vascular theory of emotion,” Psychological Review 96: 395-416. This paper describes what happens if you read stories full of the “ü” sound, or are made to repeat it over and over again.

The idea that the words in a language can affect the thought processes of the speakers is often attributed to Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf; it has been controversial. However, some recent experimental evidence supports it, at least when it comes to processing colors. See, for example, Winawer, J. et al. 2007. “Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 7780-7785 and Regier, T. and Kay, P. 2009, “Language, thought, and color: Whorf was half right,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13: 439-446. The idea that emotions might be similarly affected has been discussed by Perlovsky, L. 2009, “Language and emotions: Emotional Sapir-Whorf hypothesis,” Neural Networks 22: 518-526.

This piece grew out of a conversation with Ismael Ludman about the different muscles used for speaking Spanish and German: many thanks. Many thanks also to Dan Haydon and Gideon Lichfield for insights, comments and suggestions.

Feast of Saints Simon and Jude, Apostles


Thank you for your time with my blogs and welcome back in the near future.

October 28, 2009


Lectionary: 666

Reading 1
Responsorial Psalm
Gospel

Reading 1
Eph 2:19-22

Brothers and sisters:
You are no longer strangers and sojourners,
but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones
and members of the household of God,
built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets,
with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.
Through him the whole structure is held together
and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord;
in him you also are being built together
into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.


Responsorial Psalm
Ps 19:2-3, 4-5

R. (5a) Their message goes out through all the earth.
The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
Day pours out the word to day,
and night to night imparts knowledge.
R. Their message goes out through all the earth.
Not a word nor a discourse
whose voice is not heard;
Through all the earth their voice resounds,
and to the ends of the world, their message.
R. Their message goes out through all the earth.


Gospel
Lk 6:12-16

Jesus went up to the mountain to pray,
and he spent the night in prayer to God.
When day came, he called his disciples to himself,
and from them he chose Twelve, whom he also named Apostles:
Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew,
James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew,
Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus,
Simon who was called a Zealot,
and Judas the son of James,
and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

CNN Last in TV News on Cable

Thank you for your time with my blogs and welcome back in the near future.

October 27, 2009


CNN, which created the all-news cable network almost 30 years ago, hit a new competitive low with its prime-time programs in October, with three of its four programs between 7 and 11 p.m. finishing fourth and last among the cable news networks.

It was the first time that the programs had ever performed that poorly against their news network competitors. October was also the third month in the last year that CNN as a network finished fourth behind the three other cable news networks in prime time with the audience that the networks rely on for advertising sales.

CNN had a strong performance in the election year of 2008, but the channel’s prime-time numbers are down 22 percent from 2007.

The development comes at a time when the commercial environment has become challenging for nearly all news organizations.

In an era when the relationship between the White House and Fox News is making headlines, and when the ideological rivalry between MSNBC on the left and Fox News on the right is commanding the spotlight, CNN has little from a news angle to stir consistent interest from viewers.

As a consequence, CNN’s position in prime-time programming, the most profitable area of the cable news business, has been undermined by the strength of competing channels that focus largely on opinion-based programs during those hours.

CNN itself is responsible for one of those competitors, having installed some popular opinionated hosts at its sister network HLN, formerly Headline News, which has emerged in recent months as a stronger performer in prime time than CNN itself.

In October, CNN’s programs were behind not only Fox and MSNBC, but HLN as well. HLN relies on hosts like Nancy Grace and Jane Velez-Mitchell.

Perhaps most alarming for CNN was the performance of Anderson Cooper, who has become the signature host for the network in prime time. Mr. Cooper, who as recently as 2008 was a ratings leader at 10 p.m., finished fourth and last at 10 p.m. in October. He trailed not only the leader, Greta Van Susteren, on Fox, but Keith Olbermann on MSNBC and Ms. Grace on HLN, despite the fact that both those shows were repeats of programs that had been broadcast at 8 p.m.

In an interview in March, Jon Klein, the president of CNN’s domestic networks, said that Mr. Cooper’s program was an hour “where we could win.”

Mr. Klein was traveling and unavailable for comment. Other CNN executives said that Mr. Cooper’s decline was largely because of a slower news period and that Mr. Klein had meant Mr. Cooper, whose show is focused on news coverage and not opinion, could win when news was driving viewers to his program.

The executives also argued that CNN still easily beat MSNBC (though it continues to trail Fox News badly) in terms of total viewers over the full day of programming.

No CNN executive would say anything else on the record, saying that Mr. Klein would speak for the network in the future.

Fox dominates the news channel ratings in prime time, with its opinion-based programs, hosted by Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, at the top. But its newscasts are also far ahead of CNN programs. Its 7 p.m. show, anchored by Shepard Smith, regarded as a nonideological program, dwarfs every CNN show in prime time.

In October, Mr. Smith averaged 465,000 viewers among the 25- to 54-year-old audience that news sells to advertisers. Lou Dobbs on CNN was fourth in the hour, with 162,000, edged by Ms. Velez-Mitchell on HLN with 166,000. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and “Hardball” was second with 179,000 viewers.

At 10 p.m., Mr. Cooper had 211,000 viewers, to 223,000 for Mr. Olbermann’s repeat. Ms. Van Susteren had 538,000 viewers, and Ms. Grace averaged 222,000.

For the month, CNN averaged 202,000 viewers, ages 25 to 54. That was far behind the dominant leader, Fox, which averaged 689,000. But it also trailed MSNBC which had 250,000 viewers in that group and HLN, which had 221,000 viewers.

The only CNN program from 7 to 10 p.m. that did not finish last was Larry King, who was third. Mr. Hannity was first and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC second.

CNN’s performance was worst in the 8 p.m. hour. Mr. O’Reilly on Fox News continued his long dominance with the biggest numbers of any host, 881,000 viewers. Mr. Olbermann, with his first-run program was second with 295,000. Close behind was the first edition of Ms. Grace’s show with 269,000. Campbell Brown on CNN trailed, with only 162,000.

CNN defended its performance by noting that it still had higher ratings than MSNBC when each hour of the day was measured. Barbara Levin, a CNN spokeswoman, issued a statement Monday, saying: “We couldn’t be more pleased that both our networks are now topping MSNBC in total day and that CNN.com leads all TV news competitors on the Web. As we have said for years, we measure our audience across all CNN worldwide platforms and throughout the day, not just prime time. CNN provides quality journalism and our ratings reflect the news environment more than opinion programming does.”

Why the Vatican Wants Anglicans


Thank you for your time with my blogs and welcome back in the near future.

October 20, 2009, 5:54 pm


Left to right: Alessandra Tarantino/Associated Press, John Stillwell/Associated Press Left: Pope Benedict XVI at a canonization ceremony in St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican, Oct. 11. Right: The Most Rev. Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury and leading cleric of the Anglican Church at a service at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, Oct. 9.

The Vatican announced on Tuesday that it would make it easier for Anglicans who are uncomfortable with the Church of England’s acceptance of women priests and openly gay bishops to join the Catholic Church. The Vatican will set up a formal conversion structure to allow Anglicans to preserve some of their liturgical traditions, including allowing married Anglican priests to remain married after they convert to Catholicism.

What does this announcement say about the Catholic Church and its willingness to grant such flexibility?

Choosing Your Flavor

David Gibson is author of “The Rule of Benedict: Pope Benedict XVI and His Battle with the Modern World.” He currently covers religion for PoliticsDaily.com.

“Cafeteria Catholic” is about the worst epithet that conservative Catholics can hurl at liberals, with its implications of a pick-and-choose faith rather than a consistent fidelity to every jot and tittle of the catechism.

The Vatican has shown a remarkable willingness to bend the rules when it comes to conservative groups.

But after the news that the Vatican is effectively carving out a special church-within-a-church to shelter traditionalist Anglicans upset at gay priests and women bishops in their own church, one has to wonder if the cafeteria line isn’t forming to the right.

While both Pope John Paul II and his successor Benedict XVI have been known as staunch conservatives, they have in fact shown a remarkably liberal willingness to bend the rules when it comes to certain groups.

Close

In 1982, John Paul made use of a novel structure called a “personal prelature” to allow the conservative Catholic group Opus Dei to operate in any diocese around the world while remaining answerable to the pope rather than the local bishop — an innovation that was not always welcomed by the bishops.

Similarly, when a traditionalist Catholic bishop, Marcel Lefebvre, took his anti-modernist movement into schism in 1988, John Paul (with the help of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict) created a special society that would allow defectors from Lefebvre’s movement to stay attached to Rome without giving up their old rites and views — much as the conservative Anglican converts can do now, even if they are married priests.

In 2007, Benedict XVI made another opening to the right by restoring the old Latin Mass to universal usage — over the objections of local bishops around the world — thereby creating two parallel rites in the Western church for the first time ever. (And Pope Benedict this week opened negotiations with the traditionalists who are still in schism in an effort to accommodate them, as well.)

For a church whose leadership has earned a reputation for reprimanding liberal Catholics who color outside the lines, these developments could be more than a bit frustrating. If conservatives can get special consideration, how about Catholics who have divorced and remarried but can’t take communion? Or those who back ordaining women? Or perhaps an exemption for the 25,000 or so priests who left the ministry in recent decades when they married? Many of them are ready, willing and able to return. Priest shortage solved.

Hey, Pope Benedict could be on to something. Some more, please?

Ecumenical Choice

John L. Allen Jr. is the senior correspondent for The National Catholic Reporter and author of “The Rise of Benedict XVI.”

The news that the Vatican will create special structures for disaffected Anglicans will likely be criticized in some quarters as “anti-ecumenical,” meaning a blow to good relations between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church. That’s because Anglicans already seem on the brink of schism over issues like women priests (and bishops), gay marriage and the ordination of gay clergy, and now the conservative opposition has a Vatican-sanctioned exit strategy.

Today’s decision represents an option for “unity in diversity,” showing respect for the traditions of others.

Such criticism, however, tends to presume that the Vatican’s choice was between accepting these Anglicans and keeping them at arm’s length. In truth, the latter was never a serious option, because Catholicism is in the business of encouraging converts, not spurning them.

The real question, therefore, was always how these Anglicans would be received — and at that level, one could argue that today’s announcement actually represents the more ecumenical choice.

Close

In the past, when someone from another Christian denomination — a Methodist, for example, or a Pentecostal — wanted to become Catholic, they essentially had to jettison their own spiritual heritage to take on distinctively Catholic forms of prayer, worship and ministry. Today’s decision instead represents an option for “unity in diversity,” which at least tries to show respect for the tradition out of which these new Catholics are emerging.

In other words, if some percentage of the world’s Anglicans were going to swim the Tiber anyway, the Vatican has at least tried to bring them ashore in the most ecumenical fashion possible.

By the way, there’s also nothing preventing the Anglican Communion from creating similar structures to welcome aggrieved Catholics who support all the measures these disaffected Anglicans oppose. Certainly, after today, the Vatican would have no basis to condemn such a move as an ecumenical low blow.

Serving Distinct Needs

M. Cathleen Kaveny is John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law and professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame. She is currently completing a book entitled “Prophetic Rhetoric in the Public Square: An Ethics of Discourse.”

I have two observations about the Vatican’s decision to use canon law to establish “personal ordinariates” to facilitate the decision of Anglicans around the world “to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony” — and one note of caution.

The flexibility shown in this move was made possible by the ‘modernizing’ Second Vatican Council.

First, many people are complaining that this is a “traditionalist” move, because many Anglicans who want to become Roman Catholic are doing so because the “liberal” Anglicans are ordaining women and practicing homosexuals not only as priests, but also as bishops.

It is worth noting that that the flexible, unity-in-difference that Rome has in mind is in fact an arrangement that is made possible only by the “modernizing” Second Vatican Council, and the new code of canon law produced in its wake.

Close

Reginald Whitt, O.P. who is both a civil and a canon lawyer teaching at the University of St. Thomas Law School in Minneapolis, has shown that Canon 372 of that code makes possible “personal particular churches” which allow distinctive groups with distinctive needs to preserve their identities while remaining in communion with the universal church.

While this canon has been used to meet the needs of traditionalist Catholics, Professor Whitt argues that it could also be used to assist other distinct groups of Catholics with their own needs and cultures of worship — such as African-American Catholics.

Second, the announcement demonstrates the great respect that Rome has for the Anglican tradition. Many Roman Catholics, for example, believe the Anglican Book of Common Prayer is the English language’s most sublime expression of the Christian faith. On a concrete level, Anglican forms of prayer will doubtless influence the way all English-speaking Catholics worship.

On a more abstract level, the Vatican’s accommodation of Anglican forms of worship presupposes that God’s love and guidance was with all parties to the English Reformation - not merely the Roman Catholics.

Now, for the caution. At least in the American context, it can seem that the attraction of some Anglicans to the Roman Catholic Church is largely negative. Rome doesn’t ordain women and Rome doesn’t ordain practicing homosexuals.

As Pope Benedict XVI himself recognized, however, the Church is in danger of becoming known for what it opposes, rather than the “good news” it offers to humanity. No negative norm, however important (or controversial) can be the whole story. What do we stand for? What does the message of Jesus Christ offer? Unless we are all careful, this development will further entrench the image of Catholicism as the Church of “No.”

Answering the Demand

Colleen Carroll Campbell is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the author of “The New Faithful: Why Young Adults Are Embracing Christian Orthodoxy” and host of “Faith & Culture,” a TV and radio show that airs on EWTN.

Tuesday’s announcement comes as welcome news to many tradition-minded, theologically conservative Anglicans who have sought a way to join the Catholic Church without jettisoning their Anglican identity.

Anglo-Catholics are rejoicing today that the Catholic Church is welcoming them with open arms.

Far from being a crafty attempt to lure content Anglicans away from their mother church, the creation of this new canonical structure is the Catholic Church’s long-awaited response to a persistent demand. That demand comes from Anglo-Catholics who feel marginalized and betrayed by the Anglican Communion’s willingness to adapt age-old Christian teachings to fit contemporary sexual mores.

It’s not surprising that some have labeled this action an affront to ecumenism. Ecumenism often is equated with a lowest-common-denominator approach to doctrinal differences that glosses over serious conflicts and seeks peace at any price.

Close

But nothing in this action by the Vatican contradicts the principles of genuine ecumenism: the commitment to speaking the truth in love, to seeking common ground where it can be found and to honestly acknowledging deep differences — including those differences that have divided the Anglican Communion. Indeed, much of conservative Anglicans’ frustration with the Anglican Communion emanates from the relativistic, agree-to-disagree approach to fundamental moral and theological questions so prevalent among Anglican leaders, including Archbishop Rowan Williams.

Genuine ecumenism does not require that the Catholic Church turn away converts knocking on its doors, just as the Catholic Church’s genuine respect for tradition does not preclude the creation of a canonical structure that allows Anglican converts to retain some liturgical riches of their Anglican heritage while uniting with Rome. As the saying goes, “Unity in the essentials; liberty in the non-essentials; and in all things, love.”

Many disagree with the way the Catholic Church defines the essentials — including its defense of an all-male priesthood and its refusal to sanction homosexual relationships. But many others, including the Anglo-Catholics rejoicing today, see in that definition the markings of fidelity to Christian tradition that are increasingly rare in their own Communion. For these Anglicans, the Catholic Church’s decision to welcome them with open arms is good news, indeed.

Words We Love Too Much

Thank you for your time with my blogs and welcome back in the near future.

October 27, 2009, 8:00 am


Notes from the newsroom on grammar, usage and style.

I’ve steered away from my give-this-word-a-rest refrain recently. For one thing, these are among the most subjective judgments — one person’s handy shorthand is another’s grating cliché. And I was afraid that if I denounced too many words as overused or worn out, our writers wouldn’t have much left to work with.

I needn’t have worried, of course; these screeds have little discernible effect. Still, I ran into one too many “famouslys” recently, and I couldn’t help myself. In many cases, “famously” is completely superfluous; in other instances, there’s a more precise way to say what we mean.

Some recent examples:

•••

At a White House meeting in mid-March, in which the counterinsurgency policy was initially presented, Mr. Biden famously began to stake out his position that a larger military presence in Afghanistan could breed resentment among Afghans and would be politically untenable at home.

Yes, the fact that Biden holds this position has been widely reported. But the fact that he began staking out this stance at a particular White House meeting in mid-March could surely be famous only among a handful of Washington reporters with exceptionally good memories.

•••

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas famously broke an antique chair during a cabinet meeting before losing 110 pounds, becoming a presidential contender and writing a self-help book, “Quit Digging Your Grave With a Knife and Fork.”

Is “famously” supposed to make me think that everyone knows this story except me? Perhaps what we wanted to convey was something more like “Huckabee drew wide attention in Arkansas when …”

•••

From that varied background, Brees [the New Orleans quarterback] developed nimble footwork in the pocket, deft movement that safety Darren Sharper, in his 13th season, described as the best he has ever seen. Brees combined that with uncanny vision to overcome what he famously lacked in height (he is listed at 6 feet).

Hard to see what the word adds here, except to make those of us who didn’t know how tall he is feel out of it.

•••

Not every former governor has a portrait hanging in the Capitol. Mario M. Cuomo has famously — and rather cantankerously — refused to allow an artist to paint his likeness.

Again, outside of Albany-watchers, I’m not sure how famous his refusal really is. Perhaps we meant something more like, “Cuomo has made a point of refusing …”?

In a Word

This week’s grab bag of grammar, style and other editing missteps, compiled with help from colleagues and sharp-eyed readers.

•••

“My CD’s,” he said. “I regret that. That was a mistake.” He had 3,500 of them. Country, blues, jazz, rock. They went to a collector, after he put them on his computer, and iPod. But the iPod is not the same, he said. The music sounded better on the CD’s.

We changed our style several years ago on plurals like this. Here’s what the current “plurals” entry in The Times’s stylebook says:

But do not use apostrophes for plurals of abbreviations without periods, or for plurals formed from figures: TVs, PCs, DVDs; 1990s, 747s, size 7s.

•••

After New Ads, iDoubts Grow About a Verizon iPhone

It no longer seems clever, if it ever did, to attach an “i” to words in articles and headlines about Apple.

•••

Top aides in the Obama administration waxed on the Sunday news shows about their relationship with Fox News, the current media nemesis of the latest White House team.

“Wax” as an intransitive verb means “grow.” It is occasionally used in an extended sense to mean “become,” in expressions like “She waxed sentimental.” A further extension yields colloquial expressions like “He waxed on and on about it.” None of those uses really covers this case.

•••

Dr. Hagerty sounded surprised at the news but not alarmed, because most of the pigs, or perhaps all, that were at the state fair at the same time as a group of 4-H children who became ill were to be sent to the slaughterhouse shortly afterward.

This convoluted sentence made for tough going. Let’s hope no one, in confusion, read the highlighted phrase as a unit.

•••

[Caption online] Alan Ceballos at his building in the Bronx. He lives in a subsidized two-bedroom apartment for about the same price that he payed previously for a market-rate one-bedroom.

Make it “paid,” of course.

•••

All of which begs the question: what are the chances that a new business whose product and gestalt are based on a rather old — that is to say, two decades old — idea might find success in a still-punishing retail environment?

“Beg the question” does not mean pose the issue. This version appeared in print; it was changed on the Web site to “prompts the question.”

•••

Ms. Ashwell’s fans, of course, could care less if Shabby, as Ms. Ashwell calls her company, is “in” or “out.”

The phrase is “could not care less.”

•••

Vyacheslav K. Ivankov, a Russian crime boss who survived tangles with the K.G.B., the F.B.I. and other violent criminals in a bloody career that spanned decades, was laid to rest at a Moscow cemetery. Hundreds attended the funeral.

Watch where you place those phrases. A reader inquired, “Had any complaints from the K.G.B. and F.B.I.?”

•••

[Blog post headline] NYMF: Five Questions About ‘Academy’

Alphabet soup in a headline (or text) is not a good idea, especially for an acronym unfamiliar to many readers. This one (pronounced nymph) stands for the New York Musical Theater Festival.

•••

After Deadline examines questions of grammar, usage and style encountered by writers and editors of The Times. It is adapted from a weekly newsroom critique overseen by Philip B. Corbett, the associate managing editor for standards, who is also in charge of The Times’s style manual.

U.S. Home Prices Continue to Stabilize

Thank you for your time with my blogs and welcome back in the near future.

October 28, 2009


Home prices continued to increase in August, according to data released Tuesday.

The Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller home price index, a widely watched measure of 20 metropolitan areas, rose a seasonally adjusted 1 percent in August from the previous month.

“So far, so good,” said Maureen Maitland, vice president for index services at Standard & Poor’s. “There’s nothing negative in these numbers.”

S.&P. said it was approximately the seventh month in a row in which the year-over-year decline in home prices had eased. The composite index is down 11.3 percent from last August.

“There is little doubt the housing market is improving,” Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for Miller Tabak, wrote in a research note. “Prices are improving, the inventory picture continues to get better, and government support for the sector remains in place, for now.”

The recovery, however, is both modest and tentative when measured against the preceding plunge. Prices have fallen nearly a third from their peak. They are where they were in the fall of 2003. In most places, it is as if the housing boom had never happened. Some cities have been pushed even further back to the past: Cleveland prices are at 2001 levels, Detroit at 1995.

Sixteen of the 20 cities in the index rose in August, including San Francisco, up 2.6 percent, and Minneapolis, which rose 2.3 percent. The four cities that fell were Charlotte, Cleveland, Seattle and, as has become routine, Las Vegas. New York was up 0.3 percent.

Last winter, all of the Case-Shiller cities dropped for months in a row. Joshua Shapiro, chief United States economist for MFR Inc., said the current numbers represented a correction from that bleak period rather than a true shift in long-term trends. He expects “mild” declines to reassert themselves as the winter begins.

“A rapidly rising unemployment rate is creating problems for many formerly creditworthy homeowners,” Mr. Shapiro wrote in a note to clients. “While much of the impact of the subprime disaster on prices at the bottom end of the market may well be behind us, there is likely plenty of pain yet to come further up the price spectrum.”

The Case-Shiller numbers lag behind the National Association of Realtors’ report on existing home sales, which have been issued for September. While that number also showed improvement, much of the strength was probably due to the $8,000 first-time buyers’ tax credit, which is pulling forward sales from next year.

Discussion over whether to extend the controversial credit, which expires Nov. 30, is continuing in Washington. One likely scenario: it will be phased out.

Another factor likely to impede the market in the coming months is a rise in interest rates, as the Federal Reserve ceases its buying mortgage-backed securities.

“Everything is up for grabs this winter,” Ms. Maitland said.

Today's Reading

Thank you for your time with my blogs and welcome back in the near future.

October 27, 2009

Tuesday of the Thirtieth Week in Ordinary Time Lectionary: 480

Reading 1
Responsorial Psalm
Gospel

Reading 1
Rom 8:18-25

Brothers and sisters:
I consider that the sufferings of this present time are as nothing
compared with the glory to be revealed for us.
For creation awaits with eager expectation
the revelation of the children of God;
for creation was made subject to futility,
not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it,
in hope that creation itself
would be set free from slavery to corruption
and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.
We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now;
and not only that, but we ourselves,
who have the firstfruits of the Spirit,
we also groan within ourselves
as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.
For in hope we were saved.
Now hope that sees for itself is not hope.
For who hopes for what one sees?
But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance.


Responsorial Psalm
Ps 126:1b-2ab, 2cd-3, 4-5, 6

R. (3a) The Lord has done marvels for us.
When the LORD brought back the captives of Zion,
we were like men dreaming.
Then our mouth was filled with laughter,
and our tongue with rejoicing.
R. The Lord has done marvels for us.
Then they said among the nations,
“The LORD has done great things for them.”
The LORD has done great things for us;
we are glad indeed.
R. The Lord has done marvels for us.
Restore our fortunes, O LORD,
like the torrents in the southern desert.
Those that sow in tears
shall reap rejoicing.
R. The Lord has done marvels for us.
Although they go forth weeping,
carrying the seed to be sown,
They shall come back rejoicing,
carrying their sheaves.
R. The Lord has done marvels for us.


Gospel
Lk 13:18-21

Jesus said, “What is the Kingdom of God like?
To what can I compare it?
It is like a mustard seed that a man took and planted in the garden.
When it was fully grown, it became a large bush
and the birds of the sky dwelt in its branches.”

Again he said, “To what shall I compare the Kingdom of God?
It is like yeast that a woman took
and mixed in with three measures of wheat flour
until the whole batch of dough was leavened.”

Monday, October 26, 2009

Senator Reid Announces an ‘Opt-Out’ Public Plan

Thank you for your time with my blogs and welcome back in the near future.

October 27, 2009


WASHINGTON – The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, announced Monday that he would include a government-run insurance plan in the major health care legislation that he plans to take to the Senate floor within a few weeks, but he proposed that states be allowed to “opt out” of the public plan.

Mr. Reid’s decision, made after two weeks of deliberations and under intense pressure by his party’s liberals, assures that a public insurance option will be included in bills brought to the floor in both houses of Congress.

“The best way to move forward is to include a public option with the opt-out provision for states,” Mr. Reid, of Nevada, said at a news conference. “I believe that a public option can achieve the goal of bringing meaningful reform to our broken system.

It is not clear that Mr. Reid has the 60 votes he would need just to bring the bill to the Senate floor if it includes the public insurance plan. Senate aides said Monday that Mr. Reid was several votes short of that goal.

And with his latest move, he lost the one Republican who had given the Democratic efforts a hint of bipartisanship, Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, who had supported the Senate Finance Committee’s version of the bill, which did not include a public plan.

“I am deeply disappointed with the majority leader’s decision to include a public option as the focus of the legislation,” Ms. Snowe said in a statement, and she said that Mr. Reid had missed a chance to keep her on board.

“I still believe that a fallback safety net plan, to be triggered and available immediately in states where insurance companies fail to offer plans that meet the standards of affordability, could have been the road toward achieving a broader bipartisan consensus in the Senate,” Ms. Snowe said.

But Mr. Reid instantly achieved one of his goals, as his decision was acclaimed by liberal organizations like MoveOn, Families USA and Health Care for America Now, a coalition that includes labor unions and civil rights groups.

Such praise was expected to lift his political prospects back home in Nevada where he is up for re-election next year.

Pressed on whether Senate Democrats would unite to advance the bill, Mr. Reid said he believed they would. “I believe we clearly will have the support of my caucus to move to this bill and start legislating,” he said.

A Democrat on Capitol Hill who supports the public option said “there is a lot of concern” that Mr. Reid had made his decision without having nailed down the votes to get the bill approved on the Senate floor.

The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said President Obama was pleased with Mr. Reid’s decision. “He supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition,” Mr. Gibbs said of the president.

Republicans and insurance companies assailed the decision. “No matter what you call it or how you dress it up, the Democrats’ proposal is government-run insurance,” said Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Republican.

Liberal senators have urged Mr. Reid to include the public insurance plan in the bill that he has been putting together, working with versions approved by two Senate committees.

Mr. Reid’s aides provided few details about how the opt-out provision would work. They said that the public plan would be national in scope and that it would be available on the first day that the major provisions of the health care legislation go into effect, which is now expected to be July. 1, 2013.

The government plan would be required to negotiate payment rates with doctors, hospitals and other providers. Some liberal Democrats have pressed for a public plan using rates tied to Medicare, which could generate more costs savings for the government and for consumers.

Mr. Reid said that he was submitting a number of proposals related to the health care legislation to the Congressional Budget Office for cost analysis. Senators in both parties have demanded to see a full cost estimate before being asked to vote on bringing the bill to the floor.

For the moment, Senate Democratic leaders are taking an aggressive approach, defying Republicans and ignoring the concerns of moderate Democrats who are apprehensive about a public plan.

But Mr. Reid’s decision will not be the last word. The Senate will probably spend weeks on the health care bill and could vote on dozens of amendments, including several to alter or eliminate his version of a public plan.

In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi faces a slightly different challenge. She says she is certain that the House will pass a health care bill with a public plan. The only question, she says, is what form it will take. On that question, House Democrats are split.

The Senate and House bills would require most Americans to carry health insurance. Supporters of a public plan say it would hold down costs by forcing competition with private insurers, which, under the legislation, could get 20 million to 30 million new customers.

Opponents say the public plan would have unfair advantages and could eventually drive private insurers from the market.

Without a public option, said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip, “health insurance companies have virtually no restrictions on what they can charge us.”

Christina D. Romer, chairwoman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, weighed in to the debate Monday, supporting creation of a public plan.

“A public health insurance option would be a credible entrant in concentrated markets, and would serve as a competitive, alternative choice, constraining the ability of insurers to raise premiums, and thus containing the growth rate of costs,” Ms. Romer said.

Today's Reading

Thank you for your time with my blogs and welcome back in the near future.

October 26, 2009

Monday of the Thirtieth Week in Ordinary Time Lectionary: 479

Reading 1
Responsorial Psalm
Gospel

Reading 1
Rom 8:12-17

Brothers and sisters,
we are not debtors to the flesh,
to live according to the flesh.
For if you live according to the flesh, you will die,
but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body,
you will live.

For those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear,
but you received a spirit of adoption,
through which we cry, “Abba, Father!”
The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit
that we are children of God,
and if children, then heirs,
heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ,
if only we suffer with him
so that we may also be glorified with him.


Responsorial Psalm
Ps 68:2 and 4, 6-7ab, 20-21

R. (21a) Our God is the God of salvation.
God arises; his enemies are scattered,
and those who hate him flee before him.
But the just rejoice and exult before God;
they are glad and rejoice.
R. Our God is the God of salvation.
The father of orphans and the defender of widows
is God in his holy dwelling.
God gives a home to the forsaken;
he leads forth prisoners to prosperity.
R. Our God is the God of salvation.
Blessed day by day be the Lord,
who bears our burdens; God, who is our salvation.
God is a saving God for us;
the LORD, my Lord, controls the passageways of death.
R. Our God is the God of salvation.


Gospel
Lk 13:10-17

Jesus was teaching in a synagogue on the sabbath.
And a woman was there who for eighteen years
had been crippled by a spirit;
she was bent over, completely incapable of standing erect.
When Jesus saw her, he called to her and said,
“Woman, you are set free of your infirmity.”
He laid his hands on her,
and she at once stood up straight and glorified God.
But the leader of the synagogue,
indignant that Jesus had cured on the sabbath,
said to the crowd in reply,
“There are six days when work should be done.
Come on those days to be cured, not on the sabbath day.”
The Lord said to him in reply, “Hypocrites!
Does not each one of you on the sabbath
untie his ox or his ass from the manger
and lead it out for watering?
This daughter of Abraham,
whom Satan has bound for eighteen years now,
ought she not to have been set free on the sabbath day
from this bondage?”
When he said this, all his adversaries were humiliated;
and the whole crowd rejoiced at all the splendid deeds done by him.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Today's Reading

Thank you for your time with my blogs and welcome back in the near future.

October 25, 2009

Thirtieth Sunday in Ordinary Time Lectionary: 149

Reading 1
Responsorial Psalm
Reading 2
Gospel

Reading 1
Jer 31:7-9

Thus says the LORD:
Shout with joy for Jacob,
exult at the head of the nations;
proclaim your praise and say:
The LORD has delivered his people,
the remnant of Israel.
Behold, I will bring them back
from the land of the north;
I will gather them from the ends of the world,
with the blind and the lame in their midst,
the mothers and those with child;
they shall return as an immense throng.
They departed in tears,
but I will console them and guide them;
I will lead them to brooks of water,
on a level road, so that none shall stumble.
For I am a father to Israel,
Ephraim is my first-born.


Responsorial Psalm
Ps 126:1-2, 2-3, 4-5, 6

R. (3) The Lord has done great things for us; we are filled with joy.
When the LORD brought back the captives of Zion,
we were like men dreaming.
Then our mouth was filled with laughter,
and our tongue with rejoicing.
R. The Lord has done great things for us; we are filled with joy.
Then they said among the nations,
"The LORD has done great things for them."
The LORD has done great things for us;
we are glad indeed.
R. The Lord has done great things for us; we are filled with joy.
Restore our fortunes, O LORD,
like the torrents in the southern desert.
Those that sow in tears
shall reap rejoicing.
R. The Lord has done great things for us; we are filled with joy.
Although they go forth weeping,
carrying the seed to be sown,
They shall come back rejoicing,
carrying their sheaves.
R. The Lord has done great things for us; we are filled with joy.


Reading II
Heb 5:1-6

Brothers and sisters:
Every high priest is taken from among men
and made their representative before God,
to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.
He is able to deal patiently with the ignorant and erring,
for he himself is beset by weakness
and so, for this reason, must make sin offerings for himself
as well as for the people.
No one takes this honor upon himself
but only when called by God,
just as Aaron was.
In the same way,
it was not Christ who glorified himself in becoming high priest,
but rather the one who said to him:
You are my son:
this day I have begotten you;
just as he says in another place:
You are a priest forever
according to the order of Melchizedek.


Gospel
Mk 10:46-52

As Jesus was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a sizable crowd,
Bartimaeus, a blind man, the son of Timaeus,
sat by the roadside begging.
On hearing that it was Jesus of Nazareth,
he began to cry out and say,
"Jesus, son of David, have pity on me."
And many rebuked him, telling him to be silent.
But he kept calling out all the more,
"Son of David, have pity on me."
Jesus stopped and said, "Call him."
So they called the blind man, saying to him,
"Take courage; get up, Jesus is calling you."
He threw aside his cloak, sprang up, and came to Jesus.
Jesus said to him in reply, "What do you want me to do for you?"
The blind man replied to him, "Master, I want to see."
Jesus told him, "Go your way; your faith has saved you."
Immediately he received his sight
and followed him on the way.