Last week was one of mixed blessings for those engaged in the U.S. political process. On the positive side, the U.S. Supreme Court – by a 5-4 margin – struck down overall limits on campaign contributions. Unfortunately, the pendulum swung in the opposite direction for Brendan Eich, co-founder and chief executive officer of Mozilla, who resigned after the Los Angeles Times disclosed his $1,000 contribution in support of California’s 2012 Proposition 8.

Eich’s unfortunate circumstances bring to mind the many proxy resolutions submitted to a plethora of companies each year by so-called religious shareholders such as As You Sow and the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility. These resolutions bleat endlessly of the need for transparency in corporate lobbying, political expenses and donations to the American Legislative Exchange Council and The Heartland Institute. The call for transparency, however, is a ruse – what’s most important is shaming the companies publicly so they’ll give up fighting for their First Amendment rights. (more…)

brendan-eich-mozilla-firefox-squareBrendan Eich, Mozilla co-founder and creator of the JavaScript programming language, was recently appointed as Mozilla’s chief executive. Just one week later, however, he was pressured to resign.

His iniquity? Donating $1,000 in support of Proposition 8, a measure whose basic aim was entirely consistent with the beliefs of Barack Obama at the time.

To announce Eich’s departure, Mozilla quickly moved to clarify, offering a statement of faith of sorts, filled with all the right Orwellian flourishes:

Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.

Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.

We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.

While painful, the events of the last week show exactly why we need the web. So all of us can engage freely in the tough conversations we need to make the world better.

With its unique blend of diversity-speak and passive-aggressive angst, the dance of Cultural Conformity isn’t easy to master. But oh, how glorious its artistry. (more…)

first-they-cameMitchell Baker, executive chair of Mozilla, announced on the company’s blog that Brendan Eich, former Mozilla CEO has stepped down “for Mozilla and our community.” His sin: contributing $1000 in 2008 in support of California’s Prop 8, which upheld traditional marriage.

Now, Mozilla is a company that takes great pride in their – ahem – tolerance and open-mindedness. Really.

Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.

Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.

(more…)

VATICAN-POPE-AUDIENCEPope Francis needs distributism, argues Arthur W. Hunt III in the latest issue of The American Conservative. Hunt says that Americans and popes alike can embrace a humane alternative to modern capitalism:

In the midst of their scramble to claim the new Pope, many on the left missed what the Pontiff said was a nonsolution. The problems of the poor, he said, could not be solved by a “simple welfare mentality.” Well, by what then? The document is clear: “a better distribution of income.” And how might this be achieved? Through the “right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good,” to exercise some control against an “absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation.”

The Pope called for a kinder and gentler capitalism. Admittedly, he did not provide many policy details other than, “We can no longer trust the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market … it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income.” It is that phrase, “distribution of income,” that struck fear into Palin and Limbaugh, and perhaps even Reno. It smacks of socialism—what Reno called the only and obvious alternative to capitalism. Reno briskly passed over any notion of a third solution, one many sons and daughters of Rome have rallied to for over a century.

The word distributism does not appear in the treatise, and nowhere does Francis fall back on his predecessors or Catholic intellectuals who have supported a third way of economic ordering. Nevertheless, policies that allow for the flourishing of smaller economic units while at the same time valuing work and broader property ownership are consistent with Catholic social teaching.

Despite not being Catholic myself, I found almost nothing in Hunt’s article all that objectionable. The only point of true disagreement is the claim that distributism is an alternative to either capitalism or socialism. Distributism is not an alternative at all, for distributism doesn’t actually exist.

Over the past hundred years there have been numerous explanations for why distributism is unrealistic and unworkable as a “third-way” alternative. Here are four that should suffice to point out why no one — whether a pope or plumber — needs distributism:
(more…)

Acton’s Director of International Outreach, Todd Huizinga, recently discussed the situation in Ukraine with WGVU’s Patrick Center and Calvin College’s assistant professors of political science, Becca McBride. For West Michigan residents, the interview will be airing tonight at 8:30 PM on the WGVU Life Channel and then again Sunday morning at 10:30 AM on WGVU-HD.

For some background on what’s been going on Ukraine, see the panel discussion, ‘Ukraine – The Last Frontier of the Cold War’.

Blog author: jcarter
posted by on Friday, April 4, 2014

No-frills canonization for Popes JPII, John XXIII
Associated Press

The low-frills style of Pope Francis is having an effect on the upcoming canonizations of Popes John Paul II and John XXIII.

Religious Freedom in the House Budget
Sarah Torre, The Foundry

The budget presented by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R–WI) takes a positive view of religious freedom, calling for funding and reforms that advance protection of religious liberty here and abroad.

Recent presidents and religious liberty
ary S. Smith , Vision and Values

Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush all ardently advocated religious freedom. As they confronted the demise of communism or terrorist threats and acts, they strove to increase opportunities for worship and religious expression in the U.S. and overseas.

What Hath Mozilla To Do With Hobby Lobby?
Betsy Childs, First Things

My point is that the First Amendment will not protect Brendan Eich from bullying or reprisal for his views. Rather, it allows him to continue to express those views, whether with his words or his checkbook, free from government interference.

buddiesThere is a lot of talk about “closing the gap” and overcoming “income inequality.” Some of it is pure socialism: Redistribute! Redistribute! Others look for ways to create jobs and help people create new financial opportunities for themselves.

But what about the simple gift of friendship?

At The American Conservative, Gracy Olmstead suggests that friendship can bridge income gaps, and creates safety nets for people in ways government and even private agencies cannot. We all have close friends and family we know we can count on, but Olmstead (quoting Richard Beck) says “weak ties” must not be overlooked. “Weak ties” would be that sorority sister you actually haven’t laid eyes on in 12 years, but talk to daily on Facebook, or that second cousin you only see at family weddings and funerals.

Weak ties—distant relatives, acquaintances from our neighborhood or past—are usually more diverse in their background, tastes, and employment. This wider “social web” gives us philanthropic ammunition: when you see someone in need, you don’t just bring your own talents and gifts to the table. You bring everyone you’ve ever met—”Bluntly, you might not be able to help this person in a particular situation but you might know someone else who can. In sacramental friendships you are bringing the gift of your weak ties.”

(more…)

TaxCollectorDuring the 20th century, the option for the poor or the preferential option for the poor was articulated as one of the basic principles of Catholic social teaching. For example, in Octogesima Adveniens (1971), Pope Paul VI writes:

In teaching us charity, the Gospel instructs us in the preferential respect due to the poor and the special situation they have in society: the most fortunate should renounce some of their rights so as to place their goods generously at the service of others.

Yet while all Christians — not just Catholics — should express a kinship for the less fortunate, Nathan Duffy reminds us that Jesus also expressed a “special, unique concern for wealthy tax collectors.”
(more…)

adhdCultural progressives often talk about something called “hegemonic masculinity.” By this progressives and feminists mean the standards we use to determine what an ideal man is in a particular culture. Michael Kimmel and Amy Aronson, in The Gendered Society Reader, describe American hegemonic masculinity this way:

In an important sense there is only one complete unblushing male in America: a young, married, white, urban, northern, heterosexual, Protestant, father, of college education, fully employed, of good complexion, weight, and height, and a recent record in sports . . . Any male who fails to qualify in any one of these ways is likely to view himself–during moments at least–as unworthy, incomplete and inferior.

With this definition, progressives and feminists are on what seems to be a campaign to “dismantle” any sense of “American” masculinity. Additionally, part of the mission is to redefine all of America’s problems in terms of what males, especially white males, have done to ruin society. As many have argued before, the first step in solving social ills is to pathologize boyhood and numb it into oblivion.

Esquire Magazine recently ran a story titled “The Drugging Of The American Boy” which highlights the seemingly settled disposition that developing masculinity is something to be diagnosed as ADHD and, therefore, a problem to be solved. The article cites this data:
(more…)

Blog author: ehilton
posted by on Thursday, April 3, 2014

american heroIn a fascinating essay in Mosaic, Charles Murray examines the spirit of innovation in America. He asks,

As against pivotal moments in the story of human accomplishment, does today’s America, for instance, look more like Britain blooming at the end of the 18th century or like France fading at the end of the 19th century? If the latter, are there idiosyncratic features of the American situation that can override what seem to be longer-run tendencies?

The author of Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, Murray amassed data from virtually all of human history, across cultures and in vast categories of human endeavor. He believes that there are patterns to innovation, creativity and advancement, and that certain cultural standards support and encourage this, while others degrade it. Murray makes the case that America is floundering, if not fading, when it comes to innovation and invention. (more…)