Saturday December 24, 2005--Forty-nine percent (49%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. That's up five points since the President's speech on Sunday night.
Yesterday was the first time since July that the President's Job Approval has reached the 50% mark. He earns approval from 81% of Republicans, 24% of Democrats, and 39% of those not affiliated with either major political party.
And with the economy humming and the Dems in complete September 10, 2001 mode, the Bushies must be very pleased.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
A Defense Only A Lawyer Could Devise
SEATTLE, Washington (AP) -- A jury on Tuesday convicted a lawyer of attempted murder in a 2004 shooting that left a rival attorney in a nursing home, unable to speak.
Prosecutors said they would seek a stiffer sentence for William R. Joice, 51, beyond the standard-range term of 20 to 25 years because of aggravating factors.
Joice testified during the trial that although he shot Kevin Jung in the head outside Jung's Bellevue law office, he didn't intend to kill him.
Joice said he was just trying to injure Jung to buy time in a lawsuit which pitted the two lawyers against each other. Jung, a 45-year-old father of two, and Joice represented opposite sides in a contract dispute.
Prosecutors said they would seek a stiffer sentence for William R. Joice, 51, beyond the standard-range term of 20 to 25 years because of aggravating factors.
Joice testified during the trial that although he shot Kevin Jung in the head outside Jung's Bellevue law office, he didn't intend to kill him.
Joice said he was just trying to injure Jung to buy time in a lawsuit which pitted the two lawyers against each other. Jung, a 45-year-old father of two, and Joice represented opposite sides in a contract dispute.
It Only Took 6 Years
The Big Government Republicans have finally cut something:
WASHINGTON - The Republican-controlled Senate passed legislation to cut federal deficits by $39.7 billion on Wednesday by the narrowest of margins, 51-50, with Vice President Dick Cheney casting the deciding vote. The measure, the product of a year's labors by the White House and the GOP in Congress, imposes the first restraints in nearly a decade in federal benefit programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and student loans.
Alas, the Dems are outraged. Reason #1 why I never take their cries for deficit reduction seriously.
WASHINGTON - The Republican-controlled Senate passed legislation to cut federal deficits by $39.7 billion on Wednesday by the narrowest of margins, 51-50, with Vice President Dick Cheney casting the deciding vote. The measure, the product of a year's labors by the White House and the GOP in Congress, imposes the first restraints in nearly a decade in federal benefit programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and student loans.
Alas, the Dems are outraged. Reason #1 why I never take their cries for deficit reduction seriously.
NBC Still Doesn't Get It
Now why is NBC in last place? Oh, yeah.
According to this story from Beliefnet, NBC Television has a real treat in store for people interested in religion: their upcoming drama series, The Book of Daniel, is about a married Episcopal priest, Daniel Webster, who is addicted to Vicodin, who is married and has a gay Republican son and a drug-dealing 16-year-old daughter. The American Family Association notes that the priest's secretary is a lesbian who is sleeping with his sister-in-law. Did I mention he also has a 16-year-old adopted son who is sleeping with the bishop's daughter?
The writer for the series, Jack Kenny, who describes himself as a real "spiritual" person, is also a practicing homosexual "in recovery from Catholicism" and studying Buudhist beliefs.
His main character, Daniel Webster, talks to Jesus, who appears to him every now and then in times of great stress. Kenny does "believe in Jesus, but not necessarily "all the myth surrounding him."
NBC purportedly is launching the series in an effort to recover from a fourth-place finish in recent ratings. Since Episcopal parishes led by priests such as Daniel Webster are wildly successful, I think they have the making of a hit.
Speaking of "hits," I note that Kenny says: "Organized religion is, to me, almost the same organism as the Mafia."
Really? Well, after all, he says,
"It's got its internal politics, it's got rules that it follows, rules that it doesn't follow, who's allowed to do what to who. It's got skeletons in the closet and scandals and all those things. It skirts the law because it can. They do it legitimately, where the Mafia does it illegitimately. I always wanted to explore religion the way 'The Sopranos' explored the Mafia, through the focal lens of a family."
And who says the media is not paying enough attention to religion?
According to this story from Beliefnet, NBC Television has a real treat in store for people interested in religion: their upcoming drama series, The Book of Daniel, is about a married Episcopal priest, Daniel Webster, who is addicted to Vicodin, who is married and has a gay Republican son and a drug-dealing 16-year-old daughter. The American Family Association notes that the priest's secretary is a lesbian who is sleeping with his sister-in-law. Did I mention he also has a 16-year-old adopted son who is sleeping with the bishop's daughter?
The writer for the series, Jack Kenny, who describes himself as a real "spiritual" person, is also a practicing homosexual "in recovery from Catholicism" and studying Buudhist beliefs.
His main character, Daniel Webster, talks to Jesus, who appears to him every now and then in times of great stress. Kenny does "believe in Jesus, but not necessarily "all the myth surrounding him."
NBC purportedly is launching the series in an effort to recover from a fourth-place finish in recent ratings. Since Episcopal parishes led by priests such as Daniel Webster are wildly successful, I think they have the making of a hit.
Speaking of "hits," I note that Kenny says: "Organized religion is, to me, almost the same organism as the Mafia."
Really? Well, after all, he says,
"It's got its internal politics, it's got rules that it follows, rules that it doesn't follow, who's allowed to do what to who. It's got skeletons in the closet and scandals and all those things. It skirts the law because it can. They do it legitimately, where the Mafia does it illegitimately. I always wanted to explore religion the way 'The Sopranos' explored the Mafia, through the focal lens of a family."
And who says the media is not paying enough attention to religion?
Big Risk for Little Return
If this is accurate, I'd say the City of New York made a huuuuggeee mistake:
On the final day of intense negotiations, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, it turns out, greatly altered what it had called its final offer, to address many of the objections of the transit workers' union. The authority improved its earlier wage proposals, dropped its demand for concessions on health benefits and stopped calling for an increase in the retirement age, to 62 from 55.
But then, just hours before the strike deadline, the authority's chairman, Peter S. Kalikow, put forward a surprise demand that stunned the union. Seeking to rein in the authority's soaring pension costs, he asked that all new transit workers contribute 6 percent of their wages toward their pensions, up from the 2 percent that current workers pay. The union balked, and then shut down the nation's largest transit system for the first time in a quarter-century.
Yet for all the rage and bluster that followed, this war was declared over a pension proposal that would have saved the transit authority less than $20 million over the next three years.
It seemed a small figure, considering that the city says that every day of the strike will cost its businesses hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues. But the authority contends that it must act now to prevent a ''tidal wave'' of pension outlays if costs are not brought under control.
Roger Toussaint, the president of the union, Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union, said the pension proposal, made Monday night just before the 12:01 a.m. strike deadline, would effectively cut the wages of new workers by 4 percent.
''They're trying to beat down wages for our new workers,'' Mr. Toussaint said yesterday.
In the days immediately before the strike deadline, the union kept hammering the point that the authority's pension demands would save little over the life of a three-year contract.
Indeed, not just Mr. Toussaint but some other New Yorkers are questioning whether it was worthwhile for the authority to go to war over the issue when the authority's pension demands would apparently save less over the next three years than what the New York City Police Department will spend on extra overtime during the first two days of the strike.
''What they'd be saving on pensions is a pittance,'' Mr. Toussaint said.
Robert Linn, a former New York City labor commissioner, questioned the transportation authority's decision -- with the backing of the mayor and governor -- to go to the mat over pensions with a union that can exact huge pain on the city in a year when the authority was enjoying a $1 billion surplus.
''They might have picked a union that was more willing to consider the subject,'' Mr. Linn said. ''It not just the considerable economic power of this union, it's also the timing,'' just before Christmas. ''It's tremendously problematic.''
On the final day of intense negotiations, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, it turns out, greatly altered what it had called its final offer, to address many of the objections of the transit workers' union. The authority improved its earlier wage proposals, dropped its demand for concessions on health benefits and stopped calling for an increase in the retirement age, to 62 from 55.
But then, just hours before the strike deadline, the authority's chairman, Peter S. Kalikow, put forward a surprise demand that stunned the union. Seeking to rein in the authority's soaring pension costs, he asked that all new transit workers contribute 6 percent of their wages toward their pensions, up from the 2 percent that current workers pay. The union balked, and then shut down the nation's largest transit system for the first time in a quarter-century.
Yet for all the rage and bluster that followed, this war was declared over a pension proposal that would have saved the transit authority less than $20 million over the next three years.
It seemed a small figure, considering that the city says that every day of the strike will cost its businesses hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues. But the authority contends that it must act now to prevent a ''tidal wave'' of pension outlays if costs are not brought under control.
Roger Toussaint, the president of the union, Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union, said the pension proposal, made Monday night just before the 12:01 a.m. strike deadline, would effectively cut the wages of new workers by 4 percent.
''They're trying to beat down wages for our new workers,'' Mr. Toussaint said yesterday.
In the days immediately before the strike deadline, the union kept hammering the point that the authority's pension demands would save little over the life of a three-year contract.
Indeed, not just Mr. Toussaint but some other New Yorkers are questioning whether it was worthwhile for the authority to go to war over the issue when the authority's pension demands would apparently save less over the next three years than what the New York City Police Department will spend on extra overtime during the first two days of the strike.
''What they'd be saving on pensions is a pittance,'' Mr. Toussaint said.
Robert Linn, a former New York City labor commissioner, questioned the transportation authority's decision -- with the backing of the mayor and governor -- to go to the mat over pensions with a union that can exact huge pain on the city in a year when the authority was enjoying a $1 billion surplus.
''They might have picked a union that was more willing to consider the subject,'' Mr. Linn said. ''It not just the considerable economic power of this union, it's also the timing,'' just before Christmas. ''It's tremendously problematic.''
The Hypocrisy in Washington is Astounding
The Clinton administration has repeatedly attempted to play down the significance of the warrant clause. In fact, President Clinton has asserted the power to conduct warrantless searches, warrantless drug testing of public school students, and warrantless wiretapping.
The Clinton administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place. . . .
It is unclear why the president made warrantless roving wiretaps a priority matter since judges routinely approve wiretap applications by federal prosecutors. According to a 1995 report by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, it had been years since a federal district court turned down a prosecutor's request for a wiretap order. [68] President Clinton is apparently seeking to free his administration from any potential judicial interference with its wiretapping plans. There is a problem, of course, with the power that the president desires: it is precisely the sort of unchecked power that the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause was designed to curb. As the Supreme Court noted in Katz v. United States (1967), the judicial procedure of antecedent justification before a neutral magistrate is a "constitutional precondition," not only to the search of a home, but also to eavesdropping on private conversations within the home. [69]
President Clinton also lobbied for and signed the Orwellian Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is forcing every telephone company in America to retrofit its phone lines and networks so that they will be more accessible to police wiretaps.
UPDATE:
The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.
The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that, "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
So why is this a story? Oh yeah, because Bush is president. I always forget that part.
The Clinton administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place. . . .
It is unclear why the president made warrantless roving wiretaps a priority matter since judges routinely approve wiretap applications by federal prosecutors. According to a 1995 report by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, it had been years since a federal district court turned down a prosecutor's request for a wiretap order. [68] President Clinton is apparently seeking to free his administration from any potential judicial interference with its wiretapping plans. There is a problem, of course, with the power that the president desires: it is precisely the sort of unchecked power that the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause was designed to curb. As the Supreme Court noted in Katz v. United States (1967), the judicial procedure of antecedent justification before a neutral magistrate is a "constitutional precondition," not only to the search of a home, but also to eavesdropping on private conversations within the home. [69]
President Clinton also lobbied for and signed the Orwellian Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is forcing every telephone company in America to retrofit its phone lines and networks so that they will be more accessible to police wiretaps.
UPDATE:
The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.
The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that, "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
So why is this a story? Oh yeah, because Bush is president. I always forget that part.
Update to the Non-Story Plame Story
This is interesting:
The Harvard Crimson is breaking news - Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein spoke at the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum at the Institute of Politics, and then had an on-the-record conversation at an invitation-only inner afterwards.
Woodward on Novak:
“His source was not in the White House, I don’t believe,” Woodward said of Novak over a private dinner at the Institute of Politics on Dec. 5. He did not indicate what information, if any, he had to corroborate the claim.
Woodward on the Administration conspiracy to out Valerie Plame:
Responding to Bernstein’s claim that the release of Plame’s identity was a “calculated leak” by the Bush administration, Woodward said flatly, “I know a lot about this, and you’re wrong.”
Although we all know you can't trust reporters from the WaPo.
The Harvard Crimson is breaking news - Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein spoke at the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum at the Institute of Politics, and then had an on-the-record conversation at an invitation-only inner afterwards.
Woodward on Novak:
“His source was not in the White House, I don’t believe,” Woodward said of Novak over a private dinner at the Institute of Politics on Dec. 5. He did not indicate what information, if any, he had to corroborate the claim.
Woodward on the Administration conspiracy to out Valerie Plame:
Responding to Bernstein’s claim that the release of Plame’s identity was a “calculated leak” by the Bush administration, Woodward said flatly, “I know a lot about this, and you’re wrong.”
Although we all know you can't trust reporters from the WaPo.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Who Dey?
Classic.
Hear that Bengal growlin' mean and angry
Here he comes a prowlin' lean and hungry
An offensive brute
Run, pass or boot
And defensively he's rough, tough
Cincinnati Bengals
That's the team we're going to cheer to victory
Touchdown Bengals get some points upon that board
And win a game for Cincinnati
Hear that Bengal growlin' mean and angry
Here he comes a prowlin' lean and hungry
An offensive brute
Run, pass or boot
And defensively he's rough, tough
Cincinnati Bengals
That's the team we're going to cheer to victory
Touchdown Bengals get some points upon that board
And win a game for Cincinnati
Head On Over There, Boys
In a strange way, this is good news.
MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Spanish police early Monday arrested 15 people suspected of recruiting and indoctrinating others to be sent to fight against Western forces in Iraq, according to Spain's interior minister, Jose Antonio Alonso.
The arrests included an Iraqi man Spanish authorities said was linked to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.
An Interior Ministry press release said eight Moroccans, an Iraqi, an Egyptian, a Frenchman, a Ghanian, a Bellarussian, a Saudi, and a Spaniard were also among those arrested.
"The network of the people arrested aimed to recruit and indoctrinate mujahideen or holy warriors to be sent to fight in Iraq," Alonso said, adding that the group "had contact with the hard core of al Qaeda in Iraq."
Go on boys, saddle up for Iraq. Better there than here; and you're much more likely to get killed over there.
MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Spanish police early Monday arrested 15 people suspected of recruiting and indoctrinating others to be sent to fight against Western forces in Iraq, according to Spain's interior minister, Jose Antonio Alonso.
The arrests included an Iraqi man Spanish authorities said was linked to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.
An Interior Ministry press release said eight Moroccans, an Iraqi, an Egyptian, a Frenchman, a Ghanian, a Bellarussian, a Saudi, and a Spaniard were also among those arrested.
"The network of the people arrested aimed to recruit and indoctrinate mujahideen or holy warriors to be sent to fight in Iraq," Alonso said, adding that the group "had contact with the hard core of al Qaeda in Iraq."
Go on boys, saddle up for Iraq. Better there than here; and you're much more likely to get killed over there.
More Freedom All Around
According to Freedom House:
NEW YORK, December 19, 2005 -- The people of the Arab Middle East experienced a modest but potentially significant increase in political rights and civil liberties in 2005, Freedom House announced in a major survey of global freedom released today.
The global survey, "Freedom in the World," shows that although the Middle East continues to lag behind other regions, a measurable improvement can be seen in freedom in several key Arab countries, as well as the Palestinian Authority. In another key finding, the number of countries rated by Freedom House as Not Free declined from 49 in 2004 to 45 for the year 2005, the lowest number of Not Free societies identified by the survey in over a decade. In noteworthy country developments, Ukraine and Indonesia saw their status improve from Partly Free to Free; Afghanistan moved from Not Free to Partly Free; and the Philippines saw its status decline from Free to Partly Free.
According to Thomas O. Melia, acting executive director of Freedom House, "The modest but heartening advances in the Arab Middle East result from activism by citizen groups and reforms by governments in about equal measures. This emerging trend reminds us that men and women in this region share the universal desire to live in free societies."
"As we welcome the stirrings of change in the Middle East," said Mr. Melia, "it is equally important that we focus on the follow-through in other regions and appreciate the importance of the continuing consolidation of democracy in Indonesia, Ukraine, and other nations."
NEW YORK, December 19, 2005 -- The people of the Arab Middle East experienced a modest but potentially significant increase in political rights and civil liberties in 2005, Freedom House announced in a major survey of global freedom released today.
The global survey, "Freedom in the World," shows that although the Middle East continues to lag behind other regions, a measurable improvement can be seen in freedom in several key Arab countries, as well as the Palestinian Authority. In another key finding, the number of countries rated by Freedom House as Not Free declined from 49 in 2004 to 45 for the year 2005, the lowest number of Not Free societies identified by the survey in over a decade. In noteworthy country developments, Ukraine and Indonesia saw their status improve from Partly Free to Free; Afghanistan moved from Not Free to Partly Free; and the Philippines saw its status decline from Free to Partly Free.
According to Thomas O. Melia, acting executive director of Freedom House, "The modest but heartening advances in the Arab Middle East result from activism by citizen groups and reforms by governments in about equal measures. This emerging trend reminds us that men and women in this region share the universal desire to live in free societies."
"As we welcome the stirrings of change in the Middle East," said Mr. Melia, "it is equally important that we focus on the follow-through in other regions and appreciate the importance of the continuing consolidation of democracy in Indonesia, Ukraine, and other nations."
Oh, By The Way
KABUL (Reuters) - Former warlords, ex-communists, Taliban defectors and women activists were sworn in on Monday as members of the first Afghan parliament in more than 30 years amid hopes of national reconciliation after decades of bloodshed.
The inauguration was peaceful despite threats by Taliban guerrillas and was greeted with tears of emotion although there is disappointment that many in the parliament are accused of serious rights abuses and links to the drugs trade.
"This meeting is a sign of us regaining our honor," President Hamid Karzai said after swearing in the 351 lower and upper house members.
"This homeland will exist for ever!" he declared, prompting tears from many delegates.
But really, is this even newsworthy?
The inauguration was peaceful despite threats by Taliban guerrillas and was greeted with tears of emotion although there is disappointment that many in the parliament are accused of serious rights abuses and links to the drugs trade.
"This meeting is a sign of us regaining our honor," President Hamid Karzai said after swearing in the 351 lower and upper house members.
"This homeland will exist for ever!" he declared, prompting tears from many delegates.
But really, is this even newsworthy?
Kentucky High School Athletics...It's Fantastic!
LOUISVILLE, Ky. - Shane Israel rushed for 90 yards and three touchdowns to lead the way for Lexington Catholic to win the 3A state championship 45-21 over Bowling Green Saturday.
How'd they do it?
Lexington Catholic lacks "institutional control" over its athletics program, according to documents released today by the Kentucky High School Athletic Association.
In a letter to the private school's principal, KHSAA Commissioner Brigid DeVries placed the school on two years' probation, fined it nearly $31,000, forced it to forfeit games and will limit its number of games in football and baseball.
The letter named at least nine students who may have been given what the KHSAA called inappropriate financial aid from 2001 to 2004. The names of the students were blacked out in the documents requested and received by the Herald-Leader.
Upon receiving the letter from the KHSAA in November, Lexington Catholic Principal Sally Stevens acknowledged that the school faced stiff penalties, but complete details of the sanctions were not released until today.
DeVries also verbally reprimanded the school for not coming forward with information during the KHSAA's initial investigation into the school, which ended in June.
She said in the letter, dated Nov. 15, that the initial investigation into the program and this one were "inextricably linked together."
Had Lexington Catholic provided accurate information during the first investigation, DeVries said her organization would have found violations and the current investigation "would have been unnecessary."
How'd they do it?
Lexington Catholic lacks "institutional control" over its athletics program, according to documents released today by the Kentucky High School Athletic Association.
In a letter to the private school's principal, KHSAA Commissioner Brigid DeVries placed the school on two years' probation, fined it nearly $31,000, forced it to forfeit games and will limit its number of games in football and baseball.
The letter named at least nine students who may have been given what the KHSAA called inappropriate financial aid from 2001 to 2004. The names of the students were blacked out in the documents requested and received by the Herald-Leader.
Upon receiving the letter from the KHSAA in November, Lexington Catholic Principal Sally Stevens acknowledged that the school faced stiff penalties, but complete details of the sanctions were not released until today.
DeVries also verbally reprimanded the school for not coming forward with information during the KHSAA's initial investigation into the school, which ended in June.
She said in the letter, dated Nov. 15, that the initial investigation into the program and this one were "inextricably linked together."
Had Lexington Catholic provided accurate information during the first investigation, DeVries said her organization would have found violations and the current investigation "would have been unnecessary."
The Doctrine of "Mental Reservation"?
PORTLAND, Ore. Attorneys for alleged victims of sex abuse are asking a federal judge to let them question a top-ranking Vatican official about a church doctrine that might permit him to lie under oath.
Archbishop William Levada (leh-VAY'-duh) has agreed to be questioned during a January ninth deposition about his tenure as archbishop of Portland from 1986 to 1995. The San Francisco prelate is the Vatican's guardian of doctrinal orthodoxy.
Attorneys for the victims want to ask Levada whether he would rely on the so-called doctrine of "mental reservation" when answering questions at the deposition in San Francisco. Although the Catholic church teaches it's a sin to lie, the doctrine allows for circumstances where avoiding the truth might serve a higher purpose.
A Vatican attorney says the archbishop's civil oath should be sufficient to ensure honest answers.
Archbishop William Levada (leh-VAY'-duh) has agreed to be questioned during a January ninth deposition about his tenure as archbishop of Portland from 1986 to 1995. The San Francisco prelate is the Vatican's guardian of doctrinal orthodoxy.
Attorneys for the victims want to ask Levada whether he would rely on the so-called doctrine of "mental reservation" when answering questions at the deposition in San Francisco. Although the Catholic church teaches it's a sin to lie, the doctrine allows for circumstances where avoiding the truth might serve a higher purpose.
A Vatican attorney says the archbishop's civil oath should be sufficient to ensure honest answers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
