“I Think The U.S. Conference Of Catholic Bishops Has, Frankly, Not Been A Good Partner . . ."

I found a surprisingly even-handed story on Vice President Vance's exchange with Margaret Brennan on yesterday's Face the Nation that covered, in part, the USCCB's condemnation of Trump's immigration-related executive orders, at America magazine. The full interview is embedded above. The America piece reports,

In Vance’s first interview since becoming vice president, host Margaret Brennan noted that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops “condemned” Trump’s immigration-related executive orders, and asked Vance, “Do you personally support the idea of conducting a raid or enforcement action in a church service, at a school?”

“Of course, if you have a person who is convicted of a violent crime, whether they’re an illegal immigrant or a non-illegal immigrant, you have to go and get that person to protect the public safety. That’s not unique to immigration,” he said.

“But let me just address this particular issue,” he continued. “Because as a practicing Catholic, I was actually heartbroken by that statement. And I think that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops needs to actually look in the mirror a little bit and recognize that when they receive over $100 million to help resettle illegal immigrants, are they worried about humanitarian concerns? Or are they actually worried about their bottom line? We’re going to enforce immigration law. We’re going to protect the American people.”

the America piece then clarifies the Catholic Church's role in administering immigration aid, or at least its legally circumscribed role:

The USCCB is one of 10 national resettlement agencies that receive federal funding and partner with local organizations to assist refugee populations that qualify for federal assistance. Those populations include people resettled via the U.S. refugee admissions program, certain groups of vulnerable noncitizen children, and certain other groups such as victims of human trafficking and torture.

. . . Brennan asked Vance whether he thought the USCCB is “actively hiding criminals from law enforcement?” Vance did not answer the question directly, but said the USCCB has “not been a good partner in commonsense immigration enforcement that the American people voted for.”

OSV News reached out to the USCCB for comment and is awaiting a response.

The USCCB is going to have to be very careful here, because Vance doesn't open his mouth unless he has receipts, and there are at least some bishops who must understand this. The America piece goes on,

While the funds the USCCB receives are limited to assistance for qualifying refugee populations, and therefore immigrants in the U.S. lawfully, Vance’s accusation that the funds are used to “resettle illegal immigrants” appears to mirror previous rhetoric he used. While campaigning, Vance indicated that he does not recognize the legal status of certain immigrant groups the Biden administration deemed eligible to receive temporary protected status, or TPS.

However, TPS recipients are not eligible for the federal funding received by the USCCB for refugee resettlement. Other immigrant populations not eligible for federal assistance received by the USCCB include migrants seeking asylum, humanitarian parolees, employment-based immigrants, family-based immigrants, DACA recipients, and people who are stateless.

But much of the controversy over the Haitian immigrants in Springfield, OH, who are in the country on TPS, centers on the assistance they're given by Catholic Charities:

A new Springfield facility that will provide services including help with immigration status applications, legal advocacy and case management, will open this year.

Located at 448 E. High St., it will be operated by Catholic Charities of Southwest Ohio, which has been providing aid in Springfield for about a year and a half, CEO Tony Stieritz said during a Haitian Coalition meeting Wednesday. He said he is expecting to be able to begin providing services within a month.

It might be possible for the USCCB to argue that the federal funding to Catholic Charities is carefully separated from the services to Springfield Haitians who aren't eligible, but even there, money is fungible, and legitimate aid to Program A, non-TPS, frees up extra money that can be spent on Program B, TPS, not eligible for aid. Beyond that, there are two additional problems.

One is that the Haitians, even if they aren't committing violent crimes, are driving with0out licenses, ignoring traffic laws, and driving without insurance, a problem that's generally acknowledged is hurting the community at large. The second section of CCC 2241 says,

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

Where is the Catholic Church in counseling these people to learn to drive, obtain licenses, and get insurance?

The other problem is that by in effect subsidizing the incomes of the Haitian immigrants, Catholic Charities enables the sweatshop employers who've brought them in to pay the Haitrians the lowest possible wages. In effect, the Catholic Church is complicit in exploiting sweatshop conditions.

Finally, the Haitians are causing additional problems by being slow to assimilate or learn English, which puts additional burdens on the local schools and other services. One accusation from Springfield citizens has been that Catholic Charities has been part of this problem.

This all leaves aside the issue Vance raises, that the bishops seem to be ignoring the widepread exploitation of vulnerable immigrants who can be trafficked in the current chaotic environment.

I suspect that Vance's use of the phrase "good partner" here is deliberate and carefully selected, and it could well come out in further dialogue. The bishops will need to be very careful moving forward.

A Different Kind Of Republican

The most succinct comment on Trump's first week was from Greg Gutfeld, who said Trump shows the difference between a "real president and a cardboard prop". Yesterday I called him a Republican president with industrialist, federalist, reconstructionist, even partly Catholic leanings, thinking in particular of Lincoln, Grant, McKinley, and Roosevelt. Although comparisons of Trump with Theodore Roosevelt are easy, before this past week, I thought more of Grant. Via Wikipedia,

In 1885, impoverished and dying of throat cancer, Grant wrote his memoirs, covering his life through the Civil War, which were posthumously published and became a major critical and financial success. At his death, Grant was the most popular American and was memorialized as a symbol of national unity. Due to the pseudohistorical and negationist mythology of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy spread by Confederate sympathizers around the turn of the 20th century, historical assessments and rankings of Grant's presidency suffered considerably before they began recovering in the 21st century. Grant's critics take a negative view of his economic mismanagement and the corruption within his administration, while his admirers emphasize his policy towards Native Americans, vigorous enforcement of civil and voting rights for African Americans, and securing North and South as a single nation within the Union.

I'm also interested in Trump's expansionism, reflected in his interest in acquiring Greenland and restoring control over the Panama Canal. McKinley and Roosevelt figure here. Again, Wikipedia:

The American annexation of Hawaii in 1898 was stimulated in part by fear that Japan would dominate or seize the Hawaiian Republic. Similarly, Germany was the alternative to American takeover of the Philippines in 1900, and Tokyo strongly preferred the U.S. to take over. As the U.S. became a naval world power, it needed to find a way to avoid a military confrontation in the Pacific with Japan.

In the 1890s, Roosevelt had been an ardent imperialist and vigorously defended the permanent acquisition of the Philippines in the 1900 campaign. After the local insurrection ended in 1902, Roosevelt wished to have a strong U.S. presence in the region as a symbol of democratic values, but he did not envision any new acquisitions.

. . . The Great White Fleet of American battleships visited Japan in 1908. Roosevelt intended to emphasize the superiority of the American fleet over the smaller Japanese navy, but instead of resentment, the visitors arrived to a joyous welcome. This goodwill facilitated the Root–Takahira Agreement of November 1908 which reaffirmed the status quo of Japanese control of Korea and American control of the Philippines

We're only starting to get a glimpse of what Trump 2.0 is going to be like. Ferdinand Lundberg, by the way, discounts Roosevelt's "malefactors of great wealth" remarks:

Presidents McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and Eisenhower were deep in the confidence of the finpols and, despite harsh words at times purely for public consumption, got along very well with them. Theodore Roosevelt demagogically referred to them as "malefactors of great wealth." But the finpols, always, despite harsh public language, managed to get their way, sooner or later. Corporate concentration for example, continues apace despite the hullabaloo of antitrust.

This is pretty clearly what's going on in the current rapprochement between Trump and the tech billionaires. Beyond that, there's not much else to say for now, other than it's easy to understand why the Bushes hate the guy.

Black Stoles? No, Tippets!

As I had hoped, a visitor set me straight on the question of the Anglican vestments at the National Cathedral post-inaugural prayer service:

I'm not sure that they are "black stoles" but, rather, "scarves." The stole as a liturgical vestment was discarded in the Church of England at the Reformation and did not return until the Oxford Movement, and that unofficially and indeed, arguably, illegally. Nor were the traditional Catholic liturgical colors for vestments preserved after the English Reformation; they, too, came back with the Oxford Movement. The same was the case in the Episcopal Church, although their restoration to use in some circles in PECUSA met with less violent and less prolonged opposition in the former, than it did in the Church of England (among Evangelicals especially). In both the CofE and PECUSA the wearing of such post-Reformation style of vestments tended to hang on in cathedrals and especially big public services of a political and ceremonious sort, and this seems to me what was happening at this event.

However, the common pre Oxford Movement liturgical dress of clergy who wished to follow the rules punctiliously were surplice, black scarf, and academic hood (if the clergyman had a degree), while bishops wore rochets (instead of surplices), chimeres, and also scarves. I expect that "the scarf" may have some historical relationship to "the stole," just as "the rochet" did to "the surplice," but I'm just speculating here.

This also clarifies the vestments worn by Bp Budde, the most visible being the red chimere with a black bishop's scarf:

Bp Budde also did not wear the post-Oxford Movement bishop's mitre in the Catholic style. My visitor continues,

The use of mitres by Anglican bishops is another example.  For more then two centuries after 1559 no Anglican bishop ever wore a mitre on his head.  Samuel Seabury of Connecticut (bishop 1784-1796) was the first one to do so, having his best beaver hat refashioned into a mitre when he returned to Connectucut from his episcopal consecration in Scotland in 1784, and no other american bishop followed his example until almost a century later. 

But this raises what I think is an incongruity. The National Cathedral in Washington is a creature of the Gothic Revival movement in architecture. Via Wikipedia,

The Gothic Revival movement's roots are intertwined with philosophical movements associated with Catholicism and a re-awakening of high church or Anglo-Catholic belief concerned by the growth of religious nonconformism. The "Anglo-Catholic" tradition of religious belief and style became known for its intrinsic appeal in the third quarter of the 19th century.

The Oxford Movement was an ecclesiastical expression of this tendency. It was highly controversial in the UK, especially since the Church of England was and is a government institution. Interestingly, it became popular much more quickly in the US as the families of the late 19th century robber barons were quick to endow Gothic Revival churches and university buildings even if, like the Rockefellers, they weren't Episcopalian. The Wikipedia entry continues,

The rise of evangelicalism in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries saw in England a reaction in the high church movement which sought to emphasise the continuity between the established church and the pre-Reformation Catholic church. Architecture, in the form of the Gothic Revival, became one of the main weapons in the high church's armoury. The Gothic Revival was also paralleled and supported by "medievalism", which had its roots in antiquarian concerns with survivals and curiosities. As "industrialisation" progressed, a reaction against machine production and the appearance of factories also grew. Proponents of the picturesque such as Thomas Carlyle and Augustus Pugin took a critical view of industrial society and portrayed pre-industrial medieval society as a golden age. To Pugin, Gothic architecture was infused with the Christian values that had been supplanted by classicism and were being destroyed by industrialisation.

But especially in the US, the Gothic Revival was an expression of new, industrialized wealth. That it should be so enthusiastically adopted by the families grown rich from railroads, steel, mining, petroleum, and automobiles suggests a wish to distance themselves from such influences and associate more closely with medieval aristocracy -- nevertheless, the cornerstone of the National Cathedral was laid by Theodore Roosevelt, who represented a peak of aggressive Republican, reconstructionist, expansionist, industrialist federal power.

I'm told that the National Cathedral, in contrast, has always been low church in its alignment, that is, reflecting the post-Reformation, Protestant, Evangelical aspect of Anglicanism, even with its Gothic Revival architectural trappings -- and with an endowment funded by Northern industrialist families who otherwise favor the medievalist, Anglo-Catholic style.

It's hard to avoid thinking that in this case, Bp Budde is continuing a liturgical style that is trying to stand athwart history yelling "stop!" as Trump, a Republican president with industrialist, federalist, reconstructionist, even partly Catholic leanings, resumes office.

Black Stoles?

In Wednesday's post, I noted that the clergy presiding over the post-inaugural prayer service for Trump's second inauguration wore black stoles. This puzzled me, because I was an Episcopalian for over 30 years, and I've been a Roman Catholic for a dozen, and the liturgical colors for The Episcopal Church follow those of the Catholic Church. The current Catholic liturgical season is "Ordinary Time", for which the color is green. The Episcopal Church regards this season as an extended "Epiphany" that lasts until Ash Wednesday, but its liturgical color is also green.

Thus a priest or deacon presiding over a normal eucharist or prayer service at this time of the year would wear a green stole, not a black one, and black isn't normally listed as a liturgical color -- just red, white, purple, rose, or green.

According to Wikipedia, in Roman Catholic practice, which Episcopalians have followed since the Oxford Movement,

For the celebration of the Mass, the principal celebrant as well as concelebrants wear the stole over the alb but under the chasuble. Likewise, the deacon wears the stole over the alb but under the dalmatic. The stole is also worn over the surplice or alb for the distribution and reception of Holy Communion.

The priest or deacon who presides in paraliturgical celebrations, such as the Stations of the Cross, usually wears the stole over the surplice (or alb), and always under the cope.

As far as I understand this, backed up by a fast-forward review of the service on YouTube, this was an Episcopalian Morning Prayer service that did not include a eucharist. Thus the priests who presided over it were wearing surplices, not chasubles, with stoles worn over the surplice. But as we see in the photo above, the stoles were black, not green, as would be appropriate for the liturgical season. I was a little surprised that there was even such a thing as a black stole, but I found at stoles.com:

Mourning is symbolized by the color black. Contrary to popular opinion, black or purple uniforms may be dressed at funeral Masses.

Except that this wasn't a funeral mass; liturgically it was Morning Prayer. I briefly thought the clergy might have been displaying some sort of mourning over the inauguration of Trump, but then I looked for photos of prior post-inaugural services and found this one above left of the 2009 service for Obama (click on the image for a larger copy). Yup, black stoles, even for a liberal Democrat. However, the clergy representing other faiths on the dais are wearing either red stoles or no stoles.

I found this at a commercial vestment site:

The Importance of Black Vestments: Black is one of the most powerful, yet underrated, colors in Christian tradition. It’s not just about mourning—it’s about reflecting on the deeper mysteries of life, death, and redemption.

. . . Black makes a statement without needing to shout. It’s timeless, solemn, and speaks to the gravity of the moments it’s worn. It serves as a visual reminder of Christ’s sacrifice, the reality of our mortality, and the hope we find in resurrection.

. . . Fun fact: Did you know that during the Reformation, black became widely used as a liturgical color in some Protestant denominations? Reformers like John Calvin favored black vestments to emphasize simplicity, humility, and repentance, stripping away the more elaborate colors and fabrics of the Catholic Church.

So all I can tentatively conclude is that the black stoles here are an area where the Episcopalians are asserting their Protestantism despite otherwise affecting Catholic liturgical forms, and the black is intended to emphasize the solemnity of the occasion. It isn't meant to disrespect Trump, even though the context of Bp Budde's homily may have led some to believe it might have been.

I'll greatly appreciate corrections and clarifications via e-mail or in the comments -- this was a strange rabbit hole. I'll post any corrections or clarifications here.

Splitsville For Doug And Kamala?

Via the UK Daily Mail,

Kamala Harris was all smiles and affection for her 'beloved' second gentleman Doug Emhoff in the immediate aftermath of her crushing presidential election defeat.

But now that President Donald Trump has been sworn into office, for sore loser Harris, it is now all about the blame game, and her target has flipped to her 'dead weight' husband.

And as she weighs her political future – maybe a 2026 run for Governor of California or another try for the nation's top job two years later – she has to consider whether Emhoff is an asset or a liability.

. . . Despite their brave united front at the inauguration and at President Jimmy Carter's January 9 funeral, those close to the couple believe all is not 'hunky dory' between them.

And word is the husband of California girl Kamala has already signed up for a job with a Big Apple law firm which would require them to split their time between New York and Los Angeles.

The piece goes on to mention that Emhoff chose to forego his legal career to support Kamala's presidential aspirations:

Emhoff famously stepped away from his own prominent career as an attorney in California to fully support Harris' political ambitions in 2020 – becoming hell-bent on perfecting his image as a 'wife guy'.

But now that Kamala is out of power for the foreseeable future, Emhoff is going to have to find other ways to cash in. I looked at Emhoff's prior legal career in this post, where I relied heavily on an entry in Britannica. He graduated from USC Law School in 1990 and was presumably admitted to the California bar soon afterward.

Emhoff subsequently embarked on a career in entertainment law. He worked at the firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and later joined Bingham McCutchen. In the late 1990s he moved to Belin Rawlings & Badal. His clients there included Hollywood Video, a rental chain that he defended after Fox Entertainment Group accused it of underreporting sales and rentals.

In 2000 Emhoff cofounded the firm Whitwell Jacoby Emhoff.

. . . In 2006 Whitwell Jacoby Emhoff was acquired by Venable LLP, and Doug Emhoff became head of that firm’s Los Angeles branch and later manager of its West Coast operations.

This covers the period of his first marriage, to Kerstin Mackin in 1992, which ended in divorce in 2010 amid allegations of infedelity with their children's nanny in 2008. Following the divorce, there were allegations of sexual harassment against him in his position as Venable LLP's manager of West Coast operations, including playing favorites in case assignments with female attorneys who would flirt with him and holding all-male after-hours drinking parties.

May 2012 was also when a New York attorney who was dating him alleged that he slapped her while they waited in a valet parking line at a French film festival.

However, in 2013, he met Kamala on a blind date and married her in 2014. At that time, she was California Attorney General; she was elected US Senator from California in 2016. This appears to correspond with Emhoff's move to a new law firm. Britannica continues,

In 2017 he joined the global firm DLA Piper, where he represented such clients as big-box store Walmart, arms dealer Dolarian Capital, and pharmaceutical company Merck.

. . . In 2016 when Harris, a Democrat, ran for the U.S. Senate, Emhoff maintained a relatively low profile during the campaign. She ultimately won, and the couple moved to Washington, D.C. Emhoff took on a more public role during the 2020 presidential election, as Harris first ran for the party’s nomination before dropping out and then becoming Joe Biden’s running mate. Biden and Harris ultimately defeated the Republican ticket . . . . During the campaign Emhoff stopped practicing law, and he later began teaching at Georgetown University’s law school.

But it's hard to avoid thinking that being married, first to the California Attorney General, and then to a US Senator, was good for Emhoff's legal career. A partner in a law firm is valuable only insofar as he can bring in clients, and if Emhoff had the ear of a US Senator in particular, he'd bring in clients. Thus he'd be valuable to DLA Piper -- or so you'd think. So why did he stop practicing law just when he was on the verge of cashing in even more?

Exactly why isn't clear -- certainly it was never an obstacle to Hunter Biden's law practice that his father was either a US Senator or vice president. My suspicion all along has been that the firms that hired him soon enough discovered he wasn't all that valuable and edged him out, and that probably included DLA Piper. And the question for me continues to be how Emhoff can bring in major clients now if his only claim to fame is that he was house hubby to an ex-vice president and out of the law business entirely for four years.

According to, New York Magazine,

The couple has been seriously exploring the Manhattan apartment market so they can become a bit bicoastal. They have considered different kinds of uptown units — “Page Six” was recently tipped off to Emhoff’s tour of a big condo near Lincoln Center — and have been working through logistical questions, including security concerns. (Former vice-presidents get six months of Secret Service protection, but that can occasionally be extended depending on risk levels.)

A secondary East Coast base may be helpful for their travels. Harris is likely to give some paid speeches, and she’s already fielded inquiries about writing a book. Emhoff, a lawyer, has spoken about taking on clients again and maintaining a public profile so he can keep up his work combating antisemitism.

This looks like it's mostly smokescreen, and the Daily Mail interprets it as more likely an indication that they'll be living separate lives. And the mention of Emhoff keeping up his work combating anti-Semitism is off the wall -- neither Kamala nor his first wife was Jewish, his children weren't raised as Jews and don't identify as Jews, and Emhoff himself doesn't appear to be observant, other than for occasional staged campaign-related events with Kamala. It's hard to imagine any Jewish organization taking him seriously as a spokesperson.

And it does pretty much look like the days of Emhoff and Kamala celebrating Passover as a family are over. If anything positive comes out about either one of them, I'll have a really hard time believing it.

The National Cathedral, The Establishment Clause, And The Lady Bishop

The intgriguing thing about Episcopalian Bishop Marianne Budde's homily at yesterday's National Prayer Service is how many people it confused. Just for starters, DeVory Darkins, the YouTube commentator in the clip above, says at 2:35,

I didn't know you could be a bishop as a woman, I'm just being honest here, I'm not too familiar with the Catholic religion, I'm a Christian. . .

The commenters quickly explained that Bp Budde isn't Catholic, she's Episcopalian -- but nevertheless, aren't the Episcopalians hitchhiking once again on Catholic prestige here? She's vested in a strange mishmosh of a surplice-cum-black-stole that's at least reminiscent of Catholic tradition, and the service is conducted in a faux Catholic-style cathedral with faux medieval stonework and a rose window, which calls itself the National Cathedral. Wikipedia says,

The Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the City and Diocese of Washington, commonly known as Washington National Cathedral or National Cathedral, is a cathedral of the Episcopal Church. The cathedral is located in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States.

Its website says,

Washington National Cathedral holds a unique place at the intersection of sacred and civic life. As the Cathedral of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, we strive to serve God and our neighbors as agents of reconciliation, a trusted voice of moral leadership and a sacred space where the country gathers during moments of national significance.

Wikipedia goes on,

From its earliest days, the cathedral has been promoted as more than simply an Episcopal cathedral. Planners hoped it would play a role similar to Westminster Abbey. They wanted it to be a national shrine and a venue for great services. . . . Contrary to popular misconception, the government has not designated it as a national house of prayer.

You'd better bet it hasn't -- the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Declaring that there's a national house of prayer that's part of The Episcopal Church. or indeed, any national house of prayer at all, would directly contradict the Establishment Clause. In effect, there's some sort of gentlemen's agreement that the National Cathedral is a sorta-kinda venue for presidential funerals and inaugural prayer services, but not every presidential memorial service has been conducted there, and not every president has had an inaugural prayer service there.

It's all sorta-kinda, not quite national, not quite Catholic, just maybe seems that way. But very prestigious.

Actually, the National Cathedral at this point is an artifact, as is The Episcopal Church. Wikipedia says,"Construction started on September 29, 1907, with a ceremonial address by President Theodore Roosevelt and the laying of the cornerstone." This was a period where The Episcopal Church was at the peak of its prestige, with wealthy and influential families like the Vanderbilts, the Morgans, the Harrimans, the Mellons, the Astors, the Roosevelts, and the Peabodys prominent among their numbers.

This has been part of the confusion that's been tolerated all along that, at least for a time, worked to the benefit of the Establishment and the Episcopalians. If there was a certain amount of confusion whether a bishop was Catholic or Episcopalian, or for that matter a priest, so much the better. If it was felt that the country's official spirituality was Episcopalian, so much the better. And especially when the official teachings of most Christian denominations on matters like marriage and sexuality, or even the ordination of women, were mostly consistent, it didn't matter too much.

But in Trump's second inaugural ceremonies Monday and yesterday, we're beginning to see the schism. We may assume that Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Dr Franklin Graham were specifically invited by the Trump team to deliver the invocations before the oath of office. Cdl Dolan has had nice things to say about Trump in the recent past, and Dr Graham specifically endorsed him. And as I watched the ceremony Monday, I noted that Rome's Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith might have vetted each of their invocations for consistency.

They both preached on the subject of God as the source of wisdom. They urged our civic leadership to pray to God for wisdom, as figures from King Solomon to General Patton have done. There were no potential disputes over church governance, the number and nature of the sacraments, or the exclusive authority of scripture. Indeed, both were ordained and consecrated ministers of the gospel, and they were both male. The level of unanimity was simply remarkable. The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church might have been able to join them, at least several generations ago.

No longer. The following day, confusion reigned. There was a woman bishop who had nothing in particular to say about God, nor anything about prayer or wisdom, and nobody was quite sure what religion this was in any case. But most importantly, she spoke out for luxury beliefs:

In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now. There are gay, lesbian and transgender children, and Democratic and Republican and independent families, some who fear for their lives.

This is peculiar indeed. In the face of increasing recognition that measures like life-changing surgery or puberty blockers are inappropriate for treating gender uncertainty in minor children, the bishop appears to be advocating just these measures, suggesting that withholding castration or mastectomy from these children is somehow ungodly. The standard line here is, after all, that unless transgender kids get surgery, they'll commit suicide. This also neglects the entirely reasonable view that parents who virtue-signal over their children's gender identities are engaging in Munchausen syndrome by proxy, making a self-serving display of their luxury beliefs.

Her sympathy for the immigrants who pick crops and wash dishes is also tempered by the fact that the elite families who employ these immigrants as domestics often don't pay their social security -- indeed, they can't if they're illegal. The current illegal immigration status quo simply enables exploitation of the poor by the wealthy and entitled, among whom are Bp Budde's flock.

According to the link,

Trump did not appear to take Budde’s words to heart. Upon his return to the White House, Trump told a reporter that the service was “not too exciting.”

There's an easy solution to this problem: eliminate the confusion. Follow the Constitution and don't attend any more inaugural prayer services at the so-called Natiomal Cathedral. One option would be to begin to rotate the venues for such services -- the chapels at American University and George Washington University could be other choices, or the Roman Catholic Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception -- or an Evangelical facility in the area.

There'd be much less confusion in any of those venues and much more chance of hearing the gospel preached.

Is LA Mayor Bass A "Dead Woman Walking"?

According to Joel Kotkin, Los Angeles Mayor Karen

Bass “is a dead woman walking”, as a union organiser friend told me this week. The revelations of incompetence, poor planning, and awful communication, combined with the fact that the LA mayor was partying in Ghana when wildfires started in her city, have worked against her, and yesterday angry protestors gathered outside her home. Some charges made by Donald Trump and Elon Musk tying the disaster to DEI and climate policies are exaggerated. But Bass’s lack of interest in public safety mirrors the new progressive script which prioritises “social justice” over actual justice, racial quotas over merit, and climate alarmism over common sense.

I'm not so sure about this. The Eaton Fire, one of the two that dominated last week's news, was entirely outside the LA city limits. The Palisades Fire, though, was mainly within city limits, but the part within city limits was Pacific Palisades:

If you were meeting a talent manager for lunch but neither of you wanted to make it a big deal, you met in the Palisades. If you were in the checkout line at the Gelson’s supermarket on Sunset—gone now—you might, as I did years ago, bump into a network executive and find out that your show is about to be cancelled. The Palisades was the central nervous system for show business. It’s anyone’s guess where that will be now that the Palisades is a pile of ashes and embers.

The average annual household income in Pacific Palisades is $359,451, while the median household income sits at $198,550 per year. Residents aged 25 to 44 earn $220,770, while those between 45 and 64 years old have a median wage of $228,849. In comparison, the median household income of Beverly Hills is $116,771. The median household income of Bethesda is $185,546.

Pacific Palisades isn't just the 1%, it's the .01%. The people there don't think much about Karen Bass one way or another; she's elected by the rest of the city, the San Fernando Valley, South Central, San Pedro, East LA, Hollywood. In fact, it's likely that the people who lost their homes in Pacific Palisades won't even live there by the time Bass is up for reelection next year, while the people who voted for her in 2022 will still live in the rest of the city.

So I'm not as sanguine as Joel Kotkin. In fact, the political oucome of the fires is so far inchoate.

On Friday, a union representing more than 3,000 Los Angeles city firefighters gave its full-throated support for Fire Chief Kristin Crowley, who was reportedly called into Democrat Mayor Karen Bass’ office last week to be fired, though she ultimately kept her job.

Mayor Bass and Crowley have been at odds while the city of Los Angeles battles historic wildfires that have so far killed 25 people, and others remain missing. Additionally, Crowley was recently the subject of an anonymous letter from “retired and active LAFD chief officers” condemning her performance as chief, and specifically her decision to call out Mayor Bass on television.

United Firefighters of Los Angeles City Local 112 condemned the letter admonishing Crowley, which they said was signed by “disgruntled and anonymous individuals.” The union also thanked Crowley for being “willing to fight” for her staff and the agency’s budget, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Rick Caruso, who ran unsuccessfully against Bass in 2022, losing by a 10% margin, is thought to be a potential candidate to run against her in 2026 or possibly an earlier recall, but his positions so far are also incoherent:

Former L.A. Mayoral candidate Rick Caruso appeared on Real Time With Bill Maher on Friday to warn the city to be smart about rebuilding after the disastrous wildfires, and noted that Donald Trump was correct when he criticized officials for their lack of dead brush removal policies.

. . . Caruso agreed that Donald Trump issued the right warning about the lack of effective dead brush removal policies in California. The former Republican mayoral candidate also noted that power lines should be buried to prevent sparking wildfires.

On the other hand, in the same program, he apparently thought Trump shouldn't force these policies on the state:

Caruso was razor blunt when it came to threats from Congressional Republicans and President-elect Donald Trump that future federal aid to California for these recent wildfires and future wildfires might not be delivered with such an open hand anymore.

“This idea that the federal aid is going to come with conditions …it’s bullshit,” Caruso blurted out. “Bullshit!”

So which is it? If the state, county, or city won't follow prudent brush removal policies, how else can the federal government enforce them? It's hard to avoid a feeling that Caruso hasn't thought things through; serious opposition to Bass is going to need a more comprehensive agenda that goes beyond brush removal and advocates policies that benefit the rest of the city, which otherwise will see no benefit in electing a mayor who will just keep the wildfires out of the Palisades.

The only good sign here is that Trump is going to visit Los Angeles, apparently later this week:

President Donald Trump’s first official trip after returning to the White House will be to the Los Angeles areas that have been devastated by fires, according to a new report. The news was reported by NewsNation, which cited two unnamed sources for their reporting.

. . . Trump has laid the blame for the destruction on California Governor Gavin Newsom.

“One of the best and most beautiful parts of the United States of America is burning down to the ground,” Trump posted to Truth Social earlier this month. “It’s ashes, and Gavin Newscum should resign. This is all his fault!!!”

It seems to me that Trump has considerable leverage, partly in placing conditions on disaster aid, partly in insisting that the state apply consistent forest management practices on the enormous acreage of federal forest in the state, and partly in enforcing the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution over California environmental legislation.

In fact, I suspect that Trump will wind up enforcing the authority of the federal government in ways not seen since U S Grant and Reconstruction.