The focus on FOCA appears a bit misguided says this Time article, since it has no chance of being passed yet.  I’m not sure that’s true.  The article has a pretty obvious choice slant to it, and, if this were about a liberal issue, I’m not sure the author would have as much of a problem admitting that the best defense is a strong offense.  But see for yourself:

ut FOCA has also provided ammunition for those on the right who want to paint Obama as “the most pro-abortion president ever.” It’s been less than a month since he took office, but so far the President has given social conservatives little evidence to back up that charge. He did repeal the Mexico City policy banning federal funds to foreign family planning organizations that provide abortion referrals or services — but so did Bill Clinton. At the same time, Obama has directed his Presidential Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships to make the issue of abortion reduction one of its top priorities.

Still, FOCA is proving to be the perfect political issue for anti-abortion advocates — and for congressional Republicans, who have taken up the cry as well. Unless and until FOCA is voted on by Congress, they can invoke it as a looming threat. And the longer it remains a dormant issue, the more credit they can take for their own “proactive” efforts to “defeat FOCA,” as a letter from House Republicans to Cardinal Rigali on Tuesday put it.

I normally hate a-capella, but this is really, really great.  It makes Rihanna just about operatic.

But, you know, people do.  People are.   I’m sorry to anyone who loves the show, but, um, the level of intellectual discourse there is, let’s say, in need of significant improvement.

This, in America, in response to the Pelosi-Pope story.  I agree with the stuff about leaving people in the communion line alone–Jesus is a tough guy, he can take it, and besides, judge not, etc.–but as for who Hudson thinks he is telling the Pope how to do his job, wasn’t everyone just doing that–including Hudson’s critics–about the Williamson situation?

Mr. Hudson is no doubt a sincere Catholic and a sincere Republican. But, his interest in promoting his party continues to lead him down intellectual paths that are at odds with the most basic of Catholic principles. We bloggers are entitled to be a little churlish, to even indulge a little ad hominem vitriol in the interest of spicy prose, to encourage the “clash” of ideas rather than the calm, charitable sharing of theological discussion. But, as we approach the communion rail, shouldn’t we have something on our mind other than the state of the soul of the person next to us in the line? And, where does InsideCatholic get off telling the Pope how to run his diocese or Archbishop Niederauer how to feel when running his?

Fascist, that is.

This is why I love magazines like Seed: they have all these great articles about what scientists are trying to do and they can provide this research with a context, and also point out what matters and what does not.  This is a great article about how the much-discussed “theory of everything” would be really cool, but that it might not be nearly as important as some people think, and in fact, might also be a lot less interesting than a theory that could account for complexity:

String theory, or some alternative to it, might indeed unify two great scientific frontiers, the very big and the very small?—?and that would be an immense intellectual triumph. But a third frontier, the very complex, is perhaps the most challenging of all.

In terms of scale, the most complex entities we know of?—?ourselves ?—?are midway between atoms and stars. It would take about as many human bodies to make up a star as there are atoms in each of us. Living things are very large compared to atoms: They must be big enough to have layer upon layer of intricate structure. But they cannot be too large, otherwise they would be crushed by gravity.

It may seem topsy-turvy, then, that astronomers can speak confidently about things billions of light-years away, whereas things on the seemingly more graspable human scale, such as theories of diet and child care, are notorious for their lack of consensual progress. But stars are simple. They’re so big and hot that their content is broken down into simple atoms; none matches the intricate structure of even an insect, let alone the human brain.

This stuff is really tricky.  The Pope seems particularly challenged in terms of his administrative ability:

On Sunday, a priest known for such provocative statements as blaming the sins of New Orleanians for Hurricane Katrina asked the pope to rescind his appointment as an auxiliary bishop in Austria.

The affairs have engendered a storm of criticism of the church hierarchy and led to frantic efforts to mollify angry and confused parishioners around the globe, while the latest controversy has raised concerns that the actions could be part of a disturbing pattern.

The Vatican expert George Weigel, in a recent essay in First Things, an American religion journal, criticized the Vatican for its “chaos, confusion and incompetence.”

This is a great analysis from TNR, which I think kind of thinks of Politico like Martin Scorsese thinks of Steven Spielberg: fine, yeah, he’s good, and sure, I’m glad he’s got the popularity and awards.  But, well, really, aren’t I just better?  I mean, a lot better?  See for yourself:

That Politico was helped by the collapse of print journalism goes without saying. That it was also helped by cable news’ insatiable appetite for the tabloid and the personal is also clear. But, two years into the Politico experiment, there is fascination around Washington with what could be considered the first Internet newspaper, and whether it represents a way to make a business out of political reporting. As traditional newspapers jettison staff, Politico is holding steady. This month, Allbritton told me the venture will turn a profit in six months. “We’re way ahead of budget,” he said. “It wouldn’t surprise me if the profit this year would count in the millions of dollars.”

This is a great reflection series that is going to be ongoing at Slate.   Someone extremely close to me lost someone extremely close to her over two years ago, and the story of grief never really gets easier–it just changes.  I think that this conversation really matters, and not only because it helps people to talk about their grief.  It’s also important simply to recognize that people are not really allowed to grieve.

Since my mother’s death, I have been in grief. I walk down the street; I answer my phone; I brush my hair; I manage, at times, to look like a normal person, but I don’t feel normal. I am not surprised to find that it is a lonely life: After all, the person who brought me into the world is gone. But it is more than that. I feel not just that I am but that the world around me is deeply unprepared to deal with grief. Nearly every day I get e-mails from people who write: “I hope you’re doing well.” It’s a kind sentiment, and yet sometimes it angers me. I am not OK. Nor do I find much relief in the well-meant refrain that at least my mother is “no longer suffering.” Mainly, I feel one thing: My mother is dead, and I want her back. I really want her back—sometimes so intensely that I don’t even want to heal. At least, not yet.

The BustedHalo show is on it, so we have a vested interest around here:

Despite all of this gloom and doom, the Internet doesn’t have to be the death of Sirius XM. If the company can get its debt in order, it might find that the network can be its savior. My advice: Forget the satellites, the special radios, and the huge customer acquisition costs. Instead, focus on your content—and figure out a way to get it to the largest possible audience at very low prices. Sirius XM should make sure that Howard Stern and Oprah and Bob Dylan’s Theme Time Radio Hour and the NFL and Major League Baseball are available on every Internet-connected device on the market.