There is an article at the BBC News site (found here) about the hammering out of the European Union constitution. Surprisingly, the nations of the continent of Europe have found several things to argue about. Toward the end of the article, there's this:

Members are also in disagreement over whether the constitution should make explicit reference to God, Christianity or religion. Some Roman Catholic countries, notably Poland, Spain and Italy are demanding that religion is noted, but France is strongly opposed.

That damn Catholic hegemony will get you every time. It's trite, but in order: Viva la France!

My turn to comment on the Plame scandal. The issue seems to be resonating among conservatives. I went over to the absurdly conservative, wildly pro-Bush, and often tragically fallacious arch-conservative (but popular) weblog RightWingNews.com to sample some conservative reaction:

Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views): First off, even though this looks as if it is far from the malicious leak that it was originally portrayed as, the "senior administration official" who let this drop should be fired. There is simply no excuse for putting the identity of a covert agent into the hands of the press.

At first glance, therefore, it doesn't seem like this is something Bush can let slide. Conservatives have a reputation for being rabidly concerned about national security, loyalty, not betraying our patriots, and so on. They may even be more disturbed by the issue than non-conservatives. Perhaps I'll go snooping for more conservative responses when I have time.

What did I just say? This is from a Washington Post article about Ashcroft telling the FBI to start the Plame leak investigation quickly:

As pressure built on his aides, Bush joked about the matter. During a roundtable discussion with reporters for African news organizations, he was asked about three reporters in Kenya who were detained this week in what some journalists saw as an effort to intimidate them into revealing sources. The detention drew a condemnation from the International Federation of Journalists, which complained that the government has been harassing and brutalizing journalists. "I'm against leaks," Bush said, to laughter. "I would suggest all governments get to the bottom of every leak of classified information." Turning to a reporter, Martin Mbugua of the Daily Nation, Kenya's largest daily newspaper, Bush said, "By the way, if you know anything, Martin, would you please bring it forward and help solve the problem?" White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, who is rarely seen in public, has appeared twice with Bush since the investigation began, including during an East Room celebration yesterday for Hispanic Heritage Month. "Everybody needs to have a good abogado," Bush said, drawing laughter as he used the Spanish word for "lawyer." "I've got a really good one," he added, to more laughter. "Al Gonzales is my lawyer and close friend."

Ha ha. Good one.

Michael is right, the Valerie Plame thing needs to be discussed. It's a bit of a pickle for the Bush administration. The thing to be considered is the stickiness factor. Will this stick to the Teflon Prez, or will it be another in a long string of things that his administration stonewalls or next-to-stonewalls and gets away with? I heard some other politico-blogger talking about how Karl Rove is the one person the Bush admin can't afford to lose. If it were anyone else, he or she would probably just be sacrificed for the good of the administration. Bush could be shocked and disappointed on TV and reiterate his view that the most important thing is national security and that this was a reprehensible thing to do and the person(s) involved will be dealt with. Perp walk and everything. But not Rove. Rove IS the Bush administration. If Rove goes down, the executive branch is in a tight, tight spot. Hence, they're fighting, both by ignoring as much as possible, and by "fully cooperating" with a BS investigation from Ashcroft. Ashcroft investigating Bush. Isn't that Siegel investigating Lansky? Predictable metaphor aside, experience leads me to believe that even if this turns into Bush's biggest scandal, NOTHING WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: NOTHING WILL HAPPEN TO BUSH. He will emerge unscathed, smirking. Part of me hates to be such a fucking pessimist, but you come a different conclusion that's based on what we've witnessed in the last three years. This scandal also has the disadvantage of being too complicated for the average person to follow or remember long enough to be outraged. The only way Joe Grabasandwich will get pissed off about this enough to support something cool like impeachment or censure will be if something tangible and terrible happens to a CIA operative overseas. If we get Daniel Pearl-type footage from Al Jazeera, with something horrific happening, and the definitive knowledge that the horrific thing happened because of the Valerie Plame leak, THEN people might get mad. Till then, till then... Which sucks, because I would prefer that this be enough to outrage people. I hope something horrific DOESN'T happen. But I'm afraid that's what it would take.

It looks like some Catholics have put together an excellent repository of their own bullshit at www.excommunication.net. Evidently, the church that refused to excommunicate Hitler is now very excited about reviving the threat of excommunication to intimidate such villains as US Senators and Governors, and the Prime Minister of Canada. Go Catholics! It is clear that we didn't get enough of this during the Inquisition. The world could use some more Dark Ages. I say we put the Vatican in charge of everything. What the FUCK do I need with my own opinions anyway? Not putting the Vatican in charge is just relativism, after all.

Excommunication.net home page: "This web site . . . is dedicated to the proposition that 'Catholic' champions of abortion should be admonished by Church authorities to publicly renounce their abortion advocacy; and that the refusal to do so should result in the public excommunication of the offenders."

From the Vatican:

Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life: "In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine."

This morning I found myself (for some reason) thinking about all the great thinkers that the Catholic Church has excommunicated over the centuries -- William of Occam, Roger Bacon, etc -- and I wondered if they'd ever got around to excommunicating Hitler. I found this article from Sept. 27:

Newsday.com - Mussolini Pushed Hitler Excommunication: ...The Vatican document describes an April 10, 1938, meeting between the go-between from the Holy See to Mussolini, the Rev. Pietro Tacchi Venturi, and Pope Pius XI. Tacchi Venturi told the pope about his private talks with Mussolini three days earlier. According to the document, Mussolini had advised the Vatican envoy 'that it would be worthwhile with Hitler to be more forceful, without half-measures; not right away, not immediately, but waiting for the most opportune moment to adopt more forceful measures, for example, excommunication.' Hitler was born into a Catholic family, but did not practice the faith.

Catholocism, wow! Here's another article:

...It is not clear if the Church ever seriously considered excommunicating Hitler. The Vatican archives relating to pre-war Germany were opened in a bid to counter charges that the Vatican did not do enough to prevent the Holocaust. [BBC]

Meanwhile, according to NewsMax, Senator Daschle and California Governor Gray Davis have both been threatened with excommunication because of their stances on abortion. Phil Brennan, the article's author, is supporting the view that Democrats are anti-Catholic because they are pro-Choice. By blocking judicial nominations on the basis of the political views of the appointees, they are in fact engaging in anti-Catholic discrimination. It seems this is unavoidable, though, since the Catholic church has so many political opinions. Brennan's article climaxes with a response to Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman:

[Quoting Goodman:]"There's no question the Vatican holds strong views against abortion," she wrote. "Thursday it urged politicians to oppose gay marriage. But the church has never excommunicated a politician who disagreed and never revoked the right to call yourself a Catholic." [Brennan replies:]Oh no? That would come as a big surprise to the numerous kings, nobles and commoners throughout history who got the papal boot. Read your church history, lady. And keep in mind the fact that Sen. Daschle was recently told by his bishop to stop receiving communion (that's excommunication, ma'am) and to cease calling himself Catholic. Talk about ignorance. Or is it just plain old liberal malice? And be patient, Ms. Goodman. Some of the bishops in the U.S. may be getting very close to issuing decrees of formal excommunication – largely a simple recognition of the fact that the renegades have already taken themselves out the ranks of the Church and gone into the outer darkness where there is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth and nothing but a lot of anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-tax cut, anti-Christian blather.

This makes total sense. After all, who the fuck am I, a non-Catholic American to suggest that the laws and judicial precedent of my country not be determined by the motherfucking Vatican? How anti-Christian I've been, resisting theocracy and such. NewsMax rocks.