Beliefnet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
A Rich Soup of Paranoia
Okay, a lot of people are turned off by President Bush's religious faith. No problemo. That's their right. But
Frank Rich's dishonest columnin today's New York Times, a report on a forthcoming DVD about the President's religious views, resorts to innuendo and distortions to misrepresent Bush's faith.
The title of the DVD is "George W. Bush: Faith in the White House." "More than any other campaign artifact," writes Rich, "it clarifies the hard-knuckles rationale of the president's vote-for-me-or-face-Armageddon re-election message." That's a lie--Vice President Cheney has said that a terrorist attack is more likely under a Kerry administration. That's something we have every right to debate. Nobody in the Bush campaign has said or implied anything about Armageddon, a loaded term referring to a Biblical battle at the end of time.
Here's another snippet: "'Will George W. Bush be allowed to finish the battle against the forces of evil that threaten our very existence?' Such is the portentous question posed at the film's conclusion by its narrator, the religious broadcaster Janet Parshall, beloved by some for her ecumenical generosity in inviting Jews for Jesus onto her radio show during the High Holidays." Mr. Rich seems unable to recognize that whoever wins in November will have to battle against evil in the form of jihad. And Janet Parshall, by the way, is a very nice lady who doesn't deserve to be mocked for asking Jewish converts to Christianity on her program.
"Past presidents have rarely, if ever, claimed such godlike infallibility. Mr. Bush never admits to making a mistake," writes Rich. Rich seems to be referring to Bush's refusal to answer a politically motivated question by a (most likely) politically motivated reporter about what mistakes he's made. This doesn't amount to a claim of infallibility. It's more a matter of not replying to a jerk.
I'll bet this column scared
Swami, who's already frightened enough, to death. Frank Rich should be ashamed.
Only a Few Shopping Hours Left
Yup, John Kerry now has a matter of hours to come up a position on Iraq for the rumble in Coral Gables. I don't think that Howard Dean could have been elected (is it premature to say "either"?), but you can't blame Democrats for wishing they'd stuck with their first love. There's a superb piece in Slate by Chris Suellentrop on
Dean nostalgia.
If you read one thing today, let it be
George Will's piece on tonight's debates. "Presidential debates are to real debates as processed cheese is to cheese," writes Will. But he does offer a fantasy ploy designed to help us find the true position, if any, Kerry has on Iraq.
Moderator Bias: Will Bush get a fair shake from liberal moderators in the course of the debates? They may be a little shell-shocked by CBS's travails but don't count on it. Here's a
good report from the Media Research Center.
Why Kerry will win even if he doesn't--
from Instapundit:
"DEBATE PREDICTION: Unless Kerry melts into a puddle on the floor, the media spin will be that he did well and helped his campaign. This is for two reasons. One is, as
Newsweek's Evan Thomas remarked, that the press "wants Kerry to win."
He Goes to Church with John Kerry! Wow!
Loose Canon has often wondered how somebody can go through seminary and not understand basic Catholic theology. Yes, I'm referring to James Carroll, the former priest who now bashes the Catholic Church for the Boston Globe.
Catholics are buzzing about
Carroll's latest. "Kerry's positions on a range of issues," writes Carroll, "from abortion to the death penalty to the centrality of social justice, mark him not as a renegade Catholic but as one of that increasingly large number of faithful Catholics who understand that moral theology is not a fixed set of answers given once and for all by an all-knowing hierarchy but an ongoing quest for truths that remain elusive."
"James Carroll, the heretical former priest who writes columns for the Boston Globe does it again," says
Suburban Priest. "He says, '[Kerry's] faith is informed by the spirit of the great renewal that occurred with Vatican II. At that council (1962-65), the Catholic Church finally and fully embraced the principle of religious liberty that had been pioneered in America.' He also says, 'It is not too much to say that Vatican II was the church's nodding to this country for what it taught the world about the primacy of conscience and the rights of all believers. That spirit of openness is reflected in the public positions advanced by John Kerry.'
"Mr. Carroll doesn't know the teachings of the 2nd Vatican Council very well. In the document of Vatican II on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, the Council Fathers said the following regarding our conscience...."
Phil Lawler of
Off the Record(one of your feistier blogs):
"Regarding sexual issues, Carroll continues, the Vatican doesn't understand that 'it is clear that the human race is undergoing a massive cultural mutation...' (I'm not making this up. I couldn't.)
"There's personal testimony here, too. Carroll reveals: 'I worship at the same Catholic church in Boston where John Kerry and his wife often attend Mass.'
"Yup. You're in the same church, all right. I wonder what church it is."
Say It Ain't So
Cancer, abortion-whatever: It was distressing but somehow not completely shocking to read that the Susan G. Komen Foundation, which has in the past raised money to fight breast cancer, has just made hefty financial grants totaling a reported $475,000 to Planned Parenthood. (Tip of my chapel cap to
Fillingupspacefor pointing out the item.) At least, Eve Sanchez Silver, a Komen analyst, resigned.
Life News reports
:
"When confronted with data showing Komen made donations to Planned Parenthood, the information didn't sit well with Komen analyst Eve Sanchez Silver.
"'The Foundation has done so much for so many women through its programs and research grants,' Sanchez Silver told LifeNews.com. 'But this revelation about Planned Parenthood and [Komen], indicates a well thought out funding strategy.'
"Sanchez Silver is the director of Cinta Latina Research, an organization that conducts research into breast cancer issues and their effects on minorities. She is concerned that Planned Parenthood targets minorities and noted that such groups have abortions at higher rates than Caucasians."
Why did I say I'm not surprised by this latest development from a respected charity? Because Komen is a chic charity and chic people are pro-abortion. They regard children as possible lifestyle impediments.
It's the Resurrection, Stupid
Is the Resurrection of Christ a state of mind-your mind? "Big Anglican Guy says 'resurrection' = 'expansion of consciousness'" proclaims a headline on one of my favorite blogs,
Relapsed Catholic. The Big Anglican guy is, indeed, a big guy, being none other than the Rt. Rev. Frank Griswold, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the U.S., and a guy whose leadership of the Church committed to his care has made Henry VIII's Cardinal Wolsey look like a rock.
Relapsed's link is to a hilarious send-up of a sermon Grissy actually preached, by a very witty writer for some publication called the
Midwest Conservative Journal, whose comments will make you laugh out loud. Here's LC's rejoinder: Big Early Christian Guy Say: "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain (1 Corinthians 15:14)."
After the Fall: Advice for the Catholic Bishops
Loose Canon is not referring to the fall of man but to what the Catholic bishops must do after the fall election. They must not let the issue of pro-choice Catholics drop.
This is the best way for the bishops to show the world that they weren't just dabbling in electoral politics. They should ponder in their hearts
an action taken years ago--and very quietly--by Bishop Rene Henry Gracida, now retired:
"A Texas bishop has revealed that he once barred a Catholic politician from the sacraments because of the legislator's outspoken support for legal abortion.
"In an essay that will appear in the October 2004 issue of Catholic World Report,
Bishop Rene Henry Gracida arguesthat bishops have a solemn duty to rebuke public sinners, including those who persistently violate Church teachings regarding the sanctity of life."
Meanwhile: Will orthodox Catholics help keep George Bush in the White House? Put another way: Is abortion killing the Democratic Party? (I saw that headline somewhere but, alas, can't remember who deserves the kudos.).
Catholic? Kerrywatch
offers thoughts on these hot topics:
"The anti-Catholic 'Catholics'--those so-called Catholics who reject fundamental dogmas of the Church, her moral teaching on controversial issues, and who seek a fantasy Third Vatican Council to implement their destruction of the Church--are enraged about the progress the Bush campaign has made among Catholic voters.
"A recent Pew Center poll gave Bush a seven point margin among Catholic voters. This fact sparks rage and panic among liberal Catholics when compared to the last election in which the Catholic vote split about evenly between the two major parties."
Only One More Day For Kerry to Devise A New Position on Iraq!
Yes, the clock's ticking. Washington Times columnist
Tony Blankley has a delightful piececomparing the debates to Medieval jousts--with the warriors coming forward for mano a mano combat--but arguing that the debates matter less than we think:
"It's all quite charming--this drama of the first debate as presented by the courtly class of pundits, jesters and fools. But if history is any guide, Thursday night's joust will not be the decisive element in the presidential campaign--because the voters are not the damned fools that journalists think they are."
He Still Doesn't Get It: Charm-meister
Al Gore advises Kerryon how to debate George Bush. Gore urges Kerry to go for the jugular--of course, the problem with following Gore's advice is you'll probably slit your own throat.
It's very unfortunate when your candidate turns orange on the eve of his big night: See the
Drudgereport's Kerry on Orange Alert. Picture included. Kerry must feel like the bride who tries a new harirdo the day of her wedding.
Even if Kerry isn't able to return to a normal human skin tone and win the debate, the storyline is pre-determined: "Sure bet in this campaign is that the media will write a big October comeback story for John Kerry,"
writes Mike Murphyin the Weekly Standard. "It is evitable for three reasons. First, the media works in a pack that is happiest when following a simple narrative. Second, from moribund to miracle campaigner is Kerry's tiresome myth turned worn-out cliché. Third, this is indeed a tight race and--as with any incumbent seeking reelection--the undecided vote will break heavily against Bush, which will make Kerry look like he is surging late. ...The signs of this pending storyline are already apparent in the coverage of Kerry's new team of savvy advisors."
Israel & U.S.: Hate Objects of Mainline Churches?
The Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. has just issued a
report on human rights advocacyin mainline Protestant denominations.
"The IRD found that Israel and the United States, in that order, were, far and away, mainline Protestantism's major targets. To say the least, Maureen Shea, ECUSA's Director of Government Relations, was not a happy camper," writes the
Midwest Conservative Journal(a great blog I've just discovered--it seems to be by a disillusioned Episcopalian).
Amy Welborn has this to say
:
"The Institute on Religion and Democracy has released a report that all but accuses mainline churches of being anti-Semitic. The argument is this: Of all the human rights criticisms given by mainline churches and groups such as the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church, and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), along with the National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches, only 31 percent of 197 statements were directed at countries other than the United States or Israel. Criticism of Israel amounted to 37 percent while statements leveled at the United States totaled 31 percent."
Vile Spectacle
If you read only one thing today, let it be
Christopher Hitchens' devastating Slate pieceon the "vile spectacle" of Democrats "rooting for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan" before Nov. 2.
"There it was," the Hitch writes, "at the tail end of Brian Faler's 'Politics' roundup column in last Saturday's Washington Post. It was headed, simply, 'Quotable':
"'I wouldn't be surprised if he appeared in the next month.' Teresa Heinz Kerry to the Phoenix Business Journal, referring to a possible capture of Osama bin Laden before Election Day.
"As well as being 'quotable' (and I wish it had been more widely reported, and I hope that someone will ask the Kerry campaign or the nominee himself to disown it), this is also many other words ending in '-able.' Deplorable, detestable, unforgivable...."
Turf-Conscious Monks at the Holy Sepulcher: So What Else Is New?
Oh, dear, the monks are fighting again: Yes,
Franciscan monks and Greek Orthodox priests came to blowsearlier this week at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, one of the most sacred shrines of Christendom. The argument was over whether a door should remain shut during an Orthodox procession. But this has been going on for a long time, and not just between the Franciscans and Orthodox. The Coptic Christians and the Abyssinian Christians--who control the roof of the much-subdivided holy place--have been feuding for the last few centuries, too.
The petty quarreling among turf-conscious monks provides the basis for a hilarious scene in Muriel Spark's novel (1965) "
The Mandelbaum Gate." Spark's small comic gem is followed by a beautiful sermon on the theme of, "We have a city not of this world," by an English priest. (If you'd like to read more about the divided Sepulcher, there is nothing better than H. V. Morton's "
In the Steps of the Master", a retracing of the key places in Christ's life by a travel writer acclaimed as a master of the genre by none other than Jan Morris.)
No, Dave, It's Pride That Goeth Before a Fall
Writing in the Washington Post, David Broder, who's revered by journalists, came up with
this bizarre root cause of the Rathergateand other recent journalistic scandals:
"We need to be asking why this collapse has taken place.
"My suspicion is that it stems from a widespread loss of confidence in both the values of journalism and the economic viability of the news business."
The column was headlined, "The Media, Losing Their Way." Anybody who thinks the media needs a self esteem course is Losing His Grip.
Only Two Shopping Days Left
John Kerry has only two days left to come up with a new position on Iraq before the first debate.
Larry Kudlow does roadworkon Kerry's position as of breakfast this morning in the National Review: "Kerry, who despicably agrees with Kofi Annan that the Iraq war was somehow illegal, calls Iraq a 'profound diversion' from the battle against al Qaeda."
Columnist Brendan Miniter cocks an eye towards the rumble in Coral Gables and Kerry on Iraq in the
Wall Street Journal:
"Mr. Kerry knows he's rallying his base when he complains about firehouses being opened in Baghdad and money going to the war effort rather than 'after-school programs' and when he says this is 'the wrong war at the wrong time.' But he's also hoping to avoid the fate of George McGovern, while also capitalizing on the natural unease Americans feel while their sons and daughters are in harm's way. Unfortunately for Mr. Kerry, that is likely to prove to be a nuance too far."
Teddy Kennedy's Mushroom Cloud
Loose Canon complained yesterday that we're not supposed to talk about who Osama bin Laden would prefer as President of the United States.
Mickey Kaus of kausfiles seems to agreewith LC's point of view:
"Ted Kennedy is going to be attacked for saying that the war in Iraq has 'made the mushroom cloud more likely, not less likely.' But why shouldn't he say it? That's what the campaign is mainly about--namely, whose policies will minimize the risk of a 'nuclear 9/11'. ...Dick Cheney was similarly within his rights to argue that if Kerry's elected 'the danger is we'll get hit again.' That's his argument. ...The point is that neither argument can be ruled out of bounds as excessive fear-mongering--after 9/11 fear of catastrophic terrorism in the U.S. clearly isn't excessive at all. The arguments need to be judged on their merits. ..."
Kaus loses me when he says that he thinks Kennedy has the better point because the Iraq war has made people in the Middle East angry. Note to Mickey: They were angry before the war.
This Is The Week That Is
We'll have a pretty good idea of who's going to be president for the next four years after this week's debate. I hope George Bush isn't as nervous as Loose Canon. National Review senior editor
Ramesh Ponnuru saysthat "there is still a chance for Kerry to win the race--if he can find a plausible position on Iraq and stick to it."
Doug Gamble, also writing in National Review,
believes that Kerry's chances are slim:
"Rather than showcasing a Kerry whom more people will consider voting for, the debates will expose a Kerry most Americans will realize they cannot vote for. What will sink him is the same underlying squishy uncertainty, if not downright deviousness, on major issues he has displayed throughout his quest for the presidency."
On "Live with Regis and Kelly"
Kerry mocked Bush's intellectual prowess. The AP reported:
"'The big hang-up was George Bush wanted to get life lines, you know, so he could call somebody,' the Democratic candidate for president quipped Tuesday while appearing on 'Live With Regis and Kelly.'"
If I were John Kerry, I'd watch that kind of remark. Just some friendly advice.
The blog
Catholic Ragemonkeyhad a funny headline on the Kerry/Live with Regis show: "Now Regis Throws His Lot in with Belial [the devil]." Kudos to the headline writer.
Osama's Candidate, Kinsley's Sophistry
In an attempt to deflate the notion, afoot in some quarters, that John Kerry is "Osama's Candidate" (the column's headline in the Washington Post),
Michael Kinsley engages in sophistry:
"Where does Osama bin Laden stand on gay marriage? What are his views on privatization of Social Security and stem cell research? Is he concerned about judges who place their personal opinions ahead of the Constitution? Or does he care more about corporations that outsource good American jobs to foreign countries?
"It seems we're going to have a national debate about whom bin Laden and al Qaeda support for president. Fair enough. Bin Laden's opinion, if only we could know it, would probably affect the judgment of voters more than that of any other independent thinker except, of course, John McCain. So far, the bin Laden debate has been pretty one-sided, with a string of Republican public officials claiming that terrorists are rooting for John Kerry and some bloggers and a columnist or two suggesting that he may prefer Bush."
No, Michael, Osama probably doesn't have a stand on the privatization of Social Security. He wants to blow us up before we receive it. He prefers whichever candidate would make this easier. We all know this. Why can't we talk about it?
Regardless of what he thinks about the Iraqi war--today--John Kerry's campaign's response to the visit to Washington by Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a staunch U.S. ally, were despicable:
"Is Kerry proud that his senior adviser's derisive comment about the leader of free Iraq will now be quoted by terrorists and by enemies of the United States, in Iraq and throughout the Middle East?"
asks Bill Kristol. "Is the concept of a loyalty to American interests that transcends partisan politics now beyond the imagination of the Kerry campaign?"
Take Your Money and Stuff It
A few days ago, I noted that liberal Episcopalians in the U.S. are threatening to withhold money from African churches that don't support ECUSA's decision to consecrate an openly gay bishop. Not so fast. It turns out that the honorable African Anglicans didn't want money American churches that have forsaken the Gospel:
As the
stalwart American Anglican Council reportedseveral months ago:
"Anglican archbishops from Africa resolved Thursday to reject donations from any diocese that recognizes gay clergy and recommended giving the Episcopal Church in the United States three months to repent for ordaining an openly gay bishop. The archbishops also said they will refuse cooperation with any missionary who supports ordaining gay priests. They said the Episcopalians--the American branch of Anglicanism--should be disciplined for the election last year of V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. Robinson has lived openly with his male partner for years.
Meanwhile, the Tablet, England's prominent Catholic newspaper,
reports on the visit of Archbishop George Carey, formerly m'Lord of Canterbury, to confirm Episcopalians at Truru Episcopal Church in suburban Virginia, and the excellent
Getreligiondissects the Tablet's biased report, including the venerable journal's failure to mention just how many Episcopal prelates in the U.S. have blessed same-sex unions.
But These Folks Will Take Your Money
The Chronicle of Philanthropy has just published the
salaries of executives of major charities. They obviously believe it's blessed to receive, and the figures are pretty shocking.
With boards, rather than market forces at work, charity people don't have to do their good deeds out of the goodness of their hearts:
"The study being released Monday showed that the median salary of 215 chief executives was $291,356. The median is the middle point of that group, meaning 107 leaders made more than that figure and 107 made less.
"The publication determined that the middle range of the increases from 2002 to 2003 was 3.7 percent, almost twice the inflation rate of 1.9 percent last year. Still, the rate of compensation increase was the smallest since 1996, the figures showed."
Here's are the people who are doing the best by (we hope) doing good:
"The four top earners surveyed worked at hospitals: Harold Varmus, president of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and Floyd D. Loop, chief executive of Cleveland Clinic Foundation, both of whom earned $1.7 million in 2003; Herbert Pardes, chief executive of New York-Presbyterian Hospital, $1,3 million; and Peter G. Traber, president of the Baylor College of Medicine, $1.2 million."
Oh, but...
"There's a lot of responsibility and a lot of background and experience needed for those jobs," [Daniel Borochoff of the American Institute of Philanthropy] said. "The nonprofit needs to hire qualified people."
As a rule, Loose Canon becomes livid when the envy crowd says there should be limits to what people can earn. LC also recognizes that people who work for nonprofits deserve to earn what they could in the market place. But LC has a feeling that there are many people pulling down salaries way beyond what they would make without compliant boards. That's why there are so many scandals in the charity world.
Briefly Noted
Pope on Pogo Stick: The BBC Backs Down
The BBC has decided not to air Popetown, a comedy set in the Vatican that pokes fun at the Catholic Church. Ruby Wax was the voice of a senile pope, and Jerry Hall provided sound for an ambitious nun. The comedy, for a digital youth channel, was commissioned three years ago.
"However," reports the Telegraph, "Stuart Murphy, the channel's controller, admitted that the 10-part animated series--which featured back-stabbing cardinals and an infantile Pope who bounced around the Vatican on a pogo stick--was too offensive to broadcast."
If the show hadn't been for a kids' channel, I'd be sorry to hear it has been cancelled. That's the way these folks (see above) think about us, and it's good for the world to know it. Thanks to Relapsed Catholic for pointing out this item.
Morgan Spurlock Is A Big Fat Snob
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I never expected to end up being a populist. But the snobbery of the New Class--the blue state intellectuals and chatterers and others who regard people who don't embrace their point of view as yokels--makes me see red.
Their sneering contempt for ordinary folks is so much worse than anything the Old Class snobs of yesteryear ever came up with, and, unlike the snobs of yesteryear, the blue state bluenoses aren't ashamed of their attitude towards their fellow man. In fact, it's their sense of superiority that gives meaning to their lives.
The acclaimed movie "Super Size Me" in which filmmaker Morgan Spurlock gets fat and then attractively throws up from eating at McDonald's is an example of this snobbery.
As English reviewer Brendan O'Neill notes in "Bashing the McMasses:"
"[The movie's] real target is the people who eat in McDonald's--the apparently stupid, fat, unthinking masses who scoff Big Macs without even asking to see a nutritional and calorie breakdown first. Spurlock and his ilk might hate McDonald's, but they seem to loathe the McMasses even more."
And this:
"In debates about 'bad' foods (McDonald's), fast foods (microwave meals), and fat mums in clingy leggings who make their kids fat too by feeding them 'junk', there's a barely concealed contempt for the working classes, who are presumed to be lazy, feckless and not sufficiently concerned with healthy cooking and fitness. It's there in the terminology: they are seen as 'junk' people."
Spurlock also made menu choices guaranteed to make him fat--this was dishonest, and I hope he's stuck with the extra pounds. McDonald's has inexpensive offerings that are pretty good if you're hungry and not able to afford nouvelle cuisine.
Today's second exhibit of New Class condescension is Naomi Wolf's piece comparing Laura Bush and Teresa Heinz Kerry in New York magazine. "Is it trivial to weigh Laura Bush's gentle, Xanax-like demeanor, her faultless librarian's poise and sincerity, against the imperious sexuality of Teresa Heinz Kerry?," asks Wolf.
The chattering classes love Teresa because her second-hand opinions are their second hand opinions, and they only wish they had the billions to give them the right to call people "idiots" or "scumbags" and get away with it. I'd say Ms. Wolf, Al Gore's former fashion adviser, needs more than earth tones--she needs contact with earthlings.
Ironically, Laura Bush may be the more thoughtful of the two women, with opinions of her own. Andrew Ferguson's review of the Kitty Kelley book notes that Kelley tries to give the Bushes the total Sinatra treatment but inadvertently presents Laura Bush as a thoughtful person. But, of course, for the chattering classes, she holds the wrong opinions.
Be Very Afraid
It's easy to look at the contorted face of Terri Schiavo, the Florida woman who has been in a coma for more than a decade, and conclude she's somehow less human than you or me. But she's not. That's why yesterday's right-to-die ruling that she can be denied life support is disturbing. It is Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael, who is remarried, who is asserting her right to die. He was awarded a $1.2 million judgment to take care of her a number of years ago. Don't applaud this ruling, be afraid--very afraid. We can all fall sick, and people in comas can awaken. Even if they couldn't, it's not a husband's right to argue his incapacitated wife's right to die.
An Important Election Down Under
Australia has been one of our firmest allies, including standing firm in the Iraq war. Presidential candidate John Kerry might call stalwarts a "coalition of the bribed," but Charles Krauthammer explains:
"Australia does not share only a community of values with the United States," writes Krauthammer. "It understands that its safety rests ultimately on a stable international structure that, in turn, rests not on parchment treaties but on the power and credibility of the United States. Which is why Australia is with us today in both Afghanistan and Iraq."
Australia's October election will decide between Prime Minister John Howard, who supports the United States in Iraq, and Mark Latham, who would pull the troops out of the country. It is a crucial election.
Krauthammer writes:
"The terrorists' objective is to intimidate all countries allied with America. Make them bleed and tell them this is the price they pay for being a U.S. ally. The implication is obvious: Abandon America and buy your safety.
"That is what the terrorists are saying. Why is the Kerry campaign saying the same thing? 'John Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists.' So reports the Weekend Australian (Sept. 18)."
Gee, Why Could That Be?
The Guardian on the latest from the C of E: "The Church of England said
yesterday that police counter-terrorism operations were directed disproportionately against Muslims and risked alienating them."
I Hear There Are Some Nice Rentals in Brussels
The President gave a perfectly nice address the other day at the United Nations. But Loose Canon has been wondering: Why bother?
Victor Davis Hanson, the historian and frequent contributor to National Review, seems to be pondering the same conundrum. He writes in today's Wall Street Journal:
"These are surreal times. Americans in Iraq are beheaded on videotape. Russian children are machine-gunned in their schools. The elderly in Israel continue to be blown apart on buses. No one--whether in Madrid, Istanbul, Riyadh, Bali, Tel Aviv or New York--is safe from the Islamic fascist, whose real enemy is modernism and Western-inspired freedom of the individual...
"In response to such international lawlessness, our global watchdog, the United Nations, had been largely silent. It abdicates its responsibility of ostracizing those states that harbor such mass murderers, much less organizes a multilateral posse to bring them to justice. And yet under this apparent state of siege, President Bush in his recent address to the U.N. offered not blood and iron--other than an obligatory 'the proper response is not to retreat but to prevail'--but Wilsonian idealism, concrete help for the dispossessed, and candor about past sins. The president wished to convey a new multilateralist creed that would have made a John Kerry or Madeleine Albright proud, without the Churchillian 'victory at any cost' rhetoric. Good luck."
There are so many things wrong with the U. N. I won't tell you what the first two faults of the odious East River debating society Hanson listed today, but here's the next one:
"Third, the present secretary-general, Kofi Annan, is himself a symbol of all that is wrong with the U.N. A multibillion dollar oil-for-food fraud, replete with kickbacks (perhaps involving a company that his own son worked for), grew unchecked on his watch, as a sordid array of Baathist killers, international hustlers and even terrorists milked the national petroleum treasure of Iraq while its own people went hungry..."
But we can't act unilaterally can we? That's just so tacky. But--wait--here's a quote from Jim Hoagland's column today:
"I think some of my colleagues were perturbed by the briefings they heard at the Democratic convention in July about how much more Europe would have to do for President Kerry," says one European diplomat. "All the speeches since then saying U.S. allies and not just Halliburton have to rebuild Iraq just add to the concern."Morning Has Broken, the Blue Bird Is Grounded
Honesty compels me to admit that I have a certain fondness for "Moon Shadow," ("Yes, I'm bein' followed by a moon shadow, moon shadow, moon shadow...") which Yusuf Islam wrote in his Cat Stevens days.
But I can't forgive him his syrupy "Morning Has Broken" (the lyrics are actually by Eleanor Farjeon, but Cat/Yusuf did the gooey arrangement). Whenever it is sung in Church, I wish I could ground the choir director.
Pro-Choice Catholics: The Let's Make a Deal Mentality
Loose Canon quoted from Kenneth Woodward's important Commonweal piece on Cuomo, the pro-choice position, and the inconsistencies therein. The philosophical underpinning for the current position espoused by pro-choice Catholics can be traced, Woodward argued, to then Governor Mario Cuomo's speech in 1984 at Notre Dame. Woodward--and LC--regard the speech as sophistry of the worst sort.
Well, the plot thickens with Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput also arguing that the intellectual dishonesty started with Cuomo:
"In hindsight, Cuomo's speech is a *tour de force* of articulate misdirection. It refuses to acknowledge the teaching and formative power of the law. It implicitly equates unequal types of issues. It misuses the 'seamless garment' metaphor. It effectively blames Catholics themselves for the abortion problem. It selectively misreads history.
"In the end, Cuomo argued that 'approval or rejection of legal restrictions on abortion should not be the exclusive litmus test of Catholic loyalty.' With those words, he wrote the alibi for every 'pro-choice' Catholic who has held public office since.
"In deference to his understanding of pluralistic democracy, Governor Cuomo-- despite his personal opposition to abortion--went on to resist repeated attempts to restrict abortion in his own state of New York. He also supported public funding of abortion for poor women.
"His Catholic conscience apparently did kick in on selective issues though, whether 'pluralism' liked it or not. Governor Cuomo vetoed legislative efforts to re-institute the death penalty--12 times." Chaput regards the compromise pro-choice Catholics make as "a deal with the devil, and it has a balloon payment no nation, no public servant and no voter can afford."
A Few Short Takes
The New Deal: Sinner or Spinner?
As somebody who wrote an extremely critical personal note regarding the situation at Crisis magazine to an official there, I feel queasy about commenting on Deal Hudson. Deal, the subject of much talk lately, was the Crisis publisher and Bush adviser whose sexual misconduct while a professor at a Catholic college nine years ago was the subject of an expose in the National Catholic Reporter.
He resigned from the Bush campaign but held onto his day job. It's his Crisis job that forms the subject at hand.
First, there's a report in the Washington Times by Julia Duin this morning that five of the magazine's most influential columnists have pressured the magazine's board to can Hudson. There's also this:
"[S]pecific accusations of more recent sexual misconduct had come to the board's attention, one scholar said. 'This was not about one incident 10 years ago,' he said. 'It's surprising it was held down as long as it was. I haven't gone out of my way to track Deal Hudson's improprieties--I could be doing nothing else. But you began to wonder after a while if they are true.'"
In an apparent preemptive move, Deal last night sent out an email headlined "Important Announcement." He thanked people for their support (!), and announced that he was stepping down as publisher of the magazine. Some excerpts from the email:
As you can imagine, the past month has been very difficult for both me and my family. There's no doubt that the recent adverse publicity about me, and the criticism that followed, influenced my decision.He will become director of the Morley Institute, headquartered in the Crisis building. Its functions, according to the email update, are to raise funds for Crisis and "support several new projects that I've wanted to pursue for some time."...As long as I remain publisher of CRISIS, I'll be a source of controversy.
One annoyed wag commented that at least the bishops send a guy to a new parish instead of just changing the sign on the door.
A Presbyterian Punch for Israel
As someone who regards Israel as an outpost of Western values in a sea of chaos--and, no, before you go there, I do not expect the second coming to be there--I was disappointed that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) decided to divest their portfolio of companies that do business with Israel.
I wouldn't go so far as to compare the Presbyies to the Syrians, as Eugene Kontorovich, a George Mason University professor and fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, does in today's National Review, but I found his thoughts quite pertinent:
"The divestment action manifests a singular animosity towards Israel. The Presbyterians have not divested their funds from any of the cruel regimes of the world: not from China for its ethnic cleansing of Tibetans, and its repression of Muslims and Falun Gong; and not even from Sudan, currently engaged in the extermination of Africans in Darfur. But then again, Syria has not boycotted those states either.
"One would expect the Presbyterian Church to use its economic clout with an eye to punishing the many regimes around the world that oppress their fellow Christians, and call attention to their plight. However, the church has not taken action against such nations as Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, or North Korea (whose government has reportedly murdered 300,000 Christians), where anti-Christian persecution has been detailed by Christian human-rights groups. Indeed, the Presbyterians have not even boycotted Lebanon, where Christians have been slaughtered by various Muslim groups. But then, neither has Syria, which controls Lebanon as a vassal state."
Forget that St. Christopher Medal--the Bill Is Here
A website, www.saintclinton.com, is offering "keepsake items" to "remind you of better times" that feature a painting of Bill Clinton in a Sacred Heart of Christ pose with a halo. "His timeless sympathetic words, 'I feel your pain' echo in his reassuring expression."
I particularly like the coaster and lunchbox, and was thinking about buying some of these very special gifts for Swami until yesterday. Keep reading to find out why LC isn't giving Swami the St. Clinton lunch pail.
Advertisement
Advertisement
|
About Beliefnet Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet. |
Help |
Media Kit |
Subscribe |
Legal Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet. |
Advertisement
|
| beliefnet |
Comments
Add Comment »To comment on this content you must be a registered user:
Sign-Up or Log-In