(Mis-)Interpreting DC
Brilliant writers do not always make good political analysts, especially when they are from the United Kingdom and have Washington, D.C. as their beat. Dr. Potomac refers, of course, to Andrew Sullivan, late of the New Republic and now periodic contributor to the Sunday Times, the New York Times and his own blog. Mr. Sullivan's piece in the Sunday Times this week, while surely of great interest to readers in metropolitan London, was, from start to finish, a misinterpretation of developments in the American capital. It is difficult to tell whether this is the result of little or no reporting on Mr. Sullivan's part or his ongoing obsession with religious conservatives as a clear and present danger to the
Republic.
Paragraphs three and four are where Sullivan runs into a ditch he never gets out of. First, he explains that the filibuster deal in the Senate will "mildly constrain" the President hen vacancies occur on the Supreme Court later this year. Second, he claims the "hard social right" is "livid" over a "defeat" on stem cell policy in the House of Representatives. And finally, he believes that John McCain, by exploiting the excesses of the conservative wing of the Republican party on both of the above issues, has succeeded in transferring power away from the White House, toward himself and strengthening the McCain for President in 2008.
Let's take these ideas one at a time, shall we?
The ink on last week's Senate deal began to run off the page before all 14 signatures were affixed. (By the way, the pretentiousness of that signing boggles the mind. Signing things is what President's do and what just about every senator wants to do but can't. By in large, senators regard themselves as presidents-in-waiting and putting their names to that "agreement" must have given them a frisson of executive action but that's about all it will accomplish.) Sullivan's notion that this will in any way constrain President Bush in his choices for the Supreme Court represents a fundamental misreading of Bush's character. It is far more likely that Bush will take great joy in rolling a grenade onto the Senate floor in the form of a highly qualified and highly controversial conservative judge. This will re-divide the parties and force dissident Republicans back into the fold while driving the Democrats into full filibuster mode. The primary objective here is not to fill seats on the Supreme Court or the Appellate courts but to take the courts out of policy development and restore them to their proper role as administrators of justice. In short, POTUS wants a fight over the courts and the Senate "agreement" means little or nothing to his objectives. He has gotten approval for three conservative judges. Fine. He will want more and will continue to pursue this course irrespective of what the moderates think is best for the country.
On stem cell policy, pro-life forces on the Hill, far from being chagrined, saw last week's outcome as an unqualified success. No one is under the illusion that the Bush policy is in any way popular among Democrats, the bio-tech industry or the public at large (at least in the terms that the debate is typically conducted: people in wheel chairs versus frozen embryos.) The main threat the pro-life movement saw leading up to the vote was that there would be an insufficient minority to sustain a presidential veto of the legislation in the House. After weeks of intense effort, the pro-life movement was able to build a substantial cushion against a potential veto override. There was even modest progress on reshaping public attitudes on the moral status of the embryo through pictures like this that appeared on the front page of the Washington Post following the House vote. The Bush policy on stem cells is safe through 2008 and is likely to be a central issue in the Republican presidential primaries. No one who favors overturning that policy will stand a chance of getting the nomination meaning that the pro-stem cell research team must now wait for the election of a Democrat. That could be a very long wait given the dynamics of an Electoral College that continues it glacial movement toward the South and West.
Finally, John McCain. Dr. Potomac has a confession to make: he loves John McCain. This affection is based on having seen the man in action on the Senate floor in some private, unscripted moments in which he revealed great humor and personal humanity. He brings joy to the work of politics. He hates the French. So, what's not to like? Being a reasonable conservative, Dr. Potomac is as much dismayed as anyone by Senator McCain's strayings from the orthodox faith. He's like an unstable chemical element - on wheels. It would be great fun to watch a President McCain but there's a strong chance the whole enterprise would end in tears.
With this confession in mind, Dr. Potomac is willing to assert firmly that last week's Senate deal and the vote on stem cell research will do much to retard the Senator's chances of becoming President. On judges, he injected himself into an issue of great import to his chief adversaries - the base of the Republican party, keeping the enmities of 2000 very much fresh in the religious right's mind. On stem cells, he will face withering grassroots attacks and suffer a political death by a thousand door knockers in Iowa. New Hampshire independents will love him; latitude not withstanding, South Carolina will be much colder climes. McCain told reporters after the deal on judges was announced that he wasn't afraid of the politics as long as he was sure he did the right thing. Dr. Potomac
hopes this thought will warm him when his candidacy folds its tent on a cold March night in 2008.
Vituperative but thoughtful observations on history, politics, religion, and society.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
The Shaky-Shaky Dance of Defeat
Readers of the Manolo know all about the Eurovision Song Contest, more really than we ever wanted to know, but did anyone ever suspect that the Eurovision Song Contest may contribute to the demise of the EU?
Readers of the Manolo know all about the Eurovision Song Contest, more really than we ever wanted to know, but did anyone ever suspect that the Eurovision Song Contest may contribute to the demise of the EU?
Bookish, hard, and full of rage
Far be it from the Style Editor to cock a snook at the writing world. I am generally supportive of most writers as I know darn well that I would never have the patience or talent to write an actual book; I can barely make it through a blog entry. Further more I salute any writer who can make a living at the game, even if they do so by writing the purplest of romance prose. But a deplorable spirit is creeping into the book world, a menace that must be stopped. I refer of course to the "SAT/ACT vocabulary novel" These novels are designed as "fun" prep pieces full of the 1,000 most common SAT vocab words. That is their purpose at any rate, although not all readers seem to grasp that purpose.
I've heard of teaching to the test, but this is ridiculous. When do the "SAT reading comprehension" novels come out? I can do no better than to quote the Ombudsman who when informed of this development replied, "Hey kids, read a damn book, and stay off my lawn!"
Far be it from the Style Editor to cock a snook at the writing world. I am generally supportive of most writers as I know darn well that I would never have the patience or talent to write an actual book; I can barely make it through a blog entry. Further more I salute any writer who can make a living at the game, even if they do so by writing the purplest of romance prose. But a deplorable spirit is creeping into the book world, a menace that must be stopped. I refer of course to the "SAT/ACT vocabulary novel" These novels are designed as "fun" prep pieces full of the 1,000 most common SAT vocab words. That is their purpose at any rate, although not all readers seem to grasp that purpose.
I've heard of teaching to the test, but this is ridiculous. When do the "SAT reading comprehension" novels come out? I can do no better than to quote the Ombudsman who when informed of this development replied, "Hey kids, read a damn book, and stay off my lawn!"
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Jacques-ass
Reluctant as he is to wade into the fever swamps of Euro-politics, Dr. Potomac would like to offer a quick reflection on today's overwhelming rejection by the French public of the proposed European constitution. A salutary development, no doubt, but how to explain it?
Dr. Potomac hasn't seen the internals on the French exit polls but he'd be wiling to bet a half year of his salary in euros that those polls will not reveal that the French were suddenly seized by the threat the proposed European constitution poses to individual liberty and free enterprise. Occam's razor suggests that one should look for the simplest, most direct, and since we are talking of the French, the most irrational explanation. Bear in mind, treasured readers (all three of you), this is the same country that in the depths of the Cold War took its army and its nuclear weapons out of NATO, depriving the alliance of critical strategic depth in the event the Red Army plunged across the Central European plain, on the grounds that France (the same France that Nazi Germany sucker-punched into oblivion) could go it alone in defending itself against the Soviet threat. The French may engage in dangerous liaisons but they don't do alliances in the sense of cooperating seriously with anyone. For shear pig-headedness, no one can out do the French.
This has the sting like the dickens for Monsiour le President. He, after all, has spent the last several years building up in the French mind the notion of a French-led Europe as counter-weight to the American hyperpower; la gloire de France, ex-Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin with his painting of Napoleon on the office wall and all that daft stuff. Suddenly Chirac's imperial pretentions have turned to bite him in the derrier: the French public, made to believe that France is the savior of the Western world is now reluctant to see itself as just one of 29 countries in a European union subject to, say, the wishes of the Latvians. Quelle surprise! This must surely be the Night of the Long Faces in Paris as the leaders of all the major political parties contemplate how much has been lost: a central European bureacracy (cushy jobs with expansive, unenumerated powers and a constitutional license to meddle endlessly in the lives of 400 million people) that large countries like France and Germany really could dominate. All of that gone with single Gallic, "Non!" One can almost hear the word proceeding from the nose of DeGaulle himself.
Reluctant as he is to wade into the fever swamps of Euro-politics, Dr. Potomac would like to offer a quick reflection on today's overwhelming rejection by the French public of the proposed European constitution. A salutary development, no doubt, but how to explain it?
Dr. Potomac hasn't seen the internals on the French exit polls but he'd be wiling to bet a half year of his salary in euros that those polls will not reveal that the French were suddenly seized by the threat the proposed European constitution poses to individual liberty and free enterprise. Occam's razor suggests that one should look for the simplest, most direct, and since we are talking of the French, the most irrational explanation. Bear in mind, treasured readers (all three of you), this is the same country that in the depths of the Cold War took its army and its nuclear weapons out of NATO, depriving the alliance of critical strategic depth in the event the Red Army plunged across the Central European plain, on the grounds that France (the same France that Nazi Germany sucker-punched into oblivion) could go it alone in defending itself against the Soviet threat. The French may engage in dangerous liaisons but they don't do alliances in the sense of cooperating seriously with anyone. For shear pig-headedness, no one can out do the French.
This has the sting like the dickens for Monsiour le President. He, after all, has spent the last several years building up in the French mind the notion of a French-led Europe as counter-weight to the American hyperpower; la gloire de France, ex-Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin with his painting of Napoleon on the office wall and all that daft stuff. Suddenly Chirac's imperial pretentions have turned to bite him in the derrier: the French public, made to believe that France is the savior of the Western world is now reluctant to see itself as just one of 29 countries in a European union subject to, say, the wishes of the Latvians. Quelle surprise! This must surely be the Night of the Long Faces in Paris as the leaders of all the major political parties contemplate how much has been lost: a central European bureacracy (cushy jobs with expansive, unenumerated powers and a constitutional license to meddle endlessly in the lives of 400 million people) that large countries like France and Germany really could dominate. All of that gone with single Gallic, "Non!" One can almost hear the word proceeding from the nose of DeGaulle himself.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
After a long and glorious Spring, the Summer season is upon us in the Nation's capital. The traditional signs are beginning to appear: squaddles of interns wandering about the streets in a dazed fashion snarling traffic. Gaggles of Greenpeacers congregating in Metro entrances, blocking the smooth flow of traffic as they urge people to sign petitions. And just today I saw a man walking over the Key Bridge his Oxford shirt dangling from his hand, as he bared his nude torso to the elements. It was not an aesthetically pleasing sight, and I hope this is NOT the start of some sort of trend in DC. Please, gentlemen, keep your shirts on. Let the seersucker suit and a nice Panama be the height of your summer frivolity.
Still, as the season is upon us, I present to you, from the pen of my good friend, Miss Maximally Cool, a ditty to the American condiment. Yes, this is how we citizens of the nation's capital keep ourselves occupied during the "work" day. One can read only so much of an asbestos bill at the time.
Ketchup
Shall I compare thee to a mayonnaise?
Thou art more lovely, more smooth and scarlet
Mayo globes like celluloid as on it you gaze,
And its expiration has all too short a date.
Sometime too hot the sun on checkouts shines,
And that pungent smell can serve as a ruler
To avoid the egg-based condiment that can decline
By chance or nature's course when outside the cooler.
But thy sweet scarlet ketchup shall not fade,
Nor lose possession of natural mellowing agents.
Thou need not hide deep in the cooler's shade,
But sit out, an icon to Christians and to pagans.
For so long as men can taste and eyes can see
So long live ketchup, to give good times to you and me.
Still, as the season is upon us, I present to you, from the pen of my good friend, Miss Maximally Cool, a ditty to the American condiment. Yes, this is how we citizens of the nation's capital keep ourselves occupied during the "work" day. One can read only so much of an asbestos bill at the time.
Ketchup
Shall I compare thee to a mayonnaise?
Thou art more lovely, more smooth and scarlet
Mayo globes like celluloid as on it you gaze,
And its expiration has all too short a date.
Sometime too hot the sun on checkouts shines,
And that pungent smell can serve as a ruler
To avoid the egg-based condiment that can decline
By chance or nature's course when outside the cooler.
But thy sweet scarlet ketchup shall not fade,
Nor lose possession of natural mellowing agents.
Thou need not hide deep in the cooler's shade,
But sit out, an icon to Christians and to pagans.
For so long as men can taste and eyes can see
So long live ketchup, to give good times to you and me.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Bernie Sanders in the Senate? Yup, says the latest polls. Vermont remains a perplexing place, to be sure. I lived there for four years while an undergraduate, and while it still retains traces of its former conservative Yankee self, it is now thoroughly dominated by the People's Republic of Burlington.
You have to head off into the woods and fields to find that old Vermont, of guns and pickups, and bumper-stickers that say "Welcome to Vermont -- Now Get Out," and hardscrabble farms, and the smell of cow manure hanging in the morning air, and small towns out of a Currier and Ives print. Nowadays, when people think of Vermont, it is Starbucks and Ben and Jerry's, left-wing used book stores and daily protests over [insert favorite cause here], aging hippies with fat portfolios and waistlines, and New Yorkers who use Chittenden County as their weekend vacation home (the Hamptons are so yesterday, no?).
The Union-Leader says it best: Vermont is where Calvin Coolidge, one of America’s most conservative Presidents, was raised and where he got his values. It used to be a land of common-sense conservatism much like New Hampshire. Now it is run by liberal refugees from New York who have turned the state into a hippie haven. Both Sanders and Dean were born and raised in New York City.
Sending Sanders to the Senate would make Vermont look even kookier than Howard Dean did. And most Vermonters don’t seem to have a problem with that.
They are an odd bunch, take it from me. Pity the real Vermonter, up there in the "Northeast Kingdom." Call it the Tyranny of Burlington, giving the once proud state such a reputation.
You have to head off into the woods and fields to find that old Vermont, of guns and pickups, and bumper-stickers that say "Welcome to Vermont -- Now Get Out," and hardscrabble farms, and the smell of cow manure hanging in the morning air, and small towns out of a Currier and Ives print. Nowadays, when people think of Vermont, it is Starbucks and Ben and Jerry's, left-wing used book stores and daily protests over [insert favorite cause here], aging hippies with fat portfolios and waistlines, and New Yorkers who use Chittenden County as their weekend vacation home (the Hamptons are so yesterday, no?).
The Union-Leader says it best: Vermont is where Calvin Coolidge, one of America’s most conservative Presidents, was raised and where he got his values. It used to be a land of common-sense conservatism much like New Hampshire. Now it is run by liberal refugees from New York who have turned the state into a hippie haven. Both Sanders and Dean were born and raised in New York City.
Sending Sanders to the Senate would make Vermont look even kookier than Howard Dean did. And most Vermonters don’t seem to have a problem with that.
They are an odd bunch, take it from me. Pity the real Vermonter, up there in the "Northeast Kingdom." Call it the Tyranny of Burlington, giving the once proud state such a reputation.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Amazing, ain't it? Bunnie abuses us, and we recover from our end of semester torpor. Or, since I am not currently on the semester system, my six-thousand-words-left-on-my-dissertation-here-comes-the-cliff feeling.
But I have to say, whatever torpor might do to me, I have no intention of giving a remote control to my students. If I cared about their opinons, I would be taking their class!
Hah! And stay the hell off my lawn, you damn kids!
There, that's a little bile and vituperation and curmudgeonly spirit, flowing each way free.
And I am somewhat serious...
But I have to say, whatever torpor might do to me, I have no intention of giving a remote control to my students. If I cared about their opinons, I would be taking their class!
Hah! And stay the hell off my lawn, you damn kids!
There, that's a little bile and vituperation and curmudgeonly spirit, flowing each way free.
And I am somewhat serious...
Bunnie is quite correct. We have all been lax. Semester has finally ended for me, so now that I am out from underneath the correcting perhaps I can resume normal blogging.
Cleaning out the desk drawers of my mind:
- Sorry Clarence. Strict construction of the Constitution and a healthy respect for states rights versus my love of the vine. Waiter! Chardonnay!
- I've never watched a single episide of "Everybody Loves Raymond." And do you know I must be one of the last few Americans who has never seen "ET." And now, out of pure spite, I have no intention of ever seeing it.
- Two books I am reading right now: Patrick O'Brian's Ionian Mission and Sidney Fay's Origins of World War One.
- A boulder appears suddenly in an Iowa cornfield. No one knows how it got there.
-Mr. Soames likes John Wilkes? Now what would Dr. Johnson say of this?
- Match Game, Password, and probably Pyramid were the best game shows. I say this after watching a bit of GSN this week.
- Barrett Wendell on Unitarianism: "The second person of the Trinity having thus lost his mystic office, the third spread wing and vanished into the radiance of a new heaven. In this glorious region the New England Unitarians discerned singly and alone the one God, who had made man in his image. One almost perfect image they recognised in Jesus Christ; a great many inferior but still indubitable ones they found actually to populate the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."
More later.
Cleaning out the desk drawers of my mind:
- Sorry Clarence. Strict construction of the Constitution and a healthy respect for states rights versus my love of the vine. Waiter! Chardonnay!
- I've never watched a single episide of "Everybody Loves Raymond." And do you know I must be one of the last few Americans who has never seen "ET." And now, out of pure spite, I have no intention of ever seeing it.
- Two books I am reading right now: Patrick O'Brian's Ionian Mission and Sidney Fay's Origins of World War One.
- A boulder appears suddenly in an Iowa cornfield. No one knows how it got there.
-Mr. Soames likes John Wilkes? Now what would Dr. Johnson say of this?
- Match Game, Password, and probably Pyramid were the best game shows. I say this after watching a bit of GSN this week.
- Barrett Wendell on Unitarianism: "The second person of the Trinity having thus lost his mystic office, the third spread wing and vanished into the radiance of a new heaven. In this glorious region the New England Unitarians discerned singly and alone the one God, who had made man in his image. One almost perfect image they recognised in Jesus Christ; a great many inferior but still indubitable ones they found actually to populate the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."
More later.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Quiz round-up
Well, it seems that:
a. my inner European is Irish, thank heavens.
b. I'll live till I'm 85. Here's hoping...
c. I apparently belong in the year 1960. Sure, is 1860 an option?
d. The English-speaking country I most belong in the UK, which doesn't mesh too well with my inner Irish I might add.
e. I speak 40% Modern English and 40% Yankee -- how appalling. Indiana is having a bad effect on me.
f. I should learn Latin as my second language. The Pope will be pleased.
g. And I am 100% Roman Catholic, RC, Papist, baby! Ben-e-dict! Ben-e-dict!
Well, it seems that:
a. my inner European is Irish, thank heavens.
b. I'll live till I'm 85. Here's hoping...
c. I apparently belong in the year 1960. Sure, is 1860 an option?
d. The English-speaking country I most belong in the UK, which doesn't mesh too well with my inner Irish I might add.
e. I speak 40% Modern English and 40% Yankee -- how appalling. Indiana is having a bad effect on me.
f. I should learn Latin as my second language. The Pope will be pleased.
g. And I am 100% Roman Catholic, RC, Papist, baby! Ben-e-dict! Ben-e-dict!
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Viva il papa! Life is all about making the right people mad. And won't all the right people be mad today.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI, a lovely choice of name suggesting (1.) St. Benedict and his famous book of Order, (2.) that much like Benedict XV followed St. Pius X, Benedict XVI (in an amazing gesture) will do the same for a future St John Paul II, and (3.) a quieter pastoral papacy after a time of tremendous intellectual controversy and energy. Still perhaps that last bit won't hold true. He'll undoubtedly travel less than JPII but probably write as much or more -- when Cardinal, he was prolific.
My oh my, what a wonderful day.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI, a lovely choice of name suggesting (1.) St. Benedict and his famous book of Order, (2.) that much like Benedict XV followed St. Pius X, Benedict XVI (in an amazing gesture) will do the same for a future St John Paul II, and (3.) a quieter pastoral papacy after a time of tremendous intellectual controversy and energy. Still perhaps that last bit won't hold true. He'll undoubtedly travel less than JPII but probably write as much or more -- when Cardinal, he was prolific.
My oh my, what a wonderful day.
Monday, April 18, 2005
Here's a detail I hadn't heard before, since I did not watch. The cardinals applauded Ratzinger's homily. Common courtesy or sign of genuine agreement? Black smoke ... I guess less than 77 applauded? ...
Black smoke. No papa.
Isn't there something lovely about the world fixating its gaze at an old brown-gray metal stovepipe propped up on the Sistine Chapel roof, looking for smoke signals about who will be the next pontiff? What a refreshing breath in an era when transparency is the orthodoxy -- a "what are you doing, what are thinking, what are you feeling" world, where all of life now seems a reality tv show or Oprah -- that this secret meeting fires our imaginations. We need this little bit of tradition, magic, and mystery.
Cardinal Ratzinger's morning homily certainly gained a lot of attention, some seeing it as brazen electioneering and others as merely restating what he has always said and believed. It certainly won't make him any friends among Catholic liberals (big surprise there) but, in combination with his funeral homily, gives you a "rounder" glimpse of the man: an intellectual with clear pastoral gifts and certain ideas about the problems and directions of the Church. Here is an excerpt from the homily, from the Vatican Radio site (Thanks to Against the Grain for the tip):
How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking… The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching”, looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.
However, we have a different goal: the Son of God, true man. He is the measure of true humanism. Being an “Adult” means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today’s fashions or the latest novelties. A faith which is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature. It is this friendship which opens us up to all that is good and gives us the knowledge to judge true from false, and deceit from truth. We must become mature in this adult faith; we must guide the flock of Christ to this faith. And it is this faith – only faith – which creates unity and takes form in love. On this theme, Saint Paul offers us some beautiful words - in contrast to the continual ups and downs of those were are like infants, tossed about by the waves: (he says) make truth in love, as the basic formula of Christian existence. In Christ, truth and love coincide. To the extent that we draw near to Christ, in our own life, truth and love merge. Love without truth would be blind; truth without love would be like “a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal” (1 Cor 13,1).
By the way, several journalists have totally misread (perhaps willfully) Ratzinger's remarks on "fundamentalism." Taken in context, he was clearly saying that some label fealty to Church doctrine, in a way to dismiss it entirely, as "fundamentalism," thereby linking it to nasty extremists in other faiths -- a pretty deliberate bending of the truth and Truth. Running from this, many settle in with relativism, an anything goes, self-centered anti-philosophy. The traditional teachings of the Church are neither.
I keep wondering if perhaps this man doesn't really want to be pope. He became the "chief doctrinal officer" (back-handed mediaspeak for head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) reluctantly, and was talked out of retiring several times by JPII. Now everyone has him as a papal frontrunner and politician for the job. Could it be that this morning's homily was the Cardinal's way of saying, "Are you sure you want me?" and a way to retire quietly? This way he can be the kingmaker (or popemaker) and not be pope. Just a theory, one that I hope is wrong. Ratzinger is "one" on my short list.
By the way, check out the fantastic Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club. Why has it taken me so long to find you? All my fault. They actually have a gift shop where you can buy t-shirts, hats, mugs, etc. with the Cardinal's picture on them and various messages like "Papist" and "Putting the smackdown on heresy since 1981." My word, where is my credit card...
Isn't there something lovely about the world fixating its gaze at an old brown-gray metal stovepipe propped up on the Sistine Chapel roof, looking for smoke signals about who will be the next pontiff? What a refreshing breath in an era when transparency is the orthodoxy -- a "what are you doing, what are thinking, what are you feeling" world, where all of life now seems a reality tv show or Oprah -- that this secret meeting fires our imaginations. We need this little bit of tradition, magic, and mystery.
Cardinal Ratzinger's morning homily certainly gained a lot of attention, some seeing it as brazen electioneering and others as merely restating what he has always said and believed. It certainly won't make him any friends among Catholic liberals (big surprise there) but, in combination with his funeral homily, gives you a "rounder" glimpse of the man: an intellectual with clear pastoral gifts and certain ideas about the problems and directions of the Church. Here is an excerpt from the homily, from the Vatican Radio site (Thanks to Against the Grain for the tip):
How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking… The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching”, looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.
However, we have a different goal: the Son of God, true man. He is the measure of true humanism. Being an “Adult” means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today’s fashions or the latest novelties. A faith which is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature. It is this friendship which opens us up to all that is good and gives us the knowledge to judge true from false, and deceit from truth. We must become mature in this adult faith; we must guide the flock of Christ to this faith. And it is this faith – only faith – which creates unity and takes form in love. On this theme, Saint Paul offers us some beautiful words - in contrast to the continual ups and downs of those were are like infants, tossed about by the waves: (he says) make truth in love, as the basic formula of Christian existence. In Christ, truth and love coincide. To the extent that we draw near to Christ, in our own life, truth and love merge. Love without truth would be blind; truth without love would be like “a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal” (1 Cor 13,1).
By the way, several journalists have totally misread (perhaps willfully) Ratzinger's remarks on "fundamentalism." Taken in context, he was clearly saying that some label fealty to Church doctrine, in a way to dismiss it entirely, as "fundamentalism," thereby linking it to nasty extremists in other faiths -- a pretty deliberate bending of the truth and Truth. Running from this, many settle in with relativism, an anything goes, self-centered anti-philosophy. The traditional teachings of the Church are neither.
I keep wondering if perhaps this man doesn't really want to be pope. He became the "chief doctrinal officer" (back-handed mediaspeak for head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) reluctantly, and was talked out of retiring several times by JPII. Now everyone has him as a papal frontrunner and politician for the job. Could it be that this morning's homily was the Cardinal's way of saying, "Are you sure you want me?" and a way to retire quietly? This way he can be the kingmaker (or popemaker) and not be pope. Just a theory, one that I hope is wrong. Ratzinger is "one" on my short list.
By the way, check out the fantastic Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club. Why has it taken me so long to find you? All my fault. They actually have a gift shop where you can buy t-shirts, hats, mugs, etc. with the Cardinal's picture on them and various messages like "Papist" and "Putting the smackdown on heresy since 1981." My word, where is my credit card...
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Going Nuclear
Friends have been asking Dr. Potomac for his views on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s proposal to end the practice of unlimited debate (read: filibuster) against presidential nominations to the federal judiciary. Dr. Potomac asks readers to bear in mind that he speaks as one who has spent nearly half of almost a 20-year federal career working for Senators of both political parties and has a quaint attachment to its somewhat arcane habits. He has seen great evil and great good done through the Senate practice of “holds” on judicial nominees which are basically filibusters without all that annoying chatter. On the one hand, you have Lani Guinier stopped in her tracks by the threat of Senate floor donnybrook. On the other, you Chuck Schumer picking his teeth with the desiccated bones of federal appeals court nominees. Geese and gander line up for the same Senate sauce. The real question is whether, in the long-term, the Republic (as opposed to the Republican Party) is better served by unlimited debate for judicial nominees or a relative fast-track to confirmation. This is a prudential question on which reasonable conservatives can, and do, disagree.
Dr. Potomac would add one more consideration that in his (reasonable) view lends itself toward limiting debate. The federal courts are the playground of social liberals. (This is in large part the fault of previous Republican administrations who allowed a lot of winking and nodding to take the place of clear expressions of judicial philosophy resulting in unfortunate “growth” among certain members of the federal bench.) Pardon Dr. Potomac’s cynicism but is it likely that the Left has suddenly seen the wisdom of the counter-majoritarian nature of Senate processes and procedures? It seems much more likely that People for the American Way, the ACLU, the Alliance for Justice, et. al. are really worried that no one dilute the liberal judicial philosophy which dominates the federal courts. To prevent this outcome, they are willing to join hands with the doctrine of unlimited debate which blocked civil rights legislation for 100 years – and they are even leaning on Senator Robert C. Byrd, he of Klan heritage, to help them do it. That’s enough to meet the “recommended daily amount” of irony for any thinking person. The bottom line here is that the federal judiciary needs reform (personnel is policy, remember) if the imbalance of power between the branches is to be corrected. Democrats, entirely dependent on the anti-democratic nature of the courts to enforce policies that would be laughed out of any state legislature, will do anything to prevent this reform from happening. Republicans, constrained by too many scruples, ought not to flinch from their duty.
Which brings Dr. Potomac to his final point: whether Dr. Frist wins or loses (and Dr. Potomac has it on good authority that he will win) this fight demonstrates once again that American liberalism, like an army in full retreat, is engaged in nearly constant rear-guard actions and defensive entrenchments. Meanwhile, through the attrition of election loses and public-relations setbacks, Democratic ranks continue to thin out. Conservatives can and should expect to lose battles. The war, however, is going our way.
Friends have been asking Dr. Potomac for his views on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s proposal to end the practice of unlimited debate (read: filibuster) against presidential nominations to the federal judiciary. Dr. Potomac asks readers to bear in mind that he speaks as one who has spent nearly half of almost a 20-year federal career working for Senators of both political parties and has a quaint attachment to its somewhat arcane habits. He has seen great evil and great good done through the Senate practice of “holds” on judicial nominees which are basically filibusters without all that annoying chatter. On the one hand, you have Lani Guinier stopped in her tracks by the threat of Senate floor donnybrook. On the other, you Chuck Schumer picking his teeth with the desiccated bones of federal appeals court nominees. Geese and gander line up for the same Senate sauce. The real question is whether, in the long-term, the Republic (as opposed to the Republican Party) is better served by unlimited debate for judicial nominees or a relative fast-track to confirmation. This is a prudential question on which reasonable conservatives can, and do, disagree.
Dr. Potomac would add one more consideration that in his (reasonable) view lends itself toward limiting debate. The federal courts are the playground of social liberals. (This is in large part the fault of previous Republican administrations who allowed a lot of winking and nodding to take the place of clear expressions of judicial philosophy resulting in unfortunate “growth” among certain members of the federal bench.) Pardon Dr. Potomac’s cynicism but is it likely that the Left has suddenly seen the wisdom of the counter-majoritarian nature of Senate processes and procedures? It seems much more likely that People for the American Way, the ACLU, the Alliance for Justice, et. al. are really worried that no one dilute the liberal judicial philosophy which dominates the federal courts. To prevent this outcome, they are willing to join hands with the doctrine of unlimited debate which blocked civil rights legislation for 100 years – and they are even leaning on Senator Robert C. Byrd, he of Klan heritage, to help them do it. That’s enough to meet the “recommended daily amount” of irony for any thinking person. The bottom line here is that the federal judiciary needs reform (personnel is policy, remember) if the imbalance of power between the branches is to be corrected. Democrats, entirely dependent on the anti-democratic nature of the courts to enforce policies that would be laughed out of any state legislature, will do anything to prevent this reform from happening. Republicans, constrained by too many scruples, ought not to flinch from their duty.
Which brings Dr. Potomac to his final point: whether Dr. Frist wins or loses (and Dr. Potomac has it on good authority that he will win) this fight demonstrates once again that American liberalism, like an army in full retreat, is engaged in nearly constant rear-guard actions and defensive entrenchments. Meanwhile, through the attrition of election loses and public-relations setbacks, Democratic ranks continue to thin out. Conservatives can and should expect to lose battles. The war, however, is going our way.
Monday, April 11, 2005
It says everything about our age that, were a judicial nominee in America to echo the views of John Paul II on human life, the Democratic Senate would unanimously filibuster his nomination to death and denounce him as an extremist. Patrick J. Buchanan, "Pius XII and John Paul II"
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Don't you just hate it when things fail to go your way? The Anglican Bishop of Lichfield attacked the late Pope's legacy this week, claiming that he appointed too many "conservative" (read: those who adhere to RC doctrine) cardinals. "His practice of replacing ecumenically-minded or modern-thinking bishops with very conservative ones has led to a trail of destruction in parts of Europe and South America." Pray tell, mine Anglican friend, where this "trail of destruction" is found in South America with its ongoing Catholic boom? Or in Europe, which has been madly secularizing for over a century? You can see the Bishop's smiling mug and article here.
And the Union-Leader has a perspicacious editorial this morning, pointing out the inanity of polling Catholics and somehow connecting that to Church doctrine and direction.
And the Union-Leader has a perspicacious editorial this morning, pointing out the inanity of polling Catholics and somehow connecting that to Church doctrine and direction.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
And now another idiotic statement from a Congressman
Proving once again that brains are a hindrance in elected offices:
" Would you like to “spring forward” a month earlier each year? Stay tuned. Daylight-saving time would be extended by two months under an amendment to the energy bill that is expected to reach the House floor in a couple of weeks. The proposal, by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., was approved yesterday by voice vote as the Energy and Commerce Committee began its line-by-line markup of the legislation. Under Upton’s amendment, daylight-saving time would begin on the first Sunday in March and run through the last Sunday in November. That is a month earlier in the spring and a month later in the fall than current law specifies. “The more daylight we have, the less electricity we use,” Upton said." --- CQ's Midday Update
I don't know what it is about Congressmen. They seem to have no grasp of the laws of nature. They always seem to think that Daylight Savings Time somehow increases the amount of daylight in the world, that the incantation "We are now in Daylight Savings time! Oogah-Boogah!" somehow pauses the earth's rotation. Is there some ancient scroll in the Library of Congress that says this is how God and Joshua worked the sun stopping scheme? And God said "Let there be Daylight Savings TIme!" And lo, the sun stopped in its course, and Joshua and the Israelites fell upon the host and slaughtered them, without having to use any electricity."
Really, it makes one despair.
Proving once again that brains are a hindrance in elected offices:
" Would you like to “spring forward” a month earlier each year? Stay tuned. Daylight-saving time would be extended by two months under an amendment to the energy bill that is expected to reach the House floor in a couple of weeks. The proposal, by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., was approved yesterday by voice vote as the Energy and Commerce Committee began its line-by-line markup of the legislation. Under Upton’s amendment, daylight-saving time would begin on the first Sunday in March and run through the last Sunday in November. That is a month earlier in the spring and a month later in the fall than current law specifies. “The more daylight we have, the less electricity we use,” Upton said." --- CQ's Midday Update
I don't know what it is about Congressmen. They seem to have no grasp of the laws of nature. They always seem to think that Daylight Savings Time somehow increases the amount of daylight in the world, that the incantation "We are now in Daylight Savings time! Oogah-Boogah!" somehow pauses the earth's rotation. Is there some ancient scroll in the Library of Congress that says this is how God and Joshua worked the sun stopping scheme? And God said "Let there be Daylight Savings TIme!" And lo, the sun stopped in its course, and Joshua and the Israelites fell upon the host and slaughtered them, without having to use any electricity."
Really, it makes one despair.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
The Dirt
In baseball, apparently dirt is a crucial substance. So crucial that one NJ "farmer" makes his living from selling dirt to the major (and minor) league. I must say I had no idea. The thought never occurred to me when watching a baseball game, "From whence cometh the dirt?" I knew that the mud used to treat the balls comes from NJ, but I had no idea NJ, which doesn't have a major league team (and let's keep it that way), was the source of so much major league dirt. Of course considering the state of politics in my native state there is a certain logic to this...
In baseball, apparently dirt is a crucial substance. So crucial that one NJ "farmer" makes his living from selling dirt to the major (and minor) league. I must say I had no idea. The thought never occurred to me when watching a baseball game, "From whence cometh the dirt?" I knew that the mud used to treat the balls comes from NJ, but I had no idea NJ, which doesn't have a major league team (and let's keep it that way), was the source of so much major league dirt. Of course considering the state of politics in my native state there is a certain logic to this...
A reasoned post, SE, although your offense at my "score one for our side" (from whose side Brown comes from is unclear, and hence hardly ground for too much offense) seems a bit outbalanced by anyone seriously engaging in a discussion, days after his death, of whether the Pope is the anti-Christ and burning in hell. Give. Me. A. Break. Being satisfied, at least externally, with someone accepting the divinity of Christ seems a matter of good taste and manners as much as reasonable theology, I agree. I've always considered this blog in that spirit. Neither of us see much of that in those other blog comments, however.
One of the many reasons it took me by surprise is that considering the dire straits of Christianity in the West, I think it simple good sense to make common cause with conservative, doctrinally-grounded Christians (very much in the spirit of JPII, I might add). We may not all know what we like, but we certainly know what we do not like and who the problems are. Hence, I've had no problem and enjoyed immensely the Lutheran spin on these pages, and have happily linked to others of the same ilk despite the fact that I am (as your brother the O-man well knows) a triumphant Catholic curmudgeon. I have so much more in common with the Bunnie Diehls of the world than the Gene Robinsons. Hence the anti-Catholic talk puzzles me.
One of the many reasons it took me by surprise is that considering the dire straits of Christianity in the West, I think it simple good sense to make common cause with conservative, doctrinally-grounded Christians (very much in the spirit of JPII, I might add). We may not all know what we like, but we certainly know what we do not like and who the problems are. Hence, I've had no problem and enjoyed immensely the Lutheran spin on these pages, and have happily linked to others of the same ilk despite the fact that I am (as your brother the O-man well knows) a triumphant Catholic curmudgeon. I have so much more in common with the Bunnie Diehls of the world than the Gene Robinsons. Hence the anti-Catholic talk puzzles me.
Back to the Style Channel
As he is our RC rep, I shall leave all updates what's going down in the Vatican to the Doc, and I suppose the Ombudsman, should he be so inclined. (One should never speak for the Ombudsman. Although last I saw of the him, he was so deep into matters concerning the Revolutionary War that it may be news to him that Pius VI still isn't in power.) I will merely say that I am a bit surprised that the Doc doesn't remember any other Popes. Even though I was ASTONISHINGLY young at the time (well not that young), I do remember the short reign of John Paul I, and I can't imagine why as it had nothing to do with food, which is usually the only fixative of the memories of my youth. (Unless it was the rumors at the time that had to do with his being poisoned. That would involve food and might explain an otherwise anomalous occurrence of memory.)
We now go back to the regularly scheduled programming expected of the Style Editor, which is to say fluff and food, and the occasional exception for serious matters that I do not think are getting enough attention like the situation in Zimbabwe. However, Nick Kristoff at the NY Times wrote an excellent op-ed on the topic (and a multimedia piece too ) so Zimbabwe is getting more attention than I could ever bring to it, although not as much as it should be getting. But there is also the ever present evil brought to the world by viruses.
You did not know that viruses are the bringers of ever-present evil? Oh dear yes. It is well known that such is the case. It is true that I, the Style Editor, have a bit of an idee fixe about viruses. As some people are about pesticides causing all ills, so am I about viruses. Indeed the only difference between the pestilential pesticide purveyors and me is that I have a lot more science on my side. Some days I muse that perhaps I am too extreme in these matters, but then I read reports like this where it turns out that the dear sweet E. coli, bacteria, our usually charming and necessary digestive friend, mutated into its evil fiend form, such as E coli O157, as the result of A VIRUS. And then I think really my position on viruses is really FAR too moderate. (I once attended a National Academy of Sciences dealio on Emerging Infectious Diseases, where one participant announced that it was well known that viruses are the root cause of cancer, heart disease, and really just about any ill that affects man for which we do not already have a microbe, virus, or parasite as a root cause. What astonished me was not that someone held this position (I thought it eminently reasonable.) but that no one rose up crying, "You, sir, are a heretic, sir, and I want nothing to do with you!" No indeed, the entire assembly simply stroked their metaphysical beards and murmured their assents.)
Of course when viruses aren't involved, my other possible automatic answer is...malaria. Did you know that recent research shows that malaria could be the reason why African American men have a higher rate of prostate cancer? I shall be most interested in any follow up studies. (This is of course entirely possible explanation given that a similar one exists for the existence of sickle cell anemia.)
Coming up later: important posts on peduncle elongation and, in honor of the Charles and Camilla nuptials, thoughts on hats.
As he is our RC rep, I shall leave all updates what's going down in the Vatican to the Doc, and I suppose the Ombudsman, should he be so inclined. (One should never speak for the Ombudsman. Although last I saw of the him, he was so deep into matters concerning the Revolutionary War that it may be news to him that Pius VI still isn't in power.) I will merely say that I am a bit surprised that the Doc doesn't remember any other Popes. Even though I was ASTONISHINGLY young at the time (well not that young), I do remember the short reign of John Paul I, and I can't imagine why as it had nothing to do with food, which is usually the only fixative of the memories of my youth. (Unless it was the rumors at the time that had to do with his being poisoned. That would involve food and might explain an otherwise anomalous occurrence of memory.)
We now go back to the regularly scheduled programming expected of the Style Editor, which is to say fluff and food, and the occasional exception for serious matters that I do not think are getting enough attention like the situation in Zimbabwe. However, Nick Kristoff at the NY Times wrote an excellent op-ed on the topic (and a multimedia piece too ) so Zimbabwe is getting more attention than I could ever bring to it, although not as much as it should be getting. But there is also the ever present evil brought to the world by viruses.
You did not know that viruses are the bringers of ever-present evil? Oh dear yes. It is well known that such is the case. It is true that I, the Style Editor, have a bit of an idee fixe about viruses. As some people are about pesticides causing all ills, so am I about viruses. Indeed the only difference between the pestilential pesticide purveyors and me is that I have a lot more science on my side. Some days I muse that perhaps I am too extreme in these matters, but then I read reports like this where it turns out that the dear sweet E. coli, bacteria, our usually charming and necessary digestive friend, mutated into its evil fiend form, such as E coli O157, as the result of A VIRUS. And then I think really my position on viruses is really FAR too moderate. (I once attended a National Academy of Sciences dealio on Emerging Infectious Diseases, where one participant announced that it was well known that viruses are the root cause of cancer, heart disease, and really just about any ill that affects man for which we do not already have a microbe, virus, or parasite as a root cause. What astonished me was not that someone held this position (I thought it eminently reasonable.) but that no one rose up crying, "You, sir, are a heretic, sir, and I want nothing to do with you!" No indeed, the entire assembly simply stroked their metaphysical beards and murmured their assents.)
Of course when viruses aren't involved, my other possible automatic answer is...malaria. Did you know that recent research shows that malaria could be the reason why African American men have a higher rate of prostate cancer? I shall be most interested in any follow up studies. (This is of course entirely possible explanation given that a similar one exists for the existence of sickle cell anemia.)
Coming up later: important posts on peduncle elongation and, in honor of the Charles and Camilla nuptials, thoughts on hats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)