More on Miers

Now they're down to saying, "But nobody else wanted the job!"

Subtext: Start toeing the line, you knuckle-dragging conservatives, or we'll have no choice but to nominate someone like . . . Souter!!!

As if they already haven't.

Meanwhile, we learn that Arlen Specter, the Republican Party's liason officer to NARAL, wants to know what Karl Rove told Focus on the Family's James Dobson to make Dobson sing Miers' praises:

"If there are backroom assurances, and if there are backroom deals, and if there is something which bears upon a precondition as to how a nominee is going to vote, I think that's a matter that ought to be known by the Judiciary Committee and the American people."

In other words the Senator wants to know if the backroom assurances Rove gave Dobson vary from the backroom assurances Rove has given to the Senator.

Specter's concern that Miers' decisions on social issues might be congenial to conservative Americans, his present concern about Dobson's praises, and the support of Harry Reid . . .

"In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court."

. . . . are all you need to know to figure out Miers' jurisprudential bona fides -- they're as real as Saddam's ICBM fleet.

Spong II: The Irrelevication.

They keep recycling this guy, who is now the subject of a play about his llifelong quest to wrest himself from what he has called his fundamentalist evangelical North Carolina upbringing to understanding God in a radically different way . . .. From the story:

Any God who can be killed ought to be killed. That's the message of the play and, I think, that is the message of Jack Spong," [playwrite Colin] Cox said."

Note the sly identification between a God "who can be killed" and a God who can be ignored - for the time being, anyhow. Now that's pride, essential, pristinely corrupting pride. So they keep recycling Spong, and so we keep recycling our commentary on Spong.

And since we're playin' the oldies, what would you bet that the Reverend Mark Stanger, Canon Precentor of Grac[ie] Cathedral, will be front-row center in the premier's audience?

Hat tip to Dyspeptic Mutterings

Southern Appeal Launches a Flight of Fantasy

Via Southern Appeal and some astute commenters, my Oblomovesque personality launches itself on the following flight of fancy. Here I sit, in my best suit, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, trying to suppress the urge to throw peanuts to some of them as they put their questions . . . . . .

Mr. SecretAgentMan, what are your views on the incorporation doctrine?

Seeing as we're on CSPAN, Senator, and this is being potentially broadcast to schoolchildren, I'll refrain from the succinct group of of hand-gestures I use to express my views on the incorporation doctrine. I'll just say it's to jurisprudence what Hair Metal is to Rock and Roll.

Do you believe that the men who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment intended for most of the amendments comprising the federal Bill of Rights to be applied against the States?

Hell, Senator, they had no clear idea on what they were doing, you know that. Some of the more urgent Yankee nationalizers, particularly that fellow from Michigan, thought they were obliterating the federal system altogether in favor of a national uber-government. Others thought they were just giving the federal government power to thwart a revanchist sectionalism that might re-start the Civil War. Mostly, though, they wrote and ratified it for the same reason rock stars trash hotel suites -- it sounded like a really good idea at the time, and they knew somebody else would have to clean up the mess.

If so, do you think that the "liberty" component of the Due Process Clause of that amendment is the appropriate jurisprudential foundation for incorporation; or do you instead agree with those legal scholars who believe the Privileges and Immunities Clause is the constitutional provision upon which incorporation must/should rest?

Incorporationism, to the extent the word may be appropriate, can occur only with respect to the privileges and immunities clause. As to the rest, the state's legislative or judicial processes (provided they're conducted with due regard for the Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government) is all the due process required before the state messes with anybody's life, liberty, or property. And if you'll take some unsolicited advice, repeal the seventeenth amendment.

On the other hand, if you believe the incorporation doctrine is a constitutional fiction, is it your view that the doctrine must be nevertheless be preserved on stare decisis grounds?

We all know that stare decisis means that we respect the laws we can't change.

And none of you bastards should even think about there being follow-up questions to that one.

I can't get over the sonorous inquiry y'all pretend to do about what a nominee will decide about abortion, gay marriage, cooking dog, or whatever hot-button issue has got your constituencies' goats. Take Joe over there. Last time he asked Roberts whether he'd vote to preserve Roe v. Wade. Now Joe, you got to know how damn foolish that is.

Suppose you asked me that in a few minutes. And suppose I said "Sure, Joe, I'll always vote to preserve Roe v. Wade from attack by those Christian fascists." What would you know? I mean, seriously, Joe, what would you know? All you'd really know is what you know now -- I want to be on the Supreme Court. So let's just skip the neo-platonic epicycles of Judiciary Committee cosmology, and leave it at that.

Bonus question I Do you agree with Justice Thomas that it is time to rethink whether the Establishment Clause should be incorporated against the States?

Not really. To re-think means to have thought in the first place. Nothing in the Constitution -- not even the privileges and immunities clause -- prohibits state-supported religion. It's a damn bad idea. But constitutional liberty is largely an exercise in damn bad ideas. You want brilliance and unending prosperity, then go rent a Fuhrer.

Bonus question II: Is the right to bear arms, as articulated in the Second Amendment, an individual right, and if so should it be incorporated against the States?

Steve, those folks who voted for you were damn smart, if you don't mind my saying so. That's a great question. And my answer is yes, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and, no, it shouldn't be incorporated because its exclusion from the candidate list of privileges and immunities is made pretty clear by the Amendment's appeal to the militia power, which if anything is a state power or a natural right and not a privilege or immunity conferred by citizenship in a national polity.

What, if any, weight should be given decisions from international courts when interpreting the United States Constitution?

HAW! Damn, boy, you're funny! I don't trust anyone who reads advance sheets, let alone somebody pointy-headed enough to read decisions from international courts. Spencer Tracy's speeches in Judgment at Nuremburg are as far as anybody ought to go in that direction.

In terms of interpreting the Constitution, should one look to the original meaning and intent of the drafters or to subsequent interpretations by the judiciary? If it is the former, what is your position on 14th amendment jurisprudence? If it is the latter, what recourse do the people have, short of constitutional amendment, to counter a judicial interpretation by the Supreme Court?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not much on the kind of originalism that pretends we can all go chew on roots and have a mystical communion with the Founders via a ceremony that's half country-club locker room, half Native-American sweat lodge. I favor the Horton Hatches an Egg theory of constitutional jurisprudence: "I said what I meant and I meant what I said, and a Justice is faithful, one hundred percent!" The document says what the document says, and I don't like plumbing the Founders intentions for things they never thought about. If you have to go beyond the four corners of the Constitution, then I'd try leafing through Madison's Notes (one version has an index that's really helpful, by the way, and I'd have my law clerk go get that one). If that fails, then I'd do my best with the language, saying with Mencken that democracy is the theory of government that the people should get what they deserve, good and hard. Unless important and clear guarantees are involved, then it's not the Court's business to extricate Americans from the consequences of their own legislative folly.

Sort of a side comment on Steve's proposed questions (which would be great ones) -- but in which some of you might be interested: It seems to me that the whole Thomas-Amar argument over whether the Establishment Clause resists incorporation has particular value for defenders of the Second Amendment . . . .

Now that guy's talkin' like a Supreme Court justice. How come he didn't get nominated? How did all these people get in my hotel room?

If Train A left Sheboygan, WI at 5 a.m. moving southward at a speed of 50 miles per hour and Train B left Peducah, KY at 7:43 a.m. moving north at a rate of 5 kilometers per second, would a tree falling in the woods substantially affect interstate commerce?

Hey, bud, nobody can talk about my LSAT scores. I mean nobody.

What particular qualifications will you bring to the Supreme Court?

Good marksmanship skills. I can also pick good cigars, port, and Irish whiskey, and I promise to introduce a tradition of genteel cursing to judicial deliberations.

Why are you qualified to interpret the constitution as a Supreme Court Associate Justice?

I thought this was an affirmative-action program for legal medioctrities, not some pointy-headed, elitist witch-hunt. That's what George said, and I believe him. I'll may screw him the minute I'm on the bench, but I believe him. Go read the latest Supreme Court Christmas-Tree decision and if you can, after that, tell me with a straight face that qualifications are required in the first place, I'll answer that question.

Now I need smokes and coffee. Excuse me, y'all . . . . .

My Daughter's First Blog Post
=

han
]
‘
n
hannahpiuuuikjjjjjjikjijjjjjjjjjjjjjjjhjuujuuiug
gghuyhujhjjkkkkkoill;okiiiioiiiiiiikikikoio

iiiiikiiuiiikiiokoioooopppppp

On Harriet Miers' Nomination to the Supreme Court

What would you call a party that brings up, every year, a pro-life amendment to the U.S. Constitution overruling Roe, and forces it to a roll-call vote, even it means disrupting business as usual and putting things like tort and banking reform on hold? What would you call the party of a President who boasts of having a "litmus test" for federal judges who'll respect the right to life under the federal Constitution? What would you call the party of Senators who compel the Senate to abandon the sham filibusters liberals have been using to stall action on those pro-life nominations? What would you call the party of elected Presidents who explain in every state of the union address that we can't tolerate the killing of millions of defenseless children and live up to the high ideals of our founding, and that the right to privacy cannot justify killing an innocent person? What would you call a party where someone who describes herself to the media as "moderately pro-choice" on abortion and who worries about intrusive federal laws that might impinge on a woman's right to choose doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of serving in the cabinet?

You could call that party a lot of things. You could call it "fanatic." You might call it "extremist." You might, given the inroads evil has made into the American mind, call that party "dead on arrival." That can all be argued, depending on your point of view. But two things can't be argued. One: You' d have to call that party "pro-life." Two: You couldn't call it "Republican."

Low-Brow? Yes, but It's Better than the Depths of High-Brow "Art"

Courtesy of the My View blog, by way of Cacciaguida, we find . . . . . .




SecretAgentMan's nomination for a very large and imposing bronze statue to stand outside the WTC 911 Memorial's Museum of Why We Deserve To Be Blown Apart By Terrorists.

Changes to the Blog

Due to the sad retirement of St. Blog's Parish Hall's message board, I've re-enabled the haloscan comment feature on this blog. Also, some links to inactive blogs have been removed.

It's Been Weeks . . .

But the Democratic Party has finally managed to eke out a sane response to Katrina.

Southern Appeal

Provides this timely and interesting examination of Judge Roberts' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Apparently, when Judge Roberts says that Roe v. Wade is "settled law," he meant that it's as settled as anything can ever be in the land of the Major Generals. Anyhow, I appreciated the excerpt, which has forestalled yet another "Let's Destroy the Republican Party" rant on this blog. The commentary's very interesting too.

This Guy's Incredible

I mean Kanye West, whose silver-spoon style of outrage at whitey's indifference to Katrina victims has already been the subject of comment here. After performing at a half-time show at which Mr. West decided that whitey's oppression of Katrina victims wasn't so glaring an issue as to deserve mention (he was roundly booed by the fans anyhow), he's back with more:

Back in the days when it was time to clean the kitchen I would try to sweep the dust under the kitchen sink instead of really taking care of it, and if you spilled something on that floor all that dust came right up in front of your face. That's basically what the flood did.
"They have been trying to sweep us (African-Americans) under the kitchen sink and it was so in people's faces and so on TV... that they couldn't even hide it any more.

Ah yes, back in the days before Mr. West had domestic servants . . . .

There are few celebrities who parody themselves with an equal amount of unintended wit and sincerity. What could be next? Will Mr. West liken whitey's stranglehold to an over-snug cravat? Will he sing, "We Shall Overcome . . . And Get an 8:00 at Chez Nous"? Perhaps he'll drive a Hummer through the French Quarter and toss coins out the window, or give us an on-stage impression of Thurston Howell III delivering the "I Have a Dream" speech?

The Great Glass Buffalo

I've already had occasion to criticize the ravings of Ted Nugent on this blog. And now, courtesy of Dyspeptic Mutterings, I find it must be done again. Herewith Mr. Nugent's latest, this time on the nature of my religion:

Anybody who makes a donation or congtribution to the catholic church is completely out of their minds. This dishonest, deceitful institution holds more wealth, well into the trillions of dollars in gold, silver, diamonds, art, real estate, mansions, castles, blingbling infested cathedrals & other unlimited wealth, yet they hav the audacity to pass the basket on sunday to pressure a farmer, a cop, a welder, a mechanic, a teacher to make a donation to their vulgar corrupt holdings. Logic & decency would dictate that it should be the other way around, that instead of the BILLIONS (documented) the church spends of attornys fees & settlements for their souless, demonic beast priests who hav preyed upon young children in the most evil & criminal manner, it should be the church sending aid to the needy. but the priests need thier chefs, butlers, maids, gardners, servants, mansions, caddilacs and obscene bank accounts more. Check it out. No one can deny one word here. Its insane. I suspect most churches are guilty of the same. so very sad.

I think it's worth noting that Mr. Nugent is, shall we say, sitting in a glass hunting stand. Full details can be found in the following story published in the February 24, 2004 edition of E! Online. The story's in black. Mr. Nugent's sauce for the gander is in blue.

*********

That dang sweet poontang has gotten Ted Nugent in trouble. . . . Nugent has reportedly confessed to fathering a child out of wedlock with a Dover, New Hampshire, woman who is suing the '70s rocker for child support and custody. . . . According to the local Foster's Daily Democrat newspaper, the plaintiff, 43-year-old Karen Gutowski, filed suit against the 55-year-old Nugent last August, claiming he has provided little in the way of financial aid for their unidentified 8-year-old child despite making millions from album sales, touring and other revenue streams.

My, would that be in any way similar to this case? "A French bishop has ordered a priest to admit to fathering three children after his affair became public." Well, no it isn't, if Gutowski is to be believed: The priest was already paying regular support.

Gutowski's attorney, Jeffrey Runge, told the newspaper that the musician, radio and TV host and noted outdoor enthusiast has acknowledged paternity of the young boy, but has never met the tyke and refused to provide proper financial support.

Well, if true, that would raise some issues about Mr. Nugent's moral superiority to this priest, who did not support his illegitimate child. But as Mr. Nugent pretends the moral authority to damn the 2,000 year old Church, it must be false.

"Given the fact he's worth millions and millions of dollars, he's paying the amount someone making about $20,000 per year would pay," Runge told the Daily Democrat in September. "I don't know what his assets are so I don't know the amount. She only wants what she's legally entitled to on behalf of the child."

In that case, it would seem that, er, how should I say it? "Logic & decency would dictate that it should be the other way around, that instead of the MILLIONS (documented) Mr. Nugent spends on attornys fees, hummers, guns, ranches, hunting parties, vacations, clothes, etc., it should be Mr. Nugent sending aid to his own child." Yes, I think that would about sum it up. In fact, later reportsshow that Ms. Gutowski's lawsuit obliged Mr. Nugent to cough up hefty child support -- to the tune of $3,500.00 per month. I wonder if that proves there's a lot of "obscene lucre" in Mr. Nugent's accounts?

But Nugent, who has two sons and two daughters with wife Shermane Nugent, isn't going to open his wallet without a fight.

This just goes to prove that Mr. Nugent's not like bishops who stonewalled true accusations of sexual misconduct -- his lawyers are just trying to make sure that his legal rights are protected. And we'll not see any of the tactics used by the Catholic Church, either . . . .

Nugent filed his own petition on Jan. 6 asking a family court "to make appropriate orders concerning the legal custody of the minor child and appropriate custodial and visitation rights" on his behalf.

No doubt this was the furthest thing from Mr. Nugent's mind, but I've worked a lot of paternity cases where angry fathers threaten to "get custody" if the woman fights for child support. I've always told the ladies, "If he was at all interested in getting custody, he would have at least visited by now, right?" . . . .

Runge has called Nugent's motivations "suspicious," especially since the Motor City Madman never met the child, who was born in April 1995 following his brief fling with Gutowski.

Shame on you, Mr. Runge, for even suggesting such a thing. When Mr. Nugent's lawyers requested that the court determine "appropriate custody" of the boy, they were obviously saying there was no need for the court to make a custody determination. As to the rest, only a cad would father an out-of-wedlock child and not spend any time with him, such as Fr. Arturo Uribe "who had never seen the child he fathered in 1993 while working with the Redemptorists as a pastoral assistant at a Portland, Ore., parish."

In a Jan. 13 petition, Runge said that Nugent is "refusing to comply" with attempts by his client to examine his personal fortune and has since "embarked upon a campaign to contact [Gutowski] in writing and via the telephone in a blatant attempt to intimidate her into withdrawing her interrogatories."

This must be a mistake. Only the Church uses intimidation against mothers of children fathered by priests: "It is awful dealing with them," she says. "They intimidate you to the nth degree, make you feel like you're the bad person."

Runge also said Nugent's attorneys are trying to hide the rocker's real net worth. . . . "Indeed Nugent is a famous musician and self-promoter that appears to have income and [assets] from a considerable number of sources," the lawyer wrote. . . . In court papers, Runge names 25 sources of income for Nugent. Aside from album sales and touring, Nugent has released a videogame, sells his own brand of beef jerky and has written books with titles like God, Guns & Rock 'n' Roll.

. . . Stephen Tinkler, the Albuquerque lawyer who represented many of the victims, recalls that Church officials "cried ‘poor boy'" to convince him and his colleagues to lower their settlement demands. To prove its point, the Santa Fe archdiocese disclosed its books — only to expose assets of more than $100 million in real estate. "When we called them on this," Tinkler remembers, "their response was, ‘We don't own all that real estate; the parishes do,'" even though the property titles were filed under the archdiocese's name. . . .

The Michigan native has also hosted his own radio and television shows, most recently headlining VH1's new reality series Surviving Nugent: The Ten Commandments, in which contestants vie for a $100,000 jackpot in a series of outdoor challenges (like getting shot at with paintballs, building an outhouse and skinning a boar) on Nugent's ranch near Waco, Texas.

And speaking of the Commandments: "Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Mt 5:28). The ninth commandment warns against lust or carnal concupiscence. The struggle against carnal lust involves purifying the heart and practicing temperance. Purity of heart will enable us to see God: it enables us even now to see things according to God. Purification of the heart demands prayer, the practice of chastity, purity of intention and of vision. Purity of heart requires the modesty which is patience, decency, and discretion. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person." -- Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2528-33

It can be a hard commandment to keep, whether you're a rock star or a priest: "[S]ome voters would find [Nugent's] serial out-of-wedlock parenthood (published accounts list two from before his first marriage; last year, he admitted paternity of a 9-year-old boy born during his second [marriage]) off-putting.

I don't know why they would. It's not as though Mr. Nugent is a teenaged crack addict: "We're supposed to feel sorry for these people? I'd like to (expletive) spray 'em with bullets, goat-urine soaked bullets." It's not as though he's a bad guy: I want the bad guys dead. No court case. No parole. No early release. I want 'em dead." It's not as though he's a crack baby who might benefit from national health care: The government must stay out of my life. If there are weenies who are in the liability column of our nation, tough (expletive)." Mr. Nugent isn't one of them, you know . . . those people . . . the ones who have moral problems.

Meanwhile, as Nugent's paternity case winds its way through the course, he does have one thing in his favor: According to his Website, Nugent was recently named Father of the Year at his children's school.

Well, that's all right. What really gets me, however, are those priests who pretended to be good fathers while having children on the side, children they never saw and seldom supported, er . . . um . . . . WANGO TANGO BABY!!!!"

*********

Mr. Nugent's somewhat cockeyed moral outrage aside, his ignorance of Catholic Church finances and aid to the needy aside, and just about every nitwitted word he wrote aside, he still manages to raise a point worth remembering. God is hard to live with. As Mr. Nugent fails in charity, decency, and chastity, so do I. So do many of us. Some of us are rock stars. Some of us are anonymous nobodys. And some of us are priests and bishops in the Roman Catholic Church. We all find God hard to live with. He doesn't like what we like. He doesn't want us doing what we do. We'd so much like to love Him, if only He'd stop making all these unreasonable demands and doing all these unreasonable things, like giving everyone the right to go to Hell in his own way even if it means that children get hurt. Sometimes it's a lot more comprehensible to rule the whole concept of Catholicism, as Mr. Nugent has done, as Call to Action does, as some self-styled Traditionalists do, out of bounds.

The fact is that we're all, in our own ways, what Mr. Nugent says Catholicism is. We're dishonest, deceitful people who spend far more time haranguing others than upbraiding ourselves. We hold more wealth, more undeserved favor, than we're conceivably entitled to and yet have the gall to bitch and gripe about how lousy God has let our lives become. Logic and decency would dictate that, instead of spending our time and money on the fleeting pleasures of this life, we spend our lives for others recklessly in the outpouring witness of God's love. But we don't. We hoard our small pleasures, our secrets, against God's judgments in the hope that He won't notice. That creates a lot of pressure, and sometimes it comes out in screaming -- as Adam screamed about Eve, as the Pharisee screamed about the Tax Collector, as I scream -- against the evil other people do, as though purity were established by comparison.

It's not.

And the Great Glass Buffalo ought to know that.

A(nother) Hypothetical Situation . . . .

. . . is here proposed with respect to the present discussion concerning the conformity (or lack thereof) between the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and just-war rules by way of the principle of double effect:

Blefuscu is at war with Lilliput. The Lilliputians are an island people who require imported shipments of Fertilizer X to grow food and feed themselves. They have arranged to acquire their entire year's supply of Fertilizer X by means of one shipment but, perhaps foolishly, also load the ship with dissassembled fighter planes. No other shipments of Fertilizer X can be arranged in this year.

Losing the fighter planes would be a significant reversal, but not a war-ending event, for the Lilliputians, who have other aircraft. The destruction of the Fertilizer X, however, would result in millions of civilian deaths by starvation. The fighters' presence arguably makes the ship a military target whose destruction would also have consequences for the civilian population of Lilliput. On the other hand, it's clear that the war-winning effect of an attack would come from the starvation of Lilliputians, who would have no choice but to surrender or die.

The Blefuscutian admiralty knows all this. May it order Blefuscu's submarine fleet to track the Lilliputian ship and sink it without violating Catholic moral principles?

Katrina Mutterings

The blame-it-on-whitey drivel I've been hearing all week from various celebrities has found its representative echo in the ravings of a minor singer named Kanye West. Mr. West, asked to serve as one of the guest flunkies on one of those we-celebrate-our-selves telethons, took the opportunity to excoriate George Bush's racism:

"so now I'm calling my business manager right now to see what is the biggest amount I can give, and just to imagine if I was down there, and those are my people down there . . . George Bush doesn't care about black people!"

Sure. And imagine if George Bush went on television and said he was going to call his business manager to see how much hurricane relief he could afford without unbalancing his portfolio. Would that have helped Mr. West? Or would he remain mired in an oozing mass of double standards?

A more humorous note is struck by Sean Penn's three-hour tour. Trying to bring aid and succour to those abandoned by the Amerikan Diktatorship, Penn set sail for New Orleans in his own boat, which began leaking almost immediately, forcing him to abandon the attempt. The boat, of course, was "loaded with members of Penn's entourage, including a personal photographer." I wonder if Mr. Penn would re-evaluate his opinion of the President if George had left his personal photographer behind when he went to survey the damage in Louisiana. Would that have helped, Mr. Penn? Or would he too remain mired in an oozing mass of double standards?

Enter Condoleeza Rice, who recently said "I don't believe for a minute anybody allowed people to suffer because they are African-Americans." It's the kind of true-but-beside-the-point comment that fits a public world peopled by Kaye Wests, Sean Penns, and George Bushes. People in New Orleans weren't allowed to suffer because of their race. They were allowed to suffer because government is generally stupid, usually lazy, and almost always run by incompetents.

For proof I'd only point out that stupidity, laziness, and incompetence are absolutely required before one can take on, as Director of the Federal Emergency Management Administration, a former commissioner of judges and stewards of the International Arabian Horse Association. And not only that, but an asked-to-resign commissioner of judges and stewards of the International Arabian Horse Association. Only government can put that kind of cherry on top, and so we eagerly await the arrival of FEMA's first shipments of hay, distemper medicine, and Hidalgo DVDs to the victims of Katrina.

Hence Kanye West, Sean Penn, and their lunatic ravings. Hence Condoleeza Rice's true-and-irrelevant response. It's more comforting to believe that racism is the cause of this disaster. Racism is familiar, and people with small minds think it can be cured by purging the bad guys. Ascribing the catastrophe to its true cause -- the normal character of government -- is simply too frightening to contemplate, especially when one's entire strategy for social progress is to rely on the government, or if one's entire electoral stragety is to rely on true-and-irrelevant answers to lunatic ravings.

"When the buffalo fight, the grass is trampled." I'm told it's a Vietnamese proverb. If it is, perhaps the Vietnamese citizens of New Orleans and the Gulf -- who are pretty well familiar with the effects produced by American music stars, movie stars, and Washington politicians -- can explain all this to their neighbors. Mr. West's drivel is not fitting. The Bush Administration's attempts to blame the government of Louisiana and New Orleans are not fitting. The attempts by New Orleans civic officials to blame the Bush Administration are not fitting. Although I hate parental analogies for government, I'm forced to draw one here -- all those nabobs are acting like a divorced couple who'd rather argue about custody rights in the ER room than sign the damn form authorizing the child's operation. To them, it seems, The Game is all that matters now, then, and forever.

Recent Doings

As readers of the effervescent Catholic and Enjoying It know, Mark Shea has finished writing a book on the Blessed Virgin. That's why he's been so scarce in the blogosphere this past year or so. It's also why I've been so scarce in the blogosphere for the last four months or so; I was helping out as a no-doubt-minor member of Mark's "trusty team of editors."

This is by far the most ambitious authorial project Mark's undertaken. The book has fourteen chapters which discuss and explain the Church's teaching and devotion to our Lady to wary Evangelicals and misguided Catholics alike. Without vanity I can say that "I know this stuff" about as well as an educated layman can possibly know it. Mark's book was still an eye-opener to me, and it will be to lots of other Catholics and to Evangelicals who've been snookered by the counter-Catholic polemics of their religious culture.

The book presents clear, concise, and highly-readable explanations of virtually all Marian things ranging from the earliest stirrings of Marian devotion to the proclamation of the Assumption in 1950. Relatively minor matters, such as our Lady's appearance at Knock, which are not covered in exhaustive detail are still generally discussed and placed in their proper theological, historical, and cultural context. As a kind of "intermediate-level primer" on Mariology, the book should be found in the library of any Catholic. But that isn't the book's most salutary aspect, in my opinion.

The most salutary aspect comes from Mark's broad experience as a pagan, then an Evangelical Christian, and his wide reading and deep appreciation of the progressive godlessness of Western civilization. In addition to explaining what Catholics believe about Mary, Mark has managed a brilliant portrait of why Mary matters. Catholics accustomed to thinking of Marian devotion in "honor thy mother" terms, as a "merely" fitting complement to the Incarnation without natural value or practical influence in our lives, will be astonished to read how Mary has served the Church of her Son as a weapon against heresy, despair, and their inevitable culmination in the culture of death.

English-speaking Catholics who are seriously interested in pursuing Marian reading have two choices. One is to purchase Carrol's massive three-volume work, Mariology, read and study it, then spend a couple of years or so "updating" their knowledge in light of John Paul II's pontificate. The other is to acquire Mark's book which, in a broad and sufficient way, gives you every salient benefit of Carrol's work and the enhanced appreciation of Mary which has come about through John Paul's papacy. The readability of Mark's work, and its division into Chapters which can be read separately, highly recommends it. When it's published, everyone I know who is interested in Catholicism is going to get a copy.

Mark's book is, as modern Catholic apologetics go, a long book. There's a reason for that. I've said before that while Mary isn't the sum and substance of the Catholic faith, she is a rubric for all of it. There simply is no way to write a book of this high value about Mary and not discuss just about everything else Catholicism is, has been, or may become. That Mark has managed the task in a single book is a prodigy of elegance. I think this work may well be a major part of Catholicism's apologetics for decades to come.

More Drudgery

Random thoughts and knee-jerks on the recent headlines from the Drudge Report.

When the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did this, it was an affront to everything decent in American politics. I guess the moral authority of a grieving mother with PAC affiliations and a PR-firm really is absolute.

Can anyone imagine a more frivolous life than this one?

It's really a very simple state of affairs. They've got their own faith, with its own calvary, its own saints, and its own Ascencion and we have ours.

The process of Iraqization gains momentum. "Quick, let's un-ass Iraq in a dignified way before anybody notices we wrecked the country and then ran like teenaged vandals!" Senator Hagel made his own Tonkin-Gulf vote giving Junior that blank check to de-build and re-build Iraq, and now it looks like he's gearing himself up to deny appropriations for the Iraqi army just as soon as the Holy Jihad of Allah (or whatever the hell it's going to be called) reaches Baghdad. Ah well, who better than he to teach us the lessons of Vietnam all over again.

Israel continues to make only token gestures towards peace to the Middle East. But a dire fate willed by Allah awaits them -- rumor has it that Senator Hagel is planning a major speech pledging to bear any burden, pay any price, to support Israel's democracy!

How Stupid Is SBC / Yahoo?

When you lose your password and username for your email account, and so are unable to receive emails, SBC has a nifty service that will retrieve both of them. Just put in your password, and they email you your username! Once you put in your username, they email you your password! So, if you can give SBC a piece of information you don't know, SBC will send you the other piece of information you don't know -- so long as you don't have a problem to begin with.

In Case Anyone Is Trying to Email Me

My computer has lost the email passwords. I can't send or retreive email. My ISP will not re-set my passwords until I give it the super-secret customer code printed on the bill. Of course, we throw the bills out after we pay them, so it may well be another month before my email is reconnected. If you need to get in touch with me, leave a message at St. Blog's Parish Hall. That's about the best I can do for now.

A Neo-Cath by Any Other Name . . . .

What does ‘Neo-Catholic' Mean?

The term is pejorative. It is intended to describe a shallow faith that does not participate in or appreciate the Church's history, traditions, and spiritual life. In its religious sense, the term refers to Catholics whose religion is made up almost entirely of rote and unreflective memorization of the Catechism and an unquestioning enthusiasm for the papacy of John Paul II. In its political sense, it describes an orientation that employs Catholicism as a blanket authorization for any Republican policy rather than as a guiding set of political principles which exist above party affiliation. Overall, "Neos" are said to be insufficiently Catholic because their essential religious orientation comes from what are perceived to be the worst aspects of Evangelical Protestantism -- personal affection for individual leaders vs. true obedience to the visible Church; a narrow, Fundamentalist, sola scriptura-style understanding of Church teaching; a confusion that makes the United States government equal or superior to the hierarchy of Christ's Church, and which thinks of the American people as being identical to Biblical Israel; and, a pharisaical life-style that redefines the practice of Christianity as obedience to middle-class priorities and conventions.

Traditionalist Catholics apply the label because they are irritated at the inability of many "neo-Catholics" to appreciate what are claimed as serious errors of the post-Vatican II Church in the area of morals, culture, and Church discipline. "Neo-Catholics" are supposedly unable to take a broader view that understands Catholicity as the task of ensuring that no significant changes occur to the doctrine, practice, and teachings of Catholicism as they existed when Christ gave them to the Apostles in 1940. They claim that "Neo-Caths" accept the modern errors and mistakes because they don't know any better, having been "brainwashed" by an effective campaign of propaganda under John Paul II's reign that was dedicated to hiding these errors and punishing anyone who pointed them out. A "Neo-Cath," for example, is said to accept the Novus Ordo primarily because he thinks the Mass is what Evangelical Protestants say about the Eucharist -- a communal meal, with symbolic significance, but without the miracle of transubstantiation.

Liberal Catholics apply the label for the same reason, except the "serious error" they identify in the post-Vatican II era is the failure to rewrite the Church's moral teachings on sexuality and family. "Neo-Catholics" are supposedly unable to take a broader view that understands Catholicity as an evolutionary process by which the Church jettisons inauthentic cultural holdovers and embraces a brighter, more loving vision in which married women priests using contraception perform homosexual marriages. "Neo-Caths" have also been brainwashed, in this view, by an effective campaign of propaganda under John Paul II's reign that was dedicated to binding Catholic allegiance to the structures of power and oppression which existed before the Council. A "Neo-Cath," for example, is said to accept the Church's prohibition of women priests primarily because -- like any Evangelical Protestant who follows his beloved pastor from motives of personal affection rather than Christian obedience -- he thinks the priesthood is whatever John Paul II said it was.

As usually happens, Left and Right are better at mirroring than fighting each other. The essence of Traditionalist and Liberal dislike of Neo-Catholicism is that Neo-Catholics try very hard to believe what's in the Catechism and to follow the pope. Ask any Traditionalist or Liberal Catholic about the sins of the Neos and you'll find that the Neos are pretty much doing what the Traditionalists and Liberals are doing themselves. If a Neo-Catholic sins by giving George Bush's presidency greater moral authority than the Popes regarding, say, the invasion of Iraq, well, he's certainly not doing anything more than a Traditionalist who gives the Dead Hand of Marcel Lefebvre the same superiority when it comes to the form of the Mass. If a Neo-Cath sins by reading the Catechism's excoriations of homosexuality as a license to use words like "fag," "queen" and "pervert" to sum up his brother's life, that Neo-Cath is certainly no worse than people who think a papal press conference has given them the authority to use "baby-killer" and "murderer" to describe Catholics who serve in the Marine Corps.

Traditionalists and Liberals pretty much agree that Neo-Caths have failed, in some significant way, to conform their appreciation of life to the whole of Catholic teaching. As Robert Bolt might have had St. Thomas More say, "I thank God that only a third of the Church has gone off the rails."

If the Leftist Fascists Keep This Up . . .

. . . . I might just support Roberts' nomination. Turns out the New York Times -- ever ready to demand that we keep the government out of our bedrooms -- has been caught trying to pry open the adoption records of Judge Roberts' children. Sounding like Sandy Berger with a wedgie, the Times' editor claims everything was on the up-and-up: "Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions... They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue."

Yeah, sure. Just like they would have published, with great care, the home-study report prepared for each adoption. I've been through this process, folks, and it involves a social worker coming to your house on several occasions and questioning you on some of the more intimate details of your life.

Like your religious beliefs.

Or why you don't have any children.

Or whether you had a drinking problem.

All of that would be good for a few yuks at the Times' editorial meetings, which would focus (after the laughter died down) in trying to spin Roberts either as a Torquemadan Psycopath or a hypocrite and moral degenerate.

And let's not forget the money.

Of course our society doesn't sell children. It just happens, completely by chance, that adoptive parents are going to pay between $30,000.00 and $150,000.00 to all sorts of agencies, homes, social workers (they get the least, and in fact a fair wage) before baby sleeps his first night in the nursery. (And yes, they pay to lawyers to. Unless they hire me. I don't charge for uncontested adoptions). If you get any adoption done for less than $20,000.00, then you've been on the receiving end of a minor miracle.

Now the Times wouldn't be so crude as to suggest that the Roberts "shopped" for children, spending more or less money depending on ethnicity, age, etc. No, the Times wouldn't be so crude. That's Molly Ivins' job.

The Times would have mused about latent racism in the adoption world, and wondered aloud about the "economics" of adoptions -- all in such a way as to portray the Roberts as adoptive counterparts to Cruella DeVille. It would have wanted to know where the money came from. Did Roberts get a loan, a loan from someone who can be third-hand connected to a fourth-hand acquaintance of a member of a "right-wing hate group" like the Federalist Society or the Republican Party? Wouldn't that make Roberts not only slave to the Pope, but to right-wing special interests as well?

I don't know anything about the Roberts' adoptions, except that people who adopt children are as brave and caring as any parent. We go through things most people don't have to think about for an instant. Why them and not us? Is this God's judgment? Why sure I'll bare my soul to a social worker so that she and some other people can decide if I and my wife are "fit" to raise a child in a society that ash-cans 1.5 million of them like used Chicklets every year. Thirty grand up front, no payment plans? No problem. That's why we bought the house, after all.

The editors and reporters at the Times who thought up this stunt are greasy, weevily little sleaze-balls. Sensitivity and care? Sure, like mosquitos and ticks. It would be interesting to know if conspiring to violate a court seal is a prosecutable offense. Maybe the human ticks who thought up this stunt could, with care and sensitivity, call up some more lawyers and ask about that.

Still Looking for the Wargame

I'm still looking for good wargame rules. Here are some notes I've taken:

"Fast-playing, realistic rules," means "Stephen Hawking can calculate all the variables required for each turn's two-hundred and nineteen steps."

"Ease of play" means "the level of attention required runs the gamut from "air traffic controller" to "plotting mission trajectories for NASA."

"Beer and pretzels" means that "you're going to home-brew each beer served, hand-make each beer stein in your own kiln, and farm, harvest, and mill the wheat you'll use to individually bake each freaking pretzel."

"Can be played in an afternoon" means that the game originated on a planet with a ninety-six hour rotation.

Signs of a ridiculous wargame:

-- There are rules for wind effects on bullet trajectories.

-- An event card says, "Your quartermaster has run out of shoelaces."

-- It makes a difference if your soldiers are "charging," "advancing," "moving," or "torpid."

-- People are arguing about whether the game is "historically accurate."

-- The phrase "1d12" appears on the same page as "1d20," "3d6" and "2d85"

-- The word "fanatic" is associated with the game at any time in any place.

-- You have to know which units are carrying what kind of radios.

-- You roll a die to determine your' country's production of "light crude."

-- You put one marker on a tank to indicate if it's top hatch is open, another marker to show whether the driver's hatch is open . . . . .

-- If you'd had all these templates and measuring sticks 3,500 years ago, Pharaoh would have made you his chief builder.

-- The rule book is over 75 pages long and still has appendices.