Metal in my veins

First off, sorry for the blog break. I was in New Haven seeing some old friends, both some of my fellow bloggers listed to the right as well as some analog commentators. The weekend was more stressful than it should have been, for various reasons.

Second, I saw Motorhead, Dio, and Iron Maiden last night at Madison Square Garden. Not as great as the Metallica show, but still awesome. I'll write about that, as well as finish my earlier posts, later. I'm still decompressing, working up the energy to dedicate all of August to LSAT studying.

The wrong lesson learned

By now we've all heard about the shooting at City Hall yesterday.

People are drawing the wrong conclusions, of course.

It turns my stomach to hear how Councilmen and others in City Hall at the time of the shooting, as they themselves relate in interview after interview, dove under desks and cowered under chairs as the gunman fired away.

Imagine if even one or two Councilmen had been carrying guns on them and had opened fire on the shooter. Imagine if such a line of defense were allowed all over the country.

Now imagine the horror of being utterly helpless as a lone lunatic fires at a defenseless crowd, who should be so lucky as to have an armed policeman in their midst.

A single man with a simple handgun was able to throw dozens and dozens of people into a panic. Why? Why do we react to these sorts of wake-up calls by clutching ever-tighter to our mothers skirts? Why doesn't anyone have the strength of character to stand up and say "I'm a law-abiding citizen and I shouldn't have to live a life based on fear and chance: the fear of being attacked by a madman, the chance of having an armed police officer their in time to save me."

All citizens should be able to own and carry firearms, for the protection of themselves and of their fellow citizens. If you think otherwise, you believe that the rotten people outnumber the good guys. If people were allowed to carry guns into City Hall, do you think that other maniacs would have joined in on the rampage? If so, then you have better reevaluate your views on democracy and majority rule.

Or, do you think that the dozens of decent people in the room would have fought back?

Or, do you think that it would be much less likely for a man to be so bold as to enter a crowded room and open fire if citizens carried guns (Do you think this guy would have ever walked into a saloon in the old west and opened fire? He would be shot before he could finish reaching for his gun.)?

First off, it's pathetic that we've allowed ourselves to be reduced to antelope who will by the hundreds if one lion advances.

Second, the proper use of guns is home-grown skill, something fathers teach their boys and girls (imagine a father caring enough to wake up at 4 in the morning to take his kids on a hunting trip, or one who takes the time to teach his children the proper use of firearms, etc.). Our society, so eager for divorce and abortion and other anti-family ills, would be well served to adopt that sort of "gun culture."

And now for something Biblical, and Straussian...

"Master of Puppets" reminds me, as the title of this post makes obvious, two things: Leo Strauss's take on tragedy and my favorite Biblical parable, that of the Prodigal Son.

I'll just lay this out for now. When I finish my work I'll return to this subject.

Time to talk metal

Vicious, as I noted in an earlier post, is busy discussing the merits of metal with Schmesse, an acquaintance of his apparently. Simply put, the former is right on and the latter is right off his rocker.

Let's start with "taste." The most obvious place to begin is food. Yes, different people enjoy different types of food. However, you'd be daft if you enjoyed poison, or something actively harmful to you.

Beauty is similar. Though gentlemen can prefer blondes, for instance, a beautiful woman is a beautiful woman. To go back to music, one need not have the requisite "taste" that would draw one to metal. However, that should not stop you from acknowledging its beauty.

A friend of mine is a good example: he isn't drawn to classical music (doesn't have the "taste" for it, in other words), yet he knows that it's a wonderful art form that he should learn to enjoy; whether he actually makes the effort is another story altogether.

This is supposed to be one of the pillars of education and, more generally, discipline. We can learn to appreciate what we may not at the moment.

Schmesse also incorrectly believes that universal beauty is not present in art. This is to separate art from any deeper meaning (the entertainment theory of art), which is dead wrong. A picture is worth a thousand words. Art and aesthetics reflect ideas and appeal to the individual through a different avenue than reason does. Art is higher, in fact, because it can relate the mysteries that reason fumbles with.

Having briefly laid this out, I want to turn to "Master of Puppets," an album and song that came up in the conversation. Though I'll focus mainly on the song in order to be brief, I do want to make one point about the album:

It has what is probably the best opening to an album I have ever heard. A lone guitar, in the classical Spanish style, strums out a simple riff. It's joined by another guitar, and the two play that simple, almost mournful riff, a few times. It lulls the listener into such a peaceful state, the quiet before the storm.

With a sudden and thunderous transition the electric guitars make their grand entrance. They play the same melody, with just a bit of a twist. Now, instead of being the soulful classically-inspired riff we first heard it's a soaring and powerful peal of thunder. Yet both riffs have the same unmistakable artistry and beauty to them.

Turning to the song "Master of Puppets" now:

It's a song about addiction. Though meant to be about drugs, it easily applies to sin or other forms of all-consuming temptation.

The story is told from the point of view of the drug (you can find these and other lyrics here).

End of passion play, crumbling away
I'm your source of self-destruction
Veins that pump with fear, sucking darkest clear
Leading on your deaths construction

Taste me you will see
more is all you need
you're dedicated to
how I'm killing you

It's such a haughty statement. The drug takes pride in its destructive power, glories in its ability to lead this man to his doom, like a dog on a leash. All the drug must do is tug, and his slave will follow; a simple taste will drive the man to desire more and more.

Come crawling faster
obey your Master
your life burns faster
obey your Master

Master

Master of Puppets I'm pulling your strings
twisting your mind and smashing your dreams
Blinded by me, you can't see a thing
Just call my name, `cause I'll hear you scream
Master
Master
Just call my name, `cause I'll hear you scream
Master
Master

You can just picture a proud figure standing over a wretch, crawling on hands and knees, desperate for another hit. It's pitiful. This is total surrender. The addict has lost his sight. All he can do is scream for his master, who will parade him around.

Needlework the way, never you betray
life of death becoming clearer
Pain monopoly, ritual misery
chop your breakfast on a mirror

This is just a taste of the man's pain, his "ritual misery." It's a depressing thought. How can anyone live this way? Despite this repulsive existence, the drug is confident in his lordship. "Never you betray."

We hear a strangled voice cry out "master, master!" over and over, gradually fading away as the music rises; the solo has begun.

The man has succumbed to the drug. The notes flow over you like a warm wave; it's just so sleepy and pleasant. As the needle enters his veins he is at peace. The tension manifest in the lyrics seems to have melted away. The fight is lost.

However, there's a limit. The notes keep struggling to get higher, but something keeps pulling them back down. Something grounds this pleasant feeling of freedom.

The struggle ends, the guitar makes way for the drums, now loud and angry; the guitar beings to churn out a pounding, repeating sound.

Though it seemed the man had fallen, he has a new energy. He shouts at the drug, full of rage:

Master, Master, Where's the dreams that I've been after?
Master, Master, You promised only lies
Laughter, Laughter, All I hear and see is laughter
Laughter, Laughter, laughing at my cries

Face me!

The guitar is frenzied at this point. You can literally hear the war going on in the man's soul. The melody moves up and down the scale, from the high to the low and then back again. It's a pitched battle, with no clear winner.

Things eventually settle, and the main riff begins again.

Hell is worth all that, natural habitat
just a rhyme without a reason
Neverending maze, drift on numbered days
now your life is out of season

I will occupy, I will help you die
I will run to you, now I rule you too

Most of this is sung from the point of view of the drug again. However, there's that short statement, "I will run to you," which seems to come from the man. His will is broken.

For a brief moment, the guitar plays a confused, wandering riff. It stops as a chuckle, which grows into a menacing chorus of laughs, takes over. The music dies, and all we're left with is that laugh, so full of pride. The man has lost.

(The Old Oligarch, a while back, wrote about a song Metallica covered; find his exegesis here)

Socialist Denmark is not the utopia it's painted to be, despite being among the most egalitarian nations on the planet.

On my way to grab a quick bite to eat, the rains came forth; I'm still a bit soaked, and I'm sure the air conditioning in the office won't be helping much.

Still, it's the best sort of rain. It's the soft and warm rain of summer, where the sky is still bright and rain falls rather peaceful, punctuated every now and again by a blinding lightning strike.

It's this sort of weather that makes summer tolerable. I can't stand heat in the 80s or above, humidity or no humidity. The sun beats down and burns the flesh and eyes, an all-around uncomfortable experience. Summer rain, though, is excellent weather for sitting outside or even walking if you like. It's mild. The sky is just the right color of gray, which can be much more stunning than the bluest sky. It's settling.

Speaking of lunch though, someone really needs to open up a chain of restaurants where one can buy a decent burger. I hate having to go to disgusting fast food restaurants that advertise burgers cooked over an open fire only to be served greasy slop. Anyone who's tasted a hamburger cooked in the backyard on a smoky grill knows the simple joy of that simple food. I'd open up a chain like that if I had the money.

Vicious has an interesting argument going on over at his blog on the virtues of heavy metal.

I may add my two cents later.

You've hear about the hooplah surrounding Kobe Bryant by now, I'd wager.

I knew from the first he had slept with the accuser (there are way to many NBA players with illegitimate kids in every city). But did he force himself on her?

I highly doubt it. He's so rich and so famous that he can walk into the middle of any mall in America, point at a girl, and have his way. Women like celebrity, and Bryant's got plenty of it.

I figure one of two things happened. Either this girl made a mistake and feels horrible about it (she was overwhelmed at being the same room as a superstar, or the psychological evidence brought up against her is true and she was a bit imbalanced) or she's a vicious gold-digger doing this for the money. This sort of this does, unfortunately, happen way too often. Women can easily use their siren-like powers to lure a man into bed and then take advantage of the situation (case in point: a friend has told me about how women will frequent bars where military men hang out, sleep with the guy and get pregnant, and then get pressure the guy into marriage; the idea is that military men are stable and relatively affluent, and thus a good catch).

Of course, I can't say for sure. But the odds are that Bryant's innocent.

He's no angel, but I doubt he's a rapist.

If it turns out that I'm wrong, though, my opinion of the guy will plummet. To not only cheat on his beautiful wife, but to do so by forcing a teenager, is absolutely vile.

In the meantime, check out Maggie Gallagher's new blog, on the marriage debate, which is now up and running.

Pardon the lack of posts lately. I need to respond to some mail and write some other thoughts out, but I feel too spent to do so at the moment.

Some support for the ideas Truman expressed in his diary.

Saffire "has no sense of proportion." Some research I've heard about indicates he's wrong on the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust (it looks like the total number murders was 6 million, which would put the Jews at 3-4 million). More importantly, he asserts that the Jews endured "genocide beyond all other groups' suffering." Russian communists killed way more Christians, just for starters. And why not read about the horrors in Ukraine, where Stalin's forced famine led to people eating horse manure and their own children out of desperation.

The Jews have gone through a lot, some of the worst, there's no doubt about it. But they should stop trying to claim the monopoly on suffering and calamity.

The slip-slide to Sodom continues.

I didn't know that Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg actually advocated reducing the age of sexual consent to 12; yet another reason to dislike her. I also wasn't aware of this push to legitimize pedophilia, but sadly it doesn't surprise me.

(via Marcus)

Queering the schools. Stories like this sicken me. Why can't people see this is akin to the sort of brainwashing and propaganda that neo-Nazi groups use to infect the minds of young people?

Also, a study shows gays have very brief unions. Of those that do have relationships that last more than 5 years, 95% had an agreement that allowed both partners to sleep around.

And people want this sort of behavior to bear the title of marriage?

Gays don't want marriage. They want friends with benefits.

(both via Catholic and Enjoying It).

A very nice essay in defense of marriage by (who else?) Maggie Gallagher, discussing the link between the family, liberty, and civilization itself.

I really should read at least one of her books; you should too.

Back to ye olde mail pouch.

Chickpea Eater writes about a chain of posts (see here and here):

There's nothing wrong with willing to avoid conceiving children, assuming that you do so for good reasons. The problem with non-NFP means of avoiding pregnancy is not that they seek to avoid pregnancy, but rather it is the _way_in_which_ they seek to avoid pregnancy. It's a justified end, but an improper means.

Chesterton's analogy (which you may have heard) is this - the Romans feasted, and to avoid gaining too much weight and becoming full, they vomited up their feasts. They had a legitimate goal (avoiding weight gain, not being stuffed), but they went about it in an improper way. They refused to accept the natural consequences of feasting (recieving nutrients, getting full), by the means of vommitting.

The same may be true with birth control. There is nothing wrong with seeking to limit family size, but it must be done in a way that respects the integrity of the sexual act. (In fact, the inverse is also true - there is nothing wrong with wanting to concieve, but you must respect the sexual act, so you can't make your baby in a testube, it must be done through natural sexual intercourse).

...With NFP, a man can't just grab his wife anytime he wants to and screw her, he sometimes has to be like, "Oh, she's fertile today, so we can't have sex now unless we're willing to take the chance of conceiving a child." It naturally builds self-control, which condoms do not. Granted, it is _possible_ to have self-control and use condoms, but self-control is basically required by NFP.

With condoms, you're using a piece of rubber. With NFP, you're using self control.

I disagree that non-NFP contraception is generally aimed at the right end, just incorrectly. Unfortunately, I think people take the acceptable end of trying to limit the amount of children they have and pervert it. Instead of limiting the amount of children they have because of serious financial issues or other legitimate problems (while still being open to and full of joy for pregnancy) they do so because they just don't want children, which they see as getting in the way of their fun (the "I don't want kids, these are the best years of my life" mentality). It is such misuse that "violates the integrity of the natural act," as you wrote.

This is what I referred to earlier as the failed contraceptive mentality. I think you can agree with this, as you write it's possible to use non-NFP contraceptive methods well, while acknowledging NFP is much more conducive to the necessary self-control couples should exercise.

Practically speaking, though, our culture doesn't encourage a healthy mindset towards contraception, which makes proper non-NFP contraceptive use all the more difficult.

We can ask whether that error can be corrected. Perhaps the symbolism and aesthetics of non-NFP contraception is such that the contraceptive mentality can't help but sink in. (I don't know how people dealt with the issue when contraception was culturally and legally limited to married couples, for instance; perhaps such a culture encouraged a better attitude.)

In response, I would say that it is possible for married couples to use contraception well nowadays. I think a Catholic might disagree, though he should disagree only for practical reasons, as I think we do.

Practicality is really the only difference between the Catholic and Orthodox understandings, in this and other issues. Both are opposed to ignoring the procreative aspect of sex; many Orthodox simply feel that married couples (of course the Orthodox are opposed to unwed couples using contraception, or even having sex in the first place) can use contraception well if they keep up a solid relationship with their spiritual fathers (the priest you regularly confess and talk to), something all Orthodox should do anyway.

I'm the fourth hit for the Yahoo search for "kristianna Loken nude."

I'm also nineteenth for the Yahoo search for "conquered gay."

Settle down Beavis, I've none of the first.

As for the second, I've plenty of posts on the subject, but the day of victory has not yet arrived.

The guys at the Yale Free Press have been blogging up a storm.

I saw Terminator 3 a few days ago.

It was really good. There were plenty of high-intensity (and quite destructive) action sequences, there was a good deal of amusing deadpan humor (one of my favorites: Arnold as Terminator asks a man to remove his clothes--Terminators have that habit of traveling through time in the nude--and the guy tells Arnold to "talk to the hand"; so, Arnold grabs the dude's hand, leans in, and repeats himself).

Beware, major spoilers ahead.

T3 also had a very interesting take on determinism. Rather than pose the free will - determinism questions as movies like the Matrix have, it presents a very classical model for its story line.

If you saw T2, you know that at the close of that movie John Connor and his mother thought Judgment Day was averted. All Terminator parts and chips were destroyed, as was the research facility where Skynet was in development.

That assurance didn't last, and thankfully both characters prepared for the worst. When the Terminatrix T-X (played by the lovely Kristianna Loken) appears John Connor (now portrayed by Nick Stahl) is an anonymous drifter; Sarah Connor is long deceased, though she took some helpful precautions before she died.

The T-X (out to kill Connor and his future lieutenants, such as Kate Miller, played by Claire Danes) is fought off by Arnold's character, the T-800. The T-800 breaks some very disturbing news to Connor, confused because he thought he saw Judgment Day averted in T2: Judgment Day is inevitable.

In fact, quite a few things turn out to be inevitable. Connor and Miller first met a day before the events of T2 took place, at a make-out party organized by a mutual friend. In the future, they are married. Apparently, had the events of the second movie never happened they would have furthered their relationship a lot sooner. Their union was inevitable.

Connor spend the entire movie fighting off the idea of inevitability, rejecting the notion that Judgment Day must come and that he must be a leader in the post-apocalyptic war. He is focused on destroying the mainframe to Skynet (which Miller's father has been working on, another "reason" for their inevitable connection). Skynet manages to take over the world's computer systems and is about to launch a nuclear war. Connor and Miller make it to the government facility where the mainframe is stored, to finish Skynet off once and for all, but it's just an abandoned nuclear bomb shelter. Skynet is software, housed in no one place. It's spread was inevitable, and uncontrollable.

Connor's heart sinks as the bombs fall, and he realizes he has failed. That's when a voice breaks the silence. Someone is radioing them, confused and horrified by the sudden rain of nuclear death. Connor picks up the radio microphone. The military official at the other end asks Connor to identify himself. He responds: "This is John Connor...I'm in charge."

It's a moment of incredible power. Like characters from ancient Greek tragedy (Oedipus, for example, who an oracle foretold would kill his father and marry his mother; though his parents sent him away, the prophecy came to pass regardless; the same is true of Perseus and his father), Connor was faced with an end he did not want and could not escape. He had to overcome two hurdles: to resign himself to the inevitability of fate and to steel himself so that he could accept it with honor and strength.

This story will probably have a happier conclusion than Oedipus's tale (he blinded himself to atone for the sin that was his and yet was not), since Connor's resignation to fate will lead to pick up the mantle of general and save the human race.

This is the most interesting sort of determinism or fatalism I can think of, precisely because it includes free will and is premised on tragedy. It is a philosophy that straddles a fine line, taking away just enough agency to render him impotent before the great tides of history while still giving him enough room to put up a valiant last stand.

It makes for good viewing, whether it is a play or movie.

This is just weird, and a little disturbing.

Librarians have found a long-lost diary kept by Harry Truman.

It's unfortunate that his comments could just be dismissed as anti-Semitism, a relic of once acceptable discourse. Truman made one important point.

Consider his thoughts on the Jewish response to other instances of genocide; they seem virtually non-existent. Great pains have been taken to ensure that the attempted genocide of the Jews during WWII will forever be known as the Holocaust, capital H, the one and only.

I don't mean to downplay the vicious murder of 3 to 6 million Jews, but let's not forget that Jews weren't the only ones targeted by Hitler. Also, how about the tens of millions of Christians killed in the USSR? Or the several million Greeks and Armenians killed in Turkey? Or the million Rwandans killed just a decade ago?

I think there is a degree of selfishness in campaigning for the construction of Holocaust museums all over the world while ignoring the equally unjust deaths of many tens of millions of other ethnic and religious groups.

And we shouldn't run from this issue by calling it anti-Semitism; too many questions have been dismissed under that banner.

Mean Gene on the real Margaret Sanger, over at the Yale Free Press blog; she's not the wonderful freedom-fighter Planned Parenthood wants you to think she was.

I forgot to mention one fun fact about the concert: the loudest cheers the first bands (ie, not Metallica) got was when they either mentioned that Metallica would be playing later that evening or that they were fans of Metallica.

It was positively shameless. Those miserable groups were soliciting cheers by piggybacking off of another band.

This is such crap.

How can anybody have the nerve to compare genocide to eating a steak?

None of these enviro-nuts criticizes predatory animals for their behavior. Of course not. They're animals, with no free will and nothing that we can call actual and full consciousness. But if we can't criticize animals for making ethical decisions, why criticize men for eating them?

Animals aren't moral actors and never will be. Why is it wrong to kill them? Plants are living, but it's alright to eat them because they also aren't moral actors. Sure, animals are closer to us than plants are, but that's why it's alright to eat a cow and not a chimp, for instance.

By the way, there's this line in the article about "modern societies justifying the abuse and slaughter of animals." Are you kidding me? Sorry, I think we've been enjoying steaks since before the 18th century.

Last night I had what was probably the coolest and most intense secular experience I've ever had.

I saw Metallica LIVE at Giants Stadium! (Ever see what Homer Simpson does when he spots a brownie in the distance? That's what I'm doing right now.)

They were INCREDIBLE. It was a blistering two hour set that never flagged in its intensity. The band was in top form. Their set list was wisely chosen, and they played each song flawlessly. Thousands of fans pumped their fists, nodded their heads, and sang along with each song. When the band left the stage, as if they were done for evening, deafening shouts of "we want more" echoed through the arena. Metallica, true to form, reappeared with a burst of pyrotechnics and played encore after encore.

This feigned exit happened twice. The evening finally ended with an awesome rendition of "Enter Sandman." The four bandmates then spoke about how great it felt to be back in the New York area (as Lars Ulrich, the drummer, said: "Being back in f***ing New York kicks my f***ing a**!!), flung some guitar picks into the crowd, and took their final bow.

The downside to any otherwise indescribable evening was that I had to sit through six hours of crappy music. Though the concert started at 1pm I got there at 3pm, and Metallica didn't take the stage till 9pm. It had to sit through Mudvayne, the Deftones, Linkin Park, and Limp Bizkit.

Yes, that's how those names are supposed to be spelt.

I did try as hard as I could to listen with an impartial ear and see if there was any redeeming value to their music. Let me assure you that there is none at all.

I'll stick to talking about the two biggest of these lame-wad acts, Linkin Park and Limp Bizkit.

Linkin Park's music is, quite simply, a glorification of weakness. Go ahead and read their lyrics; it's like an upset 13-year-old wrote them. Here's a sample from their biggest hits:

"Don't turn your back on me. I won't be ignored"

"Shut up when I'm talking to you."

"You love the way, I look at you
While taking pleasure in the awful things you put me through
You take away if I give in
My life, my pride, is broken"

I don't mind vulnerability in art necessarily. I think it's sad when that's an artist's overriding theme. Here's how I see it: when we watch movies, no one cheers for the sniffling whiner in the corner who scratches at the world and feels nothing but pity for himself, we like the hero instead; so why cheer music written by that whiner?

I prefer a band like Metallica, who sings an awesome song (which they performed last night) called "Seek and Destroy" (read the lyrics here). Metallica was fueled by a similar sort of frustration. Rather than beg in their songs to not be ignored, they sang a call to arms (read "The Four Horsemen").

Limp Bizkit had the worst set of the evening. Not only did they suck big time, they actually undermined really good music. They did a version of Metallica's "Sanitarium" and butchered it. It's an interesting song about a man in a mental institution and how the cure he's subject to is the problem in the first place (I think of the song along the lines of "The Unforgiven" which picks up on the theme of the socialization and subjugation of man; unfortunately, the didn't perform that one).

First, Limp Bizkit didn't play the guitar solo, a frenzied and fast-paced bit of music that exemplifies the tension in "Sanitarium" (probably because they're not good enough to even try). Second, they performed it in the their normal rap-rock style, effectively killing any subtlety; lead singer Fred Durst would alternate between a monotonous rhyming and a ridiculous shouting. Finally, when they added a bit of their own style to it, they proved how shallow their view of the song was. In the middle of the song Durst began to shout" leave me alone" over and over, a very simplistic and juvenile take on the song.

They also made a mockery of "Cemetary Gates," a wonderful song by Pantera. They used the introductory guitar riff to beging a really irritating song where Durst sang about how no one can know his pain. Give me a break. What annoying solipsistic drivel.

I should probably write more in depth about some really good Metallica songs in the future. Right now I'm way too tired after last night to do much of anything. I hope this entry didn't betray that fact.

Alright, third point:

I don't think contraception is inherently bad, and I think that Catholics implicitly admit as much in their use of Natural Family Planning (in that they can conceive of a sex act designed to avoid contraception).

What's wrong is not contraception, but rather the contraceptive mentality. It is this distinction that justifies NFP in the first place.

Even though NFP is technically more reliable as a contraceptive practice than physical or hormonal practices (if I'm not mistaken), those using NFP rather than prophylactics have very different thoughts going through their minds.

A cultural attitude has grown around condoms and the like which encourages people to think "Hey, this is sex with no consequences." Even though the possibility of pregnancy is very real in fact, it doesn't seem to be on the minds of those using the condom (which explains the incredibly shock and dismay that results when said condom doesn't do its job).

If a couple using NFP gets pregnant, though, you won't get the "Damn, I'm a father!" response. Though it is an approach designed to avoid contraception, the couple engaging in it is simply realizing "There is an aspect of sex apart from contraception. It is only one aspect though. Despite the fact that we'd prefer to avoid having children at this time, we still want children and will embrace one should we inadvertently conceive."

This is subtle, I know, and perhaps I'm not explaining it well. If so, I apologize. But the attitude behind NFP is the sort of attitude the Orthodox want behind use of contraception (which is allowed only for a married couple, of course). The culture has attached the contraceptive mentality to contraceptives so there is a very real danger of an Orthodox couple approaching the process the wrong way, though I think a Catholic couple could approach NFP the wrong way just as easily.

Time to open up ye olde mail pouch.

Many thanks to this reader, who writes:

"I love your blog, by the way. It's one of my daily stops.

"In your post on homosexuality, I think you're not understanding Sullivan's arguments. He claims that denying homosexual couples the right to live as a couple takes away 1. citizenship and 2. personhood.

"1. You list due process and the right to vote as two examples of what makes someone a citizen. But what would you think of this: Alabama passes a law forbidding black people from either marriage or having sex, but still preserves the right of black people to due process, voting, etc.?

"2. You state that in marriage, two people become one. So, my husband becomes part of who I am. Taking away my right to marry would, in fact, detract from my personhood.

"And just one more thing for you to chew on:
The difference between homosexual acts and regular sex is that the later produces children (or has the chance to), while the former, by its nature, cannot. A sexual act that cannot bear fruit is just going to be in search of pleasure, whereas an action that can result in 26 little children (Anselm, Bridget, Crystostom, ... Yvette, Zachariah) is great. Please discuss this statement in light of the Orthodox Churchs' chillness with contraception."

First point:

I don't think it's fair to compare a law banning black people the right to marry and have sex with one banning homosexuals the right to marry and have sex. I think a law more analogous would be the law banning minors from voting.

Marriage has always been, by definition, a union between man and woman structured around home life and the rearing of children. Similarly, voting is a prerogative of those who have the ability to step outside of the home and act in public life.

We keep minors from voting because doing so would make a mockery of voting. They are obviously too immature to cast a reasonable ballot. I can see it now: the Democratic candidate who promises a federally funded right to candy sweeps the under-18 constituency.

We keep gays from marrying because that would destroy the institution of marriage, similar to how open homosexuality is destroying the priesthood. As I argued earlier, such a "marriage" would lack the concrete symbols of union that keep it from being just a mutual use relationship with no necessary long-term commitment, etc.

Second point:

All relationships are augmentations of personhood. We as people are unknowable without the duties that come from our connection to other people.

The augmentation that comes from marriage is unique. First, there is the physical augmentation, in that one's genes are passed along and combined with those of the spouse to create new life. Second, there is the augmentation that comes from the union of the two complimentary aspects of humanity: the masculine and the feminine. This is different than a simple friendship between a man and woman because of the first, and the physical act that leads to the first.

Though I'm sure a guy will get something from a homosexual relationship, much more is being taken away, actually. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the sex act as well as a misunderstanding of the proper sort of relationship two males (or females) should share.

Third point:

I'll address that in my next post. This one is long enough enough.

For all those fed up with what airline security has turned into.

(Via Lew Rockwell)

Well, I had another pleasant commute to work this morning.

I and some other people were waiting for the 8:45 bus (I was late for work again). At 8:50 or so we decided to walk to the next stop figuring that, once again, the bus had bypassed our stop (unannounced, mind you; it could not be any other way, Socrates). Looking off into the distance as we made our way down the line we saw the bus, picking up passengers and then pulling away to continue along its route.

As the disappointment set in it began to rain. You know the kind: tiny droplets but lots and lots of them, the kind of rain that will soak you pretty well. And I didn't have an umbrella.

I waited in said rain for fifteen minutes. When the next bus finally came, I realized that it had picked up passengers from my stop. It wasn't that the schedule was changed. It was just that one damned 8:45 bus which bypassed us.

I need to take two buses to get to work. When we got to where the two lines intersect, we encountered a bit of a delay. A police cruiser was parked in front of the bus stop, which is located in front of a bagel shop. The driver would not let us off, opting to wait for the officers to finish their purchase so he could drive up to the awning where people were waiting to board (there is no awning at my stop or the one adjacent to it, which is why I got soaked).

In the time it took the officers to finally move their car, the bus I am supposed to transfer to pulled up. I had to sprint out of the one and then across the street to get to the second bus, and I just made it.

This is the sort of public "service" nonsense that turns young men with my temperament into bomb-throwing anarchists, I'd wager.

Welcome to he who yahoo searched for "Horse Chariot in vice city."

I was reading this article on the Harry Potter books, and one paragraph particularly got me thinking:

"Good or bad, the books are a social phenomenon of considerable significance, especially in their impact on children. For a start, they disprove most of the facile notions about the shortened attention span of modern children."

A good friend of mine has often told me about how, when he was in grade school, a particularly bad teacher of his advised that he be placed on one of those mood altering drugs. He was precocious enough to ask the teacher more questions than he could handle and was, therefore, diagnosed with an attention disorder.

Needless to say, he didn't need the medicine. He was just intelligent enough to ask good questions at a young age.

I was like that as well, though I'm grateful that I had teachers who cared about me enough to listen and offer answers. I'm still stunned that they remember me all these years later. Grade school teachers I hadn't seen in years turned up at my father's funeral in January, which really touched me.

I also went to a private school. Though not the best school, it was one of the bedrocks of our community. Parents would send their kids to the same school they attended as children, where they would often be taught by the same teachers, a little grayer and a lot wiser.

Some of those teachers were, I have to admit, quite lacking. However, what they lacked in wits they made up in heart. The pay was low and yet they stuck it out because they cared about the community and they cared about their students.

I went to a public high school. The intelligence level and education of those teachers was noticeably higher, and many did sacrifice for their students (it was one of those high schools you needed to pass an entrance examination to attend).

However, there were some exceptions. There were some smart teachers that just didn't care. And I know for a fact that around the NYC public school system (not to mention the rest of this nation's failing systems) there are way too many teachers who don't care and who don't have the brains to lessen the severity of their callousness.

These are results of a deep-seated problem, which finds expression in teacher unions and their endless blathering about higher pay (which comes from the view that "teacher" is just another job worthwhile only for the check) and the like.

I can't find it now, but I recall reading a study that found that private school teachers generally make less than their public school counterparts (I know two recent college graduates teaching at private schools who can attest to that). And yet, private schools (and private learning centers, tutors, etc.) generally do more good for their students.

Much more.

Bottom line, it is the culture stupid. It's the difference between treating an inquisitive child as a pain that must be medicated and as a tiny person whose questions are best served with honest answers.

More fun with human life.

The news has really sucked lately, huh?

Interesting site on dealing with temptation rather thank taking pride in it.

Andrew Sullivan's recent posts on homosexuality and its opponents are really starting to bug me (no pun intended; well, maybe a little...).

He keeps asserting that those who are morally opposed to homosexuality refuse to see gays as real and full people. Take these quote from one of today's posts:

"They want the term gay relationship to be anathema to what it means to be an American - before the public dialogue shifts any further. So they will soon launch their nuke against gay men and women trying to form stable relationships: a constitutional amendment to keep gays permanently outside the possibility of equal citizenship."

And:

"O'Connor sees gay people as fully-fledged people, with lives and loves and needs like everyone else. Scalia sees them as people who for some bizarre reason do immoral things with their body parts. O'Connor sees that homosexuality is what people are. Scalia thinks that homosexuality is what some people do."

First of all, I don't understand the reasons for adding "citizenship" to the mix. It's nothing more than an empty rhetorical device. No one is proposing we take away gay people's right to vote or their right to due process away. Moving on.

Second, this is not a question of the fullness of personhood. One can disagree with another's views on morality and not question his humanity. My diasproval of homosexuality doesn't imply"gays aren't full people" any more than my disaproval of theft implies "thieves aren't full people." Moving on.

I hope we can all agree that there are some acts which people can engage in, and others people can't. I'm not talking about law right now, I'm talking about morality. It's the difference between shaking someone's hand and slugging them. There's a line that divides acceptable and unacceptable conduct. It's not cultural or social (getting slugged in the face is wrong everyone, not just in this or that community), it's a question of right and wrong.

Sex is no different. That's why we have a notion of sexual ethics. Certain sexual acts are acceptable and others are not, inasmuch as we are human beings and there are rules governing our behavior.

So where is the dividing line? Is it pleasure? Well, rapists get a bit of pleasure when they do what they do.

Is it consent? That may sound like a good line to draw for many people, but it's got some serious pitfalls. I don't see why a little boy can't consent to engaging in certain acts with a neighbor...or scoutmaster...or priest...or what have you. I can't see why a dog can't consent to...Well, you get the idea.

After all, people consent to do all sorts of bad things all the time. People consent to rob banks and steal cars. The exercise of one's rationality and will in directing one's actions does not legitimize those actions, in other words. Just because I choose to do something doesn't make it right.

Choice is a necessary part of morality, but choice does not make an action moral.

So back to sex and that dividing line. What sets sex apart and makes it such a unique and wonderful pursuit is that it produces life. When a man and a woman get together nine months later they've got a bouncing baby on their hands.

What do we think of when we imagine a loving relationship between two people? We think of two people living together as one. They share a home, they share their possessions, they share everything because of their union. There is a permanence, a unity that is meant to last, what we can describe as the ideal of growing old together.

This is what a baby fosters. Not only do a man and wife combine emotionally and spiritually to raise their child; they unite economically. Their new ontological status as husband and wife is reflected both in their child and in their physical state of economic union. The concept of a home is justified by children. A man and wife will be united through and for their child. They will stay together and see their child grow and marry and have his own children, and then they will assume their responsibilities as grandparents.

This is what homosexuality lacks. It is a lifestyle that bears no fruit. It provides no incentive for two men, or two women, to stay together through the bad times. It is a relationship that tries to turn itself into a promise (at least publicly, for the sake of gaining acceptance) but is doomed to fail.

The stereotype of gay excess and infidelity is a stereotype grounded in truth. It is true, some defy the rule, but every generalization will have its exception. My stomach turns every time I see the gay pride parade move down Fifth Avenue here in New York. It is a spectacle of hedonism and rebellion, a flaunting of anything and everything that can be called traditional and normal. From the way its participants dress to the way they behave (some sort of vulgar insult directed at St. Patrick's Cathedral, located along the parade route, is commonplace) the parade is a thumb in the eye of the rest of society.

Homosexuality boils down to pleasure, and in that sense men like Rick Santorum and Antonin Scalia are more than right when they lament that the Lawrence decision is the first step towards the legalization of other sexual practices long considered deviant and immoral. In denying procreation it denies the symbols and ties of a long-term and committed relationship. A gay couple can pledge to remain together, but what happens when times are tough? What's to stop one from leaving?

Homosexuals try to equate being gay with long-term and loving commitments no different than marriage properly understood, but I've heard way to many instances of men "discovering" they were gay and leaving their wives and infant children, of adult males abusing little boys, and of a plethora of sexual partners to believe it.