National Review

Looks like Bill Buckley's finally taking a backseat.

Now, I know the guy deserves a little credit for being a leader in the conservative movement for so long. However, I for one am glad to see him go. I was never a big Buckley fan. Aesthetically, I don't like his style. Politically, he's said some things that really get to me. I once read comments of his where he suggested that if we had to become a totalitarian state to defeat communism, then so be it. This was back in the 50s, when the supposed conservative movement began (oddly enough, also when Senator Taft lost to Ike in the Republican primary (though NR was actually founded in opposition to this defeat), a bad day for conservatism indeed). NR changed over time, though, as Joe Sobran describes (here, for instance).

Buckley's choice of heirs is further cause for concern. I won't go into too much detail; let's just say there are others who would better carry the mantle of conservatism (or what's left of it, at least) and that, if I didn't have a subscription to NR before, I'm certainly not going to buy one now.

“There is a just God who presides over the destines of nations…who will raise up friends to fight our battle for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave….Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”

-Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

Exactly

Distributing condoms is not the answer to the AIDS epidemic.

Depressing

Mark Shea links to this article, and remarks "Article Like This Make Me Wonder How Orthodoxy Will Weather the Collision with Modernity."

In truth, the article is most depressing.

Bouteneff concluded that gay sex is "misdirected" sexual expression and sinful. But he said the church has to address sensitive questions, such as whether there is anything redeemable in a committed, same-sex relationship.

"If we answer in the negative, we better come up with a good reason, a credible reason," he said. "I don't think we have yet."

Actually, the Church did that quite a long time ago (read this wonderful take on sexual ethics, for instance). Sad that Bouteneff, an assistant professor at a prominent Orthodox seminary, isn't aware of the teachings of the Fathers (or at least doesn't think they're persuasive).

Here's more from him:

On the controversial question of same-sex relationships, for instance, the speakers agreed that Orthodox tradition requires gays and lesbians to live chaste, sexless lives. But they hardly seemed satisfied with such a conclusion, in light of the growing consensus that homosexual orientation is not a choice for at least a large minority of gays and lesbians.

Peter Bouteneff, an assistant professor in dogmatic theology at St. Vladimir's, considered the options facing a gay Christian, such as denial, lying, leaving the church or chastity. "I'm not sure I could bear that cross," he said.

If you believe that homosexuality has a genetic basis (which is ultimately irrelevant, since alcoholism and pyromania do and that doesn't make those vices allowable either), people have been bearing that cross since Christianity first came around, at least. Homosexuals (or, more accurately, those with a homosexual proclivity) have been called to chastity by the Christian Church for 2,000 years. Why is that call suddenly problematic? Were the Father wrong then if their words are wrong now? Does the Church have any claim to a Truth that exists across time for all men?

As a related point, why doesn't the logic being Bouteneff's words call him to argue against (or at least doubt) the priesthood, the ascetic/monastic life, chastity, or virtuous living generally (we're all called to one or more of these, and all of us find our respective crosses difficult)? The culture has made it harder to bear our crosses now (even Saint Basil the Great once wrote that he feared to live in the end times, because he doubted he has the strength to remain a Christian amidst such tribulations), so should we drop them altogether?

Christians have been fighting their own long defeat for close to a millennium now. We foolish mortals sundered the Church in our folly in the 11th century (a wound we ripped into and--perhaps irrevocably--deepened in the 13th century when Christians slew Christians and Constantinople fell for the first time). We continue to bear the fruits of our madness even now, and will until the End of Days. Had the Church not torn itself apart Protestantism would not have spawned in the heart of Christendom, and the Turk would have never defeated a Christian army. I leave it to the reader to imagine what might have been.

Our task is clear. The Orthodox Churches must first of all awaken from their slumber. For too long has the Patriarchate of Constantinople been in heathen hands and thus the object of dread manipulation. The presence of more than one bishop in one city defies the earliest canons and must end (in other words, the various Churches must administratively unite into one American Orthodox Church). The various Orthodox Churches must then hold Council with Rome and unite. Only then will the Long Defeat become a New Dawn.

A dream come true

For a supporter of eugenics, anyway.

Ah, the proud legacy of Margaret Sanger, hero of the Left and staunch abortion advocate (who adopted her position after the sterilization of "human weeds" proved unfeasible).

Some food for thought:

The same woman considered a saint today by the pro-choice crowd warned supporters in 1939 that they did not want "word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."

And:

Thus, the Times tells us the story of a woman who was born with an extra finger, which she later had surgically removed. So far she has aborted two children when ultrasound scans showed they had the same extra digit.

No comment needed.

Power Worship

Check out this aggravating quote from an article on the way various archaeologists have responded to Troy:

Agamemnon, the leader of the Greeks, said outright in the film that the war was fought for power and wealth and not over a beautiful woman named Helen.

Cline [associate professor of archaeology and ancient history at George Washington University], who took his students to see the movie on opening day, said he was so excited when Agamemnon gave his speech that he stood up in the middle of the theater to cheer.

It's so horrible to see that modern notions of the supremacy of the political (which boils down to class-based power relationships) have spread so deep. This man is supposed to be a professor of ancient history. The Iliad and surrounding myth clearly states that the Trojan War was fought to reclaim Helen (when Menelaus of Sparta won her hand in a contest with other Greeks nobles, the losers agreed to fight to protect Helen from abduction by any party that was unsatisfied with her legitimate marriage to Menelaus). But, of course, honor and oaths are simply masks used to hide underlying power struggles; the war was only about Agamemnon taking over a rich city. That's rubbish, plain and simple. People are not the base creatures Marx would have them be. However, perhaps some prophecies are self-fulfilling.

Yellow

Thanks to governmental regulation (and the corresponding social transformations) our fellow citizens do no more than cower in fear when danger presents itself.

Once again, our culture pronounces that it has all but lost any sense of the courageous and heroic. Better to have a long life as a physically healthy slave than to face danger in the eye and fall with the pride and dignity that most men used to share in.

Ever seen Braveheart? Remember the scene where William Wallace rides out to his countrymen in the seconds before a major battle with the British? They were inclined to flee; they feared a battle with such a powerful and fell enemy. "No, we will run...and live." Wallace, true to form, answers "Ay, you'll live...for a while." The men assembled on that field, when faced with the stark choice, desired to die as free young men rather than live to be old slaves.

Why should we fear death? Why should we fear defeat? Read The Lord of the Rings. One of the most powerful lessons of that book is the story of the Elves, a race noble and wise who have for centuries been fighting a war with evil that they knew they would lose (the Elves must leave Middle-Earth and make way for the Age of Men, a consequence of the folly of some of the Elves when their race was young). Throughout the work they refer to the "Long Defeat," which they fight willingly and ably. Had they done any less, of what quality would they have been? When we avoid such Defeats, long or short, we declare our lives essentially forfeit. He who saves his life because it is his highest value has no reason to live. He lives, but he is naught but a shell. Better a brightly burning spark whose glory and worth lasts for but a moment than an eternal piece of ash.

Outrageous

The US has dropped plans to fight the notion that US peacekeeping soldiers can be tried in international courts for war crimes.

That poses an obvious set of questions:

Who's in charge of our military, Washington DC or Brussels?

Who's in charge of our country, the people of the USA (as expressed through their elected representatives in local and federal government) or some random technocrat drunk on his tyrannical power which is thoroughly devoid of anything even resembling legitimacy?

It'll be a sad day when that first trial comes and the underlying anti-democratic forces latent in the Left bare their teeth for all to see. The gradual process of centralization and tyranny in the name of equality draws ever closer to finishing liberty off once and for all.

Evil and Statist Thinking

A quote from this article caught my eye:

Cincinnati Mayor Charlie Luken added in a statement: "What President Bush should realize, but does not, is that the single biggest factor in keeping families together is stability - a job, decent and affordable health care, and a quality education."

What about a culture of commitment? It seems to me that family life was (and is) very strong in places of great poverty because people willed it to be so. Or is this dunderhead saying that only socialism will allow us to achieve true family values and household tranquility?

Moore Nonsense

Here's a very thorough and fun analysis of Michael Moore's new flick, Fahrenheit 9/11 (a name that won't stick if Ray Bradbury has his way), by Christopher Hitchens.

It further proves that Moore is an untrustworthy oaf whose own dishonesty and propaganda is more than a match for the mythical Bush-as-Loki figure he has created.

Kerry endorses brutal Nazi research on helpless Jewish prisoners

After all, that's what his statements imply, don't they? The only reason we found that the experiments Nazis performed on Jewish captives were barbaric was because of ideology. We believe that human life is inherently valuable and should not be tampered with. Those Nazi experiments produced lots of valuable scientific date (that has actually been incorporated by America, among others: for instance, the results of awful hypothermia experiments have informed policy for pilots downed in icy water; what would Kerry say about that, I wonder?), but ideology leads us to condemn them.

Ideology is the only thing that holds us back and allows us to judge which scientific facts are appropriate to gather, and in what manner. It's a scientific fact that, when you detonate a nuclear bomb over a crowded city, lots of people die both from the initial blast and from the terrible effects of radiation poisoning. Of course, the reason we know that for sure is because two bombs actually were detonated over two such cities, and we then gathered some data. Now I don't want to get into a discussion of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but needless to say those bombs were not dropped simply for the sake of scientific research. However, if science comes before ideology, then there's no reason why that is at all barbarous.

Candidate Kerry: forsaking all that's valuable in a selfish bid for power.

A Great Idea

Some have revived the (too) long-dormant practice of linking alcohol and voting.

That's right, revived. In the early days of the Republic politicians would routinely offer whiskey, beer, hard cider, or all of the above to their constituents on election day as a show of good faith, and an attempt to gain votes. President Washington, during his run for the Virginia Legislature early in his career, gave out enough free booze to have induced alcohol poisoning (in those with weaker constitutions, anyway); as he owned and operated a distillery, he handed out something like an average of 20 shots to each of the men at one of his rallies.

Alchohol has had a long-standing relationship to politics and its brother, debate (think Plato's Symposium). This continues in some circles, as does the practice of smoking tobacco. Sadly, since health has become our society's number one priority and demi-god, these circles grow rarer. It is hard to explain the simple joy of debating over a stiff drink and a pleasant smoke. It is repulsive when people literally run from drink and smoke as if it were some sort of booger-man.

Simple Lies

Here's a ridiculous article on a ridiculous idea: bringing God into the 21st century by pretty much forgetting Who God Is.

I miss the good old days when people were more discerning in terms of the heresies they adopted. There once was a time when people wouldn't listen to just anyone. False prophets had to cast their message in terms of some authority (and claim that they had the true message of Jesus Christ or the real content of the Bible, for instance) because the masses would not listen to just any old gobledy-goop.

Now, all a false prophet has to do is say "God is in all" or "the End is near" or utter some such stupid slogan and his books fly off the shelves. I bet Arius is spinning in his grave. At least his heresies had a degree of thought put into them.

Well, let's all have a hand for public schooling and the current state of American education, which has made it that much easier to dupe well-meaning people.

?

I'm speechless.

Decency

It gets harder and harder to find.

Take these degenerates, for instance. There's an old saying even children know of: "Say something nice or say nothing at all." One would imagine that people would be a bit more humble and civil in the face of black death, which even now creeps at their threshold as it creeps towards us all.

If even death itself commands no respect, we as a people have little to show as proof of our worth.

Even those who endeavored to honor President Reagan could not do so properly. Thousands of shabbily dressed people, wearing everything from shorts and sandals to ridiculous logo T-shirts, filed by his coffin in the Rotunda. One simply does not take part in funerary ceremonies looking as if one has just rolled out of bed.

The Old Oligarch witnessed some perhaps well-intentioned but nonetheless lamentable actions himself.

Hmmm...

Now here's a thought: maybe the reason kids chronically misbehave is that no one is allowed to punish them anymore.

Less guns...more rope

Unfortunately, yet another reason why simply banning guns does nothing to make people safer.

As a society we should also realize that there is a lot more to life than being safe, incidentally.

Reagan

A great man has fallen. Our already thin Age will be all the poorer for it.

May the good Lord have mercy on his soul. May God also grant vision, strength, and worth to those who still walk among the living that new leaders may lead new armies against the evils of our day (for many they are).

I'm rather fond of saying that great men are those who live on in the songs of their heirs; they are the few who provide inspiration and challenge to others. I say they live in song specifically because history and mythology share a common, and somewhat unclear, border. And so I've tried my hand, as clumsy as it may be, to mourn and remember he who deserves to be mourned and remembered.

Raise a cry on the four great winds
East, North, West, and South
Here the sweet paean flow
Forth from every mouth
In our wretched, troubled times
A Great Man has passed
Though his song has ceased to sing
May his echoes last

Few are fit for poet's pen
Song to save their deeds
Most rocks lie forgotten 'midst
Brambles and thick weeds
Monuments of heart and stone
Are the hero's pay
So let tongues and chisels sing
For one fell today

He rode beneath the free man's sun
A rugged man of age
His words enthralled the hearts of men
The weapons of a sage
He set no foot on battlefield
By his hand none were slain
Yet he proved a fell enemy
Communism's Bane

His nation's heart was dark and bleak
Dark forest of malaise
Yet like a shaft of whitest light
He cut through thicket haze
Men's backs were bent, they groaned beneath
The state's oppressive weight
He offered draught of liberty
A liquor sweet and great

For moment brief the winds stand still
And heads nod reverent, bowed
Till voices can take up the song
Sadly, proudly, loud
When four winds blow they now blow free
For youngest boy and lass
A hero's laid his gauntlet down
His mem'ry shall not pass