Oddly Enough

This article was filed under "Oddly Enough" on the yahoo website.

Italians are a little upset because of the way posters on the London Metro would portray them.

In the abstract, I find nothing wrong with racial/ethnic humor. Some jokes can be quite witty, but even those that aren't do more to bring races together than any federal policy. When people are charitable to laugh at each others jokes, racial tension seems to go the way of the dodo. I am always the butt of Greek jokes (pun intended), and I dish them out as well as I get them to my friends and those who I know are adult enough to enjoy a joke.

Unfortunately, we've gotten to the point where we can make fun of some groups and not others. Make fun of a black man and you're a racist (as long as you're white, anyway). However, if you're black you can call whites "crackers," "honkeys," etc. all you want. Many comedians have made a career out of this sort of humor. That's all well and good; just be willing to give as well as you can take.

So, in summary, I don't really mind that the London Metro poked fun at my dago-whop brethren; let's just be equal opportunity about our jokes, and realize that humor does a lot to defuse racial and ethnic tensions.

John Kerry: Humanitarian

This is too much.

Kerry Time

The Bush Campaign responds to Senator Kerry's speech here.

I unfortunately didn't see the speech, as I was dining with friends. I have heard many different opinions; some say he nailed it, others that he missed completely (Gene of Yale Free Press fame has a list of links analyzing the speech, by the way).

One thing is undisputed: Kerry barely touched on his experience post-Vietnam. Just as Senator Edwards spoke of Kerry's Vietnam service and practically nothing else, Kerry left out his entire career as a public official. This is, to say the least, putting all of one's eggs in one basket. That makes for a prime smashing opportunity come the RNC in late August. As you've probably heard by now, the great majority of officers that served with Kerry in Vietman actively oppose his candidacy. I also instinctively assume (perhaps others have seen concrete stats) that show that the military brass overwhelmingly favors the President.

Simply put, the Republicans can make short work of the military card, which Kerry's overplaying.

This election will be judged on the economy and the War on Terror. As the economy gets better (it has for quite a while now, and there's even reason to believe Bush never oversaw a recession at all), that will be less of an issue for the Dems. They've already been reduced to simply out-Bushing the Republicans on terror (the Kerry/Edwards message boils down to "we can do this a little bit better," not terribly compelling), which does little to placate the hate-the-President-at-all-costs wing of the Democratic Party.

The Bush Campaign needs to realize that the national debate can easily be framed in terms very beneficial to them (the iron is hot), and plan the RNC accordingly.

I finished Brideshead Revisited this morning. What a fantastic book; I'll say no more at the moment.

I shall make a point of discussing it with Mr. Hiss over cocktails soon, though I shan't try to mimic young Misters Flyte and Ryder too closely. My undergraduate days are over, after all.

VP Time

I was lifting last night (as usual), so I missed most of the Convention.  I did see the Edwards family, so I'll write about that.

First off, Cate Edwards is quite attractive.  Sorry, it had to be said.  Southern girls have a beauty and charm all their own.

I got a huge kick out of watching little Jack Edwards in seersucker.  When the last time someone's done that at a national convention?  He's just a child, which makes it even cooler.  (Don't get me wrong.  I like seersucker, which is why I was so impressed to see it worn.  I'd wear it myself in the summer months, but I doubt I could pull it off.  I don't exactly exude "southern gentleman," nor do I care to.)

Elizabeth Edwards did a pretty good job.  I didn't see Teresa Kerry, but I hear Mrs. Edwards was hundreds of times more likeable.  She's not much of a public speaker, but I got the impression of warmth and sincerity, which is what you want coming from a potential Second Lady.

As for Senator Edwards, I was unimpressed.  I've read several reports that praised his speaking style, but I disagree.  First of all I can't stand his normal gestures (you know, that combination fist pump/thumb raise; it's the most clumsy, awkward, mechanical, contrived gesture I think I've ever seen).  Edwards stumbled a bit during his delivering, forcing himself to repeat key phrases; that's just sloppy.  His speech was also trite, drawn out, and quite boring I thought.  He does have a certain charm and appeal, I suppose, but there's nothing terribly statesman-like about him.  Some men can deliver an impromptu speech and cause their audience to weep or shout for joy, as they see feet, because they come across as masterful men to be admired and trusted.  Edwards, at his best, comes across as likeable.  President Bush was correct when he stated that the difference between his second in command and Edwards is that Mr. Cheney can be President.

The speech was also stuffed with contradictions to the point of bursting.  Edwards played his normal "I was born poor in a small town" card, then spoke of two Americas.  Perhaps I missed something, but the fact that Edwards could drag himself out of poverty speaks to the opportunity that already exists.  America doesn't need more entitlements and programs; Americans need to appreciate the value of persistence and effort.  Of course, the difference between Edwards and his audience is that he was willing to work hard and not make excuses for his failures. 

But of course, if the citizenry actually did have the virtues of adults, then the Democratic Party could not survive on the demoagoguery and class warfare rhetoric that have been its bread and butter for close to a century.  Most of the men who run for high office (especially in the Democratic Party) don't want to be leaders.  They believe the population to be stupid and backwards, so inept that mass starvation would break out if they were left to their own devices.  Rather than take after Aragorn, who deliberately chose to inspire his men rather than boss them around, they would take after Sauron and bend the will of others to their own. 

There are powerful interests in this country who depend on Americans being uneducated, dependent, and afraid.

Food for Thought

We've all heard the standard Convention question: "Are you better off not than you were four years ago?"

Well, are we better off now than we were one hundred years ago?

Here's an interesting article on the subject, which briefly examines economic and social factors.  My favorite bit:

My friend Bertel Sparks taught at Duke Law School for years. For his entering students, he passed out an essay on property written by Blackstone. It was from "Commentaries," published in 1765. It was the law book for English lawyers. He had them discuss the essay in the following class. They always had great difficulty. The essay was over their heads.

Then he would hold up the source of the essay: the Sixth McGuffey Reader. He said this exercise stomped the arrogance out of them early.

Of course, most people aren't aware of the facts that you find in this and other similar articles.  People don't take the time to realize that the reasons Americans aren't starving in the streets is because of the market, not government subsidies (in fact, existing government action is doing much more harm than good).  The Messiah has already come and, despite what some sleazy preachers will tell you, He didn't come to make men rich.  Men will only accumulate wealth, which they can the use to build the museums and churches that are the foundation of our culture and civilization, when they rely on themselves and each other.  When people prefer the community to the state and appreciate government because of its authority and not its power, then we truly will be better off than we used to be.

Our Shire needs to be scoured.  Let's hope the right hobbits for the job exist somewhere.

Ouch

Last night Senator John Edwards delivered his Convention (I'll post more about that later, because it really was awful).

Though he did not mention a single fact about Senator John Kerry's career in the US Senate, he discussed at length Kerry's time in the Navy.  This service is supposed to paint Kerry as a war hero eminently qualified to tackle the War on Terror, thus countering an issue where the Republicans have an edge.

However, there have been rumblings for some time now that those who actually served with Kerry in Vietnam consider him unfit to be President.  Drudge has a write-up of the story here, and links to this web-site run by men who served on Navy Swift Boats with Kerry.  The website is called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and really does speak for itself. 

I don't see how Kerry can get around this issue.  Though of course President Bush should not mention this personally at the RNC later this month (since he didn't actually serve in Vietnam at all), perhaps the Republicans can get some of these men to speak.  Imagine the sight: a dozen Navy veterans on stage at the RNC denouncing Kerry for exploiting their images and war stories for his own political gain.  Perhaps they can also discuss alegations that Kerry re-enacted combat scenes in preperation of a future run for office.

There is a way to get to the bottom of this: since Kerry was in the Yale Political Union (and since I'm sure they debated the war at some point during his undergraduate career), someone should track down records from old debates.  If he did denounce the war (as I believe he did during the address he gave during commencement; I'm sure that's already a matter of public record), then it does seem reasonable to think that Kerry enlisted for crass and self-serving reasons.

Light blogging today, as you can see. 

Why not catch up on the Kerry Spot?

My favorite recent entry?  The one on the Senator's flip-flopping, called Tale of the Tape. 

"You've got more waffles than the House of Pancakes..."

Star Bill-ing

I watched the tail end of the DNC last night (Senator Hill's intro and Former President Clinton's speech).  Hillary was, as many have already pointed out, typically shrill and uninspiring.  It's amazing that she's gotten so far purely because she's Hillary Clinton.  The problem is that not enough people choose to open their eyes and realize that she's Hillary Clinton.

Bill brought his A-game to the show.  He was witty, engaging, and personable.  Unfortunately, he was also dishonest and misguided (shocking, no?).

He was rather Marc Antony-esque; except, rather than being there praise Caesar instead of bury him, he was there to bury the Republicans instead of praise them.  He went on and on about how the Rs and Ds are both patriotic and well-intentioned, and simply differ as to how they think we should reach the ideal America.  Then, without missing a beat, he accused the Republicans of wanting to concentrate wealth in the hands of the very rich, destroy opportunity and liberty, re-enact Jim Crow laws, etc. (truth be told he didn't add that last part, but he might as well have, given his rhetoric and accusations).

Bill's most ingenious trick was to announce that he was rich and then denounce the tax cuts that the President had offered him and his class.  It's not at all difficult to see that this is standard class warfare mush; Marx and Gramsci would be proud. 

It's typical for two reasons: this rhetoric is designed to gain power for a privileged elite (Kerry and Edwards are far from common folk) by first inventing and then exploiting class barriers and prejudices; talk like this also assumes that everything is political.

It's a shame that no one bothred to ask what is, to me, a very obvious series of questions: "Hey Bill, what have you done with all this new-found wealth of yours?  You claim to be out there fighting for the middle class and the poor.  Have you donated to charity?  Do you conribute your time to soup kitchens?  What have you done besides giving speeches and signing legislation?  What have you done, since all passing laws does is force others to do the dirty work for you?"

This is what I mean about the all-encompassing nature of the political to the modern mind.  Ask someone how we can help the poor, their first response is suggest we pass a law or appropriate more money in the legislature.  When you ask how the rich can help, the natural response is to crave new taxation. 

The modern lust for politics and power, which was originally supposed to help people and give them new strength and influence, has only served to alienate millions of people from the world around them.  There's something really disturbing, and really dangerous, about the fact that plenty of people actually think they're doing their civic duty simply by voting for the Democrats.  Not only are digging a deep chasm between them and their neighbors, they also view freedom as nothing more than a once a year thing. 

Just because we can vote doesn't mean we're free.  And just because you vote for a guy who says he wants to help the poor doesn't mean you're a philanthropist.  I'm not expecting everyone to sell all their property and distribute the money to the poor.  Little things can make a difference: sponsor a poor child overseas, donate some time teaching at your local Sunday school, be a mentor to a troubled teen, whatever.  We can all do a little, which turns into more than we expected when we add it up. 

I would love to see a politician who thinks like this.  I would love to see a politicians stand up during a presidential debate and proclaim that, should he be elected, he really would cut social spending and end the welfare/nanny state once and for all.  As his opponent chuckles, thinking the guy is nuts and has just lost the election, this candidate would then whip out a check for some huge some to some noble charity (let's face it, chances are he's rich if he's seriously running for such high office). 

"I am an American, sir, first and foremost.  Poverty in this nation is my problem as a citizen, and I refuse to pass the buck to my representatives.  I call on all Americans to give what they can to whatever charity they choose.  Let us all excersise a true, active freedom, as caretakers of this great republic, rather than sit idly by and complain about problems while we do nothing about them.  What say you [to his opponent]?  Would you like to vote for more federal entitlements, or would you actually like to do something about the problems that face this country?  Do you seek the presidency because you want to be in charge of a massive bureaucracy for the sake of your petty ego, or would you rather be the leader of a nation of free men, masters of their own destiny and stewards of the communities that are their homes?  Are you here to run this country or to lead it?"

More on "Selective Reduction"

Here's an alright article from NRO.

I wonder if Ms. Richards has stopped to think of how her surviving child will deal with all this when he comes of age.  All he has to do is log onto the Internet and he'll be able to read about how his two siblings were simply erased, by his mother of all people. 

Somehow I doubt it.  It seems Ms. Richards was much more concerned with buying "big jars of mayonnaise" than with her children.  This paragon of liberal strength and poster-child for feminine virtue has succeeded in commodifying life to such a degree that she is willing to judge (and execute) her children on the flimsiest of economic grounds, of all things.

It's sad to say, but I doubt that this will be a very happy household.  Junior will know he's around only because of the sickest sort of luck, an especially horrible sort of Russian roulette; the chambers were full when the barrels bore down on his siblings.  I remember the fragility of childhood.  I remember how unbelievably comfortable it was to be absolutely certain that mom and dad loved me wholly and unconditionally.  No matter how loud the thunder stormed, no matter how bitterly the other children teased, there was always warmth at home.  Perhaps that doesn't sound like much to Ms. Richards, who seems to view home as where the paycheck is mailed, but children often have a more grounded sense of value than adults do. 

Vulnerability will do that.  Vulnerability will also make this child's life very difficult.  Pray that he makes it through. 

Ketchup's hard to get out

Teresa Heinz jumped all over a reporter Sunday.  Of course, Democrats are rallying to her support.

So let me get this straight: Teresa tells a reporter to "shove it" after he accurately quotes her, and we (as Hillary Clinton suggests) are supposed to chant "you go girl" and cheer her on?  At least when VP Cheney dropped the F-bomb his interlocutor deserved it. 

She is far from an asset for poor Senator Kerry, who made money the old fashioned way but got a lot of baggage in the process.

My crazy theory for the day: perhaps Teresa (widow of the late John Heinz) is still a Republican and is secretly sabotaging Kerry's campaign.

What ethical philosopher are you? (via The Conservative Observer)

Here are my results:

1. Aquinas   (100%)  Click here for info
2. Aristotle   (79%)  Click here for info
3. St. Augustine   (73%)  Click here for info
4. Spinoza   (68%)  Click here for info
5. John Stuart Mill   (59%)  Click here for info
6. Jeremy Bentham   (58%)  Click here for info
7. Plato   (56%)  Click here for info
8. Ockham   (49%)  Click here for info
9. Epicureans   (44%)  Click here for info
10. Stoics   (40%)  Click here for info
11. Cynics   (40%)  Click here for info
12. Kant   (39%)  Click here for info
13. Ayn Rand   (36%)  Click here for info
14. David Hume   (33%)  Click here for info
15. Nel Noddings   (33%)  Click here for info
16. Nietzsche   (32%)  Click here for info
17. Prescriptivism   (24%)  Click here for info
18. Jean-Paul Sartre   (20%)  Click here for info
19. Thomas Hobbes   (12%)  Click here for info

It's a shame Mill and Bentham made it so far up the list for some reason.

Kerry the Conservative?

What is Andrew Sullivan talking about?

So where is conservatism to be found?

...Where Bush has clearly placed American national interest above any international concern, Kerry insists that the old alliances - even with old Europe - need to be strengthened and reaffirmed. Kerry insists that he is a fiscal conservative, aiming to reduce the deficit by tax increases. He has argued that stability in some parts of the world should take precedence over democracy or human rights. He opposes amending the Constitution and supports legal abortion, the status quo Bush wants to reverse. He has spent decades in the Senate, quietly building an undistinguished and constantly nuanced record. He is a war veteran, who plays up his record of public service every chance he gets. He's a church-going Catholic who finds discussion of religious faith unseemly in public. In the primaries, he was the safe, establishment bore compared to the radical pyrotechnics of Howard Dean and the populist charm of John Edwards.

Let me get this straight.  It's conservative to:
1) put international over American national interest
2) raise taxes to reduce the deficit rather than cut spending or wait for the tax-cut-stimulated economy to grow and produce more revenues
3) be pro-choice and let millions of unborn childern be sacrificed to the god of personal convenience and it's-my-body-solipsism
4) not publicly discuss religious faith at all, despite the fact that our Founders and every generation of American politicians has done so (and for good reason)

Well, looks like I'm no conservative; neither are a whole lot of my friends and associates.  That's a big surprise.

If this is what the Right looks like to Andrew Sullivan, I think I'm going to have to pass on that new book he hopes to write, the one about how conservatism should be defined.  Perhaps I'll read someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

[By the way, Sullivan's last point about religion is particularly dishonest.  Kerry has gone out of his way to be photographed receiving communion, even at non-Catholic Churches.  Kerry's not following his faith but rather trying to cash in Catholicism for political points; he'd be better off becoming a Protestant rather than continuing to desecrate the Body and Blood of Christ.]

The Ecumenical Thread

Now onto my thoughts concerning Cacciaguida's post here.

First off, the nationalism latent in the Orthodox Church is an interesting topic; I'm under the impression that it was a result of the Ottoman Empire (religious nationalism being a sort of proto-liberation theology).  This excessive nationalism, which in many congregations seems more important than Christ and His Church, troubles me.  It's a relatively recent phenomenon, though, and of course I hope it dies off, though I won't go into too much detail on the subject right now.

As to the question of what makes a council an Ecumenical Counci, C. quotes the catechism in his post.  In a nutshell, it seems that if a council receives papal ratification it gets EC status.  This answer is very unsatisfying. 

First of all, why does the council need to be convened "under the presidency of the pope or his legates?"  The First EC was convened under Emperor Constantine the Great; in fact a great many of the first councils were under the presidency of the emperors.  But they're not illegitimate. 

Also, why have councils anyway if a council's only good because of papal approval?  It seems that there is nothing special about the collection of clergy in itself since, if their findings don't receive the Pope's thumbs up, it isn't an EC.  I don't think a practical explanation will do; Infallibility, wherever it lies, is informed and guided by the Holy Spirit.  If a council doesn't become Ecumenical and Infallible (because, quite frankly, it can't be the former without being the latter) until the Pope says so, then in reality the Holy Spirit doesn't act through the episcopate as a college.  We might as well cut out the middle man.  Emperor Constantine should have never called a Council; he should have just sent a letter to the Pope asking him to denounce the heresies of the day.  Peter should have never bothered to hold a council with his fellow Apostles (because, as far as I can tell, the really First Ecumenical Council occurred when the Apostles met to decide if Gentile converts to the Faith needed to be circumcised first).  If Christ unambiguously gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom then all the Apostles should have been well aware of that fact, and a simple pronouncement should have been fine and dandy.  However (and I need to take a look at my Bible to refresh my remember) I recall more of a council than a monologue and pronouncement.

Anyway, to take things a step further, why Rome?  After all, Peter founded the See of Antioch way before he founded the See of Rome.  In answer to that question, I'd say that the Church has long had a practical way of distributing authority.  From the earliest days bishops were based in big cities, not tiny towns.  This is an obviously practical consideration, since a bishop will do a bettr job of leading his flock when he's with more of them, and therefore at least has some contact with them. 

As to the question of the legitimacy of the Council of Florence, I raise this hypothetical (it's a metaphor, so naturally it won't map on precisely): suppose the Pope dies and the Cardinals get together to elect his successor.  Suppose they don't gather in good faith, and violenc awaits if they choose one candidate over another.  Is their election valid?  In the case of the Council, the Emperor purposefully sent a hand-picked delegation that, he knew, would assent to any Western demands for the sake of gathering military support.  Quite a few bishops, priests, etc. who were more interested in debating the issues didn't go, so plenty of folk back home were upset when the delegation returned. 

As for the Third Council, here's a bit to think about:

When these documents had been read out, the holy synod decreed the following.
1. It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea.
2.Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.

This seems pretty straightforward: read my lips, no new creeds.  Athanasius's creed came before the Council so, and perhaps the Father had his Fil-fanatic creed in mind when they made the above pronouncements.  As far as I can tell, adding the Filioque is in direct violation of EC3.

Also, I think it's very odd to think that the results of the Third Council (which are Infallible) somehow failed to take this or that truth into account, that somehow the Holy Spirit didn't look far enough ahead and left bits of Truth out.  It's one thing, for instance, to chart the development of the Creed from Constantinople to Nicea (since the last half of the Creed wasn't written at Constantinople).  It's quite another to say, "oops, when we last spoke about the Holy Spirit we left this crucial bit out."

My apologies if this post was a bit rushed; it's late in the day and I have to run.  I'd like to write a little more about the Filioque itself when I get a chance.

I pray that I am being honest, fair, and straightforward as I consider these questions.

But...

Isn't intolerance a bad thing?

Ah, the young

This young conservative comments on the future of the movement.

This paragraph gets at my fears in a nutshell:

Then, there is the other allegation that the Republican Party must be re-invented. This thought is both false and true. The core values of the Republican Party remain as intact as when John C. Fremont became the first Republican candidate for President in 1856. He ran on basic values of freedom and democracy. Later Republicans from Lincoln onward believed in a pro-business and pro-freedom agenda. They also believed that if freedom was threatened, America [sic] should not be afraid to defend that freedom with their lives. Those are the core values of the Republican Party, and they should remain the Republican values.

First of all, this young man obviously lacks a good deal of historical perspective.  The Republican Party was not built on "basic values of freedom and democracy."  Ever heard of "Reconstruction"?  Ever heard of the mass disenfranchisement of the South that followed the War Between the States?  (Check out this file on lewrockwell.com for plenty of interesting and well-researched information about the period) 

This young author also makes a point about the Republicans being "pro-business."  That's another part of the problem.  There is a huge difference between being pro-capitalism and being pro-business.  Few are the former.  Current Republicans are the latter, which is why the Ameircan Left can justifiably attack them for cozying up to big business (not that the Democrats are any better, cozy as they are with unions and the like).  I'm anxiously waiting for someone to meticulously treat this topic, as it's an important one.

Anyway, the underlying mistake in the esssay is that the writer equates Republicanism and conservatism.  Nonsense!  That's precisely the sort of thinking that will kill conservatism, and all the goods its seeks to defend.

So what is conservatism, and what should the young people who claim that title be fighting for?  A complex question, no doubt, and better minds and tongues than mine should make an attempt to answer it.  But I'll venture a guess.

Conservatism is, above all, a heroic way of life.  It is a political philosophy that is in many ways a-political.  Conservatives respect family, tradition, religion, and culture.  They love liberty and the free market, but are wise enough to know that both are merely instrumental goods that allow for the cultivation of a civilization that produces remarkable people. 

Of course, this is a horrible definition, because conservatism quite simply is not an ideology; it's a way of life.  I've tried to give a one line answer to this question a few times before, and both failed.  More accurately, I'd say you can understand conservatism if you appreciate literature (and, as you will shortly see, I'm using a very expansive definition of the word, one that relates to the literary life; one quite worth living, I might add).  Read The Lord of the Rings.  Read (or, if you're lucky enough, listen to a parent or grandparent relate) the myths of your people.  Learn about the history of your family, and the legends that have developed around some of your relations (I know a few about my father and grandfather, for instance).  Read about the amazing people who battled evil and won (like Saint's live, truly inspiring).  When you understand the simple beauty of human existence, made worthwhile by love and fragile by the countless times that love is challenged by the Enemy's malice, then you'll be that much closer to understanding conservatism.

And, more importantly, living it.  That will be the movement's true salvation.

Bubble?

This is just the latest article lewrockwell.com has posted on the "housing bubble."

Needless to say, the series has been rather negative in its outlook.

I was speaking about this topic with some colleagues yesterday, and they offered a rather different perspective.  Though a lot of critics have panned the housing movement as a sign of American immaturity (people are not willing to wait to invest and save enough to buy a house, and they don't need to because of this or that federal program), perhaps it is more accurate to take the opposite stance.  Perhaps it is a good thing that so many (young, especially) Americans are buying houses.  They desire permanence, a sturdy thing to call their own.  The shift from renters to owners may be a sign of the aging of the American nation.  If I'm not mistaken the number of home-owners in Europe is very high, and that's not surprising.  There, people are must more established, and the value of land and property is age-old. 

Maybe America is just settling in, calming down after a shiftless youth of renting and rootlessness.

It's pretty incredible that the real estate market is the crutch that's been holding up the American economy.  It's an industry close to $3 trillion strong, depending on who you ask.  It has provided for the retirements of plenty of elderly people, who have sold their homes at a healthy profit and gone on to find a small, comfortable place to spend the remainder of their days (with plenty in the bank to make up for their meager Social Security checks). 

Are there fears of interest rates going up?  Not amongst those I know.  In fact, they see this "housing bubble" as fantastic.  Where would, for instance, Home Depot and Wal-Mart be without it?  It's creating a lot of wealth and, perhaps, a new culture in America. 

I think it's a good thing that, as statistics show that teenage pregnancy is going down and more kids have good relationships with their parents, young people seek to complement the spiritual permanence they feel with something symbolic and material--like a house of their own. 

Mmmmmmmmmmmm...

Drinkable doughnut.  [Insert guttural, slobbering sound here]

Funny 'cause it's true

 
Here's Drudge's take on Kerry's work ethic.
 
PS  I hope to post tomorrow about the Ecumenical issue that's been floating about; work's been a little hectic, and certainly hasn't afforded me the time to write a substantial post on a substantial topic.

Hero

 
Today, do not forget to raise a glass to Count von Stauffenberg.
 
Of course, it would be better if you could raise a Cup instead.

Ecumenical Thoughts

 
This is in response to Cacciaguida's much anticipated post, which was worth the wait. 
 
I plan on both addressing Cacciaguida's post directly as well as offering some other tidbits to help the discussion along.  Whether or not I will finish this all now (during my lunch break) remains to be seen.
 
One point, before all else.  Every now and again, both in and out of the blogosphere, I take the liberty of ranting about something that really chaps my hindquarters; this is one such opportunity.  This latest debate about ecumenicism started on the comments on Elinor's blog (that's where I found the comment that provoked my e-mail to Cacciaguida), and continues as we speak on C.'s.  Some Catholic commentators are very fond of calling us Orthodox "heterodox," of commenting on the East's supposed lack of theological development, of placing all the blame for the Schism on the East's shoulders, etc. 
 
(Note: Cacciaguida is not on my gripe list; I respect him quite a bit and can't thank him for all the times he has been helpful and kind to me in the past)
 
(Note 2: I don't mind name-calling in fun; I've had plenty of Catholic friends joke about my Faith, which is all well and good; that stops, naturally, once the serious debate starts because they know that, for me to be open to their side, they have to be seriously open to mine; for a discussion to be truly ecumenical, neither side can assume orthodoxy in a pig-headed way)
 
Such people are arrogant, wrong, and unhelpful.  I didn't come to this discussion calling Catholics "Romish" or "popish" or whatever, pick your slur.  In fact, I was pretty much the only Orthodox in the comments boxes I referred to above, and still these slurs were being bandied about.  It's not a question of sensititivy; it's a question of intellectual honesty.  Quite frankly, a lot of the bad blood that Orthodox have for Catholics stems from these slurs.  When an Orthodox hears his faith being called heterodox, when he hears that his Faith has zero development of doctrine since sometime in the 5th century, when he hears that the East broke from the innocent West, he can't help but feel a little indignant, and rightly so. 
 
He knows that his Faith now does not contradict the Faith of the Faithers at all (make up your minds, arrogant Catholics: how are we heretics when we follow the faith of the undisputed Councils?); he knows that the theological tradition of his Church in no way comes second to the West's in terms of subtlety of thought, pure genius, or whatever standard you'd like to apply; he knows that his Faith is still strong and continues to produce amazing saints and great stories of heroism, to no lesser degree than the West; he knows that his Faith produced some of the greatest kingdoms and secular culture the world has ever known.
 
Do Orthodox remember the past?  Sure they do.  Why shouldn't they forget the great moments of betrayal?  When they hear Catholic blowhards ignore debate and repeat the old mantra of submission and authority they think of the: the barbarous sack of Constantinople, and the theft of relics, gold, and statuary that adorn the Vatican to this day; the way the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople were uncanonically sent into exile and replaced with Western yes-men; the way the one of the greatest (if not the greatest) empires in history fell to the Saracen horde with scarcely a finger lifted in the West, despite the fact that that Empire did more to save Europe from Muslim conquest than Charles Martel or any other Western leader.  They also cannot help but realize that, for all the West's claims to sheer intellectual superiority, the Renaissance would not have happened without the fall of Constantinople to the Turks (and the subsequent flight of untold artists and thinkers); after all, there was never anything that could be mistaken for a "Dark Age" in the East.  Quite frankly, they're also just sort after the 400 years of Ottoman rule, when Christian children were kidnapped at a young age and trained to be the very madmen that routinely pillaged Christian communities; they were called Janissaries.
 
Anyway, rant over.
 
Moral of the story: get off your high horse and approach your fellow Christians with a degree of honesty and charity.  Your attitude is no less unhelpful than that of the Christians (be they Orthodox or Catholic) who complain about the whore of Babylon.

Well, that took up more of my lunch break than I anticipated.  I'll see if I can't finish my work and get back to the substance of the debate.

Sleight of Hand

 
Whoopi's whining about the response to her jokes:
 

Fired from her gig as SlimFast spokeswoman, the salty entertainer hit back at Republicans who threatened a SlimFast boycott over sexual puns she made about President Bush's name at a Democratic fund-raiser.
"America's heart and soul is freedom of expression without fear of reprisal," she said in a statement.

 
What a subtle, and dishonest, sleight of hand.  How typical of modern types to make everything political, in the power sense of the word.  How in the world is a proposed boycott anti-American?  Who ever said that American free speech actuallly means "free from reprisal"?

This why freedom and liberty have turned into farce and license in this country.  Gramscian-Marxists (whether they know they are or not), by reducing all of existence to political power relationships, have made any meaningful social contact all but impossible.  Want to criticize someone?  Sorry, that would infringe their freedom of speech.  Want to exercise your rights as a consumer by not buying the product of someone you don't like?  Sorry, freedom of speech.  Want to attempt to freely organize with other consumers to collectively exercise your rights as consumers?  Sorry, 1st Amendment says you can't do that.
 
Remember when people wanted to boycott the Dixie Chicks after their attack on the President?  The media jumped on the boycotters because they were somehow violating the Constitution by...not buying stuff.  Remember when a private corporation (CBS) didn't air the disgusting Reagan miniseries because of a little economic pressure?  Well, naturally that was unconstitutional too.
 
Land of the free indeed.
 
Reason #179736960973861 why the public schools will never get better: an educated populace would never buy into such nonsense.

In Search of Ozz

First off, Drudge's reporting here is true. There was footage comparing President Bush to Hitler playing during Black Sabbath's War Pigs. That really got to me, and soured the whole Sabbath set.

I unfortunately missed most of Black Label Society's set. I got there just as Zakk Wylde stuck up for the President and, more importantly, the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He proudly shouted something along the lines of, "When you mess with the best, you're gonna get stepped on," in reference to the attack on September 11th.

Superjoint Ritual was alright. I still think it was a mistake for Phil Anselmo to leave both Pantera (one of the best bands of the past 20 years) and Down. He was also unnecessarily arrogant throughout the set, and did little to gain the crowd's support. I don't mind provoking the crowd, but when he called Superjoint "the most dangerous band on the planet" even I couldn't help but laugh, and I was one of the guys trying to root for Phil.

Dimmu Borgia, a Norwegian deathmetal band, was surprisingly good. Technically speaking, they're a very good band (oh, and for the record, when I praise this and other bands that I heard for the first time at Ozzfest, I do so solely based on the music; I couldn't catch most of the lyrics on the first go around, so I can't comment on that). They had amazing arrangements, and some amazing guitar solos.

Slayer was, quite simply, phenomenal. They did nothing but play for their entire set, unlike other bands whose lead singers spent way too much time droning on and on, usually about the President being Satan incarnate and other such nonsense. And talk about fast! It was amazing to see those guys in action; they take speed metal to a whole new level. That said, I've never bought one of their albums and I never will. They work for the Enemy. They are by far the most interesting of the satanic bands, though, and one must know one's enemy in order to beat him.

Judas Priest was incredible! It was so much fun to see some good old fashioned metal, music that cares more about quality than sheer speed or volume. They've been in the business for over 30 years and are still leagues ahead of any of the generic metal (Hatebreed, Lamb of God, etc.) that played the second stage. It actually started raining just as Judas Priest took the stage, a pleasant storm. The lighting seemed to be timed as it rent the sky at precisely the right moments, giving the lyrics and music extra emphasis. Loads of fun, all in all, despite the soaking rain.

Black Sabbath, as I said, disappointed me with their juvenile attempt at political speech. Musically, though, they were spot on. Tony Iommi is a wonderful guitarist. It was a joy to watch him perform; with minimal effort he produced some of the greatest riffs and solos in all of rock. Geezer Butler on bass was also jaw-droppingly good. Ozzy was fun to listen to, as usual; he's one of the best voices in rock. It was sad to see him putter around stage. Years of serious drug abuse have destroyed him (which makes me wonder why he persists in playing Sweat Leaf while the screens behind him showed plumes of smoke and large tri-leaves, if you get my drift).

There are a lot of very talented people at Ozzfest this year. Seeing them play their music, and listening to their lyrics and the nonsense they spouted, makes me think Plato was right. I think it was in the Ion where Socrates argues that artistic talent comes from divine inspiration, and has nothing to do with the intelligence of soundness of the artist himself. It's a shame Slayer's so anti-Christianity, and the other bands were stupid in their own ways. The Enemy sure knows how to use aesthetics to his advantage.

Moore of the same

The family of U.S. Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone was shocked to learn that video footage of the major's Arlington National Cemetery burial was included by Michael Moore in his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Stone was killed in March 2003 by a grenade that officials said was thrown into his tent by Sgt. Hasan K. Akbar, who is on trial for murder...

We are furious that Greg was in that casket and cannot defend himself, and my sister, Greg's mother, is just beside herself," Gallagher said. "She is furious. She called him a 'maggot that eats off the dead.'"

The movie, described by critics as political propaganda during an election year, shows video footage of the funeral and Stone's fiancee, Tammie Eslinger, kissing her hand and touching it to his coffin.

The family does not know how Moore obtained the video, and Gallagher said they did not give permission and are considering legal recourse.

Read the rest here.

And they wonder why he didn't attend

This is just disgusting:

"If he didn't go anywhere people criticize him, he'd never leave home," Bond said, drawing laughter.

That's Julian Bond, of course, on the President's refusal to address the NAACP.

And it's just plain dishonest. There's a huge difference between criticism and groundless accusations that claim President Bush was complicit in a brutal murder.

Thanks for doing your part to destroy meaning and further dumb down political discourse, Julian.

"The clothes make the man"

Here's Taki on the necessity of proper dress, and he's dead on.

wizard of Oz

I had a great day at Ozzfest yesterday, the annual rock/metal festival made possible by Ozzy Osbourne himself.

For those who don't know, the show is roughly divided into parts: there's the second stage, where the smaller acts play earlier in the day; then there's the main stage, where the big boys play. The first stage was pretty bad, with only a few exceptions. Unearth was alright. They had some good guitarists, and a pretty good drummer. I don't think they played well as a band, as a cohesive singular unit (in other words, I didn't like their overall arrangements).

Seeing Slipknot in person was loads of fun. They have a good sound, and their masks and black jumpsuits were pretty hardcore. Each member of the band wears some gruesome, Halloween-ish mask to maintain some degree of privacy and anonymity. I recently heard rumors the band was going to break up. One member's going to have a child soon, another is planning on getting married, etc. If you're going to break up a band, those are definitely good reasons; and that's not the sort of thinking you encounter very often in the world at large.

I was pleasantly surprised by Lacuna Coil. They have a good sound, and their female lead singer has a wonderful voice. They reminded me a bit of Evanescence, though Lacuna Coil hasn't gotten the same media push. A guy also sings with the band; his voice and awkward banter with the crowd between songs irritated me.

My reaction to the other bands ranged from mild anger to outright disgust. First off, most of the other bands made constant reference to the President, mocking him and his policies. I don't mind politics mixing with music; I do mind people jumping on the fashinonable critique bandwagon. It's now en vogue to bash Bush, whether or not you actually have a justifiable reason (or any reason, for that matter). I felt like I was listening to stupid little kids mindlessly whining because they were bored.

I also couldn't stand the music. So much metal and rock has been deconstructed into nonsense. For most new bands, it's not about playing better or smarter. It's about playing faster and louder, not matter what you play. Almost every lead singer sounds the same. Almost every band plays the same chords and has the same drumbeat. Almost every bad treats bridges and choruses the same way. Sure, you can mosh to that garbage (more on moshing later) but there's no techne to it. I would be abusing the English language if I were to call most of these people "musicians." Something is definetely wrong with you when every song in your catalogue sounds the same.

I'll write about the wonders of the main stage, and the stupidity of moshing, later today.

Land of the Scared, and Home of the Wimpy

Here's yet another example of the mad rush of Americans throwing away all signs of responsibility and their last remaining shreds of self-respect. If you're watching a minor league baseball game in New Jersey and a foul ball hits you, guess what?

You can sue!

Come on people. Do I really need to explain why this is stupid?

Next up on the continuing saga of the American legal tradition: court appoints nurses to chew the food and wipe the ass of every citizen (a case that would extend this protection to illegals is up for appeal).

Alright, I think I added comments boxes. Let's see if they work, and if anybody has anything to say.

The Creed

Here's a bit from the Council of Ephesus, or the Third Ecumenical Council, which assembled in the Year of Our Lord the four hundred thirty first.

Here's the important part to keep in mind:

When these documents had been read out, the holy synod decreed the following.

1. It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea.

What are we to make of this? The meaning seems obvious, as best I can tell: don't mess with the Creed. So what are we to make of the Filioque accepted by the Latin Church? Perhaps it was this text that prevented early Popes from accepting the addition. What does this tell us about ideas of Papal Infallibility? Can the Pope directly contradict a Council? Can any Council directly contradict another Council?

I should think not. The earliest source of infallibility in the Church has always been the Council. Before theories of the Papacy split Christendom asunder all could agree that the Holy Spirit worked through the Ecumenical Councils.

I hope some of my Catholic friends and readers have some thoughts on the subject. Feel free to write me an e-mail or answer on your blog (posts like this make me think I should invest the time and add comments boxes).

"My Daddy's Name is Donor"

This sure stinks to high Heaven. It's a new campaign being launched by the homo-sex lobby. Dawn Eden has a good piece on this subject. I need not comment.

Well, maybe one comment: understand just how important the stakes are in this culture war; there are a lot of important things riding on the fight over homo-marriage and the other big issues of our time.

Bond, Julian Bond

The NAACP has, naturally, announced that it's all for the ousting of President Bush in the upcoming election. Here's a bit from Chairman Bond's speech:

Bond said that 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on school desegregation, and 40 years after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, schools remain segregated based on income, and racism still exists in many forms.

Minority children still face inequality in school spending and are being disproportionately hurt by the accountability aims of Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, he said.

"On our present course, we are formalizing two school systems: one filled with middle-class children, most of them white, and the other filled with low-income minorities," Bond said.

It's a shame he hasn't listened to Bill Cosby's recent criticism of black culture. Stop blaming whitey for everything and realize that black urban culture is seriously screwed up. I don't care how nice black schools are. If there are no fathers at home, and if black kids don't have basic language skills, and if you're a loser if you want an education, then the inner city is going to remain a crap-hole.

Sorry, that's just the way it is. Bill Cosby had the courage to say so. Of course, the degeneration of black culture is how Julian Bond and other black "leaders" make their money, so they won't do anything to actually fix the problem.

(Of course, all ethnicities and races have their share of crooks. Cypriot-Americans, for instance, have been plagued for a quarter of a century by "leaders" who, while claiming to act for the good of Cyprus, have been exploiting the occupation and filling their pockets in the process.)

Draft Ditka

There's a growing movement to draft Coach Mike Ditka, NFL Hall of Famer and legendary coach of the Chicago Bears in the 1980s, to run for US Senate representing Illinois.

Not only is the guy cool just by virtuous of the fact that he's Mike Ditka, a no-nonsense football hero, but he's apparently very conservative.

Awesome.

Here's the website of the group trying to get him to run, Draft Ditka.

Mail

A friend and reader writes (in response to this post):

No one is trying to claim that condom usage will stop the AIDS
epidemic, but it will slow its growth. Yes, in about 20% of condom
uses, HIV may pass through the barrier. However, these odds are still
better than if there were no condoms used at all. In my home visits in
India with medical students, we have come across at least 5 (of the
100 women I have spoke with) who knew that their husbands had AIDS
(contracted from prostitutes) and understood that they did not want to
get AIDS. These women have an annual family income of Rs ~300/- per
month (~$6). Their children are starving and they can't afford their
next meal, how are they supposed to afford or even think about using
condoms to save their own lives. [And, in the majority of these cases,
not having sex with their husbands is not a choice that they are
allowed to make.] While I respect the fact that the Catholic Church
does not condone or promote condom usage, it is an insensitive error
to suggested that the promotion of condom use by non-religious
organizations (including through distribution of free condoms) will
not save lives. True, it won't save them all, but has the potential to
save that 80%.

In response, I'll first link to this article.

It makes a great point, that actually follows from the problems you lay out in your e-mail: the AIDS problem is at its root a cultural problem. Think of the (married) man who contracted AIDS from a prostitute. Think of his wife, and how it's inconceivable for her to avoid sex with her husband and live chastely with him (ie, she's a piece of meat at his sexual disposal). The problem is not that AIDS is sexually transmittable. The chances are really good that if a husband and wife have one partner apiece in their entire lives (their respective spouses), then chances are really good that they're not going to contract AIDS.

Consider developments in Uganda, cited in the article:

Uganda's noted success in reducing the prevalence of AIDS was due a program that focused on delaying sexual activity among adolescents, promoting abstinence, encouraging faithfulness to a single partner, and condom use. Condom promotion was last in order of importance, notes the article.

Hearst and Chen explain that increased use of condoms was not responsible for the decline in AIDS among Ugandans. "The main cause of falling incidence in Uganda was a substantial drop in numbers of casual sex partners," they wrote. Their article also attributes falling HIV prevalence among pregnant women in parts of Zambia and Tanzania to reductions in numbers of sexual partners.

In another article, a group of experts on HIV stressed the need for greater emphasis in changing sexual behavior. "It seems obvious," said an article in the April 10 issue of the British Medical Journal, "but there would be no global AIDS pandemic were it not for multiple sexual partnerships." The article was entitled "Partner reduction is crucial for balanced 'ABC' approach to HIV prevention."

Distributing condoms may save a life or two, but it does nothing to address the culture that allows for the spread of AIDS in the first place. The men who are wearing condoms are still the sort to sleep with any woman they can get their hands on. Their basic outlook is still one guided by sexual appetite, and if you're starting from a position of unrestraint it's really easy to have unprotected sex anyway, whether or not condoms are available (ie, if sex is good and I can still have it anytime and a condom isn't available, oh well...). Condom distribution, if anything, distracts us from addressing the much messier real problem, one that can't be solved with a few bucks and a boatload of Trojans.

Victory

I hope all had a wonderful Independence Day. Apart from the usual lighting of fireworks, I had a special treat: watching the Greek National Team beat the Portuguese in the UEFA EuroCup Final.

It was an impressive tournament for the Greeks. They had never won even a single game in international competition before this (some may recall the Greek performance in the 1994 World Cup; the combined score in the three or four Greek losses was something like 15-0, the team didn't score a single goal). Plus, there were no superstars on the squad (while Portugal had a Ronaldo, for instance).

Yet victory came anyway, thanks to some brilliant coaching by the German coach, and it was quite an impressive one at that.

From Athens to Astoria, people gathered together in a wonderfully exuberant display of national pride. I'll forgive the crassness of some participants, as emotions tend to run high during such moments.

Taki, as always, has fun recollections of the week.

May God bless America as she enters a new year, and may God bless the Greek people and help them regain even a little of the wisdom and greatness that they once possessed.

Monachos

Here's an interesting resource I just stumbled over, while looking into the Council of Ephesus (which came up in a discussion over at Elinor's blog).

Here Taki!

On the recent success of the Greek national soccer team in the EuroCup tournament.

By the way, Greece beat the Czech team yesterday in a very dramatic game 1-0, with under a minute left in overtime.

I enjoyed Taki's description of the Greek fans chanting the National Anthem over and over to spur their team on. If only New York Greeks could be so aesthetically appealing. Rather than chant patriotic songs (and there are quite a few goods ones I learned in my youth), the exuberant fans that gathered in the streets of New York did nothing but incessantly honk their car horns. Women added to the cacophony by shrieking (you know, like a banshee) with much enthusiasm.

I like a good celebration. Flag waving, singing in the streets, and engaging in a giant display of community solidarity is great. I hate it when hoi polloi simply make noise and carry on like caffeinated goats.

Silent Cal

Here's a fun article about and a bunch of great quotes by one of the 20th century's best president, Calvin Coolidge.

He was a very good president but, sadly, not a great one. Despite his amazing work in undoing the damage of the Wilson Administration, Hoover and FDR followed him; so alas his influence was not at all lasting. He was an inspiration to Reagan, at least.

It's amazing how common sensical all of the quotes in this piece are. I wonder how the public would react if a man were to ever speak like this at, say, the Republican Nation Convention nowadays. I hope the American people still has enough of a spark left within them to gravitate to such simple wisdom, if only the majority ever get a chance to hear it...