In an email from my friend Tom, quoting a better-known Tom (Tomas de Aquino, as it happens):
"Three things are necessary for the salvation of man: to know what he ought to believe; to know what he ought to desire; and to know what he ought to do."
Saturday, January 31, 2009
House divided
My wife and daughter and I are rooting for the Cardinals because our family lived briefly in Arizona, but my son says he'll be cheering for the Steelers, because most of his friends are doing that.
Very nearly reading my mind
The Anchoress:
I have, since the election, seriously thought about focusing exclusively on religion, but politics always lures me back because it is maddening and fascinating and my hot Irish head needs things to cavil about. And I do think that occasionally - once in a while - I actually offer up a unique thought or make a salient point. Let’s face it, no one blogs for money; one blogs for the love of writing and the indisputable conceit that one has something worthwhile to say.
See also some things to which she links:
The Bachmann Overdrive, sans Turner; The Unmentioned Iraqi Election; Krauthammer on American outreach to Islam (his piece reminds me of another doctor, Doctor Phil, and his "how's that workin' out for ya?" catchphrase)
I have, since the election, seriously thought about focusing exclusively on religion, but politics always lures me back because it is maddening and fascinating and my hot Irish head needs things to cavil about. And I do think that occasionally - once in a while - I actually offer up a unique thought or make a salient point. Let’s face it, no one blogs for money; one blogs for the love of writing and the indisputable conceit that one has something worthwhile to say.
See also some things to which she links:
The Bachmann Overdrive, sans Turner; The Unmentioned Iraqi Election; Krauthammer on American outreach to Islam (his piece reminds me of another doctor, Doctor Phil, and his "how's that workin' out for ya?" catchphrase)
Shakespeare would be appalled
No more apostrophes on street signs in Birmingham, England? Sheesh.
It's bad enough that software programmers still don't handle Irish surnames like mine successfully in many of their database coding assignments, despite almost 60 years of research into delimiters and character strings.
If people had trouble distinguishing between plural and possessive before, they're only going to have more trouble now.
It's bad enough that software programmers still don't handle Irish surnames like mine successfully in many of their database coding assignments, despite almost 60 years of research into delimiters and character strings.
If people had trouble distinguishing between plural and possessive before, they're only going to have more trouble now.
Friday, January 30, 2009
What I read in January
I've decided to take a leaf (perhaps it's a frond?) from my friend Palm Tree Pundit, and track the books I read this year. This is what what I finished this month:
The Shack, by William P. Young
Sly Mongoose, by Tobias S. Buckell
Washington's Spies: The Story of America's First Spy Ring, by Alexander Rose
The Shack, by William P. Young
Sly Mongoose, by Tobias S. Buckell
Washington's Spies: The Story of America's First Spy Ring, by Alexander Rose
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Best of the obits for Billy Powell
This week we're hearing a lot about the grocery bagger who became a starting quarterback in the NFL, and rightfully so. But how about a hand for the roadie who became an integral member of the band he had been toting gear for?
Rest in Peace, keyboard man who is now, metaphorically speaking, a "free bird."
Here's hoping Powell is on his way to a sweet home that's better than Alabama. And when it comes to obituaries, the British still know how to "turn it up."
Rest in Peace, keyboard man who is now, metaphorically speaking, a "free bird."
Here's hoping Powell is on his way to a sweet home that's better than Alabama. And when it comes to obituaries, the British still know how to "turn it up."
A Russian perspective on Cervantes
Oleg Atbashian is a little shaky on the difference between "renumerating" and "reiterating," but like the late and much-missed Oriana Fallaci, he's read his western literary canon, and is definately onto something disquieting:
"The spectacle of a bombastic crackpot in medieval armor poking his lance at random objects is disquieting if you own and operate an industrial facility. It sends thrills up your legs if you share the noble hidalgo’s conviction that the perfectly functional, cereal-grinding, income-generating windmills are the embodiment of evil, spreading death and destruction. As far as popular entertainment goes, I’ve seen worse. But when Don Quixote organizes a community to fight windmills and receives massive support, anyone with a job should be worried. When he becomes president with a popular mandate to wreck windmills at taxpayers’ expense, using the government apparatus, hope becomes all but absent."
"The spectacle of a bombastic crackpot in medieval armor poking his lance at random objects is disquieting if you own and operate an industrial facility. It sends thrills up your legs if you share the noble hidalgo’s conviction that the perfectly functional, cereal-grinding, income-generating windmills are the embodiment of evil, spreading death and destruction. As far as popular entertainment goes, I’ve seen worse. But when Don Quixote organizes a community to fight windmills and receives massive support, anyone with a job should be worried. When he becomes president with a popular mandate to wreck windmills at taxpayers’ expense, using the government apparatus, hope becomes all but absent."
Coleman versus Gore on global warming
One is a weatherman and a legend in his field. The other tried to steal a presidential election (and except for the Supreme Court, would have). Advantage: Coleman
He did respect a hierarchy of hops, however
From the blog over at First Things, slowly adjusting to life without contributions from Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, here's Michael Orsi in a book review talking about a "forgotten revolutionary:"
"While Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, and John Adams (Samuel’s cousin) were all more or less men of faith, they tended to view religion in a utilitarian light—as something useful for establishing the new nation. They recognized its value in building the civic virtue necessary for self-government. For Samuel Adams, however, religion was the essential motive for the entire revolutionary enterprise. His conception of freedom stemmed from a radical belief in the equality of all men before God. This made any form of hierarchy repugnant to him, whether in the state or in the Church itself."
"While Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, and John Adams (Samuel’s cousin) were all more or less men of faith, they tended to view religion in a utilitarian light—as something useful for establishing the new nation. They recognized its value in building the civic virtue necessary for self-government. For Samuel Adams, however, religion was the essential motive for the entire revolutionary enterprise. His conception of freedom stemmed from a radical belief in the equality of all men before God. This made any form of hierarchy repugnant to him, whether in the state or in the Church itself."
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Beware the dystopian Disneyland
What happens when lawyers of a progressive bent are elevated to positions of political power is not pretty-- or so I contend in a new essay for American Spectator Online.
A curious definition of "economic stimulus"
Who knew it was synonymous with "bacon" and "political pork" (about which, more here)?
Mary-Eileen Swart and Sister Toldjah also have piquant thoughts on the subject.
UPDATE: All of the above are good, but an essay by Charles Adler contains the Quote of the Day:
"One can understand the Democrat party's desire to make sure no labor boss is left behind. But we are all being asked to leverage our faith in the economics of the past in order to create a better future. I am willing to extend a hand if Nancy Pelosi is willing to unclench her fist."
Mary-Eileen Swart and Sister Toldjah also have piquant thoughts on the subject.
UPDATE: All of the above are good, but an essay by Charles Adler contains the Quote of the Day:
"One can understand the Democrat party's desire to make sure no labor boss is left behind. But we are all being asked to leverage our faith in the economics of the past in order to create a better future. I am willing to extend a hand if Nancy Pelosi is willing to unclench her fist."
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Monetary policy as a predictor of political fortune
Stephen Moore and John Tamney make the case for a strong dollar in layman's terms. It sounds airtight to me!
Monday, January 26, 2009
Soylent Green is people?
Re the post heading, it was either that or "Paging Jonathan Swift" (bonus points if you remember why). Here's the news nugget responsible for those thoughts:
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic “stimulus” package, claiming “contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.”
Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, “Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom,” seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.
The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC’s THIS WEEK.
The ironies are whiplash-inducing. And if you're in the mood for connecting the dots, there are more dots here.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic “stimulus” package, claiming “contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.”
Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, “Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom,” seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.
The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC’s THIS WEEK.
The ironies are whiplash-inducing. And if you're in the mood for connecting the dots, there are more dots here.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Wabbit season
Jane wants to join the local 4H club, so now we have an English Angora named "Flopsie" that we brought home from a rabbit rancher (?) near Charlotte.Saturday, January 24, 2009
What leadership sounds like
Governor Sarah Palin's third state of the state address to the people of Alaska.
Note that the budget cut she's talking about is an actual cut, not a federal-style "brake on the rate of increase."
John McCain is too drunk on bipartisan Kool-Aide to be the leader he thinks he is, but he did the rest of us a favor by elevating Governor Palin to national prominence.
Note that the budget cut she's talking about is an actual cut, not a federal-style "brake on the rate of increase."
John McCain is too drunk on bipartisan Kool-Aide to be the leader he thinks he is, but he did the rest of us a favor by elevating Governor Palin to national prominence.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Well played, governor
Kirsten Gillibrand has been appointed to the Senate seat formerly occupied by Hillary Clinton, and from where I sit, that looks and sounds like a marked improvement. New York governor David Paterson should be commended for selecting her.
Some people on the Lucianne.com forum speculate that Gillibrand is being groomed as a Democratic answer to Sarah Palin. Assessments like that are extremely premature, but if Gillibrand actually positions herself that way down the road, it's all to the good: the more pro-life, NRA-friendly women in state and national office, the better.
UPDATE: A Catholic Exchange piece had said Gillibrand is pro-life, but Wikipedia says she is "pro-choice."
Some people on the Lucianne.com forum speculate that Gillibrand is being groomed as a Democratic answer to Sarah Palin. Assessments like that are extremely premature, but if Gillibrand actually positions herself that way down the road, it's all to the good: the more pro-life, NRA-friendly women in state and national office, the better.
UPDATE: A Catholic Exchange piece had said Gillibrand is pro-life, but Wikipedia says she is "pro-choice."
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Rise of the con artists
From an AFP story about our new Secretary of State:
"WASHINGTON, (AFP) – Hillary Clinton became President Barack Obama's top diplomat after pledging to fight climate change, push hard for Arab-Israeli peace and take a new approach to US foes like Iran.
The confirmation came on Obama's first full day in office.
[...] The only two dissenters in the vote over Clinton, who served two terms as a Democratic senator from New York, were Republicans Jim DeMint of South Carolina and David Vitter of Louisiana."
And let's not forget Hillary's ever-feckless husband:
"According to an article published on the KHQ station website out of Washington State, taxpayers support former Presidents to the tune of $2.9 million per year. The biggest spender? Good ol' Bill Clinton.
In 2006, we footed his outrageous $104,000 phone bill. We also paid for "the satellite TV in his office, complete with eight separate receivers and all the movie channels that come with the "entertainment package" at a cost of $1,800 per year."
Hat tip for the story on Clintonian graft to Anthony Sacramone, who -- like me but not Fr. Richard John Neuhaus -- found the movie Heat to be entertaining.
"WASHINGTON, (AFP) – Hillary Clinton became President Barack Obama's top diplomat after pledging to fight climate change, push hard for Arab-Israeli peace and take a new approach to US foes like Iran.
The confirmation came on Obama's first full day in office.
[...] The only two dissenters in the vote over Clinton, who served two terms as a Democratic senator from New York, were Republicans Jim DeMint of South Carolina and David Vitter of Louisiana."
And let's not forget Hillary's ever-feckless husband:
"According to an article published on the KHQ station website out of Washington State, taxpayers support former Presidents to the tune of $2.9 million per year. The biggest spender? Good ol' Bill Clinton.
In 2006, we footed his outrageous $104,000 phone bill. We also paid for "the satellite TV in his office, complete with eight separate receivers and all the movie channels that come with the "entertainment package" at a cost of $1,800 per year."
Hat tip for the story on Clintonian graft to Anthony Sacramone, who -- like me but not Fr. Richard John Neuhaus -- found the movie Heat to be entertaining.
Shiver on Roe v. Wade
Kyle-Anne Shiver with some cogent thought, just in case you thought it was only "Day Two of the Obama Presidency," or figured prayer could stop after those inaugural invocations (Newsweek's puzzlement notwithstanding, Rick Warren offered a good one, but Rev. V. Gene Robinson and Rev. Joseph Lawry weren't quite ready for prime time).
In related news, Jeff Miller has a handy slogan for the day.
In related news, Jeff Miller has a handy slogan for the day.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
People who did not get the memo
Unintended hilarity in the title of a blog post on MSNBC's World Blog:
"Russians more concerned with ruble than Obama"
Meanwhile, Robert Stacy McCain (no relation to the Senator) has already had it with Garrison Keillor (recently seen giving a seal clap for the allegedly "dignified" booing that greeted George and Laura Bush at the inauguration), Peggy "suspension of disbelief" Noonan and other people who rhapsodize about Obama's gifts as an author.
For one thing, it's obvious that the amen chorus hasn't read Jack Cashill's pretty-near-conclusive argument that Obama's best book was ghostwritten by Bill Ayers. For another, even without Cashill's thesis to chew on, the literary arc ascribed to our new president is implausible at best (remember, even while editing the Harvard Law Review, Obama never wrote for it).
UPDATE: Iowahawk most certainly did not get the memo. He'll be hearing from Rahm Emmanuel, I bet. Hat tip to Bookworm for that funny funny link. VDH would understand. And then, there's this for the "how do you like them apples?" file:
Early numbers for the inauguration of Barack Obama are impressive but, perhaps surprisingly, could come in below those for Ronald Reagan's first term in 1981.
Preliminary Nielsen estimates show that 29.2% of U.S. households were watching the presidential inauguration -- easily the largest in decades but below the 37.4 household rating for Reagan.
"Russians more concerned with ruble than Obama"
Meanwhile, Robert Stacy McCain (no relation to the Senator) has already had it with Garrison Keillor (recently seen giving a seal clap for the allegedly "dignified" booing that greeted George and Laura Bush at the inauguration), Peggy "suspension of disbelief" Noonan and other people who rhapsodize about Obama's gifts as an author.
For one thing, it's obvious that the amen chorus hasn't read Jack Cashill's pretty-near-conclusive argument that Obama's best book was ghostwritten by Bill Ayers. For another, even without Cashill's thesis to chew on, the literary arc ascribed to our new president is implausible at best (remember, even while editing the Harvard Law Review, Obama never wrote for it).
UPDATE: Iowahawk most certainly did not get the memo. He'll be hearing from Rahm Emmanuel, I bet. Hat tip to Bookworm for that funny funny link. VDH would understand. And then, there's this for the "how do you like them apples?" file:
Early numbers for the inauguration of Barack Obama are impressive but, perhaps surprisingly, could come in below those for Ronald Reagan's first term in 1981.
Preliminary Nielsen estimates show that 29.2% of U.S. households were watching the presidential inauguration -- easily the largest in decades but below the 37.4 household rating for Reagan.
Church militant and triumphant
H.W. Crocker III with a list of ten reasons to explain "what's so great about Catholicism."
Like Mary Poppins, Crocker never apologizes. But unlike Mary Poppins, he does explain. So I raise my glass to him for including The Inquisition, the Crusades, and the French Foreign Legion on that stimulating list of ten things.
Like Mary Poppins, Crocker never apologizes. But unlike Mary Poppins, he does explain. So I raise my glass to him for including The Inquisition, the Crusades, and the French Foreign Legion on that stimulating list of ten things.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Snow Day in Central Carolina
Re the departure of President Bush, see Kate for poignant thoughts.
Re the inauguration of President Obama, I agree in almost every respect with The Anchoress (if you're curious, the qualifer is because she was a little kinder to The Speech than I would have been-- I thought there were some wince-inducing moments there, but I'm willing to attribute such unforced errors to the new president's twenty-something chief speechwriter).
Monday, January 19, 2009
RJN on MLK
Having himself been a participant in that movement, the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus wrote with authority about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights movement.
While you can find the full text of his essay at the First Things blog (which continues to run excerpts from the writings of Fr. Neuhaus in homage to his influence), I also like the way that Orrin Judd has, per his custom, excerpted some of the best stuff, in this case a few paragraphs about the underrated Ralph Abernathy.
While you can find the full text of his essay at the First Things blog (which continues to run excerpts from the writings of Fr. Neuhaus in homage to his influence), I also like the way that Orrin Judd has, per his custom, excerpted some of the best stuff, in this case a few paragraphs about the underrated Ralph Abernathy.
Remembering Andrew Wyeth
Christopher Orlet has a nice essay about Andrew Wyeth up at American Spectator Online.
One indicator of the late painter's place in our cultural firmament that Orlet does not mention is that Charles Schulz (and through him, Snoopy) admired Wyeth.
I don't know much about Wyeth's work, but on hearing that he loved the state of Maine "in spite of its scenery," and that he once told Life magazine, "Really, I think one's art goes only as far and as deep as [one's] love goes," I suspect he was onto the virtues of a "purpose-driven life" long beforeJoel Osteen Rick Warren starting writing about them.
One indicator of the late painter's place in our cultural firmament that Orlet does not mention is that Charles Schulz (and through him, Snoopy) admired Wyeth.
I don't know much about Wyeth's work, but on hearing that he loved the state of Maine "in spite of its scenery," and that he once told Life magazine, "Really, I think one's art goes only as far and as deep as [one's] love goes," I suspect he was onto the virtues of a "purpose-driven life" long before
A valedictory for GWB from the Dalai Lama
Can't make this stuff up, and here's the squib from the Times of India (with a tip of my hat to Instapundit):
NEW DELHI: The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence on Saturday candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa because the minds of terrorists are closed.
"It is difficult to deal with terrorism through non-violence," the Tibetan spiritual leader said delivering the Madhavrao Scindia Memorial Lecture here. He also termed terrorism as the worst kind of violence which is not carried by a few mad people but by those who are very brilliant and educated. "They (terrorists) are very brilliant and educated...but a strong ill feeling is bred in them. Their minds are closed," the Dalai Lama said.
He said that the only way to tackle terrorism is through prevention.
The head of the Tibetan government-in-exile left the audience stunned when he said "I love President George W Bush." He went on to add how he and the US President instantly struck a chord in their first meeting unlike politicians who take a while to develop close ties.
Related items here from Flopping Aces and here from American Thinker, although only the first will surprise many progressives (because the second link is to an essay by Kyle-Anne Shiver, and she has long worn her heart on her sleeve).
UPDATE: Christopher Hitchens, of all people, anticipates a "Wednesday morning hangover" for many of the right reasons.
NEW DELHI: The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence on Saturday candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa because the minds of terrorists are closed.
"It is difficult to deal with terrorism through non-violence," the Tibetan spiritual leader said delivering the Madhavrao Scindia Memorial Lecture here. He also termed terrorism as the worst kind of violence which is not carried by a few mad people but by those who are very brilliant and educated. "They (terrorists) are very brilliant and educated...but a strong ill feeling is bred in them. Their minds are closed," the Dalai Lama said.
He said that the only way to tackle terrorism is through prevention.
The head of the Tibetan government-in-exile left the audience stunned when he said "I love President George W Bush." He went on to add how he and the US President instantly struck a chord in their first meeting unlike politicians who take a while to develop close ties.
Related items here from Flopping Aces and here from American Thinker, although only the first will surprise many progressives (because the second link is to an essay by Kyle-Anne Shiver, and she has long worn her heart on her sleeve).
UPDATE: Christopher Hitchens, of all people, anticipates a "Wednesday morning hangover" for many of the right reasons.
A verdict from sports radio
I don't remember who said it, but a thumbnail analysis I heard this morning is hard to argue with:
"The Steelers are like a no-nonsense restaurant that stays open for forty years. The Cardinals are Steelers Lite. The Cowboys are a nightclub that's hot for six months and then gets shut down by the Feds."
"The Steelers are like a no-nonsense restaurant that stays open for forty years. The Cardinals are Steelers Lite. The Cowboys are a nightclub that's hot for six months and then gets shut down by the Feds."
Sunday, January 18, 2009
All-purpose parody
Chris Johnson links this brilliant bit of writing to the web site for the "living wage" campaign ($10 in 2010, and who cares whether that puts more people out of work!), but the beauty of Johnson's essay is that it applies equally well as an oblique commentary on the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act," since the people pushing that bill have no regard for (ultrasound, digital, or film) pictures, either, as Christians have been saying for awhile now.
The news from Gaza
Because Ace and Gabriel and other denizens of what Ace affectionately calls "the moronosphere" are far more trustworthy than people like Professor Juan Cole.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Hammer throw
The doctor can still turn a phrase:
"Whatever venom the war generated is concentrated on Bush himself. By having personalized the responsibility for the awfulness of the war, Bush has done his successor a favor. Obama enters office with a strategic success on his hands -- while Bush leaves the scene taking a shoe for his country."
Hat tip to Laer at Cheat-Seeking Missiles.
"Whatever venom the war generated is concentrated on Bush himself. By having personalized the responsibility for the awfulness of the war, Bush has done his successor a favor. Obama enters office with a strategic success on his hands -- while Bush leaves the scene taking a shoe for his country."
Hat tip to Laer at Cheat-Seeking Missiles.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Pssst...power to the people
The game is afoot, as Sherlock Holmes used to say. And in a Marin County craft store, of all places. I raise a glass in toast to all four women.
Here's another great example of impromptu community-building.
In related news from other places, people -- more specifically, Catholic bloggers -- aren't buying Doug Kmiec's self-serving hokum (which is the only thing he can use to claim that Barack Obama is "pro-life" as that phrase is normally understood).
Here's another great example of impromptu community-building.
In related news from other places, people -- more specifically, Catholic bloggers -- aren't buying Doug Kmiec's self-serving hokum (which is the only thing he can use to claim that Barack Obama is "pro-life" as that phrase is normally understood).
WSJ says I was right about wiretapping
Actually the Wall Street Journal doesn't know me from Adam. But that's the gist of this opinion article, which basically says I was right back in February of 2006.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
My son, the comedian
"Hey Thomas, whatcha doing upstairs?"
"My homework."
"If you do it down here, I can help you."
"My room is more comfortable."
"So you don't want to work downstairs?"
"I like my room better. Besides, if I'm downstairs and you are, too, I might get 'ape-i-fied.' "
"My homework."
"If you do it down here, I can help you."
"My room is more comfortable."
"So you don't want to work downstairs?"
"I like my room better. Besides, if I'm downstairs and you are, too, I might get 'ape-i-fied.' "
Contrarian looks in the rear-view mirror
I don't plan to watch the farewell speech from President Bush tonight, but because so many people (including this sampling of correspondents writing to the Letters editor of the NYT) have turned slamming him into a cottage industry, it seems only fair to point out that the minority view of his two terms as better than many critics credit them for being has more than gut feeling to back it up.
Joe Scarborough is sanguine about the Bush legacy. Andrew Roberts likewise has kind things to say. So do Ruth Wisse and Lisa Fabrizio and Elizabeth Scalia. Jay Ambrose, too. What's especially interesting is that none of them is a professional contrarian.
Me, I think that while President Bush never did find a first-rate Secretary of State, kept incompetents on the federal payroll too long (remember Mike Brown?) and can only be called "conservative" in relation to people like Al Gore and Dennis Kucinich, fair-minded historians will not be able to tag him as our "worst president ever," because that title still belongs very much to Jimmy Carter. It's faint praise, to be sure, but praise, nonetheless. And Bush deserves more besides. In spite of its mistakes, the Bush presidency was consequential, as well as principled.
Domestically, bailing out of the Kyoto Treaty and nominating Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court were good things (that the president had to nominate Alito on a "do over" when people objected to the cronyism manifest in GWB's initial proposal of Harriet Myers is moot).
Afghanistan is still in flux and Iraq remains a mixed bag. Wars in those places are a huge part of George W. Bush's legacy, but (wonder of wonders) Iraq has a representative government now, and as one comic -- Dennis Miller-- said awhile back, "am I supposed to feel sorry because Saddam Hussein and his punk sons drew the ***hole card in the Wonka Lottery?"
In other parts of the world, American relations with India and with most of the countries in Africa have never been better.
Moreover, unlike his impeached and still feckless predecessor (who yearned for gravitas and consequence but achieved only notoriety), Bush earned the respect of the U.S. military, and was never poll-driven. Those two things combine with his pro-life stance (more here) and his widely-acknowledged personal decency to speak well of his character.
Joe Scarborough is sanguine about the Bush legacy. Andrew Roberts likewise has kind things to say. So do Ruth Wisse and Lisa Fabrizio and Elizabeth Scalia. Jay Ambrose, too. What's especially interesting is that none of them is a professional contrarian.
Me, I think that while President Bush never did find a first-rate Secretary of State, kept incompetents on the federal payroll too long (remember Mike Brown?) and can only be called "conservative" in relation to people like Al Gore and Dennis Kucinich, fair-minded historians will not be able to tag him as our "worst president ever," because that title still belongs very much to Jimmy Carter. It's faint praise, to be sure, but praise, nonetheless. And Bush deserves more besides. In spite of its mistakes, the Bush presidency was consequential, as well as principled.
Domestically, bailing out of the Kyoto Treaty and nominating Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court were good things (that the president had to nominate Alito on a "do over" when people objected to the cronyism manifest in GWB's initial proposal of Harriet Myers is moot).
Afghanistan is still in flux and Iraq remains a mixed bag. Wars in those places are a huge part of George W. Bush's legacy, but (wonder of wonders) Iraq has a representative government now, and as one comic -- Dennis Miller-- said awhile back, "am I supposed to feel sorry because Saddam Hussein and his punk sons drew the ***hole card in the Wonka Lottery?"
In other parts of the world, American relations with India and with most of the countries in Africa have never been better.
Moreover, unlike his impeached and still feckless predecessor (who yearned for gravitas and consequence but achieved only notoriety), Bush earned the respect of the U.S. military, and was never poll-driven. Those two things combine with his pro-life stance (more here) and his widely-acknowledged personal decency to speak well of his character.
Architect with an axe to grind
Or is it a scimitar? Either way, Paul Murdoch, designer of the Flight 93 Memorial, has some 'splainin' to do.
But is anyone surprised?
From the New York Post, although several conservative blogs have also covered this: "Moore misuses war picture."
Advantage: Michael Yon.
In a similar vein, this factoid from Salon about the kid-gloves treatment that other senators are giving Hillary Clinton while she coasts into a new job as Secretary of State: the complete list of donors to the Clinton Foundation, made public last month, runs 2,922 pages (!).
Advantage: Michael Yon.
In a similar vein, this factoid from Salon about the kid-gloves treatment that other senators are giving Hillary Clinton while she coasts into a new job as Secretary of State: the complete list of donors to the Clinton Foundation, made public last month, runs 2,922 pages (!).
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The Empire Strikes Back
That's how this post from Derek Lowe will be characterized by alternative medicine enthusiasts who note that he's worked in and for the pharmaceutical industry. But he makes a few points that probably need to be made while responding to an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:
"My whole career is predicated on the idea that taking chemicals of various sorts can alter one’s health. Where I jump off the parade float is at the nature’s-bounty-of-beneficial-herbs stuff, the idea that things are somehow more benign because they come from natural sources. Vitalism, they used to call that. It’s hooey."
"My whole career is predicated on the idea that taking chemicals of various sorts can alter one’s health. Where I jump off the parade float is at the nature’s-bounty-of-beneficial-herbs stuff, the idea that things are somehow more benign because they come from natural sources. Vitalism, they used to call that. It’s hooey."
Called Good News for a reason
Former Calvinist Anthony Sacramone takes a New York Times profile of the pastor of Mars Hill church to explain the intractable problem with limited atonement in layman's terms. It's a good post that minces no words, and also benefits from the comments of Sacramone's readers, so scan the comboxes if theological questions like this one fascinate you as much as they fascinate me.
James Akin has more. He's particularly good on drawing necessary distinctions, as he does in these paragraphs about the U in TULIP:
To show that God positively chooses, rather than merely foresees, those who will come to him, Calvinists cite passages such as Romans 9:15-18, which says, "[The Lord] says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy . . . . So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills."[Catholics understand this hardening in terms of Romans 1:20-32, where Paul repeatedly states God gave pagans up to their sinful desires after they refused to acknowledge him. See also James 1:13.].
What would a Catholic say about this? He certainly is free to disagree with the Calvinist interpretation, but he also is free to agree. All Thomists and even some Molinists (such as Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez) taught unconditional election.
Thomas Aquinas wrote, "God wills to manifest his goodness in men: in respect to those whom he predestines, by means of his mercy, in sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of his justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others. . . . Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates others has no reason except the divine will. Hence Augustine says, 'Why he draws one, and another he draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.'"[ST I:23:5, citing Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John 26:2.].
Although a Catholic may agree with unconditional election, he may not affirm "double-predestination," a doctrine Calvinists often infer from it. This teaching claims that in addition to electing some people to salvation God also sends others to damnation.
The alternative to double-predestination is to say that while God predestines some people, he simply passes over the remainder. They will not come to God, but it is because of their inherent sin, not because God damns them. This is the doctrine of passive reprobation, which Aquinas taught.[ST I:23:3].
The Council of Trent stated, "If anyone says that it is not in the power of man to make his ways evil, but that God produces the evil as well as the good works, not only by permission, but also properly and of himself, so that the betrayal of Judas is no less his own proper work than the vocation of Paul, let him be anathema. . . . If anyone shall say that the grace of justification is attained by those only who are predestined unto life, but that all others, who are called, are called indeed, but do not receive grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema."[Decree on Justification, canons 6 and 17. The same points were taught by the second Council of Orange (531), the Council of Quiersy (853), and the third Council of Valencia (855), although none of these were ecumenical councils].
Akin's treatment of "limited atonement" is similarly first-rate, although more technical than Sacramone's.
James Akin has more. He's particularly good on drawing necessary distinctions, as he does in these paragraphs about the U in TULIP:
To show that God positively chooses, rather than merely foresees, those who will come to him, Calvinists cite passages such as Romans 9:15-18, which says, "[The Lord] says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy . . . . So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills."[Catholics understand this hardening in terms of Romans 1:20-32, where Paul repeatedly states God gave pagans up to their sinful desires after they refused to acknowledge him. See also James 1:13.].
What would a Catholic say about this? He certainly is free to disagree with the Calvinist interpretation, but he also is free to agree. All Thomists and even some Molinists (such as Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez) taught unconditional election.
Thomas Aquinas wrote, "God wills to manifest his goodness in men: in respect to those whom he predestines, by means of his mercy, in sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of his justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others. . . . Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates others has no reason except the divine will. Hence Augustine says, 'Why he draws one, and another he draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.'"[ST I:23:5, citing Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John 26:2.].
Although a Catholic may agree with unconditional election, he may not affirm "double-predestination," a doctrine Calvinists often infer from it. This teaching claims that in addition to electing some people to salvation God also sends others to damnation.
The alternative to double-predestination is to say that while God predestines some people, he simply passes over the remainder. They will not come to God, but it is because of their inherent sin, not because God damns them. This is the doctrine of passive reprobation, which Aquinas taught.[ST I:23:3].
The Council of Trent stated, "If anyone says that it is not in the power of man to make his ways evil, but that God produces the evil as well as the good works, not only by permission, but also properly and of himself, so that the betrayal of Judas is no less his own proper work than the vocation of Paul, let him be anathema. . . . If anyone shall say that the grace of justification is attained by those only who are predestined unto life, but that all others, who are called, are called indeed, but do not receive grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema."[Decree on Justification, canons 6 and 17. The same points were taught by the second Council of Orange (531), the Council of Quiersy (853), and the third Council of Valencia (855), although none of these were ecumenical councils].
Akin's treatment of "limited atonement" is similarly first-rate, although more technical than Sacramone's.
More well-turned phrases
From the papal lathe, as collected by Amy Welborn:
"...the feast of the baptism of Jesus introduces us, we could say, to the everydayness of a personal relationship with him. In fact, through the immersion in the waters of the Jordan, Jesus united himself to us.
Baptism is, so to speak, the bridge that he has built between him and us, the road by which he is accessible to us; it is the divine rainbow over our life, the promise of the great yes of God, the gateway to hope and, at the same time, the sign that indicates the road we must take in an active and joyous way to meet him and feel loved by him."
AND:
"...in making himself small, God made the light of his greatness shine — because, by lowering himself to the defenseless impotence of love, he shows the nature of true greatness, indeed, what it means to be God."
"...the feast of the baptism of Jesus introduces us, we could say, to the everydayness of a personal relationship with him. In fact, through the immersion in the waters of the Jordan, Jesus united himself to us.
Baptism is, so to speak, the bridge that he has built between him and us, the road by which he is accessible to us; it is the divine rainbow over our life, the promise of the great yes of God, the gateway to hope and, at the same time, the sign that indicates the road we must take in an active and joyous way to meet him and feel loved by him."
AND:
"...in making himself small, God made the light of his greatness shine — because, by lowering himself to the defenseless impotence of love, he shows the nature of true greatness, indeed, what it means to be God."
Jesus on Facebook?
Puhleeze.
But you gotta wonder how much "flair" He has, and who presumes to decide whether He gets more.
But you gotta wonder how much "flair" He has, and who presumes to decide whether He gets more.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Civic-minded profiteering
Cassandra found a hilarious Craigslist post from a conservative hoping to make a few bucks off the presidential inauguration.
Sister Toldjah has more on that, in one of her typically effective roundups.
Sister Toldjah has more on that, in one of her typically effective roundups.
A pep talk from P.J. O'Rourke
He's writing about the new circus coming to town (town being Washington, D.C.):
Come on, Obama, what kind of Democrat are you? I thought Democrats were supposed to be good at this stuff. It's us Republicans who stink at political corruption. One clumsy little elephant misstep and it's GOPterdämmerung with villainy that lives on in popular legend for generations--McCarthyism, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Enron, Jack Abramoff. But when Democrats get their hand (or other body part) caught in the till, folk heroes ensue--Boston's James Curley being reelected while jailed, Washington's Marion Barry being jailed while elected, Quixotic Bill Clinton unfazed by the Rush Limbaugh windmill and riding off into the sunset with fair Dulcinea Lewinsky unceremoniously dumped from the saddle. And, of course, there's Obama's Toddling Town, the Windy City of Richard and Richie Daley with its "corruption that works."
Come on, Obama, what kind of Democrat are you? I thought Democrats were supposed to be good at this stuff. It's us Republicans who stink at political corruption. One clumsy little elephant misstep and it's GOPterdämmerung with villainy that lives on in popular legend for generations--McCarthyism, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Enron, Jack Abramoff. But when Democrats get their hand (or other body part) caught in the till, folk heroes ensue--Boston's James Curley being reelected while jailed, Washington's Marion Barry being jailed while elected, Quixotic Bill Clinton unfazed by the Rush Limbaugh windmill and riding off into the sunset with fair Dulcinea Lewinsky unceremoniously dumped from the saddle. And, of course, there's Obama's Toddling Town, the Windy City of Richard and Richie Daley with its "corruption that works."
THIS is a time to vote No?
Ron Paul is smarter than Maxine Waters, which is why I don't understand why the two Representatives are apparently in league with each other, voting against a ceremonial (e.g., nonbinding but distressingly common) resolution recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against rocket attacks.
Methinks "Dr. No" needs to choose his targets, and his allies, more carefully.
I thought Lew Rockwell or Taki and his eponymous magazine might provide some context, but Lew simply cites a story in Taki's magazine, and the author of that piece seems a little too willing to blame Israel for everything volatile in and near the Gaza Strip.
For one thing, he cites Justin Raimondo with approval. I have no problem with Raimondo being anti-war (I am, too, FWIW), but Justin's idea that Israel is "trying to get Hamas on a war footing" is dangerously stupid. Hamas is always on a war footing. Are these guys incapable of recognizing the implications of phrases like "ongoing rocket attacks"?
And how's this for a cherry on the sundae-- "even after giving up Gaza, [Israel] made sure that the place remained an isolated, miserable shantytown without running water."
Surely Israel has better things to do. Way to treat the inhabitants of Gaza City and its environs like children!
The upshot of my ten minutes' worth of research is that I still can't fathom Ron Paul's thinking on this issue. If he agrees with the likes of Justin Raimondo or Richard Spencer (author of the article citing Raimondo admiringly, and no relation to the great Robert Spencer), it may be time to break out the Bozo shoes.
Methinks "Dr. No" needs to choose his targets, and his allies, more carefully.
I thought Lew Rockwell or Taki and his eponymous magazine might provide some context, but Lew simply cites a story in Taki's magazine, and the author of that piece seems a little too willing to blame Israel for everything volatile in and near the Gaza Strip.
For one thing, he cites Justin Raimondo with approval. I have no problem with Raimondo being anti-war (I am, too, FWIW), but Justin's idea that Israel is "trying to get Hamas on a war footing" is dangerously stupid. Hamas is always on a war footing. Are these guys incapable of recognizing the implications of phrases like "ongoing rocket attacks"?
And how's this for a cherry on the sundae-- "even after giving up Gaza, [Israel] made sure that the place remained an isolated, miserable shantytown without running water."
Surely Israel has better things to do. Way to treat the inhabitants of Gaza City and its environs like children!
The upshot of my ten minutes' worth of research is that I still can't fathom Ron Paul's thinking on this issue. If he agrees with the likes of Justin Raimondo or Richard Spencer (author of the article citing Raimondo admiringly, and no relation to the great Robert Spencer), it may be time to break out the Bozo shoes.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Ooooohwheee
Now that's a proper plate of shrimp and grits! Addendum: a palindrome that almost fits--
"Doc, note! I dissent! A fast never prevents a fatness--I diet on cod!"
Bookmark that last press conference transcript
Anyone who still insists on referring to President "McChimpy Bushitler" or variations on that theme simply hasn't been paying attention to what George W. Bush says and does. At his last press conference, for example, the president held true to form. For him, that means gracious and honest, not to mention more thoughtful than many of his critics.
Two more asides about what the press conference transcript reveals: 1. GW may consistently mangle "nuclear," but he doesn't need a teleprompter to speak coherently; 2. The president is a lot more gracious than the Hollywood people who politicized even last night's Golden Globes awards show with boilerplate "hope" and "change" bouquets for the man at the top of the incoming administration.
On that second note, let's stipulate that although Tina Fey is a talented comic actress, she'd be well on her way to B-list status were it not for the Governor of Alaska whom she neglected to thank for giving her career a shot in the arm.
Notwithstanding her work on 30 Rock which I have not seen (and I'm not alone in that regard), my theory is that Fey parlayed eight words and good comic timing into a Golden Globe award. Contrary to misconception, those eight words ("and I can see Russia from my house") were hers, not Sarah Palin's.
But without Governor Palin and Fey's distant resemblance to that bright-eyed brunette, SNL writers would not have been high-fiving themselves over a Palin impersonation done to memorable effect.
Two more asides about what the press conference transcript reveals: 1. GW may consistently mangle "nuclear," but he doesn't need a teleprompter to speak coherently; 2. The president is a lot more gracious than the Hollywood people who politicized even last night's Golden Globes awards show with boilerplate "hope" and "change" bouquets for the man at the top of the incoming administration.
On that second note, let's stipulate that although Tina Fey is a talented comic actress, she'd be well on her way to B-list status were it not for the Governor of Alaska whom she neglected to thank for giving her career a shot in the arm.
Notwithstanding her work on 30 Rock which I have not seen (and I'm not alone in that regard), my theory is that Fey parlayed eight words and good comic timing into a Golden Globe award. Contrary to misconception, those eight words ("and I can see Russia from my house") were hers, not Sarah Palin's.
But without Governor Palin and Fey's distant resemblance to that bright-eyed brunette, SNL writers would not have been high-fiving themselves over a Palin impersonation done to memorable effect.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
The pebbles that rippled the pond
The Catholic blogosphere has rightly been linking to several essays by the late Fr. Neuhaus, but what I have not seen yet is anyone raising a glass to the people who influenced him, sometimes even without knowing it.
John Cardinal O'Connor would obviously be on that list, but Fr. Neuhaus himself looked back with gratitude on the influence of many people in his spiritual life, and if you haven't yet read his remembrance of the Spooner brothers, the priest who was his father's deer hunting buddy, and Professor Arthur Carl Piepkorn, it's a treat worth savoring.
John Cardinal O'Connor would obviously be on that list, but Fr. Neuhaus himself looked back with gratitude on the influence of many people in his spiritual life, and if you haven't yet read his remembrance of the Spooner brothers, the priest who was his father's deer hunting buddy, and Professor Arthur Carl Piepkorn, it's a treat worth savoring.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Pope Benedict with a few good words
The old piano player constantly lives up to the name he chose when he wsa elected to succeed John Paul II in the office first held by the apostle Peter.
As Amy Welborn noticed before I did, there's no reason why young people in Sardinia should be the only ones to benefit from counsel like this (boldface emphasis in the text below is mine, not the pope's):
"The crisis of a society begins when it no longer knows how to hand down its cultural patrimony and its fundamental values to the new generations. I am not referring only and simply to the scholastic system. The issue is broader. There is, as we know, an educational emergency, which in order to be faced requires parents and teachers capable of sharing all the goodness and truth that they have experienced deeply first-hand. It requires young people who are open to their internal lives, curious to learn and to bring everything back to the fundamental needs and yearnings of the heart. You are truly free -- in other words, impassioned for the truth. The Lord Jesus said: "the truth will set you free" (Jn 8: 32). Modern nihilism instead preaches the opposite, that it is instead freedom which will make you true. Indeed, there are those who hold that no truth exists, thus opening the path to the disposal of the concepts of good and evil and even making them interchangeable. I was told that in the Sardinian culture there is this proverb: "It is better to want for bread than for justice". Man can indeed withstand and overcome the pangs of hunger, but he cannot live where justice and truth are banished. Material bread is not enough, it is not sufficient to live in a fully human way; another food for which to always hunger is necessary, food which nourishes one's personal growth and that of the family and of society.
This food, and it is the third great value [together with safeguarding the family and embarking on serious intellectual and moral formation -- ed.], is a sincere and deep faith, which becomes the substance of your life. When the sense of the presence of God is lost, everything is "tasteless" and reduces to a single dimension. All the rest is "crushed" on the material level. When each thing is considered only for its usefulness, the essence of that which surrounds us is no longer perceived, and above all of the persons whom we meet. With the disappearance of the mystery of God the mystery of all that exists disappears too; things and people interest me in so much as they satisfy my needs, not for what they are. All of this constitutes a cultural fact that one breathes from birth and that produces permanent interior effects. Faith, in this sense, before being a religious belief, is a way of seeing reality, a way of thinking, an interior sensitivity that enriches the human person as such. Well, dear friends, Christ is also the Teacher of this, because he has completely shared in our humanity and is contemporaneous with man of every epoch. This typically Christian reality is a stupendous grace!"
As Amy Welborn noticed before I did, there's no reason why young people in Sardinia should be the only ones to benefit from counsel like this (boldface emphasis in the text below is mine, not the pope's):
"The crisis of a society begins when it no longer knows how to hand down its cultural patrimony and its fundamental values to the new generations. I am not referring only and simply to the scholastic system. The issue is broader. There is, as we know, an educational emergency, which in order to be faced requires parents and teachers capable of sharing all the goodness and truth that they have experienced deeply first-hand. It requires young people who are open to their internal lives, curious to learn and to bring everything back to the fundamental needs and yearnings of the heart. You are truly free -- in other words, impassioned for the truth. The Lord Jesus said: "the truth will set you free" (Jn 8: 32). Modern nihilism instead preaches the opposite, that it is instead freedom which will make you true. Indeed, there are those who hold that no truth exists, thus opening the path to the disposal of the concepts of good and evil and even making them interchangeable. I was told that in the Sardinian culture there is this proverb: "It is better to want for bread than for justice". Man can indeed withstand and overcome the pangs of hunger, but he cannot live where justice and truth are banished. Material bread is not enough, it is not sufficient to live in a fully human way; another food for which to always hunger is necessary, food which nourishes one's personal growth and that of the family and of society.
This food, and it is the third great value [together with safeguarding the family and embarking on serious intellectual and moral formation -- ed.], is a sincere and deep faith, which becomes the substance of your life. When the sense of the presence of God is lost, everything is "tasteless" and reduces to a single dimension. All the rest is "crushed" on the material level. When each thing is considered only for its usefulness, the essence of that which surrounds us is no longer perceived, and above all of the persons whom we meet. With the disappearance of the mystery of God the mystery of all that exists disappears too; things and people interest me in so much as they satisfy my needs, not for what they are. All of this constitutes a cultural fact that one breathes from birth and that produces permanent interior effects. Faith, in this sense, before being a religious belief, is a way of seeing reality, a way of thinking, an interior sensitivity that enriches the human person as such. Well, dear friends, Christ is also the Teacher of this, because he has completely shared in our humanity and is contemporaneous with man of every epoch. This typically Christian reality is a stupendous grace!"
Paging Bacchus and Terpsichore
On the first day of the new year, while Jane and Cathleen chose to sleep in or read library books, Thomas and I settled into the family couch to watch the Rose Bowl Parade on TV. After something like 45 minutes, the broadcast we were watching segued from the parade to an infomercial hosted by Jon "Bowser" Bauman and the beauteous Julie Lancaster, who were together selling a collection of remastered oldies songs on CD.
I was reminded of that while driving home from work yesterday, in large part because some deejay had decided to grace the airwaves in central North Carolina with a song from the soundtrack to Grease.
Is there any song in pop music more fun for a bass player and a piano player than "You're the One that I Want"?
I think not.
While I'm on the subject of music, Taylor Swift's "A Love Story" and Mark Knopfler's "Romeo and Juliet" draw from the same source material but come to different conclusions. They're eighteen years apart (1980 for Knopfler and Dire Straits vs. 2008 for Swift), but they're both great songs.
I was reminded of that while driving home from work yesterday, in large part because some deejay had decided to grace the airwaves in central North Carolina with a song from the soundtrack to Grease.
Is there any song in pop music more fun for a bass player and a piano player than "You're the One that I Want"?
I think not.
While I'm on the subject of music, Taylor Swift's "A Love Story" and Mark Knopfler's "Romeo and Juliet" draw from the same source material but come to different conclusions. They're eighteen years apart (1980 for Knopfler and Dire Straits vs. 2008 for Swift), but they're both great songs.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Book Review: The Shack
William P. Young's novel "The Shack" has already spent more than a year on bestseller lists, but it is the kind of publishing phenomenon that merits beachcomber treatment after the initial waves of reaction have receded.
The book deserves its word-of-mouth reputation as a compelling example of inspirational fiction. In fact, the feeling with which Young tells the story of how Mackenzie Allen Phillips meets God in unexpected ways after years of sadness triggered by the abduction and murder of his daughter Missy puts parts of "The Shack" within hailing distance of nonfiction classics like Sheldon Vanauken's A Severe Mercy.
That said, I can't give "The Shack" an unconditional recommendation because its craftsmanship is inconsistent and its narrow focus on healing by any means necessary leaves significant minorities of readers either adrift or trying to connect dots that aren't there. I am a fan of the Lord of the Rings movies, and this novel's relationship to the gospel reminded me of Gollum's relationship to Frodo, which pinballed between dysfunction and treachery on the one hand and surprising helpfulness on the other.
Some reviewers, most prominently Baptist theologian Albert Mohler and blogger Tim Challies, have criticized Young for the way that he has the three persons of the Holy Trinity (dubbed Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu) address certain theological questions in the story. I think their criticisms are reasonable, but misplaced. "The Shack" emphasizes relationship over dogma at every turn, and when Mack asks God whether their unfolding encounter is going to be a "let's-try-to-understand-the-Trinity sort of thing," the reply he gets is "Sort of. But this isn't Sunday School. It's a flying lesson."
Dialog like that takes me back down memory lane with Jonathan Livingston Seagull, who wouldn't survive cross examination from a devout Christian, either. The most significant difference between the two books is that Seagull author Richard Bach sought transcendence where William Young seeks understanding.
Young was quoted in USA Today as saying that he feels "no need to knock churches down or pull people out [of them]," and while it is true that he sometimes seems to have Jesus-in-the-novel doing that for him, it is also true that the Jesus of his imagining talks enthusiastically about the Church as "the woman I'm in love with." Orthodox sentiment like that goes a long way toward making Young's disdain for "religious stereotypes" more quirky than heretical (if "The Shack" ever becomes a movie, Morgan Freeman will have to stop playing God so that Queen Latifah can have a turn).
In a thoughtful review for the Web magazine of the Presbyterian Church in America, Walter Hanegar noted that "Unlike the biblical Jesus, who constantly quoted the Old Testament and spent many post-resurrection hours 'opening their minds to understand the scriptures,' The Shack’s Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu turn Mack’s attention away from Scripture."
Although Mack discovers a Gideon Bible in his room after one night in The Shack, that criticism is right. But it does not go far enough. What I mean is that "The Shack" is accessible, often profound, sometimes annoyingly confident, and -- in broad outline at least -- inevitable. By disparaging hierarchy of any kind and describing the inner structure of the Trinity as a "circle of relationship," Young offers thinking that differs from but depends on the theologies of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli.
It strikes me as ironic that contemporary Christians of Reformed persuasion are among those reviewers most critical of Young's attitude toward hierarchy, given their own reluctance to embrace mainstream Catholic interpretation of the "keys to the kingdom" language in Matthew 16:19, which of course reinforces the ancient claim that Peter and his successors are charged with unique responsibilities in their service to the Church.
Contrary to some of the ideas advanced in “The Shack,” the obvious problem with abandoning hierarchy to flatten human organizational charts goes beyond the lack of scriptural warrant for that proto-Communist attenuation: the upside of radical egalitarianism (weaning people from the illusion of control) is matched by a downside (creating desperadoes). Interestingly, the treatment of hierarchy, though unquestionably negative, is also inconsistent. In “A Festival of Friends,” the only chapter of the novel that hints that Young aspires to a Lewisian grasp of the “weight of glory,” a transfigured Jesus walks through a meadow at night “looking every inch the king of the universe.”
What no one in The Shack tells Mack is that if you lean too hard on a flawed understanding of the "priesthood of all believers," the only thing you're left with is your own pride and the hope that Jesus will come along to point out that "you're losing all your highs and lows-- ain't it funny how the feeling goes away?" Fortunately for all concerned, Jesus excels at that sort of rescue work.
My Inner Pharisee finds motes and planks as far as the eye can see. For example, the magnificence of stars and flowers leaves Mack agog, yet unlike anyone in the Old or New Testaments, he never trembles at conversing with God. Certainly the three persons of the Trinity appear to him in nonthreatening forms, but it must also be noted that Mack's nonchalance accords with the self-consciously democratic fellowship emphasized throughout the story.
How many of the reviewers who question why Mack's sense of awe is so atrophied spend Sunday mornings in pews without kneelers, swaying to the beat of a praise band?
It certainly is shocking to think that even the wisdom of God personified won't keep a sinner from bristling at mild criticism (i.e., "your imagination is not helping you at this moment, Mack") with a rejoinder like "no kidding, Sherlock," as Mack actually thinks on p. 160 before trying in vain to hide that thought from God. But sarcasm seems a predictable consequence of avoiding idol worship to the point where prudence mutates into iconoclasm. Meanwhile, few people ask how hierarchy can be defended in churches where "music ministry" owes as much to REO Speedwagon and Styx as to Isaac Watts and Nun Danket.
I am a crank in good company on the subject of bad liturgy, so let me add that The Shack offers a whole feast of implications to sift through.
Take, for example, repeated warnings about the folly of "choosing independence over relationship." A Protestant can read those lines and think "Amen! Eyes on the prize, baby!" A Catholic can react the same way, and then wonder whether that advice might also be understood as an indictment of the denominational free-for-all that has fractured Christian unity for more than five hundred years. That Young almost certainly meant nothing of the sort matters little to thinking along the lines of "You had visible 'relationship' with each other through unity with the papacy for 1,500 years, and now look what you did!"
Even God's "great fondness for uncertainty" and emphatic willingness (in this novel) to "take a verb over a noun anytime" may trace back to sixteenth-century Christians who rolled dice on the action of the Holy Spirit rather than on the person at the head of an increasingly corrupt church, thus turning every Christian into his or her own pope.
In a missed opportunity of epic proportions, Mack shares a meal of bread and wine with God just before leaving The Shack, but because Young is non-Catholic and adamant about the lack of ceremony and ritual at that meal, nothing is said about the Holy Eucharist as the most obvious and powerful of several ways that Jesus continues to be with His Church.
However parochial it sounds, that omission and the aforementioned criticisms keep "The Shack" from ascending to the heights of spiritual classics like Teresa of Avila's "Interior Castle." Yet it is also important to concede that highlighting the ironies wasted on Young and some of his critics pays diminishing returns over time: in the end, it is more charitable and more accurate to say that both have performed a public service.
The novel cannot be called lectio divina, but it is inspiring. Despite its flaws, "The Shack" has thought-provoking things to say about forgiveness, freedom, evil, and love.
While William Young does not handle Christian faith with the deft touch of master storytellers like Michael O’Brien, Graham Greene, and Shusaku Endo, his first novel is better and more ambitious than many of the other books in its genre. Moreover, I am especially fond of the friends who recommended “The Shack” to me. Read it-- and then go back to the gospel.
This review is dedicated to the memory of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, a gracious man and influential priest who built a fine magazine and took the time to send me very encouraging rejection letters when he turned my work down but had liked it.
The book deserves its word-of-mouth reputation as a compelling example of inspirational fiction. In fact, the feeling with which Young tells the story of how Mackenzie Allen Phillips meets God in unexpected ways after years of sadness triggered by the abduction and murder of his daughter Missy puts parts of "The Shack" within hailing distance of nonfiction classics like Sheldon Vanauken's A Severe Mercy.
That said, I can't give "The Shack" an unconditional recommendation because its craftsmanship is inconsistent and its narrow focus on healing by any means necessary leaves significant minorities of readers either adrift or trying to connect dots that aren't there. I am a fan of the Lord of the Rings movies, and this novel's relationship to the gospel reminded me of Gollum's relationship to Frodo, which pinballed between dysfunction and treachery on the one hand and surprising helpfulness on the other.
Some reviewers, most prominently Baptist theologian Albert Mohler and blogger Tim Challies, have criticized Young for the way that he has the three persons of the Holy Trinity (dubbed Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu) address certain theological questions in the story. I think their criticisms are reasonable, but misplaced. "The Shack" emphasizes relationship over dogma at every turn, and when Mack asks God whether their unfolding encounter is going to be a "let's-try-to-understand-the-Trinity sort of thing," the reply he gets is "Sort of. But this isn't Sunday School. It's a flying lesson."
Dialog like that takes me back down memory lane with Jonathan Livingston Seagull, who wouldn't survive cross examination from a devout Christian, either. The most significant difference between the two books is that Seagull author Richard Bach sought transcendence where William Young seeks understanding.
Young was quoted in USA Today as saying that he feels "no need to knock churches down or pull people out [of them]," and while it is true that he sometimes seems to have Jesus-in-the-novel doing that for him, it is also true that the Jesus of his imagining talks enthusiastically about the Church as "the woman I'm in love with." Orthodox sentiment like that goes a long way toward making Young's disdain for "religious stereotypes" more quirky than heretical (if "The Shack" ever becomes a movie, Morgan Freeman will have to stop playing God so that Queen Latifah can have a turn).
In a thoughtful review for the Web magazine of the Presbyterian Church in America, Walter Hanegar noted that "Unlike the biblical Jesus, who constantly quoted the Old Testament and spent many post-resurrection hours 'opening their minds to understand the scriptures,' The Shack’s Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu turn Mack’s attention away from Scripture."
Although Mack discovers a Gideon Bible in his room after one night in The Shack, that criticism is right. But it does not go far enough. What I mean is that "The Shack" is accessible, often profound, sometimes annoyingly confident, and -- in broad outline at least -- inevitable. By disparaging hierarchy of any kind and describing the inner structure of the Trinity as a "circle of relationship," Young offers thinking that differs from but depends on the theologies of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli.
It strikes me as ironic that contemporary Christians of Reformed persuasion are among those reviewers most critical of Young's attitude toward hierarchy, given their own reluctance to embrace mainstream Catholic interpretation of the "keys to the kingdom" language in Matthew 16:19, which of course reinforces the ancient claim that Peter and his successors are charged with unique responsibilities in their service to the Church.
Contrary to some of the ideas advanced in “The Shack,” the obvious problem with abandoning hierarchy to flatten human organizational charts goes beyond the lack of scriptural warrant for that proto-Communist attenuation: the upside of radical egalitarianism (weaning people from the illusion of control) is matched by a downside (creating desperadoes). Interestingly, the treatment of hierarchy, though unquestionably negative, is also inconsistent. In “A Festival of Friends,” the only chapter of the novel that hints that Young aspires to a Lewisian grasp of the “weight of glory,” a transfigured Jesus walks through a meadow at night “looking every inch the king of the universe.”
What no one in The Shack tells Mack is that if you lean too hard on a flawed understanding of the "priesthood of all believers," the only thing you're left with is your own pride and the hope that Jesus will come along to point out that "you're losing all your highs and lows-- ain't it funny how the feeling goes away?" Fortunately for all concerned, Jesus excels at that sort of rescue work.
My Inner Pharisee finds motes and planks as far as the eye can see. For example, the magnificence of stars and flowers leaves Mack agog, yet unlike anyone in the Old or New Testaments, he never trembles at conversing with God. Certainly the three persons of the Trinity appear to him in nonthreatening forms, but it must also be noted that Mack's nonchalance accords with the self-consciously democratic fellowship emphasized throughout the story.
How many of the reviewers who question why Mack's sense of awe is so atrophied spend Sunday mornings in pews without kneelers, swaying to the beat of a praise band?
It certainly is shocking to think that even the wisdom of God personified won't keep a sinner from bristling at mild criticism (i.e., "your imagination is not helping you at this moment, Mack") with a rejoinder like "no kidding, Sherlock," as Mack actually thinks on p. 160 before trying in vain to hide that thought from God. But sarcasm seems a predictable consequence of avoiding idol worship to the point where prudence mutates into iconoclasm. Meanwhile, few people ask how hierarchy can be defended in churches where "music ministry" owes as much to REO Speedwagon and Styx as to Isaac Watts and Nun Danket.
I am a crank in good company on the subject of bad liturgy, so let me add that The Shack offers a whole feast of implications to sift through.
Take, for example, repeated warnings about the folly of "choosing independence over relationship." A Protestant can read those lines and think "Amen! Eyes on the prize, baby!" A Catholic can react the same way, and then wonder whether that advice might also be understood as an indictment of the denominational free-for-all that has fractured Christian unity for more than five hundred years. That Young almost certainly meant nothing of the sort matters little to thinking along the lines of "You had visible 'relationship' with each other through unity with the papacy for 1,500 years, and now look what you did!"
Even God's "great fondness for uncertainty" and emphatic willingness (in this novel) to "take a verb over a noun anytime" may trace back to sixteenth-century Christians who rolled dice on the action of the Holy Spirit rather than on the person at the head of an increasingly corrupt church, thus turning every Christian into his or her own pope.
In a missed opportunity of epic proportions, Mack shares a meal of bread and wine with God just before leaving The Shack, but because Young is non-Catholic and adamant about the lack of ceremony and ritual at that meal, nothing is said about the Holy Eucharist as the most obvious and powerful of several ways that Jesus continues to be with His Church.
However parochial it sounds, that omission and the aforementioned criticisms keep "The Shack" from ascending to the heights of spiritual classics like Teresa of Avila's "Interior Castle." Yet it is also important to concede that highlighting the ironies wasted on Young and some of his critics pays diminishing returns over time: in the end, it is more charitable and more accurate to say that both have performed a public service.
The novel cannot be called lectio divina, but it is inspiring. Despite its flaws, "The Shack" has thought-provoking things to say about forgiveness, freedom, evil, and love.
While William Young does not handle Christian faith with the deft touch of master storytellers like Michael O’Brien, Graham Greene, and Shusaku Endo, his first novel is better and more ambitious than many of the other books in its genre. Moreover, I am especially fond of the friends who recommended “The Shack” to me. Read it-- and then go back to the gospel.
This review is dedicated to the memory of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, a gracious man and influential priest who built a fine magazine and took the time to send me very encouraging rejection letters when he turned my work down but had liked it.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
A sorry and conspiratorial legacy
How miscreant theologians in league with the ne'er-do-well Kennedy clan ignored their orthodox but spineless peers to create a wholly fictitious "Catholic" cover for champions of abortion, beginning in 1964.
A vote I will have to abstain from
Maybe I can make like Obama in the Illinois State Senate and vote "present" on this one.
Yes, the 2008 Weblog Award polling is now open, and the Paragraph Farm continues its unbroken streak of Not Being Nominated for Anything.
I don't have the traffic, and I don't have the laserlike focus most nominees do, viz: is Patrick political? Is he religious? Does he write about family issues sometimes?
Think back to the scene in It's a Wonderful Life when Mary Bailey tells George Bailey that they're going to have a baby. He is over the moon at the news (heh!), and asks excitedly whether it will be a boy or a girl, to which she sensibly answers "yes."
That's my answer to blog focus queries, too, only it's more often rendered as "all of the above" -- and that, of course, makes my online acreage hard to classify. Hold the yellow stars, though. No pity party here. Badges? We ain't got no badges! We don't have to show you any stinking badges!
Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up: No tickee, no washee.
Moreover, several friends who run wonderful blogs have been nominated in the same category, and frankly, I refuse to choose between them.
Yes, the 2008 Weblog Award polling is now open, and the Paragraph Farm continues its unbroken streak of Not Being Nominated for Anything.
I don't have the traffic, and I don't have the laserlike focus most nominees do, viz: is Patrick political? Is he religious? Does he write about family issues sometimes?
Think back to the scene in It's a Wonderful Life when Mary Bailey tells George Bailey that they're going to have a baby. He is over the moon at the news (heh!), and asks excitedly whether it will be a boy or a girl, to which she sensibly answers "yes."
That's my answer to blog focus queries, too, only it's more often rendered as "all of the above" -- and that, of course, makes my online acreage hard to classify. Hold the yellow stars, though. No pity party here. Badges? We ain't got no badges! We don't have to show you any stinking badges!
Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up: No tickee, no washee.
Moreover, several friends who run wonderful blogs have been nominated in the same category, and frankly, I refuse to choose between them.
Wouldn't you like to read Herr Spengler too?
The Brothers Judd (fans of all things pastoral who note that today is, among other things, the birthday of Joan of Arc) don't excerpt from just anybody, and today they feature Spengler.
Writing long but interestingly, Spengler makes a good (and only partly demographic) case that "The decisive divide in today's world lies between nations that have a future, and nations that don't."
Along similar lines, if John Zmirak's predictions are correct, 2009 will be a "hang on to your hats" kind of year.
Fortunately, there are positive occasions on deck, not to mention one obvious lifeline for anyone caught between the Cliffs of Insanity and the Pit of Despair.
Postscript: John C. Wright trumps Zmirak because he looks not just one year out, but fifty years out.
Writing long but interestingly, Spengler makes a good (and only partly demographic) case that "The decisive divide in today's world lies between nations that have a future, and nations that don't."
Along similar lines, if John Zmirak's predictions are correct, 2009 will be a "hang on to your hats" kind of year.
Fortunately, there are positive occasions on deck, not to mention one obvious lifeline for anyone caught between the Cliffs of Insanity and the Pit of Despair.
Postscript: John C. Wright trumps Zmirak because he looks not just one year out, but fifty years out.
Talk about "through a glass darkly"
S.T. Karnick on "Frosty Theology:"
Frosty disobeys the policeman, a symbol of the law, but if he were in fact to obey he would melt and die. What saves Frosty is not obedience to the law but Santa himself, and without Frosty doing anything to earn it. Frosty is saved not by the law but by the grace of God, in the form of Santa Claus, his earthly symbol for children. This of course, accords with the Bible, as expressed, for example, by Apostle Paul in Galatians 2:16: “for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified,” and chapter 5, verse 18, “if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law.”
Frosty disobeys the policeman, a symbol of the law, but if he were in fact to obey he would melt and die. What saves Frosty is not obedience to the law but Santa himself, and without Frosty doing anything to earn it. Frosty is saved not by the law but by the grace of God, in the form of Santa Claus, his earthly symbol for children. This of course, accords with the Bible, as expressed, for example, by Apostle Paul in Galatians 2:16: “for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified,” and chapter 5, verse 18, “if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law.”
Monday, January 05, 2009
He doth protest too much
Nevertheless, Paul Beston makes an interesting argument:
"The curse of rock and roll on young listeners is not so much that it will corrupt their morals and characters, the dominant concern after Elvis arrived and for a good while afterward. With two parents, a kid can survive almost anything, even American popular culture. The real problem is that rock makes music synonymous with sensation, brute force, and emotional release—and renders the absence of such things suspect and seemingly dishonest. The availability of instant gratification in music, like in anything else, fundamentally alters our tastes. Music more complex than rock—a description that covers an enormous landscape—can sound merely confined, devoted to form at the expense of freedom."
"The curse of rock and roll on young listeners is not so much that it will corrupt their morals and characters, the dominant concern after Elvis arrived and for a good while afterward. With two parents, a kid can survive almost anything, even American popular culture. The real problem is that rock makes music synonymous with sensation, brute force, and emotional release—and renders the absence of such things suspect and seemingly dishonest. The availability of instant gratification in music, like in anything else, fundamentally alters our tastes. Music more complex than rock—a description that covers an enormous landscape—can sound merely confined, devoted to form at the expense of freedom."
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Lest we forget
"It's worth noting that in the Anglo-American tradition, unity is not, in fact, the highest political value. That's why we have constitutions, separation of powers and independent courts. The hero in the Anglo-American tradition is not the mob, but the man who stands up to it. "
-- Jonah Goldberg, revisiting territory already mapped by George Orwell and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.
-- Jonah Goldberg, revisiting territory already mapped by George Orwell and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.
Friday, January 02, 2009
One for Mister Bill
My friend Bill, of California, Washington, and parts in between, pays attention to liturgical matters. The link is from Fr. Z., who says his blog is powered by "Luke 5:1-11."
Thursday, January 01, 2009
No grommet he (or she)
Peter Kreeft, philosopher, I knew about. His books are great. And my friend Dani translated his last name and says it means "Peter the Lobster." But I had no idea he was (and is) a surfer, too:
(1) Soul-surfing is becoming one with the wave, which is the form of all energy, and the form the energy of the Big Bang is taking right now, so surfing is a time machine that takes you back to the moment of creation. (2) Surfing is the only thing that never gets boring on earth because what you will do in Heaven is surf in God forever. (3) You have an evil twin who is always with you. He is called your ego. In surfing, you lose him. Surfing is the world's easiest mysticism.
Teresa of Avila never surfed, so her Catholic mysticism is harder, but still worthwhile.
Thanks to Jennifer for both links.
(1) Soul-surfing is becoming one with the wave, which is the form of all energy, and the form the energy of the Big Bang is taking right now, so surfing is a time machine that takes you back to the moment of creation. (2) Surfing is the only thing that never gets boring on earth because what you will do in Heaven is surf in God forever. (3) You have an evil twin who is always with you. He is called your ego. In surfing, you lose him. Surfing is the world's easiest mysticism.
Teresa of Avila never surfed, so her Catholic mysticism is harder, but still worthwhile.
Thanks to Jennifer for both links.
Happy New Year 2009
On the liturgical calendar, the new year started with Advent, and it's still the Christmas season. But I'm willing to doff my cap to secular convention, especially when Nice Deb provides appropriate music to accompany the good wishes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
