...and expresses himself with his usual erudition and panache. Read it and be edified!
The Liturgical Experts' Long Tassels
31 August 2010
27 August 2010
NRO two-fer
I'm not too lazy to write anything original, just too busy today. But I'm trying to avoid any more two-week gaps betwen posts, so anyway there were two pieces in today's NRO which I thought you might find edifying:
First off, one of my favorite curmudgeons, John Derbyshire, offers his prescription for reforming the nation's education system: "First, destroy all the schools"
Then let the estimable Dr. Charles Krauthammer explain why you're "a racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobe" - at least to the M.S.M.
Enjoy!
First off, one of my favorite curmudgeons, John Derbyshire, offers his prescription for reforming the nation's education system: "First, destroy all the schools"
Then let the estimable Dr. Charles Krauthammer explain why you're "a racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobe" - at least to the M.S.M.
Enjoy!
25 August 2010
Perjury, Steroids, and Congress
The indictment of Roger Clemens, charged with committing perjury before the United States Congress, brings a few questions to my mind:
1.) Should we be prosecuting a retired athlete for lying about using performance enhancing substances? There's a surprisingly large number who say "no", and they're not all rabid Roger Clemens fans. One argument seems is the old "he's suffered enough", i.e. he's become a pariah in MLB circles and his once-certain election to the Baseball Hall of Fame now seems extremely unlikely.
There are also those who dismiss the gravity of the offense about which he apparently lied, "it wasn't murder or treason or something". And there are those - myself included - who ask what business Congress has investigating steroid use in professional sports.
We heard many of the same arguments during the impeachment trial of President Clinton, who had certainly committed perjury himself. "it's impractical" to remove the President of the United States from office over a lie he told in a deposition regarding a rather personal matter; but this was only a small part of the argument contra impeachment. The most famous was that the offense "didn't rise to the level of impeachment", which I always found specious.
Is anyone reading this old enough to remember Alger Hiss? For the younger set, Hiss was an official in the U.S. State Department who had been at Yalta with F.D.R. and was secretary of the founding meeting of the United Nations. In 1948 an ex-Communist who was an editor at Time magazine, Whittaker Chambers, accused Hiss of being a Communist. This was a cause celebre, especially since Hiss was an member of the "East Coast Establishment", an Ivy Leaguer who'd been a protege of one Supreme Court Justice while at Harvard (Felix Frankfurter) and susequently clerked for another (Oliver Wendell Holmes). Hiss protested his innocence, and sued Chambers for libel. The events which Chambers was able to prove were beyond the existing statutes of limitations, but Hiss was eventually charged with perjury, convicted, and jailed for several years.
Men (and women, lest they cavil at my insensitivity) lie, about matters large and small, for reasons good and bad. But we need to be able to have confidence in our judicial proceedings and so the crime of perjury must be prosecuted and its perpetrators punished. And prosecutions for perjury ought not be so rare that they are reserved as a "safety net" for instances when the law provides otherwise-insuficient remedy for the deeds of a miscreant.
2.) Why is Congress investigating steroid use in Major League Baseball in the first place? On balance I suppose it might be a good thing, insofar as it keeps them from further curtailing our liberties, raising our taxes, or voting on any more legislation they haven't read! But really, how's this their business? Interstate commerce? "Equal protection"? Baseball's informal status as our "national pastime"? Or the "Imperial Congress" doing what it darn pleases? Not that any of that is germane to the plight of Clemens, for one thing he wasn't subpoenaed or anything, he volunteered to testify!
3.) There is much to be said about the effect of steroids (and H.G.H. and other stuff) on the game, far too much for this already-too-long post. But please indulge me in a modest proposal: how about a separate league for players who want to use performance-enhancing drugs? If, as the argument goes, a certain number of guys are going to do this no matter what, why not give them a venue to compete on an equal basis with their chemically-enhanced peers? Middle infielders routinely hitting tape-measure homers, "real" power hitters routinely racking-up 75 home run seasons, relief pitchers throwing 100 m.p.h. for mutiple innings on back-to-back nights, and a 5-day disabled list in consideration for the "quicker recovery" that most players caught using P.E.D.s claim as their reason for using the juice? If the "X-Games" and "Arena Football" were made for t.v., how much more the fully-juiced game of baseball? Maybe then the rest of us fans could go back to watching the game as Wiliams and Koufax played it; or at least reasonably so. (the mention of those names raises the question - how come these guys who are on the juice max-out at 100 pitches every fifth day, or need a break after a few straight games in the field?)
1.) Should we be prosecuting a retired athlete for lying about using performance enhancing substances? There's a surprisingly large number who say "no", and they're not all rabid Roger Clemens fans. One argument seems is the old "he's suffered enough", i.e. he's become a pariah in MLB circles and his once-certain election to the Baseball Hall of Fame now seems extremely unlikely.
There are also those who dismiss the gravity of the offense about which he apparently lied, "it wasn't murder or treason or something". And there are those - myself included - who ask what business Congress has investigating steroid use in professional sports.
We heard many of the same arguments during the impeachment trial of President Clinton, who had certainly committed perjury himself. "it's impractical" to remove the President of the United States from office over a lie he told in a deposition regarding a rather personal matter; but this was only a small part of the argument contra impeachment. The most famous was that the offense "didn't rise to the level of impeachment", which I always found specious.
Is anyone reading this old enough to remember Alger Hiss? For the younger set, Hiss was an official in the U.S. State Department who had been at Yalta with F.D.R. and was secretary of the founding meeting of the United Nations. In 1948 an ex-Communist who was an editor at Time magazine, Whittaker Chambers, accused Hiss of being a Communist. This was a cause celebre, especially since Hiss was an member of the "East Coast Establishment", an Ivy Leaguer who'd been a protege of one Supreme Court Justice while at Harvard (Felix Frankfurter) and susequently clerked for another (Oliver Wendell Holmes). Hiss protested his innocence, and sued Chambers for libel. The events which Chambers was able to prove were beyond the existing statutes of limitations, but Hiss was eventually charged with perjury, convicted, and jailed for several years.
Men (and women, lest they cavil at my insensitivity) lie, about matters large and small, for reasons good and bad. But we need to be able to have confidence in our judicial proceedings and so the crime of perjury must be prosecuted and its perpetrators punished. And prosecutions for perjury ought not be so rare that they are reserved as a "safety net" for instances when the law provides otherwise-insuficient remedy for the deeds of a miscreant.
2.) Why is Congress investigating steroid use in Major League Baseball in the first place? On balance I suppose it might be a good thing, insofar as it keeps them from further curtailing our liberties, raising our taxes, or voting on any more legislation they haven't read! But really, how's this their business? Interstate commerce? "Equal protection"? Baseball's informal status as our "national pastime"? Or the "Imperial Congress" doing what it darn pleases? Not that any of that is germane to the plight of Clemens, for one thing he wasn't subpoenaed or anything, he volunteered to testify!
3.) There is much to be said about the effect of steroids (and H.G.H. and other stuff) on the game, far too much for this already-too-long post. But please indulge me in a modest proposal: how about a separate league for players who want to use performance-enhancing drugs? If, as the argument goes, a certain number of guys are going to do this no matter what, why not give them a venue to compete on an equal basis with their chemically-enhanced peers? Middle infielders routinely hitting tape-measure homers, "real" power hitters routinely racking-up 75 home run seasons, relief pitchers throwing 100 m.p.h. for mutiple innings on back-to-back nights, and a 5-day disabled list in consideration for the "quicker recovery" that most players caught using P.E.D.s claim as their reason for using the juice? If the "X-Games" and "Arena Football" were made for t.v., how much more the fully-juiced game of baseball? Maybe then the rest of us fans could go back to watching the game as Wiliams and Koufax played it; or at least reasonably so. (the mention of those names raises the question - how come these guys who are on the juice max-out at 100 pitches every fifth day, or need a break after a few straight games in the field?)
18 August 2010
Inside the "Pastoral Center"
Something's been rotten in the Archdiocese of Braintree Boston for quite a while now, and most well-informed Catholics are aware that the Chancery "Pastoral Center" is riddled with heterodox clerics and self-serving hirelings whose advice and dealings have redounded to the discredit of the incumbent Cardinal Archbishop.
Recently two new blogs have been started by individuals possessed of a good deal of inside information on the peculiar goings-on within the Pastoral Center. The picture they paint is not pretty, but from my own sources I have been able to verify sufficient of their facts to convince me that both blogs are reporting the truth about the state of the Archdiocese.
If you have any interest in what's going on in the Archdiocese, check out:
Boston Catholic Insider
-and-
Bryan Hehir Exposed
Recently two new blogs have been started by individuals possessed of a good deal of inside information on the peculiar goings-on within the Pastoral Center. The picture they paint is not pretty, but from my own sources I have been able to verify sufficient of their facts to convince me that both blogs are reporting the truth about the state of the Archdiocese.
If you have any interest in what's going on in the Archdiocese, check out:
Boston Catholic Insider
-and-
Bryan Hehir Exposed
17 August 2010
Who ARE the Obamas?
Average Americans, many of whom were hornswoggled into voting for him in 2008, have only "known" Barack H. Obama - now our 44th president - for a little over two years. Aside from liberals and members of the Democrat party, he got an awful lot of votes because he: 1.) wasn't G. W. Bush, 2.) was our first serious black candidate, 3.) seemed cool, charismatic and charming, and 4.) promised "hope and change".
That got him elected, but since then it hasn't gotten him very far.
Fast-forward to August of 2010. The national economy continues to stagnate in large part because business and the markets have a great deal of uncertainty about the next 6-12 months. Will there be another "stimulus" - carefully crafted to funnel massive doses of your tax dollars to the hard left's favorite constituencies? How much more will Obama, Pelosi, and Reid add to the deficit - and the National Debt? And will they let the Bush tax cuts expire, thereby implementing the largest tax increase in American history effective 1 January 2010? What effect will the short-term Federal bailouts of many irresponsible states have on their long-term economies?
At a time when every job is precious and most states are running immense deficits due mainly to the cost of entitlements, our border with Mexico remains (malignly) neglected by the Federal government, permitting an ongoing flood of illegal immigrants whose presence further exacerbates the situation - to say nothing of the unfettered entree available to criminals and terrorists.
Meanwhile we're still fighting in Afghanistan and "occupying" Iraq to prop-up the nascent Iraqi government, but it's pretty obvious that the mission is poorly-defined and oh-by-the-way morale is rotten. The SecDef is happily cutting the military budget and the C-in-C never speaks of "victory", only of "withdrawal". Iran is less than a week away from activating a nuclear reactor which will allow them to produce weapons-grade plutonium.
Speaking of our enemies, a group of "moderate" Muslims is pushing ahead with a plan to build a mosque in the shadow of the World Trade Center site, a.k.a. "Ground Zero". These "moderate" Muslims, however, are only "moderate" when compared to the most zealous and murderous purveyors of militant Islam, and it has been demonstrated thay they have ties to
If ever there was a time for leadership this is it. But what have we got? An aloof president who doesn't "do" press conferences, or any other unscripted appearances if he can help it. On the rare occasions when he sallies forth without his plexiglass wingmen, the "TelePropmter Twins", he is invariably forced to issue a morning-after correction of his latest gaffe - usually delivered from a position of ignorance - on one of the the issues of the day; e.g. "Skippy Gates" vs. the Cambridge Police, the Arizona illegal alien law, the "Ground Zero Mosque", etc. ad nauseum.
Twenty months ago, some of B. H. Obama's more leg-tingling admirers in the M.S.M. were likening him to F.D. Roosevelt. Well, they're both liberal Democrats who never left an opportunity pass to increase the role of government in the lives of the governed. But F.D.R. was a known quantity to the American people when they elected him. Scion of an old New York family, cousin of President Theodore Roosevelt, Assistant Secretary of the Navy during World War I, candidate for Vice President in 1920, and two-term Governor of New York; Roosevelt had a record of accomplishment and the obvious qualifications for the nation's highest office.
F.D.R. compiled a mixed record during the Great Depression, while his first acts in office unquestionably staved-off a national panic his later policies - which included tax increases and unprecedented government regulation - are now understood to have prolonged the Depression beyond its duration in many other countries. But he was quite willing to acknowledge the failure of one or another of his programs or policies and scrap it in favor of an alternative; and I regard his foreign policy - at least 1938-44 - as having been largely correct.
Alas, B.H.O. is no F.D.R. During the last twelve tumuluous months President Obama has taken no fewer than seven vacations running to some forty days - not including Mrs. Obama's lavish vacation in Spain. None of these vacations were spent at property he owned himself - recall how often President Reagan and both Bushes were criticized for spending working "vacations" at their OWN residences in California, Maine, and Texas respectively. Indeed, F.D.R.'s favorite retreats were his own estate in the Hudson River Valley and the cottage he purchased at Warm Springs, Ga. Nobody doubts that the White House is able to maintain 24x7 contact with Obama when he's away from Washington, but neither do we labor under the illusion that he's devoting much time to the affairs of state.
When he does spend more than a week or so in Washington we are treated to carefully doled-out photo-ops, scripted and Teleprompter'ed remarks, and rambling statements by his press secretary. Poltics 24x7, but damn little substance.
So - who, and what, are these people we know so little about? Obama describes himself as a "progressive" and claims to be a "Christian". The former may be apt, but the latter is a bit of a puzzle. Twenty months after settling into the White House he has yet to "pick" a church. One of his stated reasons is a reluctance to inconvenience the other worshippers but his presence, but this contrasts rather badly with his willingness to inconvenience his fellow golfers, or beachgoers, or diners, etc. when one of his favored leisure activites is on the agenda. He's wont to lecture us - inaccurately - on being "our brother's keeper" when it serves to advance his nationalization of health care while embracing the feminist abortion-on-demand agenda. Reagan was pilloried for peripheral associations with Billy Graham, Jery Falwell, et al, but consider that Obama's two "spiritual" mentors are Rev. Jeremiah "God-damn-America" Wright and Fr. Michael "Non Compos Mentis" Pfleger.
Obama has been called a Marxist, a Socialist, an Alinskyite, un-American, and a closet Muslim. It's safe to say that no other sitting president has ever been identified in this way. The M.S.M. derides anyone who dares to voice questions about whether he really DOES answer to one or more of those designations, but they avoid the question of WHY people think these things about our 44th president. America didn't know who this man was when they elected him. We knew even less about his wife. Nearly two years later we can only judge him by his words and deeds.
One thing is clear - he and the Democrat Congress have taken the country in directions of which a majority of Americans disapprove, and they have lost the consent of the governed. As things stand now it is very likely that the G.O.P. will reclaim at least the House of Representatives in November, and there is certainly a path open for them to take the Senate as well. This election is as much a referendum on the Obama presidency as it is on the Democrat Congress, but the real verdict will be delivered in November of 2012.
America has twenty-seven more months to find out who the Obamas really are. Based upon the first half of his presidency I'm guessing they'll have a very hard time warming up to him during the second.
That got him elected, but since then it hasn't gotten him very far.
Fast-forward to August of 2010. The national economy continues to stagnate in large part because business and the markets have a great deal of uncertainty about the next 6-12 months. Will there be another "stimulus" - carefully crafted to funnel massive doses of your tax dollars to the hard left's favorite constituencies? How much more will Obama, Pelosi, and Reid add to the deficit - and the National Debt? And will they let the Bush tax cuts expire, thereby implementing the largest tax increase in American history effective 1 January 2010? What effect will the short-term Federal bailouts of many irresponsible states have on their long-term economies?
At a time when every job is precious and most states are running immense deficits due mainly to the cost of entitlements, our border with Mexico remains (malignly) neglected by the Federal government, permitting an ongoing flood of illegal immigrants whose presence further exacerbates the situation - to say nothing of the unfettered entree available to criminals and terrorists.
Meanwhile we're still fighting in Afghanistan and "occupying" Iraq to prop-up the nascent Iraqi government, but it's pretty obvious that the mission is poorly-defined and oh-by-the-way morale is rotten. The SecDef is happily cutting the military budget and the C-in-C never speaks of "victory", only of "withdrawal". Iran is less than a week away from activating a nuclear reactor which will allow them to produce weapons-grade plutonium.
Speaking of our enemies, a group of "moderate" Muslims is pushing ahead with a plan to build a mosque in the shadow of the World Trade Center site, a.k.a. "Ground Zero". These "moderate" Muslims, however, are only "moderate" when compared to the most zealous and murderous purveyors of militant Islam, and it has been demonstrated thay they have ties to
If ever there was a time for leadership this is it. But what have we got? An aloof president who doesn't "do" press conferences, or any other unscripted appearances if he can help it. On the rare occasions when he sallies forth without his plexiglass wingmen, the "TelePropmter Twins", he is invariably forced to issue a morning-after correction of his latest gaffe - usually delivered from a position of ignorance - on one of the the issues of the day; e.g. "Skippy Gates" vs. the Cambridge Police, the Arizona illegal alien law, the "Ground Zero Mosque", etc. ad nauseum.
Twenty months ago, some of B. H. Obama's more leg-tingling admirers in the M.S.M. were likening him to F.D. Roosevelt. Well, they're both liberal Democrats who never left an opportunity pass to increase the role of government in the lives of the governed. But F.D.R. was a known quantity to the American people when they elected him. Scion of an old New York family, cousin of President Theodore Roosevelt, Assistant Secretary of the Navy during World War I, candidate for Vice President in 1920, and two-term Governor of New York; Roosevelt had a record of accomplishment and the obvious qualifications for the nation's highest office.
F.D.R. compiled a mixed record during the Great Depression, while his first acts in office unquestionably staved-off a national panic his later policies - which included tax increases and unprecedented government regulation - are now understood to have prolonged the Depression beyond its duration in many other countries. But he was quite willing to acknowledge the failure of one or another of his programs or policies and scrap it in favor of an alternative; and I regard his foreign policy - at least 1938-44 - as having been largely correct.
Alas, B.H.O. is no F.D.R. During the last twelve tumuluous months President Obama has taken no fewer than seven vacations running to some forty days - not including Mrs. Obama's lavish vacation in Spain. None of these vacations were spent at property he owned himself - recall how often President Reagan and both Bushes were criticized for spending working "vacations" at their OWN residences in California, Maine, and Texas respectively. Indeed, F.D.R.'s favorite retreats were his own estate in the Hudson River Valley and the cottage he purchased at Warm Springs, Ga. Nobody doubts that the White House is able to maintain 24x7 contact with Obama when he's away from Washington, but neither do we labor under the illusion that he's devoting much time to the affairs of state.
When he does spend more than a week or so in Washington we are treated to carefully doled-out photo-ops, scripted and Teleprompter'ed remarks, and rambling statements by his press secretary. Poltics 24x7, but damn little substance.
So - who, and what, are these people we know so little about? Obama describes himself as a "progressive" and claims to be a "Christian". The former may be apt, but the latter is a bit of a puzzle. Twenty months after settling into the White House he has yet to "pick" a church. One of his stated reasons is a reluctance to inconvenience the other worshippers but his presence, but this contrasts rather badly with his willingness to inconvenience his fellow golfers, or beachgoers, or diners, etc. when one of his favored leisure activites is on the agenda. He's wont to lecture us - inaccurately - on being "our brother's keeper" when it serves to advance his nationalization of health care while embracing the feminist abortion-on-demand agenda. Reagan was pilloried for peripheral associations with Billy Graham, Jery Falwell, et al, but consider that Obama's two "spiritual" mentors are Rev. Jeremiah "God-damn-America" Wright and Fr. Michael "Non Compos Mentis" Pfleger.
Obama has been called a Marxist, a Socialist, an Alinskyite, un-American, and a closet Muslim. It's safe to say that no other sitting president has ever been identified in this way. The M.S.M. derides anyone who dares to voice questions about whether he really DOES answer to one or more of those designations, but they avoid the question of WHY people think these things about our 44th president. America didn't know who this man was when they elected him. We knew even less about his wife. Nearly two years later we can only judge him by his words and deeds.
One thing is clear - he and the Democrat Congress have taken the country in directions of which a majority of Americans disapprove, and they have lost the consent of the governed. As things stand now it is very likely that the G.O.P. will reclaim at least the House of Representatives in November, and there is certainly a path open for them to take the Senate as well. This election is as much a referendum on the Obama presidency as it is on the Democrat Congress, but the real verdict will be delivered in November of 2012.
America has twenty-seven more months to find out who the Obamas really are. Based upon the first half of his presidency I'm guessing they'll have a very hard time warming up to him during the second.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)