Quote of the Day
"A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired."
-- Alexander Hamilton (The Farmer Refuted, 23 February 1775)
Reference: The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Syrett, ed., vol. 1(126)
« July 2006 | Main | September 2006 »
August 31, 2006
August 30, 2006
Quote-a-palooza
“Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit. We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.” —Aristotle
“A true way to be deceived is to think oneself more clever than the others.” —Francois, Duc de La Rochefoucauld
“Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees all others.” —Winston Churchill
“Americans need a little more patience and Iraqis a little less. That’s the judgment of Gen. John Abizaid... ‘Our problem is to give up some control. The Iraqi problem is to take control,’ says Abizaid, who as head of Central Command has overall responsibility for U.S. forces here. He says Americans shouldn’t think of the transition as a straight line—’as they stand up, we stand down’ —but as a process of gradual stabilization.” —David Ignatius
“Somehow, despite contrary facts that are palpably clear in the historic record, [American and European leaders] have managed to convince themselves and the world that the most terrible wars of the 20th century occurred because nations didn’t do enough talking to resolve their differences [when in] fact, they occurred because shortsighted, peace-minded leaders allow[ed] good intentions and wishful thinking to take the place of an accurate assessment of the identity and intentions of their adversaries.” —Alan Keyes
“Why, oh why, do they hate us? As a passenger about to board an airliner, it’s hard to work up an interest... A more immediate question occurs: ‘How do we keep them from killing us?’ By random searches. By searching stereotypical suspects, too. By paying attention.” —Paul Greenberg
“Unless we in the West adapt more quickly than do canny Islamic terrorists in this constantly evolving war, cease our internecine fighting and stop forgetting what we’ve learned about our enemies—there will be disasters to come far worse than Sept. 11.” —Victor Davis Hanson
“We are really enabling immigrants to avoid learning English and assimilating into our culture because we give them everything they need so they don’t have to learn to speak English or become part of the traditional melting pot. By enabling these people, we build an enclave for them that looks like the one they ran away from at home...” —Michael Reagan
“When something is more expensive, people want less of it. That’s as true of labor as it is of ice cream cones.” —Stephen Moore
August 29, 2006
If only Ivy League Professors Could Marry...
...this never would have happened.
An Ivy League professor has been arrested for the third time in 11 years on child sex charges, in this case over video that allegedly shows him engaging in sex acts with boys.
Random thoughts::By Thomas Sowell
Townhall.com::Random thoughts::By Thomas Sowell
Some people are so busy being clever that they don't have time to be intelligent.A public opinion poll back in 1964 asked if America was worth fighting for -- and 87 percent of blacks said "yes." Today, it is doubtful if any segment of the population would give that answer that often.
Climate statistics show that, with all the "global warming" hysteria today, our temperatures are still not as high as they were back in medieval times. Those medieval folks must have been driving a lot of cars and SUVs.
Little kids can be adorable when they are asleep. Or maybe we are just so glad that they are asleep that this biases our feelings.
Increasing numbers of people seem to think that it is "name-calling" if you refer to someone as a liberal. There are no inherently negative connotations to the word "liberal." If it has acquired negative overtones, that is because of what liberals have done and the consequences that have followed.
Can you cite one speck of hard evidence of the benefits of "diversity" that we have heard gushed about for years? Evidence of its harm can be seen -- written in blood -- from Iraq to India, from Serbia to Sudan, from Fiji to the Philippines. It is scary how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a word.
The criminal justice system cannot be regarded as serious so long as there are such things as concurrent sentences and sentences of community service.
There is nothing so good that politicians can't make it bad and nothing so bad that politicians can't make it worse. Compassion is good but politicians have turned compassion into the welfare state. Crime is bad but politicians have made it worse by going easy on criminals.
Too many intellectuals act as if they are press agents for blacks -- who do not need press agents but who do need the truth. Wherever we are going, and wherever we want to go, we have to get there from where we are right now. Not where we wish we were or where we want others to think we are but where we are in fact.
It is staggering that anyone could be so self-infatuated as to single out their own particular policy preferences as "anti-war." Anyone who is not a sadist or an idiot is anti-war. The only serious issue is how best to limit, deter or conclude war. But responsibility for confronting this issue is evaded by those preoccupied with the moral preening of being "anti-war."
Heroin claims 9th city victim
A 50-year-old Wilmington man killed by a heroin overdose is the ninth city resident to die since a series of similar cases began in late April.Source
August 28, 2006
True Story
A coworker was just telling me that he and his family were watching "50 First Dates" and in the movie a conversation came up about the size of a walrus' genitalia. One of the characters said that "Wow, with that you'd have to use a Hefty bag for a condom!"
Their 11-year old son turned to them and said "Mom... Dad... what's a Hefty Bag?"
Quote-a-palooza
“Why is marriage considered to be any of the law’s business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves. In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose. Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other—and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union. In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet ‘gay marriage’ advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled. They argue against a ‘ban on gay marriage’ but marriage has for centuries meant a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay marriage to ban.” —Thomas Sowell
“We’ve come to a moment in our history when party labels are unimportant. Philosophy is all important. Little men with loud voices cry doom, saying little is good in America. They create fear and uncertainty among us. Millions of Americans, especially our own sons and daughters, are seeking a cause they can believe in. There is a hunger in this country today—a hunger for spiritual guidance. People yearn once again to be proud of their country and proud of themselves, and to have confidence in themselves. And there’s every reason why they should be proud. Some may have failed America, but America has never failed us, and there is so much to be proud of in this land.” —Ronald Reagan
“[T]he default assumption of our covert enemies is that in any conflict between the West and the Rest, the West is wrong. That assumption can be rebutted by overwhelming fact: Few argued for the Taliban after Sept. 11. But in our continuing struggles, our covert enemies portray our work in Iraq through the lens of Abu Ghraib and consider Israel’s self-defense against Hezbollah as the oppression of virtuous victims by evil men. In World War II, our elites understood that we were the forces of good and that victory was essential. Today, many of our elites subject our military and intelligence actions to fine-tooth-comb analysis and find that they are morally repugnant. We have always had our covert enemies, but their numbers were few until the 1960s. But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes. They have propagated their ideas through the universities, the schools and mainstream media to the point that they are the default assumptions of millions. Our covert enemies don’t want the Islamo-fascists to win. But in some corner of their hearts, they would like us to lose.” —Michael Barone
August 27, 2006
I can't get it out of my head!
"But some Popes were so bad..."
Yesterday's Gospel reading was Matthew 23:1-12. The reading begins:
Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.
This is the proper response when people ask how Catholics can have so much faith in the Papacy when so many bad men have sat on the Chair of St. Peter. So many bad men sat in the Chair of Moses, but the Jews were still obliged to obey them, according to this part of the Gospel. Jesus said this even as He knew they would soon plot to kill Him. We obey these men by virtue of the position they hold, not on account of their personal goodness.
In fact, the vanity and corruption of so many of those Popes is an argument in favor of the Papacy. If these awful men still taught the truth of the Faith, not changing doctrine and not destroying the Church from within, isn't that a strong indications that what the we believe about the Church is true? That it is the one true Church founded by Christ and protected and guided by the Holy Spirit?
You'll notice later in the same reading, this line:
Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.
This is often used against Catholics as well. After all, we address our priests as "Father." Here's a good response to that criticism, showing how elsewhere in the Bible the Apostles refer to themselves as spiritual fathers to Christians. And that's where Catholics draw their tradition of referring to priests as Father; they are our spiritual fathers. So what did Jesus mean? I'll just quote from the article linked above:
Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige.He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.
Even though we Catholics refer to our priests as Father, we always must keep in mind that they are no the source of their teaching, but rather Our Father in Heaven is.
Choosing Between Evils
Willard Whyte wrote the following in response to one of my earlier posts:
I have not visited in a bit, but this post coming so close to the quote reel with the Walmart passage struck me to write.
Your point is critical it seems to me, when all is said. The heart and what is written on it when faith rules there. And then, of course, the actions that follow that inner voice.
For what Jesus said was, even to a non-lawyer, very vague. For each of those things we all shalt not do are before us each day, some in small measure, some all too large and clear.
I shalt not steal, which is clear when standing at the Wawa counter with a clerk with his back turned and the gumball in my face. But the rule is much tougher when I am the CEO of Walmart and I have a choice of buying from a vendor who is cheapest because his product is assembled by an all-but-slave workforce in a building filled with toxic fumes from glue which pours poison into the stream an entire village draws its water from, rather than the more expensive vendor who loves his neighbor as he loves himself.
Am I stealing as I contribute to the taking of 8 hours of labor from those faraway people for a pittance, even as I contribute to the thriving of a venture that surely will kill many, if slowly?
Only if the words Jesus spoke rule in my heart will I strive to measure such complex equations. And then act as I believe He would want me to. Of course, I secretly thank Him for charging me with far simpler tasks.
WalMart is just one of many of our institutions in the clutches of the moneychangers, reaping gluttonous profits with ruthlessly effective purchasing, outsourcing and low-wage, no-benefit labor policies. Is that theft? Is that loving they neighbor (cashier) as thyself (CEO)?
A judgment of that -- and if there is an indictment, any subsequent measure of what is "right" -- must come from the heart. And I think I would find it to be a difficult assessment, and not be too quick to attack the motives of those who criticize the company's behavior. For they may be following that voice in their hearts and striving to "discover and live the truth" -- and act upon it.
They may be members of a union, or an executive with W.L. Gore who have chosen a different, less lucrative path in life because those words instructed them to seek more than silver and act as a just man.
Our world is a difficult place and the Way is hard to discern. The way ahead is even more difficult if we see only the darkness in our fellow man, rather than look for and nurture signs of Light.
When Jesus said thou shall not steal, he meant thou shall not take a commodity without justly compensating its owner. Surely, he would extend the same calculus to compensation for a man's
labor -- in Smyrna or Bangkok.
And what of the quick wink as the company contracts with, and otherwise fosters, "arms length" firms exploiting illegal immigrant labor to clean hundreds of stores at night, also for a profitable pittance?
I too shop at Wal-Mart -- and someday I may count my blessings for the opportunity to also earn that $9.17 an hour. But I feel guilty every time I do so -- because of that voice in my heart.
I'm getting a cheap and easy gumball and there are oh so many reasons why I do this.
And that clerk with his back turned is so many miles away -- and he'll never know it was me and millions like me shaving a few cents here or there at his expense.
Ah, the web is endless and we all are sinners. Perhaps it is not our place to seek more from the WalMarts of the world. They're no worse than any of the others.
First, Willard , I've got a complaint. I can't read your handle without thinking of the worst Bond movie. There's so little good to say about it. Not your fault, though. (Moonraker runs a close second. Ugh.)
Your point hits on a big reason I'm conservative. Sometimes we just don't what the right thing to do is. Yes, people who run factories with poor working conditions in foreign countries could take better care of their employees. But does that run the risk of causing them to lose money and necessitate closing the factories down? Having talked to some immigrants, they've been unanimous: Please don't take those jobs away from our nations. Even with the poor conditions, we know those people are better off than they otherwise would be since they work there and not somewhere else.
Take a similar issue: the "fair trade" coffee. I'm not a coffee drinker, but I can't say for sure that if I were, I'd drink fair trade coffee. If these coffee farmers can't compete with other, lower priced competitors, perhaps we're better off devoting our charitable efforts toward retraining them with skills in an area where they could compete.
I've never shopped at WalMart myself, but probably would if I needed to. As a conservative, I do have a general preference for small, local business so I tend to avoid the larger nationwide chains. Unfortunately, the large number of government regulations favors large business since they can more easily absorb the cost of said regulations.
I just read a quote about Catholic Social Teaching: essentially it said "Until you know the facts, side with the poor." It's sometime expressed as a "positive preference for the poor." But even there, there is a wide gray area in how best to help them. Some argue for an increase in the minimum wage, in order to increase the incomes of the working poor. Other (like myself) worry about the effect that would have on the working poor, costing some jobs and preventing others from being created. Both are acceptable approaches under Catholic thought, since they're in keeping with the general principle of help the poor, but only one can be right.
And it's that principle that supports my conservatism: in things where there are two (or more) approaches and we aren't sure which is correct, let people figure it out for themselves. I have more faith in the 700,000 Delawareans making their own decisions than I do in the 62 of them that legislate in Dover making decisions for everyone
And as Willard pointed out, we do live in a fallen world where people are selfish and greedy. Which is another reason to decrease the power of government. WalMart can't make you buy their product. They can't come into your house and grab you and make you shop there; they can't force K-Mart to close. But government, through the police and military can do such a thing. WalMart needs to make us happy, the government doesn't.
There is a finite amount of power in the earthly world. We can concentrate it in the hands of a few or allow many more to share it. I'm conservative because I want all to share in it, rather than a privileged few.
August 26, 2006
I want a Banana Phone!
Flash / Banana Phone (Badgerphone)
This is so dorky it's cool! I loved this.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face
Pressure is mounting within the Senate Democratic caucus to strip Sen. Joseph Lieberman of senior committee positions if he defeats Democratic nominee Ned Lamont in Connecticut, but Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is expected to beat that back.Lieberman will remain part of the Democratic caucus even though he would be elected as an independent after losing to Lamont in the Democratic primary. Many liberal senators, angry with Lieberman for supporting President Bush on Iraq, don't want him to chair a committee in a Democratic-controlled Senate. He now is senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee.
Reid says nothing publicly but is expected to save Lieberman. Disciplining fellow Democrats is not Reid's style, and Lieberman's vote could be crucial in taking Senate control from the Republicans. Reid and Lieberman also have a particularly close personal relationship.
This is a wise move by Reid. For one, parties should stick up for their incumbents. It's the best way to ensure good candidates down the road; you're less likely to get people to run if they have reason to believe that you might turn against them in the future. It's why I'm not bothered that President Bush and the Senate Republican caucus are supporting Lincoln Chafee in his primary in Rhode Island, evne though I've sent money to his opponent since I dislike Chafee so much. (It's also why I wasn't upset about Bush and Santorum supporting Specter in 2004.) I am bothered by the attack ads the National Republoican Senatorial Committee ran against Laffey. More evidence the 11th Commandment ("That shalt not speak ill of any other Republican." - Ronald Reagan) only matters when it's moderates being attacked.
Furthermore, Reid may need Lieberman's vote for Majority Leader come next year. A conservative publication I was reading this morning forecast a 50-50 split in the Senate. Lieberman's vote could be critical in that close a Senate and ticking him off by acting petty could cost the Democrats dearly.
August 25, 2006
Dear Senator
309 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC, 20510
Dear Senator Sarbanes,
As a native Marylander and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Immigration and Naturalization Service in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you. My reasons for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stem from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, what I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years.
I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out. Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications. If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative.
Thank you for your assistance.
Your Loyal Constituent,
Pete McGlaughlin
MLB.com: Pluto sent down to Minors
MLB.com put up a joke article dealing with the news about Pluto no longer being considered a planet (correctly, IMO), treating it as though it were a baseball player being demoted to the minor leagues.
August 24, 2006
Quote of the Day
"I am free to acknowledge that His Powers are full great, and greater than I was disposed to make them. Nor, Entre Nous, do I believe they would have been so great had not many of the members cast their eyes towards General Washington as President; and shaped their Ideas of the Powers to be given to a President, by their opinions of his Virtue."
-- Pierce Butler (letter to Weedon Butler, 5 May 1778)
Reference: The Records of the Federal Convention 0f 1781, Farrand, ed., vol. 3 (302)
I've heard before that the main reason we have such a powerful Chief Executive, and the reason the Presidency's powers are so vaguely defined is because everyone writing the Constitution knew the first President would be George Washington and that he'd figure it out. It would be interesting to see what they would done differently if Washington had made it known that he wouldn't take the office.
August 23, 2006
A Family Tree Meme
1. Which famous person would you most like to learn that you are descended from?
George Washington. I think my admiration for him is fairly obvious. Maybe Bill Gates too. I could his billions to better use than he is.
2. Which famous person would you hate to learn that you are descended from?
Hitler. Stalin. Mao. Any of those mass murderers.
3. If you could be ancestor to any living famous person, who would it be and why?
President Bush. I'd teach him a thing or two about what he's doing wrong.
4. If you could go back in time and meet any known ancestor(s) of yours, who would it be?
Grampa Smith. He died before I was born so I never got to meet him.
5. Tag five others:
Have at it, DCBA.
Modern Myths
Quote-a-palooza
“Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.” —John Adams
“The republic was not established by cowards, and cowards will not preserve it.” —Elmer Davis
“What experience and history teach is this—that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.” —Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
“Men will always be mad, and those who think they can cure them are the maddest of all.” —Voltaire
“To begin something and be unable to stick with it to the finish is far more damaging to your reputation than if you’d never begun it in the first place. Nitwit Democrats think anything that can be passed off as a failure in Iraq will somehow diminish only Bush and the neocons. In reality—a concept with which Democrats seem only dimly acquainted—it would diminish the nation, and all but certainly end the American moment.” —Mark Steyn
“Profiling isn’t aimed at demonizing Muslims; it’s aimed at saving lives, including Muslims.” —Kathleen Parker
“Unless we learn to see our enemies for who they are, we cannot hope to win this war. We’ve got to stop treating our own government as the enemy. We have to quit worrying about whether the rest of the world will love us when we take actions to protect ourselves. We have to give up the illusion that if we just retreat from the world or abandon Israel the Islamist fanatics will leave us alone.” —Linda Chavez
“Here’s my credo. There are no good guns, there are no bad guns. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a good man is no threat to anyone, except bad people.” —Charlton Heston
“Imagine a private group that pays billions in taxes, creates millions of jobs and sells things at ultra-low prices. Too good to be true? It’s called Wal-Mart—and Democrats, for some reason, want to kill it off... This is all part of a recent trend among Democratic politicians using Wal-Mart as a foil to ingratiate themselves with middle-class voters. This may be good politics. We don’t know. But those who participate in such Wal-Mart-bashing reveal themselves to be economic illiterates of the most dangerous sort... A study by economic consultant Global Insight found that, from 1985 to 2004, Wal-Mart slashed food-at-home prices by 9.1%, goods prices by 4.2% and overall consumer prices by 3.1%. If those cuts don’t sound huge, consider that, all told, they saved mostly poor and middle-class consumers $263 billion—or $895 per person and $2,329 per household. By now, of course, it’s become obvious that Democrats aren’t so much anti-Wal-Mart as they are pro-organized labor... Yet despite unions’ widely disseminated claims, the wages that Wal-Mart pays its employees are competitive. In 2004, Global Insight found that the average wage nationwide for jobs equivalent to Wal-Mart’s was $8.46 an hour. Wal-Mart paid $9.17. Put bluntly, the war against Wal-Mart Stores is a war against the poor, and it’s shocking to watch a major political party carry it out... A Zogby Poll...found that 85% of frequent Wal-Mart shoppers pulled the lever for President Bush in 2004, and that 88% of people who never shop there voted for John Kerry. Maybe the split in this country isn’t so much red state versus blue, but Wal-Mart vs. non-Wal-Mart. And since 20% of Americans are Wal-Mart shoppers, Democrats might think twice before alienating them any more than they have so far.” —Investor’s Business Daily
“These are tough days for political satirists. Any satire about government boondoggles is soon upstaged by an actual government program that’s more inane than anything comedians could invent.” —John Stossel
“[I]f Bush sneered that John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi’s constant companion is the white flag, they’d huff about how dare he question their patriotism. But, if you can’t question their patriotism when they want to lose a war, when can you?” —Mark Steyn
“France backed off its pledge to send seventeen hundred troops to Lebanon Thursday and offered to send two hundred. No wonder we keep testing positive in their bicycle races. Everyone looks like they’re full of testosterone when they’re surrounded by Frenchmen.” —Argus Hamilton
“[S]tupidity knows no ideology.” —John Fund
August 22, 2006
Moral Superiority
This is a cheap shot, but it's hilarious:
More Kudzu
I'm really growing to love Kudzu.
Serenity Now
So, I've caught Serenity a few more times on cable during my migrations. And while I know Firefly fans are more sour on it compared to the show (vide Derb et al); And, I'm a big skeptic of trying to overread pop culture through partisan ideological lenses; But, it is striking what a conservative movie Serenity is. In the 1930s, when ideological content was deliberate and ideological deviationism was denounced, Serenity would be villified as "fascist" for its opposition to social planning. The upshot: a capitalistic freebooter opposes the egalitarian — democratic — "Parliament." It's übermenschy representative — a barely updated version of the HG Wellsian fascistic types parodied in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow — is beyond good and evil in his pursuit of a utopian world. Parliament's last major attempt at making a utopia — weeding out aggression through better chemistry — resulted in death and horror on a grand scale, the lesson being that such enterprises are always doomed. Indeed, to the extent Mal Reynolds has an ideological agenda it is merely to stand in the way of Utopia and the desire of tyrants to impose happiness on people whether they like it or not. Beyond that, he simply believes in people living their lives as they see fit, so long as their interests don't collide with his.Or something like that.
Thanks are due to Miss Anonymous Opinion who introduced to Firefly, which turned out to be a really good show. Much better than I anticipated, even though I had enjoyed Joss Whedon's previous efforts on Buffy and Angel. I'm not quite a "browncoat" yet, but it could happen.
This is just cool
Queenship of Mary
Today, August 22nd, the Catholic Church honors the Mary, the Queen of Heaven. For a long time, I didn't understand why we honor Mary as Queen of Heaven. After all, shouldn't our focus be on the King of Heaven?
Then I read Hail, Holy Queen by Scott Hahn which explained it to me. Honoring Mary as Queen as Heaven is honoring God as King of Heaven. (Hahn is a former Protestant minister who converted to Catholicism and is now a professor at Steubenville University.) Israel, during the time of the Kings, was a polygamous society, which obviously raised the question of which of the King's wives was the Queen. So, like many other such societies, in Israel the mother of the King was proclaimed Queen. And who is the mother of God? The woman who gave birth if the God-become-Man: Mary.
You see examples of this in the Books of Kings. In Kings Chapter 2, Bathsheba is approached to speak to Solomon on behalf of Adonijah, much as Catholics ask Mary to approach her Son on our behalf. As the Books of Kings describe the reigns of the various succeeding Kings of Israel and Judah (after the Kingdom divides), their mothers are frequently mentioned as well. Obviously, in the Kingdom of Israel (which is a type of the Kingdom of Heaven), the mother of the king is a very important person. So the mother of the King of Heaven must be especially important and it is for this reason Catholics honor her so highly.
More information about the Queenship of Mary:
Women for Faith & Family - includes Pope Pius XII's Encyclical Ad Caeli Reginam (roughly "On the Queen of Heaven"), which proclaims Mary's Queenship and instituted the feast we celebrate today.
EWTN on Mary as Queen of Heaven
August 21, 2006
Today's Gospel
Today's Gospel reading in the Mass was Matthew 19:16-22. In this reading, Jesus is asked by a rich young man what he must to be achieve his reward in Heaven. Jesus replies: 'You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother'; and 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"
There's more to the story, but I want to focus on this. Some Catholic will tell you that only Catholics can go to Heaven. (This is not the teaching of the Church, and so they're committing a heresy when they say that, just for the record.) Note that none of these commandments Jesus specifies as requirements for Heaven have anything to do with worshipping God; rather, they deal with how we treat others. I don't want to get in a whole "Faith vs. Works' discussion because I've never really understood that whole debate, but it seems clear that our works have something to do with it.
The Catholic position on who shall be saved is essentially this: if you attempt to discover and live the truth to the best of your abilities and your situtation, God will save you. If you don't worship the one true God ebcause you've never been exposed to him, that's not your fault. God has, however, written what Catholics call the "natural law" on all of our hearts. So, while we cannot discern certain Christian doctrines solely from our knowledge of nature, science and our experiences, we can discern certain moral truths: murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. (Essentially what Jesus discusses in the quote above.) It's how we live according to the the natural law written on our hearts and the truth of God we are exposed to in our lives that will determine if we reach Heaven after our deaths.
So, anyone can reach Heaven if they do their best acoording the Truth to which they have been exposed. Since God knows all, He knows how sincerely we are trying and "grades" on that. (And in my case, I thank the Lord for His Mercy.)
History Lesson
During his press conference today, the President said "I may be the only person--the only presidential candidate who never carried the state in which he was born."
Best of the Web Today did the research, and here's the list of all major party Presidential candidates who lost the state they were born in:
No point to this, just interesting.
Best of the Web Today did the research, and here's the list of all major party Presidential candidates who lost the state they were born in:
| Thomas Pinckney (F) | 1804, 1808 | South Carolina |
| James K. Polk (D) | 1844 | North Carolina |
| Zachary Taylor (W) | 1848 | Virginia |
| Winfield Scott (W) | 1852 | Virginia |
| John Frémont (R) | 1856 | Georgia |
| Abraham Lincoln (R) | 1860, 1864 | Kentucky |
| Stephen Douglas (D) | 1860 | Vermont |
| George McClellan (D) | 1864 |
Pennsylvania |
| Horace Greeley (D) | 1872 | New Hampshire |
| Winfield Hancock (D) | 1880 | Pennsylvania |
| William J. Bryan (D) | 1896, 1900, 1908 | Illinois |
| Alton Parker (D) | 1904 | New York |
| Charles E. Hughes (R) | 1916 | New York |
| James Cox (D) | 1920 | Ohio |
| John Davis (D) | 1924 | West Virginia |
| Al Smith (D) | 1928 | New York |
| Alf Landon (R) | 1936 | Pennsylvania |
| Adlai Stevenson (D) | 1952, 1956 | California |
| Hubert Humphrey (D) | 1968 | South Dakota |
| George McGovern (D) | 1972 | South Dakota |
| George H.W. Bush (R) | 1988, 1992 | Massachusetts |
| George W. Bush (R) | 2000, 2004 | Connecticut |
| John Kerry (D) | 2004 |
Colorado |
No point to this, just interesting.
Quote-a-palooza
“My greatest dream in life would be to go and argue that the Christian worldview is true and nothing else is—a case that I believe I could prove to the satisfaction of any objective court, if you can find one today. There is only one worldview that is rational and that makes sense, and it is the biblical worldview. All others are false, and I can prove they are.” —Chuck Colson
“Today, it is considered politically incorrect to mention the obvious contribution of motherhood. Feminism taught us to believe that motherhood is for ninnies, and that no self-respecting educated woman should be caught dead changing diapers. Public policies to encourage women to have more children are considered unacceptable infringements on women’s freedom... Well, I am one woman who is ready to say that raising children is a good and socially constructive thing to do. Having more than one or two children can be a lot of fun. And it is for certain that raising a large family to productive adulthood will use all the gifts of even the most gifted woman. Having a family is a worthy life endeavor, deserving the educated woman’s most serious consideration.” —Jennifer Roback Morse
“The most geriatric jurisdiction on the planet, Nippon’s rising sun has now passed into the next phase of its long sunset: net population loss. 2005 was the first year since records began with more deaths than births. The world’s other elderly societies have complicating factors: In Europe, the successor population is already in place—Islam—and the only question is how bloody the transfer of real estate will be. But Japan offers the chance to observe the demographic death spiral in its purest form. It’s a country with no immigration, no significant minorities and no desire for any: just the Japanese, aging and dwindling.” —Mark Steyn
“While America’s military strength is important, let me add here that I’ve always maintained that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith.” —Ronald Reagan
“Many people who complain about the corrupting influence of money never seem to apply that to government money. If high government officials were serious about wanting to know the facts, they could set up an independent statistical agency, along the lines of the General Accounting Office, to do studies of the effects of the policies of the operating agencies. That would mean that the fox would no longer be in charge of the hen house, whether the fox was the Labor Department, the Commerce Department, or any of the other departments and agencies. It would also mean that various bright ideas originating in Congress or the White House would now be exposed to the risk of being shown to be costly failures or even counterproductive. Whole careers could be ruined among both elected officials and bureaucrats. Don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen. But do keep that in mind when someone says ‘studies prove...”’ —Thomas Sowell
“Place yourself in the position of an employer and ask: If a worker costs me, say, $7 in wages, plus mandated fringes such as Social Security, unemployment compensation, sick and vacation leave, making the true hourly cost of hiring a worker $9 an hour, does it pay me to hire a worker who’s so unfortunate to have skills that enable him to produce only $5 or $6 worth of value per hour? Most employers would conclude that doing so would be a losing economic proposition... There’s another villain—the customer. If the employer retained workers whose wages exceeded their productivity, to cover his costs he would have to charge you and me higher product or service prices. I don’t know about you, but I prefer lower prices to higher prices, and I’d switch my patronage to those firms who adjusted to the higher labor cost. Congress can easily mandate higher wages, but they cannot mandate higher worker productivity or that employers hire a particular worker in the first place. Those of us who truly care about the welfare of low-skilled workers should focus our energies on helping them to become more productive, and a good start would be to do something about the rotten education that many receive.” —Walter Williams
2006 Tropical Storm Season Now Below Normal
Weather Street: 2006 Atlantic Tropical Storm Season Below Normal (August 21)
Part of the reason for the slow season is that tropical western Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are running about normal, if not slightly below normal (see graphic below, which shows SST departures from normal). ... The cooler SSTs in the Atlantic are not an isolated anomaly. In a research paper being published next month in Geophysical Research Letters, scientists will show that between 2003 and 2005, globally averaged temperatures in the upper ocean cooled rather dramatically, effectively erasing 20% of the warming that occurred over the previous 48 years. ... The slow hurricane season and the cooling sea surface temperatures might be somewhat surprising to the public. Media reports over the last year have suggested that, since global warming will only get worse, and last year's hurricane activity was supposedly due to global warming, this season might well be as bad as last season. But it appears that Mother Nature might have other plans.
And I think that's the point. We humans, especially those who don't believe in God, like to think we're the center of the Universe and are responsible for all things. I find it much easier to believe that we're relatively inconsequential in the natural order of things. All we can do with hurricanes is run, why should we believe that we can affect the entire planet's temperature and weather? As something I read once put it, "Mother Nature's a b*itch" (or bitca, for you hardcore Buffy fans) and I doubt we can do too much to her.
Quote of the Day
"What good is mining nose gold if I can't share it with the townspeople!" --Chris Griffin, Family Guy
August 20, 2006
What About Illegal Immigration?
I've been mulling over a post about illegal immigration for a while now, but I've been taking my time since it can be such a sensitive and complicated issue. I read a good article in the latest issue of The Catholic Answer that I think does a good job covering the points I wanted to make. (It's not available online.)
Before I list the guidelines this article suggests as the points we need to take into account when formulating an immigration policy, I want to make clear my main problems with illegal immigration:
1) It's illegal. Respect for valid and just laws should be a benchmark of our personal behavior. Immigration law is very screwed up and in great need of reform, but there's little inherently unjust about it and therefore deserves our respect. We fail as citizens of America and the world when we encourage disrespect for and the flouting of valid laws.
2) Mass immigration can remake our society without the consent or even input of the current members of our nation. Ryan at Jokers to the Right by coincidence has a post describing the division and instability this can bring to our nation when immigration becomes too destabilizing a force.
After the break I'll list the principles the article discussed and add any comments I have on them.
1) The basic human rights of all immigrants, even those who have entered the country illegally must be recognized.
I would hope this is common sense. Just because someone's here illegally, we can't violate their fundamental human rights: we can't starve them, beat them, enslave them, deny their freedom to worship, etc. Now, that doesn't mean they're entitled to all the rights of actual citizens, either. We were all taught in drivers education, for example, that a driver's license is a privilege, not a right. So we are under no obligation to give illegal aliens drivers licenses, welfare checks, the right to vote, and other privileges of citizenship.
2) The Church must care for those in need, including illegal immigrants.
While, as noted above, the state is under no obligation to provide for some of the material benefits of those in their country illegally, they can not prevent private citizens and organizations from doing so. One of the fundamental principles of Christianity is care for the poor and to illegalize that in even a small case like aid to illegal aliens to to begin to illegal free practice of religion, and therefore not something the government should be allowed to do.
3) The right to migrate is not absolute; the common good of the host country and respect for its laws must also be taken into consideration in immigration laws and policies.
4) The common good of the host country is not simply a matter of preserving current levels of prosperity.
Comments on both of the above two points. This is a point I made above in my opening remarks: a sudden influx of many people from a foreign culture is destabilizing to the existing culture. In one aspect, there's a good benefit to the many Mexicans coming into America: they're Catholic and the more Catholics here, the better. I really respect the devotion Mexicans have to Our Lady of Guadalupe and the more Marian devotion we have (she is our patron saint under the Immaculate Conception, after all and as Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Patroness of the Americas) to the