June 10, 2004
Man's Best Friend: Smarter than you think
From FoxNews - Study reports that dogs can understand over 200 words.
June 9, 2004
Do dead Iraqis only count sometimes?
How many of the insurgents have we killed in Iraq? You might think it's a macabre question, but it's relevant to whether our excursion there was a good idea. After all, if we're not militarily effective, that would have some bearing on whether the war was just, and the lessons we learn from the Iraq phase of the War on Terror will affect future phases and future wars.
So who keeps track of enemy body counts? Not the military, not since the press decided to make that statistic the butt of jokes in Vietnam. Has the press kept count? Are you kidding? They'd have to get out of their air-conditioned offices and get their shirts all yucky with sweat, then scurry around a hostile area among thugs who don't really care if you're a journalist, just that you're a Westerner and fair game for beheading.
From the reporters who have actually bothered to explore the question, it would seem that American forces are creating something on the order of ten casualties for every one we take, and the ratio could be even higher. Nobody disputes that whenever there is an actual battle or skirmish, and the insurgents fight instead of slither away, they end up getting their clocks cleaned.
Which leads me to an even more pointed question: how many innocent people have these cowardly insurgents killed? They've blown up worshippers, shoppers, policemen, U.N. employees, a busload of schoolgirls...surely someone is keeping track, right? This number should be easy to find out, since there's little question that, say, Issa the mechanic was guilty of no crime when he was blown up while passing an electrical station.
But we have no idea how many innocent people have died from the thugs. The soon-to-be-disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority doesn't publish those stats. What about our left-wing "watchdog groups"? They say they're keeping track of innocent deaths, but that is not true. They only care about innocent deaths if they can be ascribed to the Coalition.
So when a car bomb blows up a few blocks away from the CPA headquarters, and kills three Iraqis, that doesn't count for the watchdogs, which are always saying they're anti-war, not anti-American. However, there are at least two sides to every war. Why are they only concerned about innocent deaths inadvertently caused by one side, and positively dismissive about innocent deaths deliberately caused by the other?
One is tempted to think that dead Iraqis only interest the hard Left when they can pin the blame on the people they hate. After all, they didn't seem overly concerened about dead Iraqis when Saddam was filling his mass graves. This isn't new. They got all weepy about dead Vietnamese civilians until the North took over the South and exterminated tens of thousands of them, and drove hundreds of thousands out of their homes. Where were the peaceniks then?
The Left uses the people of the Third World as props in their imaginary morality plays of the Big Bad West and the Poor, Exploited Darker People, but with honorable exceptions like Amnesty International, I have yet to see much evidence that they care about the actual people involved.
SPORCH?
Combinaton spoon and torch? A burn mark from cigar? A stain that won't come out no matter what you do? Nope. You're all wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
SPORCH is the Society for the Preservation Of Roman Catholic Heritage. And they have a link to a website that has a pattern for a cassock. Does Steve's mom know about this?
Mother Teresa on Reagan's assassination attempt
"You have suffered the passion of the cross and have received grace. There is a purpose to this. Because of your suffering and pain you will now understand the suffering and pain of the world. This has happened to you at this time because your country and the world needs you."
-- Mother Teresa of Calcutta, addressing Ronald Reagan in June 1981, quoted here.
June 8, 2004
Aquinas and wine
"Sorrow can be alleviated by good sleep, a bath
and a glass of good wine."
--St. Thomas Aquinas
I've seen that quotation many places, but without reference to the source. I approve of the sentiment, but it doesn't sound very Thomistic to me. Anyone want to venture an opinion?
Stupidbannerads.com
I just saw an ad that said, "Congratulations. You are the 1,000th visitor to our web site and..."
I thought, "1,000??? Did the clock turn back to 1995 or something?"
A business school tidbit: The Customer Relationship Management people that write for Harvard Business Review and other publications think it's high time marketers were honest with people so that a real relationship can either happen or not happen.
So perhaps the banner should read:
"We aren't creative enough to come up with a promotion that means something, but why don't you give us all your personal info and we'll add you to a e-newsletter that comes out twice a day and splatters you with all sorts of travel offers. It will make you feel pretty. And we promise we won't sell your e-mail address to the Martians or anyone that has all five vowels in the sequential order you learned them in pre-school in their last name."
I guess that's too big for a banner...
Two memories of Ronald Reagan
Like just about everyone who was alive during the 1980s, I have many memories of President Reagan. His words and deeds influenced my way of thinking more than any other man (Jesus Christ excepted, of course). The two memories that stand out in my mind are completely different, yet for me they showed what kind of man he was, and what kind of men we should be.
The first was watching excerpts of the 1976 Republican convention on C-SPAN on a summer afternoon when I was in high school. (I guess it was a slow summer that year.) Reagan gave a speech that electrified the crowd, not so much because of what he said, but because of the gigantic breadth of vision he brought to the podium. The assembly roared its approval, and without meaning to do it, Reagan stole the show from the sitting president of the United States.
Then after the speech, as the commentators yammered on, the Fords and Reagans remained on the dais while balloons dropped from the ceiling. As they fell, Reagan smiled and batted a few of them out into the audience. Some mischievious people hit them back to him, which Reagan thought was hilarious. It was a small moment that proved his unselfconsious humility.
The other memory is a simple speech from a significant but not world-shaking event, the firing of the air-traffic controllers. As you may recall, the controllers, despite signing a promise not to strike against the government, walked off their jobs to force the Federal government to give them a gigantic pay raise. This not only violated the terms of their employment, it was a federal crime.
The five-paragraph speech itself was not memorable for its rhetoric, but although I was only nine years old, its argument was completely comprehensible. Some people, whose job was to keep planes from crashing, promised not to strike against the government. They went back on their word, so the president said if they didn't go back to work, they'd be fired.
This was justice at its most elemental level: the controllers did something wrong, and they needed to repent or face punishment. I couldn't figure out why some adults tried to find an excuse for these people. If I disobeyed my parents or teachers, I got punished. Why should the consequences be different for grown-ups who break the law, which, it seemed to me, was a much more serious thing than breaking a household rule?
It was then that I decided I liked Ronald Reagan. The lesson he taught me throughout his presidency was supremely valuable -- if you see something is right, work for it in any way you can. Compromise only when it gets you closer to your goal, and never give up just because it seems difficult. There will always be those who try to explain away evil, or who complain that doing good is too hard; they are to be either convinced or ignored.
Above all, he taught me that ideas mattered because they are real, more real than events. In an odd way, that paved the way for my later religious conversions. Turning your life over to Christ is a forthright denial of the world's ultimate importance, a declaration to the world that credo quod absurdam, "I believe because it is absurd." Many people thought that Reagan's timeless principles -- which were rooted in human dignity -- were absurd because they were obsolete, false, or unworkable. With quiet satisfaction, I note that many of the people who viciously criticized him two decades ago are now eulogizing him as a great man.
We may never know the importance of what we do on earth until we are dead. May God grant us the ability to discern what is right, and the confidence to do it. I thank God for the example of Ronald Reagan's courage and fidelity, and for his genuine humanity. He was a better leader than we deserve.
Rest in peace, Mr. President.
Upcoming eucharistic congresses!
June 12: Atlanta
Sept. 24-25: Washington, DC
Oct. 10-17: International Congress in Guadalajara
June 7, 2004
American bishops and Ronald Reagan
Catholic bishops share in the charism of infallibility when they speak on faith and morals, in conjunction with the Holy Father. That is part of the magisterium, the teaching authority by which we know the pure truth of the Gospel. That magisterium cannot be broken because it comes from God himself (Mt 16:18).
When they stray from faith and morals, bishops are no more likely to be free from error than any other well-informed people. On many important subjects in the 1970s and '80s, American bishops brought their prestige to bear against many policies Ronald Reagan favored. Some examples of their stances:
1. The American government should not deploy nuclear weapons even if they are possessed for defensive purposes.
2. Firearms in private hands should be strictly regulated, and cheap handguns should be banned.
3. Persons receiving monetary support ("welfare") from the government are entitled to that support, even if they are capable of working.
4. Money spent on national defense should be diverted to "human needs."
Some have suggested that the bishops' decline in influence is because of "the scandal," the reshuffling of predatory homosexual priests. That is a recent development. The main problem is the bishops' concern with being "relevant" and speaking confidently on issues in which they have no particular competence (arms control, economics) and going soft on subjects where they not only have competence, but a divine mandate to explain (contraception, divorce, homosexual behavior).
Much as it pains me to say, where they disagreed, Reagan was mostly right, and the bishops mostly wrong. The bishops don't need better analysts -- they simply need to narrow their focus to the eternal things, and leave petty politics to the politicians.
June 6, 2004
Today's church joke
Preacher: Today I'd like to talk about a man who died in God's service...
Parishioner: Which one: the 9:30 or the 11:30?
Least Likely Catholic Conference Names
Folk Ensemble Society Annual 2004 Annual Meeting
Folk and Contemporary Musicians in the Liturgy: Quo Vadis?
Add more in the comments boxes, please!
"His work is done, and now a shining city awaits him."
President Bush's Remarks
This is a sad hour in the life of America. A great American life has come to an end. I have just spoken to Nancy Reagan. On behalf of our whole nation, Laura and I offered her and the Reagan family our prayers and our condolences.Ronald Reagan won America's respect with his greatness, and won its love with his goodness. He had the confidence that comes with conviction, the strength that comes with character, the grace that comes with humility, and the humor that comes with wisdom. He leaves behind a nation he restored and a world he helped save.
During the years of President Reagan, America laid to rest an era of division and self-doubt. And because of his leadership, the world laid to rest an era of fear and tyranny. Now, in laying our leader to rest, we say thank you.
He always told us that for America, the best was yet to come. We comfort ourselves in the knowledge that this is true for him, too. His work is done, and now a shining city awaits him. May God bless Ronald Reagan.
Reagan predicted a 'rendezvous with destiny' in 'The Speech' - washtimes
The historical parallels between our time and 1964, when Reagan delivered this speech, are striking. Conservatives are still fighting the same battles, to greater or lesser degrees. Here is an excerpt of the excerpts that appear at the above URL.
It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, "We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government."This idea — that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power — is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream — the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.
Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."
The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government set out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.
