Old World Swine

Freelance Terrorism

My first thought when looking at this story of the guy behind the D.C. sniper murders is that it's a bit much to refer to him as the "mastermind" of the operation. There were exactly two people involved in the crimes, total, and his contribution was basically to come up with, "Hey, let's drive around and shoot people!".

"Mastermind" seems to me like the kind of word you save for people like Dr. Evil or Osama Bin Laden or Bernie Madoff... big players.

He's been executed, now. Not that he didn't deserve it, but Catholic teaching says that if there is any other way to protect society from the aggressor, then execution should be truly a last resort. Clearly in this case, execution is more a matter of societal retribution, which is understandable. It's what people naturally do... it's just not what followers of Christ are supposed to super-naturally do. If there is no other way to neutralize an aggressor, then the state retains the right to the death penalty (so those who oppose any use of the death penalty on principle are wrong), but if he can be kept in prison forever - without trying to murder other inmates - then that's the route that ought to be taken.

And then you have this Ft. Hood shooter, Hassan. Call him a terrorist if you like, you'll get no argument from me, though he does seem more like just a malcontent who decided to go out in a blaze of anger rather than someone who had planned to do this all along. Up until the shooting he was just another grumbling Muslim America hater, content to draw a paycheck from Uncle Sam, so long as his life was going well enough to suit him. When he was sent away from the relative prestige of Walter Reed to an army base, however, and then was looking at actually being deployed overseas, well... he threw a tantrum.

In a lot of Arab countries, grown men are allowed to throw tantrums. It is actually enshrined in law. If you act in such a shameful way as to cause your husband or father or grandfather to be displeased with you, well, it's only right that you should expect a smack in the face, or a beating with a stick, or... you know... an honor killing. Because keeping the guy's ego intact is the most important thing there is.

Hassan strikes me as a colossally inflamed ego, and he could not handle the fact that he was being treated the same as all these infidels. He hated the West, and particularly the U.S., for failing to recognize the superiority of Islam, the superiority of all Arab men, and of himself in particular.

In my opinion, his crime is equal parts rotten ideology and garden variety disgruntled employee. Had he remained in a comparatively cushy job at Walter Reed, I doubt he would have ever let his hatred of America interfere with a steady paycheck.

On this Veteran's Day, especially, my thoughts and prayers are with his victims and their families.

Right Anglicans

According to this AP story form Yahoo! News, the Vatican has taken steps to create a new ecclesial structure just for traditional Anglicans who want to return to full communion with the Church.

It's no secret that a lot of Anglicans are aghast and appalled at the rapid doctrinal meltdown of their denomination, the result of moral relativism. A great number are looking for a way to reconnect with the historical roots of the Church, and are looking to Rome.

This new ecclesial structure will allow the return of Anglicans to the fold of the Church, while also allowing them to maintain some genuine Anglican identity in terms of their traditions and worship. Things like the Common Book of Prayer, I would guess. It will also allow the possibility of married Anglican priests and seminarians eventually becoming Catholic priests.

This is an exception to the celibacy rule that has also applied to married Eastern Orthodox priests who enter the Catholic Church.

Some Anglicans may be upset at this move from the Vatican, as the split within Anglicanism (long brewing, but recently triggered by major accommodations to homosexuality) has been growing, painful and public. It would seem that this response by Rome would have to encourage some who have been looking for a way out of the sinking Anglican lifeboat to make the leap for the Ark of Peter.

If they are that upset, though, perhaps we could arrange a trade. As much as it would pain me, I am willing to send them all our bitter feminist nuns, dissident crank theologians and aging hippie priests in exchange. These would fit right in with the likes of Katharine Jefferts Schori (head of the Episcopal church, the American branch of Anglicanism). Like peas in a pod.

What will these poor, Anglican converts do on Guy Fawkes Day? Oh, the internal conflict! Personally, I don't care if they celebrate and light their firecrackers. Guy was very naughty, trying to blow up Parliament like that. Had he run in with a pistol and a sword and demanded a fair fight, I might feel differently, but sneak attacks with bombs are unmanly.

Sarah Silverman Stole My Idea

Much as I hate to give this any more publicity than it deserves, which is none, I want to comment on Sarah Silverman's recent suggestion that the Catholic Church "sell the Vatican" to stop world hunger.

Where to begin? First, I want to point out that I said the very same thing when I was a dimwitted adolescent. It was an old trope then. Original and daring it ain't. The difference between me and Miz Silverman is that I grew up at some point. She didn't really steal it from me. She stole it from every grumbling crank since Nero.

But then, being a foul-mouthed comic isn't exactly the definition of "going against the flow". By falling right into line with the fashionable atheism of her social set, Miz Silverman reveals a timid and unimaginative conformism.

Then there is the irony of the kind of statement wherein one demonstrates one's deep concern for the poor by demanding that someone else do something to help them. I wonder if she texted the suggestion to the Vatican from her limo; "I would help the poor myself, but I have an appointment for a pedicure. Give 'til it hurts, Catholics!".

There is also the underlying philosophical problem of such a statement, which goes right along with the Spirit of the Age, which is materialism. By her remark, Miz Silverman sees no value in beauty or art or other intangibles (not to mention faith). For her, apparently, every symbol is an empty symbol. But then, I notice she didn't suggest we sell our national monuments... Mount Rushmore, the White House, the Capital Mall, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial.

Which brings us to her transparent anti-Catholicism, which - let's be honest - is what the remark is all about. Sarah Silverman doesn't lay awake nights worrying over the poor. She does think a lot about publicity, though, and trashing the Vatican is always good for a few days of tabloid chatter. One can't rely on jokes about rape or abortion or masturbation all the time. Trashing Christians is a very handy alternative, because it requires no courage at all, but you will be applauded for it as if you had done something significant. You will also get invited to all the right parties and cast in all the right parts.

There are two kinds of comics at work today; first, there are those of the "I-can't-believe-they-went-there" variety, who stimulate a Pavlovian response by attacking things that ordinary, normal people find important. Miz Silverman is one of these, and they are as common as dirt. This is where most of what passes for stand-up comedy comes from nowadays. Lacking a sense of humor, these performers rely on the mere shock of words. This is why we have "retard" jokes again. It's transgressive and edgy to make fun of the handicapped, see. What a fifth grader would rightly be ashamed of, these people get paid to do.

Then, there are the genuine humorists, who are more rare: Brian Regan, John Pinnette, Jeff Foxworthy, Jim Gaffigan... these may cross a line now and again, but in the main their humor is about being human, and most of the jokes are, in one way or another, on all of us. It's not even a question of bad language. There are some comics I really appreciate who swear a good bit. The words "humor" and "human" are both related to the root word "humus" ("earth"), after all. The difference is, they aren't trying to be offensive. There are times when another kind of word won't quite do.

It's odd how wide a gulf there is between being earthy and just being dirty.

Dangerous Minds

"This is the first incident this year involving a student under the age of seven in possession of a dangerous instrument. Christina School District staff and the Christina Board of Education are constantly examining ways to improve policies regarding student discipline."

The "dangerous instrument" referred to by this hysterical bureaucrat is a Cub Scout camping utensil... one of those fork/knife/spoon combos.

The only dangerous instruments here are the brains of the busybodies who let the incident get to this stage. Any sane person would have - at most - taken the thingy-ma-bob, explained the rule to the child and sent a pleasant note home to the parents explaining that they could pick up the camping tool any time.

Instead, these pettifogging apparatchiks want to send this six-year-old to reform school for 45 days. Great Jehoshaphat! Well, "make the criminal fit the crime" I always say. If he's not a hoodlum now, a month-and-a-half in the grade school equivalent of the county lockup ought to do the trick.

Get the Story.

Mayans to Doomsayers: Feel Free to Shut Up

You know, I've always thought, even before I was a Catholic, that if you want to find out what Christians believe and why, you ought to ask Christians before you take too much to heart what is said about their beliefs by critics or cranks or even professors.

I have come to apply that same approach to the beliefs of other groups, as well. So, for instance, if I want to know what Buddhists believe, I favor asking Buddhists, rather than some expert in comparative religions who studies Buddhists like insects pinned to a card.

The same courtesy ought to be extended to the modern descendants of the Maya, who would like to make it very clear that they - none of them - are lying awake nights wondering if the world will end in 2012. Not according to this AP article from Yahoo News, anyway.

The purveyors of this cash-conjuring nonsense, such as the folks at the History Channel, are doing to the Maya what Dan Brown did for the Catholic Church in his ham-fisted conspiracy fiction... spinning tales out of whole cloth and embroidering them with totally unrelated bits of archeological and historical "evidence" which is only evidence of their colossal ignorance.

There's nothing wrong with ignorance, per se. Ignorance with humility is harmless and curable, but ignorance combined with pride blossoms into arrogance, and is most often incurable, the patient being highly resistant to the only antidote.

The Maya would like to invite us all to shut up about the "mysteries" of the calendar of their ancestors, and take a moment to consider that no contemporary Mayan has ever considered that the calendar predicts anything like the end of the world in 2012.

I do predict, however, that the loopy 2012 theories will generate a lot of book and DVD sales. If you could pile all that bullsh*t into one place, it might really shift the poles enough to usher in a new ice age. The real disaster may be the denuding of forests to print all the books, or the food shortages caused by hoarders who foolishly threw out their stockpiles of supplies from the Y2K scare. Should have held onto those powdered eggs...

Musical Answers To Life's Pressing Questions

I finally thought of what President Obama and the health care alarmists remind me of, lately;

And this video goes out to Kanye West, Serena Williams and Congressman Joe Wilson;

Joltin' Joe Biden Lets the Truth Slip

From Yahoo News;

Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday the Obama administration is fiercely determined to get a health care overhaul, although he conceded it likely won't happen without "an awful lot of screaming and hollering."

In other words, BEND OVER, AMERICA!

It reminds me of an off-color joke I heard;

Q: What is Scottish foreplay?

A: "Brrrace yerself, lassie!!"

Nothing to See Here...

Where is the national outcry and spontaneous breast-beating over this murder in a church?

Don't worry, folks. This is clearly an isolated incident, the work of a lone kook who's personal beliefs and affiliations could not be of less importance. After all, this was just a Christian minister of a small town church* working quietly and nearly anonymously. It's not like she was of any real political importance.

Now, when an abortionist is murdered in a church, this is clearly part of a larger and darker sort of conspiracy, and we should all be very, very afraid, especially of anyone who opposes abortion.

Style note: When violence and religion are mentioned together in any sort of press article, it is always the religious folk that direct violence against others, never are religious folk the victims of hatred and intolerance, especially from the irreligious. Religious persecution against Christians in the modern world is a contradiction in terms, and is impossible. Christians are the problem. Just as it is impossible for a white man to be the victim of racism, it is impossible that Christians should ever be the victims of intolerance and persecution. Christians are the intolerant ones, always...

...even when they are stabbed to death, mutilated, stripped and laid out on the floor of their church in a crucifixion pose.

Nothing to see here. Move along. Do contact us, though, if a liberal is murdered.

* Eternal rest grant unto her O Lord,
And let perpetual Light shine upon her.
May her soul
And the souls of all the faithful departed
Through the mercy of God
Rest in peace.
Amen.

The Camel's Nose

Okay... I have a big problem with ObamaCare, and it is not directly related to abortion, euthanasia, death panels, embryonic stem cell research, or anything else that is or is not in the current version of the program.

Those things are abominable and are disqualifiers, certainly... but, for the sake of argument, let's say that none of these provisions were part of the current form of the bill.

My problem is simply in the bureaucratizing of the system, in the fact that it will be moving toward complete governmental control, because even given that none of these provisions were part of the program initially, I have the distinct sense that this is where things will be headed eventually. It's where the scientific "expert" ethicists want to go, it's where the current administration wants to go, it's where other supposedly more "advanced" Western countries are already going. The specific provisions of the current bill are not that relevant, what is relevant to me is that the government will be greatly expanding to control another huge aspect of public life, and that means loss of freedom.

You want a risk-free society? You can have it. I understand that there are people without insurance... there always have been, and there are more people insured now than ever. My wife and I were uninsured for years while we went to college. We were broke. Now we're going broke paying for insurance.

I think everyone ought to have access to medical care, and the vast majority already do. That doesn't mean that everyone can afford everything, but I am very close to a family of modest means that was in need of some very major, ongoing, expensive and specialized health care for a loved one and got it, paying only a tiny fraction of the total cost (which was all they could afford). Insurance covered only a fraction of the remainder, and the rest was absorbed by hospitals, by private physicians and donated by charities. In other words, people saw the need and covered it, without the government bureaucracy.

Does it always turn out that way? No. Do some people lack adequate health care? Sure. I think, though, that if we give up on private means of dealing with the problem and turn it over to Big Brother, we will regret it down the road.

You know that if Washington gets control of things, health care will continue to be structured so as to make money for all the "right" people, and this money will flow into Washington in such a way as to consolidate power for all the "right" pols. It will make the military/indudtrial complex green with envy. If you want to see the future of health care legislation, look at current legislation for weapons systems, which is based not on the needs of the military, but on the needs of some defense contractor that is holding some Senator's leash. "Who cares whether the air force needs or wants F22s?... My constituents want F22s, and I get a fat kickback from the company that makes F22s, in the form of campaign contributions and luxury junkets, etc... Screw the military ".

That is the same decision making dynamic that will be brought to bear in the health care industry, eventually, if it becomes another arm of the government.

Close to Home

Ugh. Another priest abuse case, with a couple of twists.

An area Catholic priest will not be charged with rape, though police say there is evidence of some sexual contact between the married priest and a 24 year old man. The incident is alleged to have occurred on August 4th at about 3:00 am. Both men had been drinking.

The diocese of Little Rock has removed the priest and taken away his faculties as a priest.

Oy, vey. Please pray for everyone touched by this situation.

Can we at least all agree that this married priest was not driven to unbearable sexual frustration by the demands of celibacy? He had been a married Episcopal minister and then converted to Catholicism. He and his wife have four children.