IS THE POPE ”PETRIFIED BY SEX”???
What Happens When Non-Liberals Join the New Know-Nothing Party
On August 3, in the New York Daily News, self-styled "middle-of-the-road" columnist Mike Barnicle joined ranks with his colleagues in the liberal news media to bash the Pope for having the temerity to issue a document on July 31 which did nothing more than defend the universal, timeless and time-honored institution of marriage against those attempting to both weaken and radically ("at the root") redefine it by rushing gay “marriage” legislation into the nation’s law-books.
A central theme of the Vatican's document, aptly titled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, is that what has always constituted and defined marriage was, and continues to be, determined by logic, natural law, and gender rather than the wishful thinking of a noisy special interest group.
In short: It's the biology, stupid.
On a sociological and psychological level, Considerations also points out, it has long been established that children grow and develop best under male and female parents. However, it remains to be seen that, on the whole, children --most of whom (if not all) are born heterosexual-- can do so (or worse, grow and develop adversely) under parents of the same gender; hence the Vatican's opposition as well to adoption by gay couples whether they are "married" or not. After all, it's one thing for two consenting adults to tinker with their own lives, and quite another for them to tinker with the lives of innocent children who have no say in the matter.
Moreover, as Considerations also points out, the institutions of marriage and the family, as the most fundamental building block of any civilization, predates both church and state by at least several millenia; hence, neither church nor state has the right or authority to reinvent it from the ground up by including same-sex "unions." Why, one may as well extend the definition of "marriage" to same-person unions (see our July 9 blog, Next Up In Canada: Same-Person Marriage, below).
Yet Barnicle doesn't even address any of the aforegoing concerns, nor does he address any of the other arguments against gay "marriage" raised by Considerations. It's as if the man never came across the term "philosophy," much less ever studied the subject. Instead, Barnicle opened his column with the following preposterous statement, which was quickly followed by other equally preposterous statments (emphasis via bold text and underlines added):
If you're Catholic, you really have to have faith to keep the faith these days. One day, a new archbishop is installed in Boston and instantly adds a breath of fresh air to a church that has been battered by the behavior of liars, hypocrites and obstructors of justice in Roman collars. Then, just when you think it's safe to relax, the Pope and the isolated crew around him issue their latest assault against homosexuals. That was predictable because the Vatican --hey, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church-- is petrified by sex.
Of course, the irony of the above statement is that the "liars, hypocrites, and obstructors of justice in Roman collars" to whom Barnicle refers are the very same homosexual priests who committed the crimes in question, along with the look-the-other-way bishops who protected them. After all, well over 90% of the clerical sexual abuse cases in the American Catholic Church are male-on-male, not male-on-female --a very relevant fact barely mentioned in the secular media and apparently ignored by Barnicle. In fact, had "the Pope and the isolated crew around him" staged a wholesale purge and defrocking of these clerics at least ten years ago --as they should have done-- Barnicle most likely would've waxed indignant about "their latest assault against homosexuals." Logic would suggest that if the Pope should favor gays taking marriage vows (as Barnicle apparently believes), the Pope should likewise favor gays taking priestly vows.
Nevertheless, in the remainder of his diatribe Barnicle showed nary the slightest indication of informed familiarity with the Catholic Church’s teachings in the areas of marriage (regarded as a sacrament by the Church!), sexuality, and sexual ethics. Nor did he present a shred of evidence to support his claim that Pope John Paul II & co. are "petrified by sex."
Instead of doing his homework in order to address these issues with something resembling coherence and intelligence, he apparently decided instead to create a straw-man which he then proceeded to dismantle. But such intellectual laziness seems typical of Barnicle, who according to the news media was once booted from The Boston Globe for repeatedly plagiarizing other writers' work.
On August 4, we sent the following response to Barnicle's column via e-mail to the editors of the Daily News. To date, our letter seems not to have seen the light of day there, much less any space in the Daily News' Letters section --even in a much shorter and heavily edited form. Nor have we yet to receive a reply:
Letters to the Editor
New York Daily News
August 4, 2003
Mike Barnicle's attempt on August 3 to "critique" the Vatican's rejection of gay marriage has got to be most clueless piece of balderdash on things Catholic I've come across since the last time I read a Jack Chick tract.
Barnicle claims, with zero evidence to back up his assertion, that Pope John Paul II, among other Church leaders at the Vatican, is "petrified by sex."
REALLY????
Obviously, Mr. Barnicle has never come across the vast corpus on marital relationships, sexuality, and sexual ethics --collectively known as "theology of the body"-- written by the Pope which proves the exact opposite.
Consider, for example, the following excerpts from the Pope's book Love and Responsibility, first published over 40 years ago in his native Poland:
"Sexologists state that the curve of arousal in woman is different from that in man--it rises more slowly and falls more slowly... The man must take this difference between male and female reactions into account, not for hedonistic, but for altruistic reasons. There exists a rhythm dictated by nature itself which both spouses must discover so that climax may be reached both by the man and by the woman, and as far as possible occur in both simultaneously...
"Non-observance of these teachings of sexology in the marital relationship is contrary to the good of the other partner to the marriage and the durability and cohesion of the marriage itself. It must be taken into account that it is naturally difficult for the woman to adapt herself to the man in the sexual relationship, that there is a natural unevenness of physical and psychological rhythms, so that there is a need for harmonization, which is impossible without good will, especially on the part of the man, who must carefully observe the reactions of the woman. If a woman does not obtain natural gratification from the sexual act there is a danger that her experience of it will be qualitatively inferior, will not involve her fully as a person…
"In the woman this produces an aversion to intercourse, and a disgust with sex which is just as difficult or even more difficult to control than the sexual urge. It can also cause neuroses and sometimes organic disorders (which come from the fact that the engorgement of the genital organs at the time of sexual arousal results in inflammation in the region of the so-called little pelvis, if sexual arousal is not terminated by detumescence, which in the woman is closely connected with orgasm). Psychologically, such a situation causes not just indifference but outright hostility. A woman finds it very difficult to forgive a man if she derives no satisfaction from intercourse…."
Does any of the above sound like something written by a man "petrified by sex"???
But perhaps Barnicle was merely trying to make a clever Peter-as-the-Rock pun based on Matthew 16: 18 ("And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church"): The word "petrified" and the name "Peter" --another name by which all Popes are known-- have the same root, the Greek word petros, "rock." However, we doubt that Barnicle is that original: Just ask The Boston Globe. And by all indications, he's not a New Testament scholar either.
As we've pointed out before, whether it comes from intellectually challenged secular pundits or backwoods semi-literate John Calvins, anti-Catholic nincumpoopery is still alive and well on planet Earth.
"Any questioning of the moral ideas that prevail ...is received with the utmost hostility.
To attempt such an enterprise is to disturb the peace"
--H. L. Mencken
Thursday, August 07, 2003
THE NEW KNOW-NOTHINGS vs. "THE PASSION":
A Catholic Writer Critiques Mel Gibson's Critics
On his web log, Catholic blogger Jim Cork makes some excellent points about those in the media and in the liberal Establishment who have been going out of their way nowadays trying to portray Mel Gibson's upcoming movie "The Passion" --which none of them have ever seen!-- as "anti-semitic," a cinematic equivalent of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
According to Cork, it seems their chief reason for this shameless propaganda campaign is nothing less (or more) than that Gibson is a traditionalist Catholic. This means, in the view of the ADL's Abraham Foxman (whose long track record for knee-jerk overreaction suggests he's never to have met a Christian he hasn't disliked), that "Mr. Gibson ...is supportive of views of church policy that question or reject the many 20th-century changes, including the revolution in attitudes toward Jews beginning with [Second Vatican Council document] Nostra Aetate in 1965." Therefore, in the half-baked minds of Gibson's critics, both Gibson's motives and his attitudes toward Jews must be automatically suspect.
Cork does a fine job not only of debunking their baseless assertions, but also of turning the tables on them to show what's really beneath and behind their vacuous caterwauling --namely, an unabashed anti-Catholicism worthy of the Know-Nothing Party of the late 1880s.
Jim Cork on Mel Gibson's Clueless Critics
A Catholic Writer Critiques Mel Gibson's Critics
On his web log, Catholic blogger Jim Cork makes some excellent points about those in the media and in the liberal Establishment who have been going out of their way nowadays trying to portray Mel Gibson's upcoming movie "The Passion" --which none of them have ever seen!-- as "anti-semitic," a cinematic equivalent of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
According to Cork, it seems their chief reason for this shameless propaganda campaign is nothing less (or more) than that Gibson is a traditionalist Catholic. This means, in the view of the ADL's Abraham Foxman (whose long track record for knee-jerk overreaction suggests he's never to have met a Christian he hasn't disliked), that "Mr. Gibson ...is supportive of views of church policy that question or reject the many 20th-century changes, including the revolution in attitudes toward Jews beginning with [Second Vatican Council document] Nostra Aetate in 1965." Therefore, in the half-baked minds of Gibson's critics, both Gibson's motives and his attitudes toward Jews must be automatically suspect.
Cork does a fine job not only of debunking their baseless assertions, but also of turning the tables on them to show what's really beneath and behind their vacuous caterwauling --namely, an unabashed anti-Catholicism worthy of the Know-Nothing Party of the late 1880s.
Jim Cork on Mel Gibson's Clueless Critics
”JUDGES NEEDED; CATHOLICS NEED NOT APPLY”:
The U. S. Senate’s New Know-Nothings Institute a Religious Test
"No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." -- Article VI, Constitution of the United States
Back in the late 1800s and early 1900s –the “good ol’ days” of open hostility and discrimination against Catholic immigrants by Protestant political activists known collectively as the Know-Nothing Party-- signs bearing messages such as “Workers Needed; Irish Need Not Apply” were commonplace. Thankfully, most Americans eventually came to their senses and public sentiment went against the bigots.
However, it seems you can’t keep anti-Catholic bigotry down for very long:
Enter U. S. Senators Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, as well as Ted Kennedy, Richard Durbin, Tom Daschle, and Patrick Leahy (nominal cafeteria Catholics who have repeatedly sided with the abortion lobby) –all Democrats and most of them on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Enter also, before that Committee, Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, a devout Catholic who opposes abortion and is a nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Consider also the fact that, by all media accounts, during his tenure as Alabama’s Attorney General Pryor strictly abided by all Supreme Court precedents and decisions vis the abortion issue despite his pro-life commitment and his dedication to Catholic teaching in general.
But this was not good enough for the New Know-Nothing Party composed of Schumer, Feinstein, Kennedy, and Leahy. For them, the fact that Pryor is a committed orthodox Catholic and past president of one of his state’s pro-life organizations alone disqualified him for a seat in the U. S. Court of Appeals.
For example, Schumer announced that Pryor “feels so deeply, so passionately about Roe v. Wade that we can't believe he'll be objective.”
And Feinstein, in a response to Pryor, noted that "Virtually in every area you have extraordinarily strong views which continue to come out in a number of different ways.” [Pryor had referred to the Roe vs. Wade decision as "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law".] “Your comments about Roe make one believe, could he really, suddenly, move away from those comments and be a judge?"
Lest some dismiss this as a fluke or just a case of Democrats being merely anti-Republican rather than anti-Catholic, all recent judiciary nominees who also “just happen” to be devout, practicing Catholics received the same treatment by the Committee’s Democratic members and other liberal Democrats in the Senate. Among these rejected Catholic candidates were Leon Holmes (in the eastern district of Arkansas), Carolyn Kuhl (in the Ninth Circuit), Bob Conrad (eastern district of North Carolina) and three of the four other stalled nominees from Michigan (Sixth Circuit).
The Holmes case is especially repugnant: During his hearing before the Committee, Feinstein ripped out of context statements Holmes had written in religious (not legal) articles he wrote for Catholic theological (not law) publications and spun these as "evidences" of his alleged unfitness for office as a judge.
As William Donohoe, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, put it so succinctly regarding the Pryor nomination, "[I]t is precisely Pryor's religious convictions that are being scrutinized. Given the cast of mind of some of his critics, it makes it virtually impossible for practicing Catholics to ascend to the federal bench." Similar objections to the Democratic Senators’ approach have also been voiced by leading Protestants such as Chuck Colson.
But Catholics and other Christians are not the only ones horrified by the Senate Democrats’ conduct vis Pryor and other Catholic nominees. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America wrote this regarding Pryor: "We are profoundly troubled by the manner in which this opposition has been framed. . . . We are deeply troubled by those who have implied that a person of faith cannot serve in a high-level government post that may raise issues at odds with his or her personal beliefs."
So the real test for "Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" in the minds the New Know-Nothings is not Mr. Pryor’s record but rather Pryor’s, and therefore any Catholic’s, ”deeply held beliefs;” specifically, his deeply held Catholic beliefs. It is, at the bottom line, a religious test, a test specifically prohibited by Article IV of the U. S. Constitution, the same document the New Know-Nothings repeatedly claim to revere.
The U. S. Senate’s New Know-Nothings Institute a Religious Test
"No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." -- Article VI, Constitution of the United States
Back in the late 1800s and early 1900s –the “good ol’ days” of open hostility and discrimination against Catholic immigrants by Protestant political activists known collectively as the Know-Nothing Party-- signs bearing messages such as “Workers Needed; Irish Need Not Apply” were commonplace. Thankfully, most Americans eventually came to their senses and public sentiment went against the bigots.
However, it seems you can’t keep anti-Catholic bigotry down for very long:
Enter U. S. Senators Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, as well as Ted Kennedy, Richard Durbin, Tom Daschle, and Patrick Leahy (nominal cafeteria Catholics who have repeatedly sided with the abortion lobby) –all Democrats and most of them on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Enter also, before that Committee, Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, a devout Catholic who opposes abortion and is a nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Consider also the fact that, by all media accounts, during his tenure as Alabama’s Attorney General Pryor strictly abided by all Supreme Court precedents and decisions vis the abortion issue despite his pro-life commitment and his dedication to Catholic teaching in general.
But this was not good enough for the New Know-Nothing Party composed of Schumer, Feinstein, Kennedy, and Leahy. For them, the fact that Pryor is a committed orthodox Catholic and past president of one of his state’s pro-life organizations alone disqualified him for a seat in the U. S. Court of Appeals.
For example, Schumer announced that Pryor “feels so deeply, so passionately about Roe v. Wade that we can't believe he'll be objective.”
And Feinstein, in a response to Pryor, noted that "Virtually in every area you have extraordinarily strong views which continue to come out in a number of different ways.” [Pryor had referred to the Roe vs. Wade decision as "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law".] “Your comments about Roe make one believe, could he really, suddenly, move away from those comments and be a judge?"
Lest some dismiss this as a fluke or just a case of Democrats being merely anti-Republican rather than anti-Catholic, all recent judiciary nominees who also “just happen” to be devout, practicing Catholics received the same treatment by the Committee’s Democratic members and other liberal Democrats in the Senate. Among these rejected Catholic candidates were Leon Holmes (in the eastern district of Arkansas), Carolyn Kuhl (in the Ninth Circuit), Bob Conrad (eastern district of North Carolina) and three of the four other stalled nominees from Michigan (Sixth Circuit).
The Holmes case is especially repugnant: During his hearing before the Committee, Feinstein ripped out of context statements Holmes had written in religious (not legal) articles he wrote for Catholic theological (not law) publications and spun these as "evidences" of his alleged unfitness for office as a judge.
As William Donohoe, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, put it so succinctly regarding the Pryor nomination, "[I]t is precisely Pryor's religious convictions that are being scrutinized. Given the cast of mind of some of his critics, it makes it virtually impossible for practicing Catholics to ascend to the federal bench." Similar objections to the Democratic Senators’ approach have also been voiced by leading Protestants such as Chuck Colson.
But Catholics and other Christians are not the only ones horrified by the Senate Democrats’ conduct vis Pryor and other Catholic nominees. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America wrote this regarding Pryor: "We are profoundly troubled by the manner in which this opposition has been framed. . . . We are deeply troubled by those who have implied that a person of faith cannot serve in a high-level government post that may raise issues at odds with his or her personal beliefs."
So the real test for "Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" in the minds the New Know-Nothings is not Mr. Pryor’s record but rather Pryor’s, and therefore any Catholic’s, ”deeply held beliefs;” specifically, his deeply held Catholic beliefs. It is, at the bottom line, a religious test, a test specifically prohibited by Article IV of the U. S. Constitution, the same document the New Know-Nothings repeatedly claim to revere.
Wednesday, August 06, 2003
A MUSLIM WOODY ALLEN?
The Comedic Aspirations of a Canadian Filmmaker
Contrary to the impression most of we non-Muslim Westerners have about Muslims, at least some of them have a sense of humor.
See, for example, this story in The Washington Post about the satirical films created by Canadian filmmaker Zarqa Nawaz, a Muslim woman.
Nawaz apparently follows her religion faithfully yet with her tongue firmly planted in cheek when it comes to Muslim manners, attitudes and culture as well as Western perceptions of and attitudes toward Muslims.
The Comedic Aspirations of a Canadian Filmmaker
Contrary to the impression most of we non-Muslim Westerners have about Muslims, at least some of them have a sense of humor.
See, for example, this story in The Washington Post about the satirical films created by Canadian filmmaker Zarqa Nawaz, a Muslim woman.
Nawaz apparently follows her religion faithfully yet with her tongue firmly planted in cheek when it comes to Muslim manners, attitudes and culture as well as Western perceptions of and attitudes toward Muslims.
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
NOW THAT'S ALCOHOL ABUSE!
Jim Beam Loses 1,000,000 Gallons of Good Hootch...
...in a fire this week, according to this article.
Jim Beam Loses 1,000,000 Gallons of Good Hootch...
...in a fire this week, according to this article.
THIS IS A SCREAM:
Check Out Oliphant's Vatican vs. Gay "Marriage" Cartoon
Syndicated editorial cartoonist Pat Oliphant may not be very kind to the Catholic Church in this one, but his lampooning of the gays and gay "marriage" is priceless. Note the purse carried by one of the guys, and the high heels on the other, and the "His" and "His" shirts. Too much!
Note also the veiled reference to current goings-on within the Episcopal Church by the tiny bird character Oliphant uses in all his cartoons.
Oliphant's Gay "Marriage" Cartoon
No doubt Oliphant's very politically incorrect portrayal of his two gay characters will earn his syndicate far more angry letters than will his poke at the Vatican.
Check Out Oliphant's Vatican vs. Gay "Marriage" Cartoon
Syndicated editorial cartoonist Pat Oliphant may not be very kind to the Catholic Church in this one, but his lampooning of the gays and gay "marriage" is priceless. Note the purse carried by one of the guys, and the high heels on the other, and the "His" and "His" shirts. Too much!
Note also the veiled reference to current goings-on within the Episcopal Church by the tiny bird character Oliphant uses in all his cartoons.
Oliphant's Gay "Marriage" Cartoon
No doubt Oliphant's very politically incorrect portrayal of his two gay characters will earn his syndicate far more angry letters than will his poke at the Vatican.
A "GLOBAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST GAYS"???
The Chicago Sin-Times Lies About the Vatican's "Considerations" Document
In the wake of Pope John Paul II's July 31 document opposing the current growing trend towards legalizing gay unions and redefining marriage by lifting civil bans against gay "marriage," the liberal pro-homosexual Chicago Sun-Times lost no time spinning this modest and very reasonable response by the Vatican to a legitimate moral issue into some kind of imaginary pogrom against gays themselves.
In response, Chicago's Cardinal George sent an open letter of apology to the Pope on behalf of the people of Chicago and lambasted the Sun-Times from his pulpit. The Catholic News Service reports on this as follows:
Headline saying pope attacks gays draws ire of Chicago cardinal
By Catholic News Service
CHICAGO (CNS) -- Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago used an Aug. 3 homily to defend Pope John Paul II against a newspaper headline that charged the pope with launching a campaign against homosexuals.
Cardinal George said an Aug. 1 headline in the daily Chicago Sun-Times that read "Pope launches global campaign against gays" was a "false accusation" he felt compelled to defend.
The headline on the front-page article appeared a day after the Vatican released a 12-page document that called on lawmakers to offer "clear and emphatic opposition" to same-sex marriages, which it said were contrary to human nature and ultimately harmful to society.
In releasing the document, the pope was re-affirming the "nature of marriage," the cardinal said.
"Marriage is a lifelong union of a man and a woman who enter into a total sharing of themselves for the sake of family," he said.
The cardinal said the nature of marriage was decided by biology, predates the church and that neither government nor the church had the authority to change it.
"What the Holy Father concluded from the fact that there is neither biological nor moral equivalence between heterosexual marriage and homosexual unions is that there should be no legal equivalence either in a well-ordered and wholesome society," the cardinal said.
Cardinal George said the drive to legalize same-sex unions was because of "morality based upon desires" supplanting a "morality based upon the truth of things," and that those who oppose the unions are denounced as "homophobic."
"Because of a concerted effort in movies and TV shows in recent years to shape public imagination and opinion into accepting same-sex relations as normal and morally unexceptional, obvious truths now are considered evidence of homophobia," he said.
The cardinal said he wrote a letter to Pope John Paul apologizing for the headline, and that he hesitated before signing his title to the letter.
"I'm ashamed that this false accusation against the pope was made in our city. At the very least it is unfair, and we pride ourselves on fairness," he said.
Cardinal George said many who attacked the pope were anti-Catholic, but stopped short levying that charge against the Chicago Sun-Times.
"What I must say today is that a line has been crossed, and Chicago Catholics cannot ignore what has happened," he said.
The Sun-Times defended its headline, saying that when read in its entirety it "accurately reflects the church's view on same-sex marriage and the role the church requires Catholic politicians to play in this issue."
The paper said that the full headline read, "Pope Launches Global Campaign Vs. Gays," followed by the subhead, "Vatican: Catholic pols have 'moral duty' to oppose homesexual (sic) rights."
END
In our view, it's time for all rational and fairminded people to start flooding the offices of the Chicago Sun-Times with letters of protest.
The Chicago Sin-Times Lies About the Vatican's "Considerations" Document
In the wake of Pope John Paul II's July 31 document opposing the current growing trend towards legalizing gay unions and redefining marriage by lifting civil bans against gay "marriage," the liberal pro-homosexual Chicago Sun-Times lost no time spinning this modest and very reasonable response by the Vatican to a legitimate moral issue into some kind of imaginary pogrom against gays themselves.
In response, Chicago's Cardinal George sent an open letter of apology to the Pope on behalf of the people of Chicago and lambasted the Sun-Times from his pulpit. The Catholic News Service reports on this as follows:
Headline saying pope attacks gays draws ire of Chicago cardinal
By Catholic News Service
CHICAGO (CNS) -- Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago used an Aug. 3 homily to defend Pope John Paul II against a newspaper headline that charged the pope with launching a campaign against homosexuals.
Cardinal George said an Aug. 1 headline in the daily Chicago Sun-Times that read "Pope launches global campaign against gays" was a "false accusation" he felt compelled to defend.
The headline on the front-page article appeared a day after the Vatican released a 12-page document that called on lawmakers to offer "clear and emphatic opposition" to same-sex marriages, which it said were contrary to human nature and ultimately harmful to society.
In releasing the document, the pope was re-affirming the "nature of marriage," the cardinal said.
"Marriage is a lifelong union of a man and a woman who enter into a total sharing of themselves for the sake of family," he said.
The cardinal said the nature of marriage was decided by biology, predates the church and that neither government nor the church had the authority to change it.
"What the Holy Father concluded from the fact that there is neither biological nor moral equivalence between heterosexual marriage and homosexual unions is that there should be no legal equivalence either in a well-ordered and wholesome society," the cardinal said.
Cardinal George said the drive to legalize same-sex unions was because of "morality based upon desires" supplanting a "morality based upon the truth of things," and that those who oppose the unions are denounced as "homophobic."
"Because of a concerted effort in movies and TV shows in recent years to shape public imagination and opinion into accepting same-sex relations as normal and morally unexceptional, obvious truths now are considered evidence of homophobia," he said.
The cardinal said he wrote a letter to Pope John Paul apologizing for the headline, and that he hesitated before signing his title to the letter.
"I'm ashamed that this false accusation against the pope was made in our city. At the very least it is unfair, and we pride ourselves on fairness," he said.
Cardinal George said many who attacked the pope were anti-Catholic, but stopped short levying that charge against the Chicago Sun-Times.
"What I must say today is that a line has been crossed, and Chicago Catholics cannot ignore what has happened," he said.
The Sun-Times defended its headline, saying that when read in its entirety it "accurately reflects the church's view on same-sex marriage and the role the church requires Catholic politicians to play in this issue."
The paper said that the full headline read, "Pope Launches Global Campaign Vs. Gays," followed by the subhead, "Vatican: Catholic pols have 'moral duty' to oppose homesexual (sic) rights."
END
In our view, it's time for all rational and fairminded people to start flooding the offices of the Chicago Sun-Times with letters of protest.
Monday, July 28, 2003
A LEGEND TAKES HIS FINAL BOW:
Bob Hope Leaves Us at Age 100
World renown comedian Bob Hope passed away over the weekend, less than two months after the USA and the rest of the world celebrated his 100th birthday.
Unlike way too many modern-day comedians, Mr. Hope's comedy was both very clean and very, very funny. He kept whole families, from the kids to their grandparents, in stitches for over 60 years, beginning in 1938 with his first movie, "The Big Broadcast of 1938" and his radio shows for NBC in the early 1940s.
In addition to the scores of movies and hundreds of radio and t.v. shows which made him a household name, Mr. Hope has been especially well known for donating his talent, time and energy to entertaining US troops overseas through the USO from World War II to the 1991 Persian Gulf War. As honory President of USO, Mr. Hope both inspired and personally pursuaded countless other entertainers to "go forth and do likewise" ever since he began doing his own USO tours in 1941.
In 1997, the U. S. Congress bestowed an honor on Mr. Hope which has never been given to anyone before or since: He was named as an honorary U.S. veteran because of his decades of support to the American military men and women living far away from home. Mr. Hope was deeply touched: "I've been given many awards in my lifetime," he replied, "but to be numbered among the men and women I admire the most is the greatest honor I have ever received."
Bob Hope was a gem, and he will be sorely missed.
Bob Hope Leaves Us at Age 100
World renown comedian Bob Hope passed away over the weekend, less than two months after the USA and the rest of the world celebrated his 100th birthday.
Unlike way too many modern-day comedians, Mr. Hope's comedy was both very clean and very, very funny. He kept whole families, from the kids to their grandparents, in stitches for over 60 years, beginning in 1938 with his first movie, "The Big Broadcast of 1938" and his radio shows for NBC in the early 1940s.
In addition to the scores of movies and hundreds of radio and t.v. shows which made him a household name, Mr. Hope has been especially well known for donating his talent, time and energy to entertaining US troops overseas through the USO from World War II to the 1991 Persian Gulf War. As honory President of USO, Mr. Hope both inspired and personally pursuaded countless other entertainers to "go forth and do likewise" ever since he began doing his own USO tours in 1941.
In 1997, the U. S. Congress bestowed an honor on Mr. Hope which has never been given to anyone before or since: He was named as an honorary U.S. veteran because of his decades of support to the American military men and women living far away from home. Mr. Hope was deeply touched: "I've been given many awards in my lifetime," he replied, "but to be numbered among the men and women I admire the most is the greatest honor I have ever received."
Bob Hope was a gem, and he will be sorely missed.
Thursday, July 17, 2003
SOME GREAT CHRISTIAN ONE-LINERS
Yes, It's Another Slow News Day
After all, it's the middle of July for Heaven's sake. So here are some gems we found posted on a Catholic message board:
Christian One Liners
Some people are kind, polite, and sweet-spirited-until you try to sit in their pews.
Many folks want to serve God, but only as advisers.
It is easier to preach ten sermons than it is to live one.
The good Lord didn't create anything without a purpose, but mosquitoes come close.
When you get to your wit's end, you'll find God lives there.
People are funny, they want the front of the bus, the middle of the road, and the back of the church.
Opportunity may knock once, but temptation bangs on your front door forever.
Quit griping about your church; if it was perfect, you couldn't belong..
The phrase that is guaranteed to wake up an audience: "And in conclusion."
God Himself does not propose to judge a man until he is dead. So why should you?
To make a long story short, don't tell it.
If your left hand doesn't know what your right hand is doing, you should consider running for a job in Washington, DC.
Some minds are like concrete, thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
Peace starts with a smile.
I don't know why some people change churches; what difference does it make which one you stay home from?
A lot of church members who are singing "Standing on the Promises" are just sitting on the premises.
We were called to be witnesses, not lawyers or judges.
Outside of traffic, there is nothing that holds this country back as much as committees.
Be ye fishers of men. You catch them - He'll clean them.
Coincidence is when God chooses to remain anonymous.
Don't put a question mark where God put a period.
Don't wait for 6 strong men to take you to church.
Forbidden fruits create many jams.
God doesn't call the qualified, He qualifies the called.
God grades on the cross, not the curve.
God loves everyone, but probably prefers "fruits of the spirit" over "religious nuts!"
God promises a safe landing, not a calm passage.
He who angers you, controls you!
If God is your Copilot - swap seats!
Prayer: Don't give God instructions -- just report for duty!
The task ahead of us is never as great as the Power behind us.
The Will of God will never take you to where the Grace of God will not protect you.
We don't change the message, the message changes us.
You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage him.
The best mathematical equation I have ever seen: 1 cross + 3 nails = 4 given.
Yes, It's Another Slow News Day
After all, it's the middle of July for Heaven's sake. So here are some gems we found posted on a Catholic message board:
Christian One Liners
Some people are kind, polite, and sweet-spirited-until you try to sit in their pews.
Many folks want to serve God, but only as advisers.
It is easier to preach ten sermons than it is to live one.
The good Lord didn't create anything without a purpose, but mosquitoes come close.
When you get to your wit's end, you'll find God lives there.
People are funny, they want the front of the bus, the middle of the road, and the back of the church.
Opportunity may knock once, but temptation bangs on your front door forever.
Quit griping about your church; if it was perfect, you couldn't belong..
The phrase that is guaranteed to wake up an audience: "And in conclusion."
God Himself does not propose to judge a man until he is dead. So why should you?
To make a long story short, don't tell it.
If your left hand doesn't know what your right hand is doing, you should consider running for a job in Washington, DC.
Some minds are like concrete, thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
Peace starts with a smile.
I don't know why some people change churches; what difference does it make which one you stay home from?
A lot of church members who are singing "Standing on the Promises" are just sitting on the premises.
We were called to be witnesses, not lawyers or judges.
Outside of traffic, there is nothing that holds this country back as much as committees.
Be ye fishers of men. You catch them - He'll clean them.
Coincidence is when God chooses to remain anonymous.
Don't put a question mark where God put a period.
Don't wait for 6 strong men to take you to church.
Forbidden fruits create many jams.
God doesn't call the qualified, He qualifies the called.
God grades on the cross, not the curve.
God loves everyone, but probably prefers "fruits of the spirit" over "religious nuts!"
God promises a safe landing, not a calm passage.
He who angers you, controls you!
If God is your Copilot - swap seats!
Prayer: Don't give God instructions -- just report for duty!
The task ahead of us is never as great as the Power behind us.
The Will of God will never take you to where the Grace of God will not protect you.
We don't change the message, the message changes us.
You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage him.
The best mathematical equation I have ever seen: 1 cross + 3 nails = 4 given.
Wednesday, July 09, 2003
NEXT UP IN CANADA: SAME-PERSON MARRIAGE
It's Only Fair to Canadian Narcissists, Activists Argue
In the wake of the gay lobby's success in getting the Canadian government to legalize gay marriage, a national coalition of narcissists --people who are able to fall in love only with themselves-- have begun to lobby Parliament for the right to marry themselves.
"We're beside ourselves with joy" over the recent proposed change in Canadian law to allow same-sex marriage, said rock star Madonna, celebrity spokesperson for the self-rights group To Thine Own Self Be True. "We self-lovers deserve the same right as gay and straight couples to be happy without being discriminated against."
The group has already received full support from the National Association of Canadian Divorce Attorneys, which has begun drafting proposed laws to allow estranged narcissists to be represented in court by two or more opposing attorneys at the same time.
It's Only Fair to Canadian Narcissists, Activists Argue
In the wake of the gay lobby's success in getting the Canadian government to legalize gay marriage, a national coalition of narcissists --people who are able to fall in love only with themselves-- have begun to lobby Parliament for the right to marry themselves.
"We're beside ourselves with joy" over the recent proposed change in Canadian law to allow same-sex marriage, said rock star Madonna, celebrity spokesperson for the self-rights group To Thine Own Self Be True. "We self-lovers deserve the same right as gay and straight couples to be happy without being discriminated against."
The group has already received full support from the National Association of Canadian Divorce Attorneys, which has begun drafting proposed laws to allow estranged narcissists to be represented in court by two or more opposing attorneys at the same time.
Thursday, June 26, 2003
CLUELESS ON THE INTERNET:
Why Love and Romance Have Been Going Belly-Up
This week CNN, Money Magazine and America On-Line jointly posted an article and on-line survey on the dating habits and ethics of modern Americans vis the issue of who should pay for dates.
On an accompanying AOL message board dedicated to the article and survey, a woman posted the following rather innocuous manifesto:
If a man wants my company, then he should respect me enough to WANT to pay the bill. I do NOT abuse and use that privilege, though. I always order light and help provide great conversation. And, I do NOT owe that man anything else -- just company and companionship for the evening.
Very fair and very reasonable, in our view: What the lady is doing here is nothing more or less than asserting her natural right to be treated with deference as one person invited by another person to share an enjoyable evening of entertainment and conversation. Common sense alone should tell any reasonable person that all she expects is what she has the right to expect, i.e., that if another person desires her “company and companionship,” that same person should respect her enough to not expect her to pay for the evening as well, whether in whole or 50-50. In fact, there’s a word for folks who would expect her to:
“Self-centered”
Incredibly, however, her very reasonable statement of dating expectations set off a storm of protest from some of the male posters, most of whom responded with often cynical comments such as:
I pity the poor guy that goes out with you.
And,
… "WHAT DO WOMEN WANT?" The answer is surprisingly simple. Women only want three things. 1. They want it ALL. 2. They want it NOW. 3. They want it FREE. That's it! Now use that to guide you in ALL your relationships with women. GOOD LUCK!
And,
I would run from "Ms. Respect" as far and as fast as I could. She's an arrogant, self centered hustler. She's the type that will spend a $100 of your money on a date, smile sweetly at the door and say, "Thank you" and, after you have left, invite the impoverished pot smoking, playboy pool cleaner in for the night.
And,
Here's a stupid female boob completely out of touch with the times! "Respect"...Gimmie a break! Ever hear of 2003? Are you aware of what this number implies? Are you aware that we went to another century more than three years ago?
You remind me of Melvin Udall's evaluation in his novelette female characters in As Good As It Gets: "I think of a man...and I take away reason and accountability".
What are men to you? Chopped liver? Are they to be eaten, digested, and pooped out? Somebody must have locked you up in a pumpkin shell 'cause you pissed them off rather well. (lol)
And, last but by no means least in the How to Justify Stinginess Department, we read this:
…Women have been lobbying for equal rights, parity in compensation, etc. for years. It's ironic to me that despite their often strident and dramatic demands to be treated as equals, very few of them want to be treated as equals when the check arrives. Generally, when one of my buddies and I go some place, it's understood that we share the expenses no matter who extended the invitation. When a woman expects a man to pay her way, she places herself in a subordinate role. Interestingly, when the military draft was still in effect, very few women demanded that they be subject to the draft. The inconsistent behavior just described reminds me of the adolescent who moves out of his/her parents' home because of a desire to "be an adult" then asks mommy and daddy to help with the rent.
RESPECT? Give me a break. I provide reciprocal companionship and conversation. Consequently, it seems that if I'm paying for everything, I'm giving more than I'm receiving.
If women want to be treated as equals, then they must be willing to accept the obligations and well as the benefits of "equality."
But, contra the “gentleman’s” decision to lay all the blame at the feet of feminism, this is beside the point (which we’ll get to in due course). Moreover, he totally misunderstands the concept of equality in the political and economic sense, i.e., that women ought not be penalized in the marketplace or in the political arena merely on the grounds that they are women.
One fellow, however, did post a fairly reasonable response:
…The more beautiful the woman, the more she'll want from you. Which is sad because so many people feel that the more money someone has, the better person he or she is. Yet women bitch all the time about the guys they date and are always asking "where the good guys are?" If they would get the money symbols out of their eyes, they'd probably see us. We are the working class guys who work 9-5, make a good living at it, but don't make 6 figures, don't drive the Jaguar's, and don't have the classically handsome looks. Ladies, get off the money horse and find happiness where happiness is, in the heart. :)
Of course there have been gold-diggers at least as long as there have been cads. But Ms. Respect hardly seems to fit into that former category.
Reading these replies, one would think that Ms. Respect was proposing mandatory castration followed by indentured servitude as a precondiction for dating her.
Amazing.
Common sense alone should tell these guys that “Love your neighbor as you love yourself,” the Golden Rule of respect and benevolence (what people generations ago called “charity” before that word became emptied of its original meaning; i.e., selflessness and a generosity of spirit), would go a long way toward establishing and enriching any relationship, dating and non-dating alike.
Why should men who ask women out on dates at least be willing to pay for the dates, and be prepared to do just that?
First of all, because it’s just. The party proposing a project should also be the party subsidizing that project –not pass the cost on to someone else, including one who may benefit from it, unless they agree or offer to cover it. Secondly, because doing so is, in and of itself, an act which communicates caring, respect, and a willingness to give and be vulnerable rather than indulge in egotism and pure self-interest.
With such cluelessness about human nature so rampant on the modern dating scene –at least as it manifests itself on the Internet— is it any wonder that so many singles have become convinced that real love is an illusion and lasting romance an impossibility?
Why Love and Romance Have Been Going Belly-Up
This week CNN, Money Magazine and America On-Line jointly posted an article and on-line survey on the dating habits and ethics of modern Americans vis the issue of who should pay for dates.
On an accompanying AOL message board dedicated to the article and survey, a woman posted the following rather innocuous manifesto:
If a man wants my company, then he should respect me enough to WANT to pay the bill. I do NOT abuse and use that privilege, though. I always order light and help provide great conversation. And, I do NOT owe that man anything else -- just company and companionship for the evening.
Very fair and very reasonable, in our view: What the lady is doing here is nothing more or less than asserting her natural right to be treated with deference as one person invited by another person to share an enjoyable evening of entertainment and conversation. Common sense alone should tell any reasonable person that all she expects is what she has the right to expect, i.e., that if another person desires her “company and companionship,” that same person should respect her enough to not expect her to pay for the evening as well, whether in whole or 50-50. In fact, there’s a word for folks who would expect her to:
“Self-centered”
Incredibly, however, her very reasonable statement of dating expectations set off a storm of protest from some of the male posters, most of whom responded with often cynical comments such as:
I pity the poor guy that goes out with you.
And,
… "WHAT DO WOMEN WANT?" The answer is surprisingly simple. Women only want three things. 1. They want it ALL. 2. They want it NOW. 3. They want it FREE. That's it! Now use that to guide you in ALL your relationships with women. GOOD LUCK!
And,
I would run from "Ms. Respect" as far and as fast as I could. She's an arrogant, self centered hustler. She's the type that will spend a $100 of your money on a date, smile sweetly at the door and say, "Thank you" and, after you have left, invite the impoverished pot smoking, playboy pool cleaner in for the night.
And,
Here's a stupid female boob completely out of touch with the times! "Respect"...Gimmie a break! Ever hear of 2003? Are you aware of what this number implies? Are you aware that we went to another century more than three years ago?
You remind me of Melvin Udall's evaluation in his novelette female characters in As Good As It Gets: "I think of a man...and I take away reason and accountability".
What are men to you? Chopped liver? Are they to be eaten, digested, and pooped out? Somebody must have locked you up in a pumpkin shell 'cause you pissed them off rather well. (lol)
And, last but by no means least in the How to Justify Stinginess Department, we read this:
…Women have been lobbying for equal rights, parity in compensation, etc. for years. It's ironic to me that despite their often strident and dramatic demands to be treated as equals, very few of them want to be treated as equals when the check arrives. Generally, when one of my buddies and I go some place, it's understood that we share the expenses no matter who extended the invitation. When a woman expects a man to pay her way, she places herself in a subordinate role. Interestingly, when the military draft was still in effect, very few women demanded that they be subject to the draft. The inconsistent behavior just described reminds me of the adolescent who moves out of his/her parents' home because of a desire to "be an adult" then asks mommy and daddy to help with the rent.
RESPECT? Give me a break. I provide reciprocal companionship and conversation. Consequently, it seems that if I'm paying for everything, I'm giving more than I'm receiving.
If women want to be treated as equals, then they must be willing to accept the obligations and well as the benefits of "equality."
But, contra the “gentleman’s” decision to lay all the blame at the feet of feminism, this is beside the point (which we’ll get to in due course). Moreover, he totally misunderstands the concept of equality in the political and economic sense, i.e., that women ought not be penalized in the marketplace or in the political arena merely on the grounds that they are women.
One fellow, however, did post a fairly reasonable response:
…The more beautiful the woman, the more she'll want from you. Which is sad because so many people feel that the more money someone has, the better person he or she is. Yet women bitch all the time about the guys they date and are always asking "where the good guys are?" If they would get the money symbols out of their eyes, they'd probably see us. We are the working class guys who work 9-5, make a good living at it, but don't make 6 figures, don't drive the Jaguar's, and don't have the classically handsome looks. Ladies, get off the money horse and find happiness where happiness is, in the heart. :)
Of course there have been gold-diggers at least as long as there have been cads. But Ms. Respect hardly seems to fit into that former category.
Reading these replies, one would think that Ms. Respect was proposing mandatory castration followed by indentured servitude as a precondiction for dating her.
Amazing.
Common sense alone should tell these guys that “Love your neighbor as you love yourself,” the Golden Rule of respect and benevolence (what people generations ago called “charity” before that word became emptied of its original meaning; i.e., selflessness and a generosity of spirit), would go a long way toward establishing and enriching any relationship, dating and non-dating alike.
Why should men who ask women out on dates at least be willing to pay for the dates, and be prepared to do just that?
First of all, because it’s just. The party proposing a project should also be the party subsidizing that project –not pass the cost on to someone else, including one who may benefit from it, unless they agree or offer to cover it. Secondly, because doing so is, in and of itself, an act which communicates caring, respect, and a willingness to give and be vulnerable rather than indulge in egotism and pure self-interest.
With such cluelessness about human nature so rampant on the modern dating scene –at least as it manifests itself on the Internet— is it any wonder that so many singles have become convinced that real love is an illusion and lasting romance an impossibility?
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
THE UNRAVELING OF LIBERAL KATHOLICISM:
Are Leftist Anti-Vatican "Catholic" Groups Going Belly-up?
Well-known orthodox Catholic apologist Karl Keating of Catholic Answers, a national lay Catholic apologetics organization based in San Diego, seems to think so.
And he's not alone:
Even some liberal observers such as the late New Testament scholar Fr. Raymond E. Brown have lamented that the rapid of growth of Catholic orthodoxy (especially via Pope John Paul II's influence) and the various "traditionalist" Catholic movements since the late 80's --especially thru large influxes of highly educated converts, some of them ordained ministers and professional Bible scholars, from Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestantism since the early 1990s-- spells doom for the future of "democracy" and theological "progress" (read: "junking the Faith") in the Church. As Brown whined to Time magazine about a year before his death, the Catholic Church is being taken over by "the fundamentalists."
Make no mistake: Liberals still make a lot of noise and still have way too much influence in Catholic seminaries, colleges, and universities, and in the Church's hierarchy, especially in the US, Canada, and many European countries (particularly France, the Netherlands, and Germany). And, as both insiders and outsiders have observed, they've been chiefly to blame for the mess the Catholic Church in the US currently finds itself in --especially the seemingly unending sex abuse scandals. But the same liberals are also getting older and older, with fewer and fewer younger liberals around to replace them.
On the whole, Generation-X and younger Catholics --as well as many if not most Baby Boomer converts and reverts-- find the beauty and truth of Tradition, Scripture, theological orthodoxy, and time-honored forms of spirituality and piety (such as the Rules of the Benedictines, Franciscans and Dominicans) far more challenging, fulfilling, and compelling. In the long run, liberalism has simply flunked.
Here is what Keating says on this issue in his latest e-mail newsletter:
THE WAVE OF THE PAST
We just got our invitation to [dissident far-left activist group] Call to Action's national conference, which will be held in November in Milwaukee (but not on Church property). The conference theme is "Called to Be Peacemakers: Prophetic Leadership for World & Church."
The irony is that, while there is "prophetic leadership" in the Church, one will not find it in Call to Action, which is becoming increasingly moribund as its members get ever grayer and as its ideology seems ever less intriguing. What might have been thought avant garde twenty years ago seems old-fashioned today, on the principle that whoever marries the spirit of one age will become a widow in the next.
Consider CTA's pleas for increased "diversity": "We are very much aware that the membership and leadership of Call to Action fall short on ethnic diversity." After all these years, this "progressive" organization has not been able to meet its self-imposed quota of non-white faces. It sedulously has employed its own forms of affirmative action, but still it can't find enough blacks, Hispanics, Eskimos, and others for its membership rolls.
I take this as a hopeful sign: Such Catholics may be getting fed up with being thought of only in ethnic terms and may be tired of being used to assuage liberal guilt.
I do not worry much about CTA's influence on the Church in the U.S. Its time has passed. The organization will continue to exist for many more years, but each year it will have less to say and will be less listened to. The big names associated with it are no longer young and soon will be gone: Charles Curran, Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Bernard Cooke, Bob McClory, Edwina Gateley, Rosemary Ruether, Anthony Padovano. There is no evident line of succession.
There was a time when CTA was successful in its own way, but now it is just another one of those crabbed organizations that is slowly drying up in the spiritual drought that is religious liberalism.
Are Leftist Anti-Vatican "Catholic" Groups Going Belly-up?
Well-known orthodox Catholic apologist Karl Keating of Catholic Answers, a national lay Catholic apologetics organization based in San Diego, seems to think so.
And he's not alone:
Even some liberal observers such as the late New Testament scholar Fr. Raymond E. Brown have lamented that the rapid of growth of Catholic orthodoxy (especially via Pope John Paul II's influence) and the various "traditionalist" Catholic movements since the late 80's --especially thru large influxes of highly educated converts, some of them ordained ministers and professional Bible scholars, from Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestantism since the early 1990s-- spells doom for the future of "democracy" and theological "progress" (read: "junking the Faith") in the Church. As Brown whined to Time magazine about a year before his death, the Catholic Church is being taken over by "the fundamentalists."
Make no mistake: Liberals still make a lot of noise and still have way too much influence in Catholic seminaries, colleges, and universities, and in the Church's hierarchy, especially in the US, Canada, and many European countries (particularly France, the Netherlands, and Germany). And, as both insiders and outsiders have observed, they've been chiefly to blame for the mess the Catholic Church in the US currently finds itself in --especially the seemingly unending sex abuse scandals. But the same liberals are also getting older and older, with fewer and fewer younger liberals around to replace them.
On the whole, Generation-X and younger Catholics --as well as many if not most Baby Boomer converts and reverts-- find the beauty and truth of Tradition, Scripture, theological orthodoxy, and time-honored forms of spirituality and piety (such as the Rules of the Benedictines, Franciscans and Dominicans) far more challenging, fulfilling, and compelling. In the long run, liberalism has simply flunked.
Here is what Keating says on this issue in his latest e-mail newsletter:
THE WAVE OF THE PAST
We just got our invitation to [dissident far-left activist group] Call to Action's national conference, which will be held in November in Milwaukee (but not on Church property). The conference theme is "Called to Be Peacemakers: Prophetic Leadership for World & Church."
The irony is that, while there is "prophetic leadership" in the Church, one will not find it in Call to Action, which is becoming increasingly moribund as its members get ever grayer and as its ideology seems ever less intriguing. What might have been thought avant garde twenty years ago seems old-fashioned today, on the principle that whoever marries the spirit of one age will become a widow in the next.
Consider CTA's pleas for increased "diversity": "We are very much aware that the membership and leadership of Call to Action fall short on ethnic diversity." After all these years, this "progressive" organization has not been able to meet its self-imposed quota of non-white faces. It sedulously has employed its own forms of affirmative action, but still it can't find enough blacks, Hispanics, Eskimos, and others for its membership rolls.
I take this as a hopeful sign: Such Catholics may be getting fed up with being thought of only in ethnic terms and may be tired of being used to assuage liberal guilt.
I do not worry much about CTA's influence on the Church in the U.S. Its time has passed. The organization will continue to exist for many more years, but each year it will have less to say and will be less listened to. The big names associated with it are no longer young and soon will be gone: Charles Curran, Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Bernard Cooke, Bob McClory, Edwina Gateley, Rosemary Ruether, Anthony Padovano. There is no evident line of succession.
There was a time when CTA was successful in its own way, but now it is just another one of those crabbed organizations that is slowly drying up in the spiritual drought that is religious liberalism.
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
VIDEO SHOWS SADDAM HUNTING FOR TRUFFLES:
Maybe He's Not Such a Bad Guy After All...
...being a gourmet and all.
Maybe it's time to give Saddam a break after all. Reuters reports today that some newly released home videos show the Butcher of Bagdad...
...leading a family expedition to the desert to search for truffles. His wife Sajida, wearing a voluminous cape and a wide-brimmed hat, follows behind with the couple's daughters. They scamper around, digging in the sand with special hoes.
Saddam gives a snort of disgust when he unearths a rather small specimen. Turning to his family, he bellows: "Do you think Saddam would bother with something so small?"
The video is dated March 15, 1990 -- just months before Saddam ordered his troops to invade Kuwait.
"Daddy, daddy, look what I found," cries Rana, one of his daughters, running up to Saddam with a truffle in her hand. Saddam glances at it then resumes his search.
The eight tapes, obtained by Reuters from a former employee of one of Saddam's inner circle, show a variety of family occasions -- birthdays, an engagement party, a hunting trip,...
But of course, Saddam's relatives and family relationships are not all that typical, as indicated in another video by one of Saddam's sons, Qusay, who showed up to one of Saddam's birthday parties "sport[ing] a silver pistol tucked casually into the waistband of the trousers."
At the same birthday party and on the same video were Saddam's sons-in-law Saddam Kamel and Hussein Kamel, who always wore military fatigues "even on the truffle hunt." The report notes that both sons-in-law "are now dead. Five years after the video shows them standing around the birthday cake with Saddam, he ordered their murder in revenge for their shortlived defection to Jordan."
But at least he appreciates fine culinary delicacies. What more can one ask for?
On the other hand, perhaps Saddam had found a way of converting truffles into some of those Weapons of Mass Destruction both the UN inspectors, and the Bush administration after them, have thus far been unable to turn up.
Apparently it never occurred to them that the Iraqi biological weapons laboratories may have been the Iraqi gourmet kitchens all along. After all, truffles, as everyone knows, are a mainstay in French gourmet cooking and (as everyone also knows) French cuisine --composed mostly of oils, creams, rich pastries, and other forms of fatty and fattening ingredients-- tends to wreak havoc on we hapless Westerners' cholesterol levels.
Maybe He's Not Such a Bad Guy After All...
...being a gourmet and all.
Maybe it's time to give Saddam a break after all. Reuters reports today that some newly released home videos show the Butcher of Bagdad...
...leading a family expedition to the desert to search for truffles. His wife Sajida, wearing a voluminous cape and a wide-brimmed hat, follows behind with the couple's daughters. They scamper around, digging in the sand with special hoes.
Saddam gives a snort of disgust when he unearths a rather small specimen. Turning to his family, he bellows: "Do you think Saddam would bother with something so small?"
The video is dated March 15, 1990 -- just months before Saddam ordered his troops to invade Kuwait.
"Daddy, daddy, look what I found," cries Rana, one of his daughters, running up to Saddam with a truffle in her hand. Saddam glances at it then resumes his search.
The eight tapes, obtained by Reuters from a former employee of one of Saddam's inner circle, show a variety of family occasions -- birthdays, an engagement party, a hunting trip,...
But of course, Saddam's relatives and family relationships are not all that typical, as indicated in another video by one of Saddam's sons, Qusay, who showed up to one of Saddam's birthday parties "sport[ing] a silver pistol tucked casually into the waistband of the trousers."
At the same birthday party and on the same video were Saddam's sons-in-law Saddam Kamel and Hussein Kamel, who always wore military fatigues "even on the truffle hunt." The report notes that both sons-in-law "are now dead. Five years after the video shows them standing around the birthday cake with Saddam, he ordered their murder in revenge for their shortlived defection to Jordan."
But at least he appreciates fine culinary delicacies. What more can one ask for?
On the other hand, perhaps Saddam had found a way of converting truffles into some of those Weapons of Mass Destruction both the UN inspectors, and the Bush administration after them, have thus far been unable to turn up.
Apparently it never occurred to them that the Iraqi biological weapons laboratories may have been the Iraqi gourmet kitchens all along. After all, truffles, as everyone knows, are a mainstay in French gourmet cooking and (as everyone also knows) French cuisine --composed mostly of oils, creams, rich pastries, and other forms of fatty and fattening ingredients-- tends to wreak havoc on we hapless Westerners' cholesterol levels.
Monday, May 19, 2003
ON THE LIGHTER-THAN-AIR SIDE:
Some Very Funny Air Traffic Controller Vignettes
Courtesy of Molly's Musings, in honor of the late Robert ("The Untouchables") Stack for his very funny performance as an air traffic controller in the classic spoof Airplane!. Stack died last week at the age of 84.
Here's a sample story from Molly's blog:
A Pan Am 727 flight engineer waiting for start clearance in Munich overheard the following:
Lufthansa (in German): "Ground, what is our start clearance time?"
Ground (in English): "If you want an answer you must speak English."
Lufthansa (in English): "I am a German, flying a German airplane, in Germany. Why must I speak English?"
Unknown voice (in a beautiful British accent): "Because you lost the bloody war!"
Some Very Funny Air Traffic Controller Vignettes
Courtesy of Molly's Musings, in honor of the late Robert ("The Untouchables") Stack for his very funny performance as an air traffic controller in the classic spoof Airplane!. Stack died last week at the age of 84.
Here's a sample story from Molly's blog:
A Pan Am 727 flight engineer waiting for start clearance in Munich overheard the following:
Lufthansa (in German): "Ground, what is our start clearance time?"
Ground (in English): "If you want an answer you must speak English."
Lufthansa (in English): "I am a German, flying a German airplane, in Germany. Why must I speak English?"
Unknown voice (in a beautiful British accent): "Because you lost the bloody war!"
Wednesday, May 14, 2003
IN TEXAS, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT IDEA:
Legislators Flee Lone Star State to Avoid Vote
According to the Associated Press, 51 Democrat legislators from the Texas House of Representatives are holed up across the border in Ardmore, Oklahoma in order to prevent a quorum from being formed to vote on a Republican-sponsored redistricting bill they disagree with.
In order to vote on the bill before the House's Thursday night deadline, after which the bill must be scrapped, the House Republicans need the presence of their Democratic colleagues, who decided to flee the state rather than fight a battle they knew they’d lose. Instead, the Democrats intend to stay in Oklahoma until Friday morning, long oast House’s deadline:
Republicans castigated their absent colleagues for the growing heaps of bills in jeopardy of not being passed.
"We want our colleagues back," Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who presides over the Senate, told reporters before the GOP House members convened Wednesday. He said lawmakers are only days away from completing "a historically successful session'' that will balance the state's budget without a tax bill, despite a $9.9 billion shortfall.
The House Republicans quickly adjourned to move into committee hearings, which are allowed without a House quorum as long as a majority of a committee is present.
Despite the work stoppage, Republicans remain focused on legislative business, said Gov. Rick Perry.
…Texas already has a court-drawn redistricting map, but Republicans say it doesn't reflect state voting trends and want to redo it. Their plan could add five to seven GOP House seats to the 15 the Republicans already have.
From their motel in Ardmore, Okla., the Democrats blamed U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay for the shutdown of the Texas House of Representatives.
"We have a message for Tom DeLay: Don't mess with Texas,'' said House Democratic Legislative Caucus leader Jim Dunnam. "We did not choose the path that led us to Ardmore, Okla. Tom DeLay chose that path.''
In Washington, DeLay mocked the Democratic legislators. "I have never turned tail and run,'' DeLay said. "Even when I'm losing, I stand and fight for what I believe.''...
[On a historical note, in 1988 then-U. S. Senate Majority leader Robert Byrd (D–W.Va) needed a quorum, but didn’t have enough willing members on hand to fill it. So he sent the Senate’s Sargeant-at-Arms, accompanied by the Capitol Police to every Senator’s office on the Hill to “persuade” the absent Senators to join him on the floor. One Senator, Robert Packwood (R-Ill.), locked his office door and refused to come out. When the police tried to force the door open, Packwood pushed against them but was overwhelmed in short order. He was taken out feet first and carried to the Senate Chamber.]
Legislators Flee Lone Star State to Avoid Vote
According to the Associated Press, 51 Democrat legislators from the Texas House of Representatives are holed up across the border in Ardmore, Oklahoma in order to prevent a quorum from being formed to vote on a Republican-sponsored redistricting bill they disagree with.
In order to vote on the bill before the House's Thursday night deadline, after which the bill must be scrapped, the House Republicans need the presence of their Democratic colleagues, who decided to flee the state rather than fight a battle they knew they’d lose. Instead, the Democrats intend to stay in Oklahoma until Friday morning, long oast House’s deadline:
Republicans castigated their absent colleagues for the growing heaps of bills in jeopardy of not being passed.
"We want our colleagues back," Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who presides over the Senate, told reporters before the GOP House members convened Wednesday. He said lawmakers are only days away from completing "a historically successful session'' that will balance the state's budget without a tax bill, despite a $9.9 billion shortfall.
The House Republicans quickly adjourned to move into committee hearings, which are allowed without a House quorum as long as a majority of a committee is present.
Despite the work stoppage, Republicans remain focused on legislative business, said Gov. Rick Perry.
…Texas already has a court-drawn redistricting map, but Republicans say it doesn't reflect state voting trends and want to redo it. Their plan could add five to seven GOP House seats to the 15 the Republicans already have.
From their motel in Ardmore, Okla., the Democrats blamed U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay for the shutdown of the Texas House of Representatives.
"We have a message for Tom DeLay: Don't mess with Texas,'' said House Democratic Legislative Caucus leader Jim Dunnam. "We did not choose the path that led us to Ardmore, Okla. Tom DeLay chose that path.''
In Washington, DeLay mocked the Democratic legislators. "I have never turned tail and run,'' DeLay said. "Even when I'm losing, I stand and fight for what I believe.''...
[On a historical note, in 1988 then-U. S. Senate Majority leader Robert Byrd (D–W.Va) needed a quorum, but didn’t have enough willing members on hand to fill it. So he sent the Senate’s Sargeant-at-Arms, accompanied by the Capitol Police to every Senator’s office on the Hill to “persuade” the absent Senators to join him on the floor. One Senator, Robert Packwood (R-Ill.), locked his office door and refused to come out. When the police tried to force the door open, Packwood pushed against them but was overwhelmed in short order. He was taken out feet first and carried to the Senate Chamber.]
Tuesday, May 13, 2003
PRESIDENT HAS AFFAIR WITH INTERN:
No, We Don't Mean Bill Clinton....
...We mean none other than Bill Clinton's idol and role model, John F. Kennedy, known affectionately to the White House Press Corps during his administration as "Jack the Zipper." According to a story from the Associated Press today, it seems that JFK had an affair with a 19-year-old White House intern:
...''She had no skills. She could answer the phone,'' Robert Dallek, author of ''An Unfinished Life,'' told ''Dateline NBC'' in an interview that aired Sunday. ''Apparently, her only skill was to provide sexual release for JFK on those trips and maybe in the White House.''
Dallek learned of the affair from a White House aide, Barbara Gamarekian, whose oral history was recently unsealed. Gamarekian told the Daily News that she remembers only the young intern's first name, which she refused to reveal.
...Kennedy is known to have had numerous extramarital liaisons, but this is the first report of an affair with an intern. ''There were lots of women,'' Dallek, whose book comes out Tuesday, told the newspaper. ''The real question is: Did it distract him from his job as president? I think it really didn't.''
Like in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, for example? Yeah, right.
No, We Don't Mean Bill Clinton....
...We mean none other than Bill Clinton's idol and role model, John F. Kennedy, known affectionately to the White House Press Corps during his administration as "Jack the Zipper." According to a story from the Associated Press today, it seems that JFK had an affair with a 19-year-old White House intern:
...''She had no skills. She could answer the phone,'' Robert Dallek, author of ''An Unfinished Life,'' told ''Dateline NBC'' in an interview that aired Sunday. ''Apparently, her only skill was to provide sexual release for JFK on those trips and maybe in the White House.''
Dallek learned of the affair from a White House aide, Barbara Gamarekian, whose oral history was recently unsealed. Gamarekian told the Daily News that she remembers only the young intern's first name, which she refused to reveal.
...Kennedy is known to have had numerous extramarital liaisons, but this is the first report of an affair with an intern. ''There were lots of women,'' Dallek, whose book comes out Tuesday, told the newspaper. ''The real question is: Did it distract him from his job as president? I think it really didn't.''
Like in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, for example? Yeah, right.
Wednesday, April 23, 2003
ON RICK SANTORUM:
He's No Trent Lott
One of the most irritating things about Rick Santorum's treatment by the media and pro-gay liberals is the constant comparison of Santorum's views on sexuality to Trent Lott's boneheaded condoning of the racist Dixiecrats back in the 50s and 60s.
Liberals both inside and outside the media know full well that unlike Trott's sympathy for Strom Thurmond's presidential run as a segregationist, Santorum's very nuanced and very tolerant views regarding sexual orientations reflect those of the vast majority of Americans.
So when they attack Santorum as a "bigot," they attack all of us as "bigots."
He's No Trent Lott
One of the most irritating things about Rick Santorum's treatment by the media and pro-gay liberals is the constant comparison of Santorum's views on sexuality to Trent Lott's boneheaded condoning of the racist Dixiecrats back in the 50s and 60s.
Liberals both inside and outside the media know full well that unlike Trott's sympathy for Strom Thurmond's presidential run as a segregationist, Santorum's very nuanced and very tolerant views regarding sexual orientations reflect those of the vast majority of Americans.
So when they attack Santorum as a "bigot," they attack all of us as "bigots."
Thursday, April 03, 2003
SHE FOUGHT "TO THE DEATH":
Rescued POW Jessica Lynch Did Not Want to Be Taken Alive, Army Says
Today's Washington Post reports that the recently rescued POW, 19-year-old Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch, continued fighting the Iraqi soldiers who ambushed her unit, Army 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company, even after receiving several gunshot wounds and three broken limbs. And when she was finally subdued and captured, she was stabbed in the process. But she had already taken out two Iraqi soldiers:
"She was fighting to the death," [an Army] official said. "She did not want to be taken alive."
...Several officials cautioned that the precise sequence of events is still being determined, and that further information will emerge as Lynch is debriefed. Reports thus far are based on battlefield intelligence, they said, which comes from monitored communications and from Iraqi sources in Nasiriyah whose reliability has yet to be assessed. Pentagon officials said they had heard "rumors" of Lynch's heroics but had no confirmation.
...Lynch, of Palestine, W.Va., arrived yesterday at a U.S. military hospital in Germany. She was in "stable" condition, with broken arms and a broken leg in addition to the gunshot and stab wounds, sources said. Other sources said both legs and one arm were broken. Victoria Clarke, a Pentagon spokeswoman, gave no specifics of Lynch's condition, telling reporters only that she is "in good spirits and being treated for injuries."
But one military officer briefed on her condition said that while Lynch was conscious and able to communicate with the U.S. commandos who rescued her, "she was pretty messed up." Last night Lynch spoke by telephone with her parents, who said she was in good spirits, but hungry and in pain.
"Talk about spunk!" said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), whom military officials had briefed on the rescue. "She just persevered. It takes that and a tremendous faith that your country is going to come and get you."
One Army official said that it could be some time before Lynch is reunited with her family, since experience with those taken prisoner since the Vietnam War indicates that soldiers held in captivity need time to "decompress" and reflect on their ordeal with the help of medical professionals.
"It's real important to have decompression time before they get back with their families to assure them that they served their country honorably," the official said. "She'll meet with Survival, Escape, Resistance and Evasion psychologists. These are medical experts in dealing with this type of things."
...One intriguing account of Lynch's captivity came from an unidentified Iraqi pharmacist at Saddam Hussein Hospital who told Sky News, a British network, that he had cared for her and heard her crying about wanting to be reunited with her family.
In other news, the Governor Bob Wise of Pfc. Lynch's home state of West Virginia has announced that the state government will "see that she becomes" the kindergarten teacher she wants to become by paying for her college education at any West Virginia public college or university of her choosing.
We salute this brave young woman, and all our troops in the war against Saddam, and wish her the very best of God's blessings.
Rescued POW Jessica Lynch Did Not Want to Be Taken Alive, Army Says
Today's Washington Post reports that the recently rescued POW, 19-year-old Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch, continued fighting the Iraqi soldiers who ambushed her unit, Army 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company, even after receiving several gunshot wounds and three broken limbs. And when she was finally subdued and captured, she was stabbed in the process. But she had already taken out two Iraqi soldiers:
"She was fighting to the death," [an Army] official said. "She did not want to be taken alive."
...Several officials cautioned that the precise sequence of events is still being determined, and that further information will emerge as Lynch is debriefed. Reports thus far are based on battlefield intelligence, they said, which comes from monitored communications and from Iraqi sources in Nasiriyah whose reliability has yet to be assessed. Pentagon officials said they had heard "rumors" of Lynch's heroics but had no confirmation.
...Lynch, of Palestine, W.Va., arrived yesterday at a U.S. military hospital in Germany. She was in "stable" condition, with broken arms and a broken leg in addition to the gunshot and stab wounds, sources said. Other sources said both legs and one arm were broken. Victoria Clarke, a Pentagon spokeswoman, gave no specifics of Lynch's condition, telling reporters only that she is "in good spirits and being treated for injuries."
But one military officer briefed on her condition said that while Lynch was conscious and able to communicate with the U.S. commandos who rescued her, "she was pretty messed up." Last night Lynch spoke by telephone with her parents, who said she was in good spirits, but hungry and in pain.
"Talk about spunk!" said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), whom military officials had briefed on the rescue. "She just persevered. It takes that and a tremendous faith that your country is going to come and get you."
One Army official said that it could be some time before Lynch is reunited with her family, since experience with those taken prisoner since the Vietnam War indicates that soldiers held in captivity need time to "decompress" and reflect on their ordeal with the help of medical professionals.
"It's real important to have decompression time before they get back with their families to assure them that they served their country honorably," the official said. "She'll meet with Survival, Escape, Resistance and Evasion psychologists. These are medical experts in dealing with this type of things."
...One intriguing account of Lynch's captivity came from an unidentified Iraqi pharmacist at Saddam Hussein Hospital who told Sky News, a British network, that he had cared for her and heard her crying about wanting to be reunited with her family.
In other news, the Governor Bob Wise of Pfc. Lynch's home state of West Virginia has announced that the state government will "see that she becomes" the kindergarten teacher she wants to become by paying for her college education at any West Virginia public college or university of her choosing.
We salute this brave young woman, and all our troops in the war against Saddam, and wish her the very best of God's blessings.
Wednesday, April 02, 2003
WHERE'S SADDAM???
Two Weeks and Counting, Still No Hussein
Since the war in Iraq began just a fortnight ago, the coalition forces have subdued over half of Iraq and destroyed half of its military and paramilitary leverage. During that period of day-and-night bombing and missile attacks, Saddam's key government buildings and military installations have been reduced to rubble.
Yet the Iraqi government, apparently in a near-psychotic state of denial, insists to its television and radio public that it is "winning" the war. But at no time during these past two weeks has Saddam shown his face in public to assure his followers that he is still in full control. much less to personally intimidate the Iraqi people into refraining from joining the allies against him.
The only high-profile Iraqi official these days seems to be the Minister of Information, who, when he's not issuing threats if suicide bombings against the coalition soldiers and marines, insists that Saddam is still alive and well. In our opinion, if he really was, he'd have shown his face by now.
Two Weeks and Counting, Still No Hussein
Since the war in Iraq began just a fortnight ago, the coalition forces have subdued over half of Iraq and destroyed half of its military and paramilitary leverage. During that period of day-and-night bombing and missile attacks, Saddam's key government buildings and military installations have been reduced to rubble.
Yet the Iraqi government, apparently in a near-psychotic state of denial, insists to its television and radio public that it is "winning" the war. But at no time during these past two weeks has Saddam shown his face in public to assure his followers that he is still in full control. much less to personally intimidate the Iraqi people into refraining from joining the allies against him.
The only high-profile Iraqi official these days seems to be the Minister of Information, who, when he's not issuing threats if suicide bombings against the coalition soldiers and marines, insists that Saddam is still alive and well. In our opinion, if he really was, he'd have shown his face by now.
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
THE COUNTDOWN BEGINS:
5 Hours to G-Day
All indications are that the ever-defiant Saddam Hussein will not take up President Bush's invitation to "get out of town," at least not by 8:00 pm EST tonite. Thus the 300,000 US, UK, and Australian troops and 1,000 warplanes amassed at his borders are now on the move.
Associated Press reporter David Crary relates the following details (Fair Use extracts in blue text; emphases via underlines added):
(March 19) -- Hours before the deadline set by President Bush, Saddam Hussein gave no sign of yielding, and long columns of U.S. armored vehicles moved through swirling Kuwaiti sandstorms Wednesday toward Iraq's border.
In Baghdad, fortified by trenches and sandbags, streets were quieter than usual, with light traffic and some shops shuttered. Saddam ordered residents to stack wood and oil barrels to be set afire in hopes of concealing targets from bombardment.
Iraq's rubber-stamp parliament, at a special session, rejected the U.S. ultimatum and reaffirmed support for Saddam. The idea that he would flee into exile ''is absolutely unthinkable,'' said Speaker Saadoon Hammadi.
Just across Iraq's southern border, U.S. and British troops piled ammunition and combat gear into fighting vehicles and broke camp, ready to invade on short notice. One major deployment involved the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division - its 20,000 soldiers and thousands of vehicles were ordered to positions close to the border.
...''We are one day closer to making history,'' Col. Michael Linnington, commander of the 101st Airborne Division's 3rd Brigade, told his officers at a briefing Wednesday morning.
...Though U.S. defense officials hope for a quick victory, with minimal casualties on both sides, they raised the possibility that Iraq would use chemical weapons. Pentagon officials said intelligence reports suggest Saddam has given field commanders authority to use such weapons.
The top American general in Kuwait, Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, warned against any such tactics. ''It would be a hugely bad choice on the part of any Iraqi leader or commander to employ chemical weapons,'' he said.
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said he does not believe Saddam's government would use chemical or biological weapons even as a last resort because it would turn world opinion in favor of the United States. ''Some people care about their reputation even after death,'' Blix said.
Interestingly enough, Blix does not mention that as recently as the past few months Saddam has been telling the UN Security Council and its weapons inspectors in Iraq that he does not possession chemical or biological weapons.
Obviously, as has now been established, Saddam had been lying all along. Yet Bush's critics, especially in the Democratic Party, continue on their self-deluding merry way as if nothing has changed:
....Some determined opponents of the war - including a group of black members of Congress - refused to abandon hopes for a diplomatic settlement.
''We are making one last plea not only on behalf of ourselves but on behalf of millions of people throughout our country, millions of people throughout our world,'' said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said black lawmakers had asked to meet with Bush but were rebuffed....
5 Hours to G-Day
All indications are that the ever-defiant Saddam Hussein will not take up President Bush's invitation to "get out of town," at least not by 8:00 pm EST tonite. Thus the 300,000 US, UK, and Australian troops and 1,000 warplanes amassed at his borders are now on the move.
Associated Press reporter David Crary relates the following details (Fair Use extracts in blue text; emphases via underlines added):
(March 19) -- Hours before the deadline set by President Bush, Saddam Hussein gave no sign of yielding, and long columns of U.S. armored vehicles moved through swirling Kuwaiti sandstorms Wednesday toward Iraq's border.
In Baghdad, fortified by trenches and sandbags, streets were quieter than usual, with light traffic and some shops shuttered. Saddam ordered residents to stack wood and oil barrels to be set afire in hopes of concealing targets from bombardment.
Iraq's rubber-stamp parliament, at a special session, rejected the U.S. ultimatum and reaffirmed support for Saddam. The idea that he would flee into exile ''is absolutely unthinkable,'' said Speaker Saadoon Hammadi.
Just across Iraq's southern border, U.S. and British troops piled ammunition and combat gear into fighting vehicles and broke camp, ready to invade on short notice. One major deployment involved the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division - its 20,000 soldiers and thousands of vehicles were ordered to positions close to the border.
...''We are one day closer to making history,'' Col. Michael Linnington, commander of the 101st Airborne Division's 3rd Brigade, told his officers at a briefing Wednesday morning.
...Though U.S. defense officials hope for a quick victory, with minimal casualties on both sides, they raised the possibility that Iraq would use chemical weapons. Pentagon officials said intelligence reports suggest Saddam has given field commanders authority to use such weapons.
The top American general in Kuwait, Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, warned against any such tactics. ''It would be a hugely bad choice on the part of any Iraqi leader or commander to employ chemical weapons,'' he said.
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said he does not believe Saddam's government would use chemical or biological weapons even as a last resort because it would turn world opinion in favor of the United States. ''Some people care about their reputation even after death,'' Blix said.
Interestingly enough, Blix does not mention that as recently as the past few months Saddam has been telling the UN Security Council and its weapons inspectors in Iraq that he does not possession chemical or biological weapons.
Obviously, as has now been established, Saddam had been lying all along. Yet Bush's critics, especially in the Democratic Party, continue on their self-deluding merry way as if nothing has changed:
....Some determined opponents of the war - including a group of black members of Congress - refused to abandon hopes for a diplomatic settlement.
''We are making one last plea not only on behalf of ourselves but on behalf of millions of people throughout our country, millions of people throughout our world,'' said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said black lawmakers had asked to meet with Bush but were rebuffed....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)