Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Killing the Cowboys, Debates, and Human Dignity

My take on the foreign policy debate and a little background story to set the stage:


 

I'm a Jets fan, so consequently the loathing I have for Bill Belichek, Tom Brady and the Patriots is intense...HOWEVER, one cannot deny the success they've enjoyed due to an excellently coached team and good QB (this sentiment is similar to my take on Romney...my candidate dropped out of the race, and I'm not a Romney fan, but I have a healthy respect for his experiences). A few years ago, Uncle Screwtape (the Patriots) had a very successfull season in which, during the regular season, they defeated every opponenent. At one point in the season, Uncle Screwtape played Satan himself--The Dallas Cowboys. To summarize my take on this game, when Tom Brady and the rest of the starters were removed in the 3rd quarter, I was extremely displeased: I was hoping that Uncle Screwtape (that vile demon that he is), would thoroughly and entirely humiliate Satan by putting up 100 points on him. This desire reflected the absolute loathing I have for the Cowboys.


 

Thus was my hope for last night's debate: that Mitt would use the ample material provided to him by the president to simply annihilate the President, to publically humiliate him as payback for all he's done to America. Sometimes, however such a confrontation, while essentially necessary (currently, the biggest threat to national security isn't a nuclear Iran or Russia, but the incompetent presidential administration responsible for Fast and Furious and Benghazi-gate), isn't the right course of action.


 

When the softball question of Libya and Benghazi was tossed to Mitt, he took the pitch. I didn't know why, or what he was playing at. Mitt never used a killing shot to publically repudiate the president's glaring foreign policy incompetence. He didn't need to.


 

My impression of the debate was different than a lot of people's, from what I can see perusing the interwebs. I noticed some things during the debate that only came together at the end. First, I noticed that unlike debate 2 (and to a large part debate 1), Romney didn't interrupt the President often at all...unlike the President who consistently cut into what Romney said (how true this was or not, I don't know…this is just the impression I got). Second, Romney's focus was always on his vision, his message. He occasionally would criticize the President's poor record, but that wasn't his theme. Third, I noticed a certain facial expression on the President when Romney spoke concerning Pakistan and China, an expression I've seen on kids in the classroom when they are actually learning something. This wasn't a paying-attention-to-see-what-I-can-rebut look. This was rapt attention, soaking in what was being TAUGHT. Facial expressions don't lie: a career businessman was teaching the President of the United States things he didn't know about foreign policy. Third, near the end, Bob Schieffer NATURALLY started giving Romney more time to answer, and cut the president off. This was most pronounced during the last questions, when Romney appeared to speak the most, and Schieffer just kept asking him more and more, not even letting the President (who was, as I said, paying rapt attention to what Romney was saying) say much in rebuttal. This seemed natural to me, because it was exactly what I would have done. At that point in the debate, the president had nothing of value to add, nothing to add to the discussion.


 

During the closing statements, I realized what had happened, what I witnessed. There was an emotion behind Mitt Romney's voice: he was speaking from the heart, not talking points or regurgitated campaign stump speeches. At that point, I realized that Romney didn't need to humiliate the President. The debate started as a good give and take, the President making good points, Romney making good points, and was essentially a toss-up. By the end, that was not the case: Romney commanded the debate and set the tone. This has really nothing to do with substance or ideas, but presentation.

The president's actions toward his political opponent have not been atypical of his policies. His anti-terrorist policy is simply to kill people, as he seemingly admitted last night. He has no respect for human life of human dignity, save when it helps him—we need no more proof of this than his response to the Trayvon Martin case (in which he demonized George Zimmerman immediately), or Fast and Furious (in which his support of his DOJ and ATF is tantamount to approval). Thus, he has no problem with demonizing his opponent, making him appear somehow less than human. His entire campaign has revolved around the rich vs. poor meme, class warfare and class envy. He doesn't care if he accurately depicts Mitt Romney's policies or if he ridicules his opponent. At the end of the debate, Mitt Romney had not stooped to that level. He did not denigrate his opponent, he did not ridicule. He clearly presented his ideas, his perspective to the American people.


 

As I reflected on the final moments of the debate last night, I realized that my ambition, my desire made me no better than the President. I wanted him humiliated, publically and brutally. How is this any better than the President's willy-nilly killing of Afghanis, or letting Americans die in Benghazi because its "simply a bump in the road" and then lying about the actions to save face? Just like every single terrorist, President Obama is human person, and as such, does not deserve the public humiliation for his administrations ineptitude.


 

In short, despite his political shortcomings, it is clear that Mitt Romney was the better man last night. Not just better than the president, but better than me. He did something I wouldn't have done. He did the right thing.

Monday, October 8, 2012

The “Sin” of Progressivism

I saw this headline and started thinking.

At work, we've got quite a few individuals who are politically astute (which makes for fun conversation), and we've been discussing the difference between "liberals", "socialists", "Communists" and "progressives". Being the student of history that I am, the four terms are NOT interchangeable.

For one, "liberal" is a relative term, as a "liberal" strictly speaking, seeks change from the status quo. Seeing as the status quo is constantly changing, what is "liberal" in one decade is "conservative" or "radical" in another. Consider that a few short decades ago, what passes today as "conservative" was actually "liberal". Further, classical "liberalism" was for increased voting rights, small and limited government, and a free market, which are the bedrock of modern conservativism.

For another, while many use "socialist" and "communist" interchangeably, they are not the same thing. Marx's communism was localized and small, a situation where small communities of people would work together for their common needs, with nothing held in private, and no over-arching governing structure. Socialism is large-scale communism, but in order to make it work, the government, on the premise of representing the people, makes the decisions on what the society needs, and how to meet those needs. To be a "socialist" is to also be a statist: to put the state as all important, and the individual as a servant to the state and its all-powerful central government. To be a communist is to be an anarchist (in that within communism there is no government), and private property doesn't exist.

Finally, there is the term "progressive". The term has been used to describe Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, as well as others, like Newt Gingrich, and most of politicians in the American "left". However, progressivism is not synonymous with socialism, or communism, or even liberalism. The term denotes a belief in the "progress" of society; a belief that human society will progress inevitably to some idealized utopia. Progressives are elitists, because only the elite can put together programs, or systems that can solve current or future problems. Progressives are humanist, because they believe that it is up to us humans to create the perfect society.

This is where the problem lies for the Christian. As Christians, we believe in the concept of Original Sin, that all humans have the propensity to sin. To believe that the goal of progressivism is possible is tantamount to rejecting the Creed of Christianity:

  1. Christians believe that our sinful nature means that mankind cannot bring about its own salvation, but salvation comes only from God.
  2. Jesus Christ came to Earth to suffer and die, and therefore purchase for us the reward of eternal life, as a result of our inability to do it for ourselves.
  3. Progressives believe that we can create our own perfect society…thus "saving" us.
  4. This rejects the need for God.
  5. That rejects the sacrifice of Christ.

Rejecting the Sacrifice of Christ essentially means you are no longer a Christian. Thus, by adhering to a progressive mentality, you are, whether you know it or not rejecting your Christian faith.

Friday, August 17, 2012

Finished…so now what?

I finished War and Peace this morning. Not sure what to make of it. I really enjoyed reading it, but came away unsatisfied as far as the story goes. This is, of course, because my favorite character, Prince Andrey Bolkonsky died, and his son, who lived with his aunt, Marya (my second favorite character) has no real father figure. Seriously, I almost stopped reading after Andrey died, there was no real point in continuing. I'm glad I continued though, because had I stopped, I never would have read the epilogue.

In the epilogue, Tolstoy says: "Then as now much time was spent arguing about the rights of women, husband-and-wife relationships and freedom and rights within marriage…. Questions like these, then as now, existed exclusively for people who see marriage only in terms of satisfaction given and received by the married couple, though this is only one principle of married life rather than its overall meaning, which lies in the family. All the latest issues and debates, such as the problem of getting maximum pleasure out of eating your dinner, did not exist then, and do not exist now for people who see dinner as a source of nourishment, and family life as the aim of marriage."

The epilogue is centered around two families that are very much alike: wives utterly devoted to their husbands, and husbands utterly devoted to their wives…and both completely devoted to their children. Unlike the other women of their class, who spent their time getting dolled up for soirees and pursuing their own interests, Natasha and Marya focus their lives around their families. Unlike the men of their class, Nikolay and Pierre do their work, but neglect the wealthy society and focus on their family (Nikolay was not well liked by the gentry, because he actually treated the peasants as people, fancy that…). For these families, social and political connections aren't the goal…the goal is their family. In the end, these two couples are infinitely happier than they could ever have imagined, because 1) they are devoted to each other, 2) they have adopted a certain order in their households which creates stability, and 3) they are devoted to their children.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

The “Right to Crime”

Leo Tolstoy's writing style has a way to illustrate a depth of knowledge of the human condition and therefore, to explain certain actions. In Volume IV Part I Chapter 4 of War and Peace, he says "The ones who were actually making an effort to follow the federal course of events, and trying to get involved through self-sacrifice and heroic conduct, were the least useful members of society; they looked at things the wrong way round, and everything they did, with the best of intentions, turned out to be useless and absurd…." This particular sentence, coming when it does in the text is powerful.

On the one hand, we've seen the heroic deeds and self-sacrifice of Muscovites and Russian soldiers who are in the thick of the fight. In the text, we've seen men storm burning buildings looking for trapped children, and men coming to the rescue of young Russian women who are being harassed by the French. We've seen nobility lose everything in flames (or consumed by the French). These people are acting out of necessity. As psychologist Phil Zimbardo discusses in his book Lucifer Effect, these individuals are reacting to stimulus according to the moral training they've received throughout their lifetimes. In short, they are acting just like they've been taught to act, and are responding to extreme stimulus accordingly.

On the other hand, we see the less than heroic deeds of individuals who have inflated their own self worth to dedicate themselves to being heroic and to self-sacrifice. These individuals have gotten in the way and even hindered those noted above. These people are acting, far removed from any real stimulus, on their own idealized intellectual fancies.

From this simple quote, I have two observations. First, those that are "in the trenches" get things done and are a real boon to the "cause" (whatever the cause is) because of their knowledge of what is really going on. Along those lines, those that are "armchair quarterbacks" and use their education (rather than hands-on, firsthand experience) to theorize on how to solve a problem, serve to, at the least, get in the way, while at most hinder real progress. In this regard, from a standpoint of strict efficiency, using the idea of subsidiarity (principle stating that a matter ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralized authority capable of addressing that matter effectively) to solve social problems makes more sense that using socialism or statism. For certain, many advocates of socialism or statism have good intentions, but inevitably, their lack of true understanding and their over-reliance on their intellectual capabilities, will only hinder any real solution.

Second, the so-called "right to crime" is somewhat alluded to here. In Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky mentions this "right" to explain how certain "great" men were able to become "great". In short, they were willing to do what others weren't to achieve their own allegedly noble ends: transgress the law (either civil or natural). In fact, the idea goes so far as to infer that the truly great MUST violate the law, usually by spilling blood, to become great. In this quote, we see how utterly false this idea is. On the one hand, the truly great ones (like the truly heroic in Tolstoy's story) are those that do not use their reason to inflate their value to mankind or to make their goals somehow so noble that bloodshed is not an issue. The truly great act nobly based on 1) their moral formation throughout their lives, and 2) on the specific stimuli at hand (along these lines, I am thinking of George Washington, whom George III praised as the greatest man alive for stepping down as President of the US after two terms and near unanimous support among the people—essentially unlimited power due to his popularity). On the other hand, those that rationalize the spilling of blood to further their goals, like Che Guevera, Napoleon, Robespierre, Muhammad, Hitler, Bismarck, and many, many more are not a benefit to humankind, but a hindrance. None of these men added to humanity in any long-lasting and profitable or positive manner. Most have led to more pain, more suffering, and more death as a result of their intellectually driven machinations.

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Pride, Honor, and Self-Service

I've reached the Napoleonic invasion of Russia in War and Peace, which begins in Volume III, Part I, Chapter I. Tolstoy begins this by undertaking to briefly explain why this rather pointless waste of human life began in the first place. He glosses the reasons illumined by the historians of his day (Napoleon's megalomania, Alexander's obstinacy, an affront to the Duke of Oldenburg, the failure of the Continental System, and machinations of the English), and then puts in some common sense observations from a non-historian point of view.

What is interesting is that he neglects a certain, perhaps vital cause that actually is illuminated throughout his work: the view that military service was a source of pride, and means of extolling one's own honor, and obtaining status within European society. All one needs to do is to look at the characters of the book. Boris is essentially thrust into the service, hoping to win himself a decent position in society. His service isn't about serving the Tsar or his country, but about his own self-aggrandizement. He realizes that with his mother's seemingly deplorable social and financial status, his only hope is to win glory for himself and then win the hand of a wealthy heiress. Further, what of Anatole, whose father uses his contacts to thrust him into military service in the hopes of whipping him into shape. Further is Nikolay Rostov, whose enlistment in the service was an attempt to win himself a nice position and help his family out.

Now, military service is pointless without conflicts to support the presence of a standing army. Could Boris, or Anatole, or Nikolay hope to gain the honors or promotions without some heroic service in wartime or conflict? Of course not. The fact remains that Tolstoy's work highlights and treats casually the understanding that war is honorable and military service is an ideal career path. Such an attitude makes such slight inconveniences like Alexander's obstinacy, a mere affront to a Duke, and other small things lead to war. In a society that is hell-bent on its men proving themselves in war, war is inevitable.

Of course, this says nothing of the historical fact that Napoleon Bonaparte based his entire political career off of his military successes. A cursory overview of the Napoleonic era reveals that when the going got tough at home, the French went to war. In a classic political maneuver that drew citizens' eyes away from unsavory conditions at home to the patriotic duty to war, Napoleon used his Grand Army to his political advantage: as long as he racked up victories, his support with the French people would be solidified. The Austrian general, von Clausewitz once claimed that war was an extension of policy. One could argue that with Napoleon, war was policy…it needed to be lest he lose popularity and support back home.

War and Peace and Immanent Destruction

I've been reading War and Peace and am so far enjoying it. Unlike Crime and Punishment which is ahistorical in that it doesn't necessarily mention the exact time-period in which it takes place, War and Peace is historical, naming names, events, and movements within Russian society. Further differences include the setting: Crime and Punishment takes place in the Russian underclass/peasantry (presumably after the freeing of the serfs), while War and Peace involves the Russian upper class.

While reading the novel, I can't help a sense of foreboding, of impending destruction setting over the whole thing. How can you possibly connect with the characters, many of them noble, good people, knowing that in a few short years after these events take place, their entire world will be destroyed, violently and horrifically, by the Bolsheviks and their fellow communists? It saddens me to realize how much was lost when the greedy, power hungry, and selfish communists wiped out all of Russian society to put in place their misguided, inherently demeaning philosophy of strife, struggle, control, and jealousy.

What is truly saddening is that, like the French immediately after the meeting of the Estates General in 1789, the Russians were gradually working towards meaningful reform. You can't just impose a constitutional democracy on a people overnight. It has to be worked at, tweaked, and made to fit the socio-political culture of that people. The US Constitution wasn't adopted immediately after the American Revolution; there was the inter-regnum period of the Articles of Confederation, which taught the leaders of the country a great deal about federalism, cooperation, and interdependency. The Tsars and their aristocratic advisors slowly worked to modernize and liberalize their incredibly conservative country bit by bit, and by 1917, great strides had been taken. All those strides were for naught. All the hard work of the liberals (referring to republicans, and free-market entrepreneurs) in Russian government and society was utterly destroyed by the usurpation of the Bolsheviks.

Now, I doubt that the Russians of today, after 70 years of devastating communist rule, could recognize the Russia in War and Peace, which is a sad thing.

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Crime and Punishment

I picked up Crime and Punishment sometime last week. To give a little back story, I've never read it, which is unfortunate, really. I picked it up on a whim: Borders at our mall was going out of business, and so had books on super-sale. The wife told me to pick up some classics on the way home (dumb on her part really…I am somewhat of a bibliophile, and to be give the vague command to "pick up some classics" was like giving me a blank check…). So in the midst of the said shopping spree, I checked out the back of a paperback edition of Crime and Punishment. I was intrigued by the description, and even more intrigued by the brief biography of Dostoevsky contained in the opening page. I bought it.

At first, it was slow, and I found it easy to put down and get distracted. But as the story progressed, and we actually met more characters, I found myself borderline obsessed with the story. There were several aspects that sucked me in. The first was the supposed motive for the murder, and the differentiation between "everyman" and the "superman". What sucked me in the most, however, was the cat and mouse game between the inspector and Raskolnikov. It was so masterfully done that I really couldn't tell if the inspector really knew that Raskolonikov was guilty and was trying to draw him out, or if the inspector was genuinely clueless. Further, the differing aspects of Raskolnikov's character (his genuine heartfelt generosity, his internal dialogues about his personal charity) sucked me in—although I can't say that I genuinely liked him as a person. In addition, the depth of characters line Sonia, Katerina Ivonovna, Pyotr Petrovich provided further stimulus. As the climax drew near, Dostoesky artfully maintains a shroud over the conclusion, leading one to wonder about how the conflict will be resolved, but at the same time, leaving open every possibility. In fact, when the resolution does come, it's not a surprise, but it certainly isn't a forgone conclusion.

Some different themes interested me in the work, and I'll comment on them separately:

  1. The idea of love in the story
  2. The true hero of the tale
  3. The concept of the "superman" and the "right to crime"
  4. Raskolnikov's motive and today's Occupy Movement (and associated incidents)

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Socialism vs Fascism, Part II

From what I've said previously, it makes total sense for liberals in America to assign the greatest slur they can think of (fascists/Nazis) to conservatives, while conservatives assign the greatest slur they can think of to liberals (Communists/socialists).  The problem is, at least with the liberals' use of fascism and Nazism, they fail to look deeper at both fascism (which they abhor) and socialism (which they wish to emulate).


Socialism, it is widely thought, was the brain-child of the theories of Robert Owen.  Owen (1771-1858) used his extraordinary skill in managing and overseeing to create a successful textile mill at New Lanarck. He was able to put several of his progressive ideas into practice at New Lanarck, and these successes gave him the opportunity to put his more radical, socialist theories into practice, most notably at New Harmony in Indiana.  Owen's socialism reduced the population into small "societies" of about 500-3000 people, and removed private property and private ownership: all that mattered was the success of the "society".  All people shared everything, and each would receive according to their need.  Everyone would exist in relative equality in these self-contained societies, which would be overseen by a capable, qualified and adept overseer.  Groups of societies would be linked together, and those groups would be linked together, until every society was part of a globally integrated, non-competitive socialist utopia.  In classical socialism, the goal is the economic survival/success of each individual, not competitive "collective".  Due to the non-competitive nature, the idea of nationalism, or pride in one's collective, or heritage, or individuality is supposed to be non-existent.  Any sort of differentiation between individuals would create a competitive atmosphere, which would undermine the socialist utopia.  Thus, true socialists are afraid of nationalism, or "American exceptionalism", so much so that the would label anyone who demonstrates any sort of pride in their country as "fascists" thought to invoke the totalitarian regime of Hitler.


Fascism is first seen in Mussolini's Italy.  Mussolini's fascism was centered around his authority as a dictator, and the uber-nationalism that accompanied Italy's militarism.  For Mussolini's Italy, everything revolved around the good of the State.  So important was the State's influence on everyday life, that a common joke was that while everything was going to hell-in-a-handbasket, at least the (state-run) trains ran on time.  Over time, he dramatically increased state control over the private sector, eventually settling on a system called corporatism, which melded a centralized economic plan with privately run businesses.  Mussolini was the first, but not the last.  Adolf Hitler adopted the fascist idea with his National Socialists is Germany.  For the Nazi party, the good of the state was the goal, and while Mussolini never really went full socialist, Hitler did.  However, we don't really hear about Hitler's love-affair with socialism.  Instead we are faced with his great nationalism, his Thousand Year Reich, and the "Fatherland". 

The fact is, that all fascists used socialism as their economic policy to some extent.  The goal of the fascist is the success of the state...thus, socialism, with its goal of economic "success" of the society is a good match. Fascists will, because of their insistence on the importance of the state over the importance of the individual, adopt socialist policies. For this reason, it is rather ironic that American liberals (who want state control of the economy, and who believe in the importance of the state over the importance of the individual) call American conservatives (who are proud of the United States and believe in the importance of the individual over the importance of the state) "fascists".




Dracula, revisited

I was just breezing through Creative Minority Report and I came across the phrase "he gave vampires souls".  It brought me back to an issue I have with Stoker's work and how he dealt with vampires and souls.

When vampire-Lucy was waylay-ed by Professor Van Helsing and his partners, Van Helsing imparts on Arthur the importance of what need to happen: by slaying the vampire-Lucy, Lucy's soul is free to enter into Heaven.  This gives a rather interesting perspective on the soul, salvation, damnation, and the link between the soul and body.

Catholic teaching on the soul and the body is such that both are intrinsically linked: the body is THE vessel for the soul, and during the resurrection, the soul will be reunited with the body (not a different one, but a glorified old one).  When the body dies, the soul is freed from this "mortal coil" and will be separated from it.

This means, in relation to vampire-myth, that when the body dies (and before it becomes a vampire) the soul is released and thus the soul is not trapped by the vampire's actions.  So then, it would appear that vampire-Lucy wouldn't really have been Lucy at all, but a demon using Lucy's body, or something to that effect, and Lucy's soul would have entered Heaven already.  But that isn't what Stoker presents.


Stoker actually presents two DIFFERENT perspectives in his work.  Lucy's soul is in jeopardy, as if it is trapped in the body while the body continues its evil, God-forsaken actions of feeding off others.  Killing the body will release Lucy's soul to enter into heaven.  The fate of Lucy's soul (whether it will be damned or saved) is unrelated to the actions of the vampire, it appears.

HOWEVER, both Lucy and Dracula know who they are.  Lucy recognizes her beloved, and with evil depravity presents herself in a lustful manner to seduce him in order to prey upon his blood and win him over to her (and possibly be his master, as Dracula is hers).  Likewise, Dracula is fully aware of his existence, who he is, what his purpose is, and what his plan is.  He recounts his history, what he's done, etc.

The two perspectives are mutually exclusive.  Lucy's soul cannot be trapped against its will by vampire-Lucy AND vampire-Lucy know who she is and act accordingly (although in an utterly depraved manner).  Either the vampire is Lucy or it is not.


On 'Coriolanus' and American Politics

To summarize a rather long situation, I was tricked into reading Shakespeare's Coriolanus.  It was an interesting and enjoyable read.  The story surrounds a rather decorated and successful general for the Roman Republic, who is eventually banished, and seeks to exact revenge on the spiteful populace of Rome.

The main theme, from what I could gather, is anger, or more specifically, anger management.  If the title character could control his anger in public, he wouldn't have been in the situations he was in.  Mother always said, think before you speak.  However, this is not what caught my eye as I read the play.

What I thought was most compelling was the subtle manipulations that went on that ended up inciting Coriolanus to anger.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but the manipulations present in Shakespeare's 17th century play are eerily similar to the manipulations that are occurring presently within the American political landscape, particularly with the Democratic Party.

The plebians' opinion on the Senate in general and Caius Marcius in specific are essentially the result of careful seeds planted and nursed by their supposed voices in the Senate: Junius Brutus and Sicinius Velutus.  Their seeds include class-envy and class warfare, inciting the crowds to jealous outrage against the wealthy Senators and their motives.  Had not Rome been threatened by an attack by their enemies the Volscians, it is highly likely a violent outburst would have occurred, quietly encouraged by the supposed "voice of the people".  Such actions only increase the influence and authority of the two tribunes.

Within the American political landscape, we see the same thing taking place with the Democratic party. The first connection between the tribunes and the Democratic party has to do with identification.  For a while now, perhaps over four decades, Democrats have branded themselves as the "voice of the poor", while calling their main opponents, Republicans, advocates for the rich.  As such, like Junius and Sicinius, they play on class envy and class warfare.  Consider how often we've heard the meme "make the rich pay their fair share".  Prominent Democrats, like Nancy Pelosi, President Obama and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schulz gave repeated public support to the Occupy Wall Street movement, which, among other things, advocated and carried out violence against the "rich", much like Junius and Sicinius prompted and supported in Coriolanus.  Further, there is the undeniable hatred that Junius and Sicinius have for Caius Marcius, who put his life on the line for Rome more that once, and begrudgingly accepted the consulship against his better judgement.  Even after Marcius had won the support of the people, the two tribunes managed to trick them into thinking that he had humiliated them, and used them for his own gain.  While not a perfect fit, we witnessed a similar thing with former President George W. Bush.  All one needs to do is look at the way Democrats and the media (remember, well over 75% of journalists consider themselves liberal) treated President Bush--"Bushitler" comes to mind.  Further, Junius and Sicinius attempted to use their manipulations to gain influence; it cannot be less obvious that certain policies (like expanding food-stamps and unemployment benefits, or not enforcing immigration laws) only serve to create support for the Democratic Party among certain demographics.

There is another angle that presents itself, when we analyze it further.  In Act II, Scene I, Menenius Agrippa (a Senator who "hath always loved the people"), confronts Sicinius and Junius, essentially calling them hypocrites, for they are quick to criticize Caius Marcius for faults they all too willingly exhibit themselves (like pride).  This is similar to the Democratic attacks on President Bush for his war in Iraq while failing to attach President Obama (who engaged US military forces illegally in Libya--he did not notify or explain his actions until much after the fact--and 'unilaterally' engaged in military operations in new venues, all while continuing wars he said he'd end), or Democratic attacks on Dick Cheney for "crony capitalism" on creating a energy policy that supposedly benefits his oil buddies, while being mum on President Obama for giving "stimulus" monies to "green energy" companies which happened to have wealthy Obama supporters at the helm.

Junius and Sicinius manipulated public opinion and most certainly put themselves in a more advantageous position.  However, their manipulations, while certainly bringing out the downfall of their enemy, Caius Marcius, also almost completely destroyed Rome.  They lied to the people they supposedly stood for, for personal gain, despite the ruin it almost caused.  The modern Democratic Party, which is engaging in the same thing, should take heed.  Sure, Shakespeare's play is a work of fiction, but like all of the Bard's works, Coriolanus still exhibits a deeper knowledge of the human condition: often, we will engage in behaviors that can or will ultimately lead to the suffering of many for our own selfish ends. 

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Fascism vs. Socialism, Part I

So apparently once-famous author Terry McMillan has decided that, because Republicans are obviously against Barack Obama, they are racists and compared them to Hilter by Tweeting "Republicans are behaving just like Hitler did."  Besides the obvious inanity of this statement (a group of well over 10  million individuals behaving like dictator), there is a reflection of a complete lack of understanding on Ms. McMillan's  part.  However, this lack of understanding is actually rooted in a poor education on the roots of socialism and fascism, and this poor education has led to a common misconception that fascism is a "rightist" movement, while socialism is a "leftist" movement.  Hence, Ms. McMillan and other progressives, can claim that Republicans, and most especially conservatives, are fascists and "Nazis", while Glenn Beck and other conservatives can equate President Obama and progressives with Stalin, Mao, and other socialists (well, at least Beck has a point: Obama is an official member of the New Socialist Party...). 

First, we'll look at fascism.  Benito Mussolini is noted as the father of fascism, as he founded the Fascist party in the early 1920s.  What is particular about the fascists is their use of nationalism and a proud history to promote the concept of the welfare of the state over the welfare of the individual.  Such a sentiment was actually at odds with the "left-wing", meaning the socialists and communists, whose idealists dreamed of a world-wide communal utopia with everyone living in equality.  The nationalist-based State-first mentality is a hearken to the absolutist monarchies of the not-too-distant past.  When one looks at France after the fall of the Ancien Regime, nationalism and pride for the greatness of France is often linked with "conservative" monarchists.  Ditto for Italy, Germany and Spain.  Thus, it is no surprise that Hitler's National Socialist Party would gain support from military veterans and conservative elements of the German society.  This is particularly true when one considers that in contemporary Germany, the Weimar Republic was extremely liberal in that Germans had always had a monarch, or another strong single leader (Bismarck).  In Mussolini's Italy, nationalism likewise appealed to a conservative, or right-wing demographic, especially since the socialists in Italy rejected any and all nationalist or country-first action or sentiment. 

Socialism, since its inception, has always been associated with the left.  While fascism used elements and themes linked to traditionally conservative views (strong central government, nationalism), socialism was derived from "new" and "enlightened" ideas that shunned traditional ideologies.  While not universally atheist, socialist originators were essentially secular, whereas conservative and traditional ideologies were based on Judeo-Christian religious tradition.  Likewise, where as conservative and traditional economic models were based on private-property and private ownership, socialism was not.




Friday, June 8, 2012

Tinfoil Hat time

Okay, so in Wisconsin, we've seen a major break with precedent: an incumbent governor survive a recall election.  This is the first time in American history that that has every happened. 

First, a little necessary background.  Gov. Scott Walker (elected in 2010) got in trouble because he curtailed some issues public workers unions would be allowed to collective bargain on, despite the fact that he said he was going to do those if elected.  After said reforms were passed, the public sector unions (very strong in Wisconsin) went ballistic (even as Gov. Walker's reforms were saving public employees' jobs and saving the state money).  Strikes and demonstrations (the unions had to hire out people to demonstrate, as their union workers were busy or didn't want to), along with threats of physical violence toward the Republicans who voted for these reforms, were organized and carried out by the unions.  Around this time, President Obama threw his support behind the union bosses in several high profile pictures and events.

Egged on by the union antagonists, the Wisconsin people agreed to a recall vote against Gov. Walker.  Nearly 12 months later, Walker won, handily (it wasn't close by any means).  Of course, those on the left are attempting to rationalize why such a heartless and evil hater of the working man and middle class could possibly have won so big against the forces of Justice.  A few have thrown out the cheating thing, but faced with the fact that heavily Democratic Madison, WI had a 119% voter turnout, that argument can't be effectively raised.  So, the progressives and Democrats have begun focusing on MONEY.  Their argument: the cause of Right was undermined by the massive amounts of money that the evil rich people sent to Gov. Walker's campaign.

As I have been reading about this, something hit me.  President Obama was conspicuously present during the initial outpouring of support for the unions.  Since the recall campaign began in earnest, however, the President was conspicuously ABSENT, sending only a little supportive Tweet to the Democratic challenger, Milwaukee Mayor Barrett.  Then, this meme about being outspent (ratios vary between 5-1 to 8-1) surfaces.  What is interesting is that the whole being outspent thing was essentially vocally promoted by Obama's campaign coordinator, Jim Messina.  The Obama campaign has now been using the money disparity to raise funds for his own campaign.

This got me thinking:

Could it be that this whole Wisconsin recall affair was orchestrated by the Obama camp to further Obama's own ends?  Could the selection of Tom Barrett (who lost to Walker in 2010) over the pro-union candidates been designed by Obama to ensure a Walker victory?  Could Obama have influenced potential donors NOT to donate to Barrett's campaign?

My reasoning is, I think sound.  1)  Obama's been in the tank for unions since he entered the political arena, so it makes no sense that he'd withdraw his support now.  2)  The statistic concerning the ratio of funding is based on the report of an essentially non-partisan group with a historical link to George Soros (a progressive billionaire who funds socialist, progressive, and other far left causes, AND is the de facto owner of the Democratic party).  3)  Obama's rise to prominence and his election had a heavy Soros hand in them.  4) Obama is now using the failed recall effort to drum up his own funds.  5) [and perhaps most incredibly relevant] Obama is a Chicago politician, who has used Chicago thuggery and corruption to get his way in the past.

This doesn't mean that I necessarily think that Obama definitely orchestrated this.  It could also be that Obama was afraid to put his stamp of approval on Barrett when he wasn't sure if Barrett would win.  It could be that Obama thought that the election was in the bag already.  Whatever the case may be, I think it not only possible, but probable, that Obama was some how involved in this whole event.

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Doubting Thomas, another explanation

Today at Mass (rather yesterday, as I post this), the Gospel reading was the account of the apostle Thomas, who famously didn't believe in his fellow apostles' account that the Lord had indeed risen, as He said.  Father B discussed how similar Thomas and atheists are, because both of them demand physical proof.

As I reflected both on Father's homily and the Gospel a few thoughts came to me. 

1)  Father opined that Jesus appeared to Thomas because it was in His plan to have Thomas as an apostle, and it was necessary for the Divinely Ordained Church.  While certainly true, there is something else at play, the real difference between atheists and Thomas.  Thomas was called to be an apostle.  He spent countless hours with his companions on the road, and with the Lord.  These men were his close friends, and he acted just like the other apostles did when they disbelieved in the Resurrection when the women told them.  Yet his disbelief wasn't one of the will, but of the intellect.  He WANTED to believe, as is evidenced in his return to the upper room with the rest of the apostles. 

This is purely speculation on my part, but it makes sense (at least to me).  Why was Thomas NOT with the apostles on the day following the Sabbath?  Why should he have been?  After all, their hope was lost, their leader, Who inspired them and motivated them, was crucified, and laid in a sealed tomb.  The joyride was over, the hope was gone.  The apostles, Scripture says, locked the door out of fear of the Jews...Thomas chose not to show up because he saw no point now.  And yet...

What does Thomas do after he hears his brethren tell of the Resurrection?  He doesn't believe...but he joins them the next week.  Why, if he didn't believe, would he join them?  I think it highly likely that Thomas knew that IF Jesus was alive, and IF He were to appear again, it would be to the apostles in that room, just like before.  He chose to be there so he COULD believe.  His heart was open, his hope was rekindled.  Jesus acted on that and chose to reveal Himself to a willing person.

When I think of Thomas reaction to seeing Jesus, I don't just picture a muted, humble "My Lord and My God."  I picture a man kneeling, with tears of joy flowing down his cheeks, mumbling through his profound amazement, joy, and relief.  I picture a man unable to stand, and barely able to speak.  I picture a man, once broken and lost, now strengthened and emboldened.

2)  Thomas' doubt is no different than the rest of the apostles.  As we learned on Easter Sunday, the women who witnessed the empty tomb ran and told the apostles...who didn't believe them.  So, Peter and John ran to the tomb.  It is said John believed, but Peter was still unsure...until Jesus appeared to him.  Mary Magdelene didn't believe until Jesus appeared to her.  The rest of the apostles didn't believe until He appeared to them.  It appears that the apostles were likewise willing and wanted to believe: why else would they follow the instructions given to them by the women?

3)  The difference between St. Thomas and atheists like Richard Dawkins who demand physical, tangible proof is that St. Thomas WANTED to believe, and atheists don't.  To be an atheist is to decide that God doesn't exist, and therefore close your mind to the possibility that He does.  When you read accounts of atheists who become Christians (or simply theists), there is a universal step in all their accounts: they open their minds to God's existence, and show some desire to know Him...and He reveals Himself to them.

I suppose one could argue that such an attitude (wanting to believe) is biased towards belief, and so when something "unexplainable" happens, the decision to believe isn't based on evidence or fact, but rather on emotion.  But if one is to argue that, one must also accept that the decision NOT to believe when faced with the "unexplainable" is likewise based on a pre-concieved bias towards un-belief.  Thus, all the "evidence" against God isn't evidence at all, but rationalized reasons to support one's determined will not to believe.

Friday, March 9, 2012

From where I sit--The Republican Candidates

I firmly believe that this election is an incredibly important one for this country.  I've heard many say that the survival of this nation is at stake.  How true that is I don't know, but I am getting quite disturbed by the direction the Obama presidency is taking.  To wit, Obama has 1) engaged in war by fiat (contrary to the War Powers Act, and thus illegally), 2)  put peaceful pro-life and Tea Party  groups on the domestic terrorist lists at the FBI, 3) used "recess appointments" while Congress is in session to avoid Congressional approval of his picks, 3) use back-room deals to get legislation passed that increases the Presidents' authority over individuals (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), 4) failed to uphold current law (as in immigration law), 5) conceiving, implementing, and ultimately covering up Fast and Furious, which led to the murder of a US Border Control Agent, and 6) used Executive Orders to side-step Congress because he faces opposition in Congress.  This is in addition to the blatant anti-Christian measures he has resorted to, not only with the HHS mandate (the Catholic Church is not the only Christian group that opposes contraception, sterilization, or abortifacient drugs), but with Belmont Abbey College lawsuit, the covering of the Holy Name at Georgetown, and his lack of support for Christians being persecuted as a result of the Arab Spring (he explicitly referred to Muslim victims of an Islamist attack on a church when no Muslims were injured or killed in the attack).  Of course, we can't forget the steps that the administration has gone to push the abortion agenda, suing states who've rescinded Planned Parenthood funding and more. It isn't just the President, however, but it seems that the entire Democratic Party in Washington is complicit in the madness, cheering him on, and encouraging him to do more.  Sure, Democrats may have a different idea of how to keep America great...but the things that this Administration is doing is beyond the pall.

So, this brings me to the Republican candidates for President.  I will give you a disclaimer: I have supported Rick Santorum from the beginning, for reasons I will not outline here.  Below will be my impression of the candidates, from where I sit.

1) Mitt Romney--I put Romney first because he was the front runner since 2008.  Romney presents a formidable challenge to any of the other challengers because of that fact.  Romney, it appears, maintained much of his campaign structure and infrastructure since 2008.  He's got guys on the ground in every important state, and they've been working to not only promote Mitt, but ensure that his message is on target.  Besides that, he's got a large warchest with which to operate now and in the general election.  There is an issue with that, however.  I think Romney and his handlers were expecting to all but walk away with the nomination.  A protracted primary simply drains his coffers.

In terms of policy, Mitt is surely not conservative, and most definitely not "severely conservative".  His record as Mass. governor shows that.  What is concerning about Mitt is the different ways he's attempted to show himself when ever he's been up for election.  When he ran for the Senate in Mass., he ran to the LEFT of Ted Kennedy...as if that is possible.  When he ran for President in 2008, he labelled himself as the "conservative" (and compared to McCain, he was).  Now, he's labeling himself as the moderate.  His record shows that as governor of Massachusetts, he oversaw a net loss of jobs, and the Massachusetts economy suffered with him at the helm.  He constructed the current health care law that governs Massachusetts, upon which President Obama's monstrous health care law is based.   The problem is, he hasn't walked back from it, not one iota, and he hasn't admitted that Massachusetts needed to beg the federal government to help it pay for the implementation of the law because it was so darn expensive.  As Americans begin to feel the effects of the Affordable Care Act, namely higher insurance premiums and employers dropping coverage altogether, this is going to be the noose or millstone around Romney's neck.  Unlike any of the other Republican candidates, Romney will not be able to use Obamacare to his advantage.  Even Mitt's organization of the Salt Lake City Olympics was less than stellar, as they needed to borrow state and federal cash to get the job done.  Like Romneycare, this does not bode well for the financial problems we are in.  Romney's big selling point is his turning around of private industries, like Bain Capital.  This shows his commitment to the free market and an acumen to at least understand how the economy works (unlike President Obama).

Socially, I don't know if I can trust him.  LDS adherents tend to be socially conservative, so that's a plus.  However, Romney seems to be more of a vote-grabber, and will pursue those things that will promote himself.  I mean, first, he runs to the left of Ted Kennedy, then he tries to paint himself as THE conservative in 2008, and now he's saying he's a moderate.  It seems too calculated to me.


2)  Rick Santorum--I'm discussing Santorum second because he is currently the runner-up.  Santorum is known for going on "tangents" and thus people lose what his message is.  I blame this not only on Santorum (and his handlers), but also on the current generation who rely on 10-second sound bites for their information.  This tendency is not an overly good thing, especially seeing what happened after he gained momentum after his three state sweep a few weeks ago: by going "off message", he gave his detractors some sound bites to use against him.  In addition, Santorum spent a good 12 years in the Senate, enough time to compile a less-than-stellar conservative record (his votes on unions and some spending bills are evidence).

Santorum isn't your standard, run-of-the-mill politician, like Romney or Gingrich.  He is genuine, and actually believes what he says, so much so that he practices it.  In addition, he is consistent.  You really don't have to wonder what new position or new spin he's going to come up with on the campaign trail. Santorum has built a reputation as being consistent and genuine, which is definitely a plus when going against an opponent who has created a 3 year portfolio of hypocrisy and dishonesty.

Mr. Santorum's record on social issues is unquestionable.  His appeal to evangelicals (who helped to carry President GW Bush over John Kerry) is based on this.  Unlike Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who parrot the pro-life, pro-marriage positions as outliers of their basic platform, they are part and parcel of Santorum's basic platform.  You aren't going to get a tabling or a truce on social issues with him...that is why he wrapped up the evangelical support early on.

 3) Newt Gingrich--Newt was an admirable Speaker of the House, and has several things going for him.  First, his record as a legislator and negotiator during the Clinton administration is astounding.  To really consider it, we must remember that under Clinton, politics became more polarizing: the strategy was to appeal to your base and get out the vote, not pander to the center.  It was in that climate that welfare reform was passed.

However, a career as long as Newt's is not without problems.  Not one of Newt's colleagues while Speaker has endorsed him.  Some have argued that this means that Newt's leadership qualities are lacking.  I see it differently.  First, there were some Republicans who questioned and challenged Newt as Speaker, that cannot be denied.  However, they were not the  majority.  Newt still had the support of a great deal of Republicans in the House.  Second, under Newt's leadership, Congress controlled spending and balanced the budget.  When Newt left, the floodgates opened.  Thirdly, the face of Congress has changed considerably since 1998, when Gingrich was Speaker.  Republicans lost the House in 2006, and only regained it 4 years ago.  Finally, the attitude of the Republicans in the House has changed.  Americans were unhappy with the Republican leadership in the House in 2006, and subsequently voted them out.  When Republicans regained the House, they elected as Speaker one of the good-ol' boys from the Bush-era spending spree, John Boehner,who coincidentally, was one of the architects of the anti-Newt movement.  Suffice to say that Congress in 2012 is very different than it was in 1998.

Clearly, Newt has political acumen.  He knows how to play the game.  He is bombastic and not afraid to back down.  Where Romney has vowed not to really go after Obama, Newt will attack with a vengeance.  Newt understands that he is up against the media, as well (to be fair, Santorum has shown that he gets it too, and can use it to his advantage).  Newt knows his stuff, which is clear in the debates.  I firmly believe that in any debate setting, Newt would run rings around Obama, and would go for the jugular (which McCain wouldn't do, and Romney has refused to do).

Newt, however, is a bombastic, egotistical, attention seeker.  His attack campaign on Romney was viscous and spiteful.  He's prone to doing and saying stupid things (sitting on a couch with Pelosi agreeing with global warming, condemning Paul Ryan budget as "right wing social engineering"), which gain him just enough notoriety to remain a household name (sort of).  Of course, there is the whole marital infidelity thing.  On that, there is only one thing that comes to mind: Bill Clinton's response to his involvement with Monica Lewinski: I did it because I could.  Such an attitude reveals a character flaw that I don't want in my presidents: unwavering selfishness. 

4) Ron Paul--Clearly, Ron Paul is the outlier in the process.  His ideas on the size of government and spending are mainstream, well, at least they are not opposed by the other Republican candidates.  Fiscally and economically, Paul's proposals make sense.

Paul's foreign policy is what loses me.  At best, its naive, at worst its simply moronic.  He completely does not understand the ethos or the threat of radical Islam.  Fundamentally, radical Islam is aggressive and imperialistic.  His lack of historical perspective on the conflict with radical Islam, which is the single biggest threat to America today.  In addition, he fails to grasp that as a result of a globalized economy (which isn't a bad thing), its not sound policy to circle the wagons around our borders in case of an attack.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

The HHS mandate, Contraception, and Freedom of Religion

When the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, Catholic bishops had already decided to play it down, despite the obvious monstrous effects the ruling was sure to have.  The reason for this is more cultural and political than religious.  Its not like the bishops approved of abortion, rather, they had culturally precluded themselves from making a united stand on such an important moral issue.  To wit, since FDR's New Deal, Catholics, with their preferential option for the poor, have been, quietly at the least, supporting government solutions to problems.  The American populace, mostly the Catholic ones, have gotten used to the bishops' silence.  It could be argued that the bishops' silence is somewhat to blame for the eroded confidence their flock has in them; therefore, when the bishops, and I mean ALL Catholic bishops in the United States, condemned the HHS mandate concerning contraception, there are not a few Catholics who disagree with the bishops approach.

To summarize, the bishops are attacking this as an infringement on religious liberty, and rightly so.  Some Catholics are arguing that the bishops should be making this about contraception and its negative impacts, as they see this as the central issue (and religious freedom as the secondary issue).  Based on the previous actions of this administration, those criticizing the bishops' approach need to carefully reconsider their argument.  To be sure, the nation needs a wake-up call when it comes to the contraceptive mentality that is literally killing our nation, and this event may just be the event that can spark that conversation.  However, this issue is first and foremost about religious freedom, when we consider what this administration has done.

First, Obama campaigned on a promise to his secular base of getting rid of GW Bush's faith-based charity initiatives, through which certain faith-based charities received funding to carry out tasks the federal government had done.  Obama nearly immediately did that.  When Obama appointed a director or leader of his faith-based initiative, it was a militant secularist with no love for any religion whatsoever, particularly Catholicism. 

Second, there was the Georgetown debacle, in which the president, prior to giving a speech at the university, requested that the Holy Name of Jesus be covered up, on the chance that people see it when they see the president...indeed, he wanted all religious imagery (at a Catholic school) to be blocked out in some way, shape, or form.


Then, you had the lawsuit against Belmont Abbey College, in North Carolina.  To summarize that case, a female employee brought a complaint against the college to the local branch of some overseeing Federal agency because Belmont Abbey, a Catholic college, didn't cover chemical contraception in its health insurance plan, in keeping with Catholic teaching.  The local branch dismissed the case, and essentially dropped it...until the actual Federal agency stepped in brought a suit against the College.

Fourth, there was the Hosanna-Tabor case, in which the EEOC (a branch of the Executive branch) attempted to force the church to ordain someone they didn't want to.

Then came this current brouhaha over the HHS ruling that mandates that all health insurance plans cover contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacient drugs.

Included in that was the US Army's directive that Catholic Chaplains NOT read a letter by their superior (that would be the Archbishop Broglio, ordinary of Archdiocese of the Military) because it contained words that were derogatory towards the commander-in-chief.

Further, I found this out today: a new rule in the Public Student Loan Forgiveness plan, which used to forgive the debts of individuals who were engaged in public service, which included ministry as a public service, removes the benefit from individuals whose "job duties are related to religious instruction, worship services, or any form of proselytizing. (here)”  

If one wants to take an isolated view that this whole HHS this is about contraception, they are limiting their scope.  The fact of the matter is, the HHS specifically discussed limiting the religion exemption to only churches and their employees, neglecting religious affiliated organizations and private companies who align themselves with Church teaching.  This was done in light of all things that have gone on since President Obama's inauguration in 2009.  This is first and foremost an issue of religious freedom.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and State vs Religion

I've been following numerous opinions and blogs RE the HHS mandate and the "compromise that doesn't compromise" and the number of references to Henry VIII and Elizabeth I can't be counted on fingers (or toes, for that matter).  Essentially, the argument goes something like this: Henry assumed control over the Church in England to promote his lustful ways (namely his "marriage" to Anne Boleyn).  Under Elizabeth, the state began wresting control over religion and forming new church.  On the surface, this matches neatly with what the President is doing (actually combining two monarchs into one...a pretty nifty trick).  Just like Henry VIII established himself as the head of the Church in England, so too has Obama, by issuing and supporting the HHS ruling, established his government over the Church (bishops can't even stop their own schools from offering contraceptives to their employees).  Henry had numerous Catholic leaders swear allegiance to the State, and Obama is doing the same thing with this mandate.  Elizabeth used her authority to batter down vestiges of Catholicism, just like Obama is doing now.

There are, however, some big problems with said comparisons.  For one, as Hillaire Belloc points out in his "How the Reformation Happened" what Henry VIII did wasn't really considered that radical.  In fact, Belloc contends that it was not out of the ordinary for a monarch to proclaim himself head of the Church of their region, and eventually, things would get back to normal.  The bishops who supported Henry's claim, if this course of action was indeed not extra-ordinary, most likely thought it expedient and harmless, because when Henry's daughter, Mary Tudor succeeded to the throne, those bishops supported her Catholic reign.  It should also be noted that Henry wasn't essentially anti-Catholic, and didn't make any drastic anti-Catholic measures in terms of worship or doctrine.  The most drastic thing he did was confiscate the money and property of the major religious houses (which was also not out of the ordinary for Catholic monarchs to do).  Of course, this action was the deal breaker, for rather than use the treasure to bolster his own royal coffers, he used it to pay off his debtors.

When Mary ascended to the throne, her Catholicism was embraced by the populace and the clergy (as evidenced in Eamon Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars).  Even the old aristocracy supported her Catholicism.  It was the new aristocracy, those families and gentry that became wealthy off of Henry's plundering of the monasteries, that took offense: if Mary's re-Catholicization continued its course, their wealth would be stripped from them and returned to the religious orders it originate from.  As a consequence, they plotted and schemed to get Elizabeth, who at worst was apathetic in regards to religion, on the throne. Once Elizabeth ascended the throne, these men, the force and strength behind Elizabeth, called the shots and over the course of 50 years, de-Catholicized England. 

Because of the above facts, comparisons between Henry VIII and Elizabeth and Obama are lacking.

Friday, February 3, 2012

On Christian support for the most anti-religious President in US history

The current HHS ruling that religious affiliated employers must violate their consciences and offer insurance that opposes their moral teachings is not the first example of anti-Christian bias by the Obama administration.  Several months back, the Administration ordered that Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic college connected with a Benedicitine abbey, be forced to offer contraception to its female employees (in this case, a complaint was brought before a NC department for the reason that the college offered something only men could obtain, but not women, and that only women can take chemical contraception.  The NC office denied the complaint, and the case was seemingly closed until the Obama administration took it up).  More recently, the EEOC took up the case of a fired teacher at a religious school (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC)and argued that the school discriminated against the teacher when it fired her.  The EEOC's argument was that the teacher, while defined as a minister, had the same duties as a lay teacher, and therefore wasn't a minister, and so was discriminated against. (The Supreme Court ruled against this, 9-0).

As I have read about this, in particular the reaction of the Catholic Bishops to this ruling, I noticed a general attitude that this ruling, indeed all the disasters that have befallen us since the inauguration of Barack Obama as President, would not have happened had not 54% of Catholics not voted for the man in the 2008 general election.  Further, there is a sense that the self-same bishops that now condemn the predictable ruling based on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) put themselves in this pickle because they bought into Obama's ideas and support Obamacare.  Rather than bemoaning such actions, I think a different perspective must be taken.

The American ideal is to be considered innocent until proven guilty.  Despite Barack Obama's lack of a decent voting record (voting present is a cop-out), and hard-core support for abortion promotion, the fact still remains that many Americans see (or saw) Obama as a genuine concerned citizen who is trying to do his best for the country.  I think this best describes the Catholic bishops, and other Christian support for Obama.  This is laudable...to an extent.

I may be wrong, but I have yet to hear of any Christian group openly and consistently attack a Presidential administration either before or after their election.  Sure, there may be criticisms of a person's policies or statements, but generally Christians will show at worst ambivalence, but generally respect for Presidential candidates and Presidents. My experience has been that Christian denominations have provided information to their members, sometimes particularly slanted due to one or more issues, but have not officially endorsed or condemned any candidate or president, unless they have deserved such attention.  Not only does this support the American ideal, but this is truly a Christian attitude.  I am specifically thinking of Flavius Constantius' (Constantine I's father) tolerant views of Christians.  In direct juxtaposition to the official Roman policy of persecution of Christians, Constantius argued that Christians were model citizens, obeying the law, supporting the government, and not causing any problems...despite being persecuted.  As Christians, particularly as Pope Leo XIII reminds us, we are to obey and support the State, provided the State doesn't require us to offend God (which the HHS ruling does).

To be short, I think that viciously attacking and condemning a candidate for President for a couple of policies is generally un-Christian.  We must give all people the benefit of the doubt, because all men are created in the image and likeness of God.  When Mitt Romney says that he believes that Obama is a good guy, he is, while not being a Christian, is acting more Christian-like than say Newt Gingrich (although much evidence has been amassed in the past 3 years that Gingrich is most likely right).  There is a reason why certain men are elected bishops: they contain certain qualities that lend themselves to the office of bishop.  For this reason, numerous bishops remained ambivalent or even somewhat supportive of Obamacare, providing certain caveats were met.  In this regard, they were showing true Christian charity: they believed that Obama was attempting to solve the healthcare situation in the US.

This, however, doesn't not excuse naivete toward the out-and-out pro-abortionists that supported the law.  To some extent, it seems that the bishops who were supportive, or at least gave Obama the benefit of the doubt, were blinded to all clues that hinted at the obvious fact that Obama, Pelosi, and Planned Parenthood were  using Obamacare to force federal funding of abortion in an underhanded way.  Of course, this isn't surprising the way the bishop's conference crafted the Faithful Citizenship document in a way to encourage the "seamless garment" argument that abortion isn't really the re-eminent moral issue of our time (which it is).  Even then, some bishops argued that we needed to be cautious and didn't want to rock the boat unnecessarily (honestly, I don't know of a single bishop who has supported abortion, but would rather talk about helping the poor because its less messy).

The real blame lies solely with a President and his administration that has effectively put a wedge between many Catholics and their bishops.  A cursory review of modern history reveals that such an action is entirely consistent with Communist and Socialist dictators: silence religion and/or kowtow it to the State.  The Communists did this with the Russian Orthodox Church during the years of the Soviet Union (Patriarch Alexius was the last of the Communist-supported patriarchs).  This is also seen in China today, as there are two Catholic Churches: a state-approved Church (which does not have the blessing of the Pope) and the True Church, which operates illegally and underground.

Is the President actively seeking to force the Church (and Communists and Socialists have been nearly unanimous on this issue: the single greatest threat to Socialism or Communism is the Catholic Church, which is why it operates so as to undermine or destroy it) to be subservient to the State, or is he simply misguided?  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Why I am Catholic, Part 2

Tradition played a big part in the Catholic Church's initial attraction to me.  Being interested in history, I immediately saw its roots and its presence way back at the close of the Roman Empire.  I remember reading in one of my many European history books that the structure of the Church that manifested itself in the West after the fall of Rome was instrumental in saving Western European civilization (in that it provided a structure for the disparate people's to fall back on in the presence of a political vacuum).  Tradition (small t) provided an attraction, while authority provided a reason.

PART II: AUTHORITY

The Quest
As a teenager, one figure fascinated me: Pope John Paul II.  I cannot state clearly enough how un-Catholic I was.  I grew United Methodist, with a smattering of Evangelicalism and Christian Reformed thrown in for good measure.  I knew nothing of Catholic ecclesial structure, and my medieval history in 6th grade completely ignored the office of bishop.  The only understanding I had of a bishop was that my UMC region had a bishop...but it also had a superintendent as well, and I could never really tell the two apart.  I was a member of our church's Pastor-Parish Relations Committee, which meant I was (if necessary) part of the group that would be privy to selecting a new pastor.  I understood a congregational model as well as a heirarchical model of pastorship, in that in the UMC, the bishop (or was it superintendent?) would give us a choice of three or four candidates, and we would try them out and choose the one we liked best.  If we didn't like any, the bishop (or superintendent) would choose for us.

With that in mind, my fascination with Bl. John Paul II can be explained in light of authority.  His Holiness had a reputation for holiness and intelligence.  He was also a lightning rod for publicity because of his personality.  These were not what I focused on.  To me, a Methodist youngster with no understanding of Petrine supremacy, or Apostolic Succession, the Pope (and intrinsically, I understood that JPII would pass away, and another man would take his place..it was the office I was drawn to, because of the person occupying it at the time) was THE spokesperson for all of Christianity.  I grew up with experiences like a Clyde Dupin Crusade, and nearly weekly doses of Billy Graham.  However, these gentlemen were national phenomenon; the Pope was Universal.  No other Christian leader drew as much attention as the Pope.  No other Christian leader drew crowds like the Pope.  Intrinsically, I understood that if one wanted to discuss Christianity, THE person to go to would be the Pope.

Until college, the person of the Pope was simply a figure, a spokesperson, a trigger-man, so to speak.  The issue of authority wasn't a big one.  I was raised within the ethos of solo scriptura, but even within that ethos, the authority of a pastor to tell us what the Word of God was saying was paramount (after all, they had the years of theology and Scripture study...we did not).  I understood that different people would invariably come to different understandings of Scripture, and I accepted that "the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things".  It was within this mindset that my interest in authority grew.

The question on authentic and True interpretation of Scripture was front and center in my interest in authority.  Quite quickly, I determined that for all its benefits, solo Scriptura was woefully inadequate.  This was due in large part to the discrepancy between what Scripture clearly taught in terms of divorce and how mainstream churches were interpreting that.  Essentially, I had read what Christ had to say about marriage and divorce: "what God has joined, let not man put assunder", and yet looked on with astonishment as not only the UMC, but other denominations not once taught the indissolubility of marriage, but also encouraged divorced couples to remarry, in clear violation of Scripture's definition such actions as adultery.  Something was clearly amiss.  Although not entirely sure of the process, I knew that in the UMC, doctrinal matters were voted on, ultimately, by members of the clergy and the laity.  Something was wrong there (to whit, Christ never let His Gospel be open to interpretation or the democratic process, and there was a reason He referred to Heaven as the Kingdom of Heaven, and we all know that kingdoms are democratic).

Perhaps naively, I wanted some one to step in and declare, once and for all, what True Doctrine really was.  I looked at the Pope and wondered why we as Methodists didn't have an authority figure like that.  It seemed logical to me that we couldn't trust congregations, or an group of congregations to vote on what Scripture was teaching.

The Answer
The issue of authority was, finally, put to rest for me in a round-about way: while attending Mass with my girlfriend (now my wife), the priest's homily made mention of John 6: "Unless you eat of my Flesh and drink of my Blood, you shall not have life within you."  As a Protestant, this was offensive.  I was always taught that you didn't have to DO anything to be saved (with the exception of "accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior"), and yet here I was being told that I needed to do something.  I bristled at this for a while, a long while.  I couldn't get over, however, how PLAIN John 6 really was.  I tried the typical Protestant reaction to redact what Christ said in most of John 6 with what he says in the end: "It is the Spirit that gives life, and the flesh is of no avail...my words are spirit and life."  Logically, however, I couldn't get past the fact that Christ Himself never redacted His statement.

One evening while in college, the local Catholic priest offered a question and answer session for those seeking the Catholic Church.  My wife/girlfriend encouraged us to attend, so I could ask my question.  My question was asked, and answered, but in all honestly, I walked away with something else: a sense of where authority lies.  You see, another participant asked about Apostolic Succession, of which I had never heard.  The concept, when explained, made perfect sense.  To reject it, I thought, was to reject Reason. 

The Apostles, whom all Christians acknowledge received their authority from Christ Himself, wouldn't live forever.  It seems rather daft to assume that they would allow their flocks to sway in the breeze without some visible authority figure.  Ordaining certain men to follow after them, with their authority, is a sure fire way of ensuring that Christians maintain the Gospel, in the absence of Scripture.  It also helps establish what Scripture really means.

As I read the Acts of the Apostles, (as the priest suggested), it became clear that Christ gave ONLY the Apostles His authority.  Only Peter raised someone from the dead, only Peter healed people, and only the apostles could send out demons. I then read, as the priest suggested, the Epistles to Timothy and Titus.  It became increasingly clear that Paul wrote to those two men as an older brother, not as a father.  He considered them his equals in authority.  Not only that, but he mandates, at least to Timothy, that the authority they received be passed to worthy and upright men. 

Clearly, Christ established a Church with authority, authority that passed down from generation to generation.  I knew enough about the Reformation to realize that all Christian denominations broke from the Catholic Church.  I knew enough about Medieval history to realize that prior to the Schism between the East and West, there was One, Holy, Catholic, Orthodox, and Apostolic Church.  I recognized that it was the Catholic Church which existed before the Schism, and before the Reformation.  It was the Catholic Church that existed before the fall of Rome.

Sunday, January 8, 2012

On Brees and Marino, again.

I was reading some football fan's blog post on why NFL teams don't pass more when passing has a higher effectiveness rate that rushing.  They mentioned that in 1978, the NFL enacted some rules changes that increased passing effectiveness.  From 1979-1984, when Marino set the old record, passing yards and attempts increased steadily.  Marino's record in 1984 was over 1000 yards what the record was in 1978.  But it didn't just happen overnight. Dan Fouts threw for 4000, 4700, and 4800 yards, thus pushing the record up.  When Marino broke it, he was only about 200 yards from the previous record, and 500 off the 4 year average (not counting 1982's short season).  Brees was 400 yards off the previous record and 700 off the 4 year average.

That, however, is not the point of the post. Look at the graph below: it shows the year-to-year passing leaders for the combined NFL from 1973 to 2011.  Note the incredible difference in totals BEFORE the rules change in 1978 and after (that dip is the 1982 strike season of only 8 games).  Nearly 2000 yards in three years.  Note, however, that the leaders' totals have remained somewhat constant for the next twenty years.


Marino's record is largely the result of changing passing rules, as is evident in the success passers had since the rules changes in 1978.  The results of those rules changes happened overnight.  The same cannot be said of Drew Brees' stellar effort.  If the rules changes were so important to his record, you'd think that there would be a burst of records set immediately following the rules changes, which didn't just happen this year; this would mimic the events of 1979.  That didn't happen.

So what did?  For one, the lockout eliminated training camp, which cut down time for defensive units to mesh.  This is evident in the fact that about 7 QBs were on pace to shatter, obliterate, and destroy Marino's, and Brady's passing records by week 3.  That evened out as defensive units started their meshing.

In essence, the lockout was an equalizer.  In 1984, its hard to think that defensive units had figured out how to stop pass-happy teams like the Chargers and Dolphins when most of the teams still relied on the run.  The defense was thus at a large disadvantage.  In 2011, sure there were rule changes, but those changes were mitigated by the fact that defensive units have been seeing pass-happy teams for nearly 20 years.  Teams have placed high-priority on top-notch corner backs to counter the threat of the passing attack, and pass-rushing linemen and linebacker/linemen hybrids are more and more common.

Thus, it appears to me that Drew Brees effort is at least equal to Marino's.

Drew Brees, Dan Marino, and Records

Last Monday night, Drew Brees surpassed Dan Marino's single-season passing yards record that stood for 27 years.  I wasn't going to say anything about it, I mean, Brees has always been a great QB, and it truly is a remarkable feat.  However, I've heard WAAAYYYY too many people say that Brees' record is essentially meaningless as a result of changes in rules that have allowed passing offenses more room.

I'll be honest.  I really don't want to agree with such naysaying.  Brees' accomplishment is astounding, and the fact that he came close a couple of years ago is further testament to his abilities as a quarterback.  Yet, one can't deny that the rules have changed things.  To be honest, today's game is much, much different than it was in 1984.  In trying to respond to posters on a news piece concerning Brees (the posters said his record was meaningless due to new rules changes) I wanted to argue that in 1984, offenses were more run centric than they were now.  In fact, I hypothesized that NFL defenses today are more likely geared for the pass that they were in 1984 since coordinators have had at least a decade of pass-centered offenses.  I didn't however want to make this claim without actually looking at the data.  I found some stuff at Pro-Football-Reference.com.  What I found was actually quite eye-opening, but it proved my hypothesis...sort of.

I wanted to see what the 10 years prior to each record setting year looked like in terms of run vs. pass.  My thought was quite simple: if defenses see a majority of passing, they'll be much better accustomed to to defending it.  I was right, sort of.  On average, from 1974-1983, teams passed about 45% of the time, per game.  On average, from 2001-2010, teams passed about 55% of the time.  However, I noticed that passing attempts/game increased starting in 1979.  From 1979-1983, the pass/run ration was essentially 50/50 (which actually brought the pass/run ratio of the entire decade down to 44/56...it would have been something like 40/60).

Seeing the rise in passing, I hypothesized that perhaps Marino's record could have been influenced by defensive coordinators still not catching up the passing phenomenon.  I decided to look at the top passer (because Marino was the top passer that year) to see how they fared in that time frame.  I noticed that between 1969 and 1979, only Joe Namath passed for over 4,000 yards (once) and only twice did a passer pass for over 3,500 yards.  Then the floodgates opened.  From 1979-1984 (actually, to 2011), the only time the leading passer hasn't thrown for 4,000 yards has been during strike-shortened seasons (to be even more precise, Dan Fouts was on pace in the strike shortened season of 1982 to pace for over 5,300 yards). Fouts set the record for yards in a season twice three times in that time period, jumping from 4,020 to over 4,700 in a single season.  Such a trend could easily see the 5,000 yard mark as reachable in 1984, and if Marino didn't do it, it could have been Fouts.

Looking at that, it dawned on me that it had only been 5 years since changing the rules prompted more passing, and it generally takes defensive minds a couple of years to adjust.  In short, by 1984, extensive passing was still new, and not the beast we see today.  Teams that passed a majority of the time weren't the norm.  In 1984, 13 of the 28 teams passed more that 50% of the time, and only 2 (the Eagles and Bills) passed at least 60% of the time, while the league average was 51%.  Knock out the Bills and Eagles (61% and 60% respectively, and the Chargers (59%) and the league average is 49%.  My point is, a defensive coordinator is going to be preparing for an equal dose of run versus pass.  Thus, when a team throws 60% of the time against defensive schemes designed to stop the run, large numbers are bound to be put up.  Add in quaterbacks of Marino's skills, and you've got a recipe for a record breaking year.

Fast forward to today.  Since 1984, there has only been two seasons in which the leading quarterback hasn't thrown for more than 4,000 yards, the shortened season of 1987 (in which there were only 15 games) and 1997.  In the decade prior to 2011, only three times has the leading passer thrown for less than 4500 yards.  Between 1984 and 2001, the leader passer threw for MORE than 4500 yards 4 times.  In 2011, only 5 teams passed 50% or less of the time while, 6 passed over 60% of the time. If you take out the top three passing teams (with percentages of 65, 63, and 61), you still get 55%.  What this tells me is that defenses are more accustomed to passing offenses.

From 2001-2011, the average yards the leading passer has thrown for is 4754.  Drew Brees' record is 700 yards over the average for the last decade.  From 1979-1983 (not counting 1982's shortened season) the average was 4514 yards.  Marino's record in about 500 yards over the average.  Thus, from a statistical point of view, one could argue that Brees' record is more significant than Marino's.