Terri Schaivo RIP

I'm glad it's all over for her. . .

Now for the fall out . . .

Upcoming U.S./American Saints Attractions

I like to speculate. So there . . .

JPII is not American but I see an expedited saint process for him. Conservatives are going to try very hard to tag him with a "the great" appelation. But it's not going to stick. But his chances of sainthood are a slam dunk.

I mentioned earlier that I see Terri Schaivo as another saint in the works. Her process will be expedited too in order to get things done while the base is still riled up. Already we hear people speak of the "passion of Terri" and the "beauty of her soul" etc. Her chances are B+/A-

Mother Angelica--She'll be with us for a while, but I remember telling someone years ago that I believe she'll be the next major American saint. Why? She's single-handedly changed the face of Catholicism in the 20th century. I think her influence outshines even the Pope. Add to the fact that she's had health issues and there's a huge fan base for her, she's is destined for canonization.

Now, some may argue that her cause will be opposed because she did things like encourage people to disobey the Bishops. Are you kidding? That'll be a badge of honor, especially since her spat was with Mahoney. BTW, more Bishops are on her side than not. Her chances are A/A+.

Audrey. She's the girl who has been in a coma for years but has the stigmata and bleeds during holy week. She'll be around a long while. Her chances A+

There are of course many others in the works of people who are actually deceased, but what's the fun in speculating there? I know the founder of the Knights of Columbus is in the works. Also, Henrietta DeLille, founder of one the few Black religious orders is in the works as is Pierre Tousaint, Black gentleman from New York. These and others would create stirs within limited communities, but wouldn't generate the attention of the aforementioned.

It would interesting if there was a central place that chronicled current causes for U.S. saints. I imagine there are a bunch in the works, especially founders of religious orders. But wait . . . I spoke too soon. As I speak, I see this site which has info on American saints and causes in the works. Here's another site.

BTW, my remarks and speculations are not endorsements, just speculating. I would be repulsed by any further political grandstanding if Terri Schaivo's cause is pushed. As for Mother Angelica, I cringe at the misery she has unleashed on the Church, but if she isn't qualified for sainthood, it's hard to argue who is. I was greatly dependent on EWTN for years and I know many newcomers into the Church depend on EWTN just to get a sense of what's going on. I suppose we take the grain of goodness with the conservative misery heaped upon us.

I am extremely cycnical about the whole sainthood thing. For me, it is a solely PR/political move that means very little in actuality. The Church uses saints for PR and to make points. Hey, they can do whatever floats their boat. If I were in charge, I'd do the same. You have to find positive ways to inspire and control the sheep.

What I find amusing, coming from a Protestant background, is that "saints" was a common term used to describe Christians, just like you would say "brother" or "sister." But in the Catholic Church, it comes as revelation to many that we are all saints and that's how the term is used in Scripture. But why tell everyone that? It doesn't serve the purposes of the powers that be.

This thing called love

Love is one of those mysterious and fascinating things. Everyone knows what it is or what its about, yet we're all painfully deficient in our understanding of it.

I am trying to put together some scattered thoughts about love (right now, context is relationships). I think that the two key notions in love are commitment and duration. I am not convinced there can be authentic love without duration and commitment.

I don't believe that love can exist apart from a shared history. So two people who've been married for ten years, when they say "I love you" to each other, "love" is articulating their shared history and does not refer to an abstraction. There is no love in abstraction, it has to refer to a past shared history.

My belief is that when people at a young age or at the beginning of a relationship say, "I love you" I think two things are going on there. First it is a promise to commit for a boundless duration. Secondly, and most importantly, for a "novice" to say "I love you," is to anticipate that sentiment in potential shared history. So there is a sense in which it doesn't mean much at the beginning because you can't take that love to the bank.

Which then leads to my idea that the idea of love is overrated in a marriage. I think you can throw out the abstraction of love and focus on three things: friendship, personality, and passion. Friendship is the key. It is not that common to tell friends that you love them, but of course the truth is that that is the case and it is manifest especially after many years. The ideal that marriages have to work towards is that of friendship.

As far as personality goes. I think this is huge. Personality types have the most effect on the outcome of marriages IMHO. Personality is how you are expressed and manifest as a phenomenon in the world and in your relationship. It's your unique way of relating to everything and everyone. This impacts how you give and receive friendship and how succesful your friendship with your spouse will be.

Passion-this is what I think is mistaken for love. I see passion as the favorable physical and psychological disposition to your spouse. This is not necessarily the "hotness factor" or "sexiness" factor. It is related to that but can be accidental to it. Your spouse may not pass the objective societal standards of physical attraction, but s/he absolutely does it for you. Even when you are both much older, the physical presence of that person is still a crucial element of the relationship. There may be times that that physicality expresses itself in sexiness etc, but the draw goes much deeper. Which is why, even if/when physical attraction wanes, there is no danger to the fundamental passion for the spouse.

Scattered thoughts, but the issue has always been of interest to me. Now, I've only been married for five years and yes, I am not an expert on anything so related. But so what? When has that ever stopped me from mouthing off with extreme confidence? :)

Filiblog for the rights of the majority-minority

Democracy Cell Project is organizing a filiblog to raise our voices against the threatened nuclear option. Read this post to find out what you can do.

BTW, the 44 Democratic Senators represent approximately 5 million more people than all 55 Republican Senators. We really aren't a minority but a silent majority being overtaken by the Christian and Catholic Taliban.

Objection, your Honor! Leading the Witness

MSNBC's Question of the Day: Do you think removing a feeding tube is unethical in all cases?

Even with such a loaded and leading question, as of 1:21 pm ET, 30,000 + have voted and 74% say no.

So much for our much heralded liberal media.

American Idol Analysis Week 10

First, here's the definitive order of picks. Made prior to the beginning of the top 12.

The theme this week was songs from the 90s, whatever the heck that means.

Nikko Smith--Very good voice, strong entertainer, horrible wardrobe and his siniging style and song selection scream niche. I think he is safe this week. He is busting my bracket, I had him leaving second.

Nadia Turner--I think she's out this week. No one knows what she is about. During the lead up to the final 12 she created the image of fun loving rocker Tina Turner, but then she mixes it up with other weird stuff and no one knows what she is all about. She's out this week.

Scott Savol--Weak performance tonite, but still very sincere. I don't know what possessed him to take a stab at Brian McKnight. That's a recipe for disaster. He was lacking energy and passion tonite.

Vonzell Solomon--Again, why would anyone in their right mind pick a challenging Whitney Houston song? She did good, but her limitations are painfully obvious when compared to Whitney. Otherwise, she is a great singer.

Bo Bice--Weird performance IMHO. He had the energy, but song choice was kind'a strange. I think the bloom is off the rose for him.

Jessica Sierra--I think she's safe, but it was an unremarkable performance, bland and uninteresting.

Anthony Federov--Sang Elton John and found out what many find out the hard way, Elton John makes it look too easy. I have this guy surviving till #4, but more performances like this and he'll bust my bracket.

Constantine Maroulis--Very good performance. He's sporting a 6 o'clock grunge shadow which makes him look sick and creepy. He needs to drop it. He'll be around for a while but he is not going to win.

Anwar Robinson--I finally figured this guy out. I think he is a natural jazz vocalist which explains the tone and tendency to veer off melody and even counter it. He sang "I believe I can fly," Not sure what to say. I don't think it was a good song for his voice type. It's like listening to Stevie Wonder. Stevie is unbelievable until he tries to sing Ave Maria and you go, "yuck dude!"

Carrie Underwood--She's a star. All she has to do is coast, not offend anyone and give adequate performances and she'll survive til the finals.

Overall, not great or memorable performances. I predict Nadia is out and Federov is begining to show signs of weakness. However, Simon was hard on him and he seemed hurt by Simon which can draw a huge sympathy vote. We'll see.

Schindlers' List

Via Left Coaster: "Turning Pain into Profit

Apparently the Schindlers have decided, through a direct marketing firm, to rent or sell the list of their donors to . . . I guess whoever's interested.

According to the New York Times

Firm
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and JOHN SCHWARTZ

ASHINGTON, March 28 - The parents of Terri Schiavo have authorized a conservative direct-mailing firm to sell a list of their financial supporters, making it likely that thousands of strangers moved by her plight will receive a steady stream of solicitations from anti-abortion and conservative groups.

"These compassionate pro-lifers donated toward Bob Schindler's legal battle to keep Terri's estranged husband from removing the feeding tube from Terri," says a description of the list on the Web site of the firm, Response Unlimited, which is asking $150 a month for 6,000 names and $500 a month for 4,000 e-mail addresses of people who responded last month to an e-mail plea from Ms. Schiavo's father. "These individuals are passionate about the way they value human life, adamantly oppose euthanasia and are pro-life in every sense of the word!"

Privacy experts said the sale of the list was legal and even predictable, if ghoulish.

I think it is a shame that they would sell the list. People gave them private information in good faith for a cause. If they feel like they need to raise money, that would actually be the easiest thing in the world for them to do.

Here are some suggestions:

1) Heart-wrenching documentary on their struggle against evil--air this on ETWN and then give purchase information
2) Pen a book recounting the whole affair
3) Continue or recreate their foundation and pay themselves a salary and continue their cause, whatever it is
a) Push for Terri's canonization

These are just off the top of my head. Now, one may detect sarcasm in my tone. Perhaps, but this entire affair has already gone off the deep end and trying to make money off a mailing list caps the madness.

Intelligent Design and Philosophy

I've followed the Intelligent Design debate somewhat over the past few months. Those of us committed to common sense watch with alarm as the Right has moved in force to establish Intelligent Design as science in schools. They claim that evolution is only a theory and as such, diclaimers should be made clear to kids regarding the the "theory of evolution." Further still, they insist that alternative accounts of origins, such as ID theory should be offered to students and considered on par with evolutionary theories.

The theory of gravity is only a theory. However, we can settle the question of the fact of the phenomenon if we step off a building and observe what happens. The stupidity and dogmatism of the Right is mind boggling. The fossil record, the scientific record, etc are facts, and theories attempt to weave these facts into a coherent narrative without violating the very evidence upon which they are based. Evolutionary theories out there are, yes, merely theories, but they are scientific theories. That means that they are responsible positive narratives that take into account the evidence produced by the sciences. Fossil gaps, unexplained timelines, and a plethora of holes do not discount the correctness of the thrust of science, it just means that more work needs to be done.

The push for the ID theory as science is primarily coming from the Christian Right. The Catholic Right, which generally knows or should know better, has joined in with them because it is all seen as part of a larger cultural war. I suspect it wouldn't be long before this becomes a "life issue."

Unlike Catholics, Protestants do not have a tradition of philosophy that is essential to their identity or theology. The Catholic tradition has numerous first rate philosophers whose works are never far from the Catholic mind. The Protestant tradition operates somewhat differently. Traditions "closer" to Catholics such as Anglicans, Lutherans, perhaps Methodists, etc, do engage philosophy, but the extent to which philosophy is essential to what they do pales when compared to Catholicism and secondly, there isn't a "magisterial" body of philosophers or philosophical works that these denominations agree on.

The "further" the Protestant form differs from Catholicism, the more likely we are to see an absence of any coherent philosophical structure, in terms of established philosophical schools. What this means then is that with these groups, which I will loosely call Evangelicals, there's faith and there's science, but nothing to mediate between the two.

So what's the big deal: faith and science? The big deal is that faith is understood in subjective terms and established upon that which is unseen and unproven to the secular eye. Jesus is the Son of God, but can anyone prove that? No. Jesus rose from the dead. Can anyone prove that? No. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." So on the one side we have faith that eschews evidence as a warrant for belief while on the other side, there is science, a discipline or mindset that refuses to commit or trust or believe without solid evidence and even then, it is willing to change positions as the evidence warrants.

Science is thus seen as the province of objectve truth, because the evidence for scientific truth is available to all and verifiable. Faith claims, on the other hand, are painfully lacking in this objectivity. These are the two poles that these evangelicals are dealing with. Things either fall under faith or science for them. If something is objective truth, then it falls under science, if it is subjective truth, then it falls under faith.

But then, the problem is that as Christians, they are aware that, though physically unverifiable, the unseen truths of the Christian faith are no less true than the visible, verifiable truths of science. In fact, the truths of the Faith are more noble and "real." But how then can these be communicated? How do you express the sublime and subject truth in terms that underscore its authentic objectivity?

The answer is philosophy. This is the role that philosophy has played for Catholics for centuries. Evangelicals do not have this tradition of philosophy, and so even though they rightly discern that the things believed deserve more than to be casually dismissed by the scientist, they have no way to communicate these truths. Philosophy is the mediating discipline between faith and science.

Intelligent design theories are philosophy they are not science. Catholics, for the most part, are comfortable with this, because we understand that philosophy is a "higher" expression of truth than physics, biology, chemistry, and even mathematics. And so for a truth to be considered under philosophy is not to denigrate it but elevate it. Philosophy is second to none in its pursuit of objective truth.

ID theories are not necessarily synonymous with creationsim. The evangelical thus rightly discerns that ID is not at home under the roof of faith and so that leaves only one option, science. The Catholic says ID does not belong with faith, but it is not science either. It is philosophy.

For instance the question of parts and wholes is a philosophical question. The question of time is at its root, philosophical. The question of essence to describe the truth of and intrinsic commonality among different species is at it's root philosophical. The question of mathematics and how it arises, is philosophical. The question of human transcendence, the fact that we can say "I know that I know that I know," is a philosophical one.

Even when scientists posit theories to explain facts, the logic that guides them stems from philosophy. The scientific method(s) is stiched together by philosophy. The whole notion of measurement is philosophical. The crucial idea of the role of the scientist, the ego, in science and what effect it has on the science she performs, is a philosophical issue.

To understand and appreciate the importance of philosophy, is to make the right distinctions and put things were they really belong, such as ID under philosophy.

This is how I read the present situation. Is this all going to find some sort of resolution? No. At the present time, the Christian and Catholic Right have whipped themselves into a frenzy about perceived enemies and the intrinsic evil of the world, to the point that facts or common sense doesn't really matter. But for those on the side of common sense, I think understanding what their problem is goes a long way in battling and countering their efforts.

If you don't read Ed's blog

you should: funny and informative.

Eggs Benedict with Hollandaise Sauce Recipe

The beloved spousal unit takes particular delight in eggs benedict and so I decided to try my hand at that after many, many years. Years ago, I was a line cook at fine dining restaraunt. I worked with actual trained chefs, so I picked up quite a bit and still love cooking.

Here's how I made the eggs benedict. I began by bring water to a boil in a deep pan and then put salt and lemon juice in it. (Next time, I think I'll add vinegar--saw that on the Food network). I used ham instead of canadian bacon, on the Uncle Thomas english muffin. Break open the eggs into the boiling water and remove at appropriate consistency.

Now the Hollandaise sauce is the tricky part. I had to make these every morning at the restaraunt I worked at. A quick note: at a previous family style restaraunt I worked at, we used cheese sauce for eggs benedict. Anyway, making Hollandaise sauce is tricky because everything can go very well but the hard part is at the end and that's when you find out if it holds together or falls apart.

Melt about a cup of butter. Skim off the froth and pour out into a bowl, leaving the chunky thick stuff at the bottom.

Bring a pan of water to boil and then simmer. Isolate egg yolks in a metal bowl: I use 4-6. Add a couple tablespoons of cold water and stir and whip until eggs are frothy and light. Then hold over simmering water and begin to stir. You have to be careful not to let the eggs cook and you kind'a have to stir like crazy for a few minutes until it thickens. At this point you can add in lemon juice to taste and I like to put in hot sauce for that extra flavor kick.

Now, this is the very tricky part. You now have to add the hot melted butter. But if it is not done delicately, the sauces breaks up and you have crap. Pull the butter close to you and add slowly to eggs (I use a laddle). Keep stirring and keep the sauce over the heated water. Don't add too much butter at once. Keep adding the butter until you are satisfied with consistency and taste. Some people add white wine to the sauce, but again do it gently. If you get to this point, then you are all set. You have your sauce.

Since, I was going from memory, I had a couple of false starts so I consulted this food network eggs benedict recipe which juggled my memory. I wanted to take a picture, but it would have been rude to delay consumption any further. Suffice to say, you want me making your eggs benedict. (I've been told that my humility is my most saintly attribute.)

Drew Bledsoe, Most Overrated Quarterback Ever?

Ouch!

Maryland Senate Race Heating Up

With Sarbanes Retiring, Senate Interest Simmers
Open Seat in Md. Seen as 'Once-in-a-Lifetime' Chance

By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 28, 2005; Page B01


Barely two weeks after Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D) announced he would retire at the end of his term, the field for Maryland's 2006 U.S. Senate race has begun to take shape -- with three prominent Democrats and a leading Republican seriously considering bids.

Former Democratic congressman and NAACP leader Kweisi Mfume waited just three days before printing up campaign signs and entering the race. Democratic Party officials said last week that they believe Reps. Benjamin L. Cardin and Chris Van Hollen will run as well.

Top state and national Republican officials, meanwhile, have been pressing Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele to become their party's nominee for the Senate seat that's been occupied by one man for nearly three decades.

"I think all of them recognize that, given how long it's been since one of these seats was open, this may be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity," said Barbara Hoffman, a former Democratic state senator who has discussed the race with Cardin and Van Hollen. "They know it's time."

Although Mfume was first into the race, he said in an interview Saturday that he recognizes he will face a fierce battle for the nomination. To prepare, he said, he spent the first full week forming a campaign apparatus, including reaching decisions about strategists and fundraisers that "will include names that are familiar to everyone."

"Paul [Sarbanes] caught everyone off guard," Mfume said. "We had to drop everything we were doing and get started. But right now I'm very energized. I haven't felt like this since 1979," the year he first ran for Baltimore City Council.

While other Democrats have voiced interest in the race, Cardin and Van Hollen have taken significant steps to put their Senate campaigns in motion. Both said in interviews that they expect to poll shortly to test their name recognition and performance in possible matchups.

Van Hollen, a former state senator from Kensington in his second term representing Maryland's 8th Congressional District, attended a labor rally in Baltimore County last week and announced that he had brought in veteran Democratic operative Michael Morrill to "play an active role as the exploratory team communicates with Democrats around the state." Morrill was communications director for former governor Parris N. Glendening (D).

Van Hollen sent a letter to supporters Tuesday, asking for financial help and seeking "input and support as I seriously and actively explore this possibility."

Cardin, a former speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates, is in his 10th term representing Maryland's 3rd Congressional District, which includes parts of Anne Arundel, Baltimore and Howard counties. He said repeatedly during an interview last week that he "will not run away from a tough battle."

His effort to drive home that point was intended to challenge perceptions that he is unwilling to take risks with his career. Last week, Maryland GOP Chairman John Kane called him "Congressman Cold Feet" because twice in the past 20 years -- in 1985 and 1997 -- Cardin expressed interest in runs for governor but backed out.

"There was no way I could win those races," Cardin said during the interview in Annapolis, which he gave after conducting a town hall-style meeting for two dozen constituents on the subject of Social Security reform. "At the time, my supporters told me not to get in. And if I had gotten in, I would have lost."

That is not what his supporters are telling him this time, Cardin said. "It's only been nine days, but in those nine days it's been very encouraging. I'm feeling very confident that my record will appeal to the voters of this state. I'm convinced of that."

Though it's too soon to tell exactly how the field will look -- several other Democratic potential candidates, including Reps. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger and Elijah E. Cummings, are pondering their options -- veteran Maryland political observers said last week that the contest will test several long-standing political assumptions about race and geography.

For Mfume to win a three-way Democratic primary, he will have to find backing beyond the black communities in Baltimore and Prince George's County, said Timothy Maloney, a former state delegate who practices law in Prince George's. For Cardin to succeed, he will need to strike a chord with voters in the Washington suburbs who have had little exposure to him over the years. And for Van Hollen to prevail, he will have to disabuse Baltimore voters of the notion that Montgomery County breeds politicians who are wealthy and aloof.

Two decades ago, Del. William A. Bronrott (D-Montgomery) helped organize then-Rep. Michael Barnes's attempt to mount a bid for the U.S. Senate after Barnes served in the 8th District House seat Van Hollen occupies. Bronrott said he believes the perception of Montgomery "as a gold-plated place" helped seal Barnes's defeat.

"It will be interesting to see how much Maryland has changed in 20 years," Bronrott said.

Unlike the Democrats, Kane said his party is going to take its time sorting out who will run. He does not deny that his party's sights are on Steele, especially since Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) has taken himself out of consideration, committing to seeking a second term in state government.

Steele confirmed in a brief interview that he has been called by national party and elected officials, though he would not name them.

"There's something appealing about it," Steele said of the race. "I'm seriously at the point where I'm ready to entertain a conversation on this."

Steele's departure to run for Senate would, in part, hinge on the impact to Ehrlich's reelection bid. Ehrlich essentially launched Steele's political career by selecting him as a running mate.

Hoffman said that although she can understand the GOP's interest in anointing Steele, he is not a battle-tested candidate. His election to statewide office, the first for a black candidate in Maryland, came on a ticket with Ehrlich. She noted that three Maryland lieutenant governors have run statewide, and all three lost.

Sen. E.J. Pipkin (R-Queen Anne's), who ran unsuccessfully against U.S. Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D) last year, said he has not decided whether to try for the seat. But he thought his chances would be greatly improved from his last attempt.

"An open seat creates a whole different dynamic," he said.

Maryland is fortunate to have a good number of very good candidates. I still think this race is Mfume's to lose. The Democratic Party learned a tough lesson in 2000 when Kathleen Kennedy Townsend snubbed the Black community and picked a white moderate Republican for her running mate. It infuriated the Black community which rightly feels that the state party takes it for granted. This time, the powers that be understand clearly that if Mfume, who is Black, does not get the nod, it'll confirm what Maryland blacks have said all along, that liberal talk is cheap and at the end of the day, racism still rules.

I personally don't see how Van Hollen or anyone else can survive a party primary and not win Baltimore and Prince George's County. Also Charles County, approx 38% black and in Southern Maryland, will give a significant vote to Mfume. The Southern MD area is interesting because recently there's been a spat about Blacks ascending in the party ranks. While, Blacks are a major part of voters, somehow, we haven't seen to many African Americans in Democratic leadership positions. So there is a sensitivity to the fact that we need to put our money where our diversity mouth is.

The other thing about Mfume is that liberals on the far left are very conscious about the dearth of Blacks in the Senate. Mfume is liberal and there are no disqualifying factors. If he loses, it'll greatly hurt liberal credibility in the state. The other thing is that many of the Democrats in red MD areas are liberal, liberal, so I think Mfume will pick off some of those votes.

On the Republican side, Michael Steele, Black Republican Lt. Gov is mulling a run. I don't see him doing anything significant, but you never know. The Catholic vote in Maryland went overwhelmingly to Bush and Steele has a very good reputation among Catholics. So between Catholics and PG County Blacks and then the deep red parts of the States, he could mount something significant. The problem though is that Governor Ehrlich has been embroiled in a few very bizzare scandal type things and we have to see how Steele comes out of this whole mess.

I've met the man, Steele, that is. I like him. But he is a staunch Republican and an uncritical Catholic. It would be a frosty night in hell before I vote for him. I'd shake his hand, though.

Anyway, Mfume it is. I think he'd serve Maryland very well and it is about time we got some more Black faces in the Senate and not ones who go on trips with Nigerian dictators.

"For He Has Broken the Gates of Brass and Cut the Bands of Iron in Sunder"

Psalm 107 is a favorite of mine because of the recurring refrain:

"Oh that men would praise the Lord, for his goodness and for his wonderful works to the children of men."

This verse is one of those verses that captures what God wants from us. He wants us to love him and see him for what he is. God is good and he does wonderful things and these wonderful things are all around us and in our lives, but we often miss them.

The Psalm begins with this point:

1: O give thanks unto the LORD, for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.
2: Let the redeemed of the LORD say so,

The "redeemed" are those of us who have experienced the gift of God's salvation, i.e, have the privilege of knowing the Son of God who God sent into the world as a token of his love. It is to us that the responsibility falls of displaying the truth of God's love and mercy.

The Psalm continues:

2: Let the redeemed of the LORD say so, whom he hath redeemed from the hand of the enemy;
3: And gathered them out of the lands, from the east, and from the west, from the north, and from the south.
4: They wandered in the wilderness in a solitary way; they found no city to dwell in.
5: Hungry and thirsty, their soul fainted in them.
6: Then they cried unto the LORD in their trouble, and he delivered them out of their distresses.
7: And he led them forth by the right way, that they might go to a city of habitation.
8: Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men!
9: For he satisfieth the longing soul, and filleth the hungry soul with goodness.

Verse 6 is interesting because it shows how out of the depths of our frustration, we cry to God and he responds. What is interesting is that he is always there but we often fail to cry out to him until we are in distress, from which no human can save us. God will deliver. He will lead us in the "right way." But there is one thing the Holy Spirit asks of us, that we would praise the Lord "for his goodness, and for his wonderful works." God satisfies and fills the hungry soul. This is a promise and not simply poetry. Praise and gratitude are not the product of poetry, they are the expression of the hearts that have seen God's power at work in their lives. God is asking for love, praise and gratitude. It doesn't have to be pretty or eloquent, it just has to be true.

Verse 9 is also important because when God opens up his hands to us, he gives us "goodness." It is very easy to misunderstand God's blessings. Trials and tribulations, difficulties and hardships are not gifts from God. 3 John 2 says, "Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth. " God's desire for us is to fill our souls with goodness. Jeremiah 29:11 tells us that God wants to give us an expected end, a future full of hope. Isaiah 58 lavishly anticipates the blessings God has in store for those who obey and seek him. God is not the source of our hardships.

Psalm 34:19 says, "Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivereth him out of them all." We can't avoid the difficulties of life. But what we can count on is that there is a God who is good and wants, more than anything, to give us good things. He is there with us every step of the way and if, in our distress, we would only cry out to him, he will deliver and satisfy us.

10: Such as sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, being bound in affliction and iron;
11: Because they rebelled against the words of God, and contemned the counsel of the most High:
12: Therefore he brought down their heart with labour; they fell down, and there was none to help.
13: Then they cried unto the LORD in their trouble, and he saved them out of their distresses.
14: He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and brake their bands in sunder.
15: Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men!
16: For he hath broken the gates of brass, and cut the bars of iron in sunder.

Verses 15 and 16 are never far from me. I sing verse 16 in my head often, I'm not sure why. It is a message of liberation much like we find in Luke 4:18 when Jesus says that the "Spirit of the Lord is upon me for he has sent to me . . . to set at liberty those who are oppressed."

What I find interesting in verses 10-16 is the idea of God being there for the forsaken and those unwelcome in "holy places." When Jesus walked the earth and was found eating with those whom the religious establishment and the conservative self-righteous disapproved of, Jesus made it clear that it is the "sick who need a doctor."

But even more, verses 10-12 go to the heart of the human condition. We are all afflicted by sin and are enslaved to it and our hearts are burden and depressed. We are bound as it were with bands of iron.

But then, when we acknowledge our helplessness, our rebellion, our sickness, then God saves us from our distress and from the shadow of darkness. Having done this for us, what then does the Holy Spirit express that God wants in return? "Oh that men would praise the Lord, for his goodness."

God has broken the "gates of brass" in our lives and "cut the bars of iron in sunder." We are free and as Jesus says, he who the Son has set free is free indeed.

This Psalm is the story of a saving God, a liberating God, whose desire is to make us free: free to love and praise him. I encourage reading the rest of the Psalm and see again and again how we are described in each situation and in our distress God saves us so that we may praise him.

17: Fools because of their transgression, and because of their iniquities, are afflicted.
18: Their soul abhorreth all manner of meat; and they draw near unto the gates of death.
19: Then they cry unto the LORD in their trouble, and he saveth them out of their distresses.
20: He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.
21: Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men!
22: And let them sacrifice the sacrifices of thanksgiving, and declare his works with rejoicing.
23: They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters;
24: These see the works of the LORD, and his wonders in the deep.
25: For he commandeth, and raiseth the stormy wind, which lifteth up the waves thereof.
26: They mount up to the heaven, they go down again to the depths: their soul is melted because of trouble.
27: They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wits' end.
28: Then they cry unto the LORD in their trouble, and he bringeth them out of their distresses.
29: He maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still.
30: Then are they glad because they be quiet; so he bringeth them unto their desired haven.
31: Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men!
32: Let them exalt him also in the congregation of the people, and praise him in the assembly of the elders.
33: He turneth rivers into a wilderness, and the watersprings into dry ground;
34: A fruitful land into barrenness, for the wickedness of them that dwell therein.
35: He turneth the wilderness into a standing water, and dry ground into watersprings.
36: And there he maketh the hungry to dwell, that they may prepare a city for habitation;
37: And sow the fields, and plant vineyards, which may yield fruits of increase.
38: He blesseth them also, so that they are multiplied greatly; and suffereth not their cattle to decrease.
39: Again, they are minished and brought low through oppression, affliction, and sorrow.
40: He poureth contempt upon princes, and causeth them to wander in the wilderness, where there is no way.
41: Yet setteth he the poor on high from affliction, and maketh him families like a flock.
42: The righteous shall see it, and rejoice: and all iniquity shall stop her mouth.

powerful stuff.

The Psalm ends with the following admonition:

43: Whoso is wise, and will observe these things, even they shall understand the lovingkindness of the LORD.

As Proverbs 1 tells us, "the fear of the Lord is the begining of wisdom." The wise person reads this Psalm and recognizes, "observes," these events in our lives and takes heed to the admonition to praise God for his goodness. This and only this, is the avenue then to a real understanding and encounter with God.

Tom Delay and Jesus

Easter Reflections on Tom Delay

Via Atrios

Some Cool Easter Images in blogshere

At Jcecil

At Bene Diction

At So May it Secretly Begin

On the third day and the power of the Resurrection

Hosea 6:2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

Talmida has an interesting post about the burial of Christ and the dating of the Last Supper and Holy Week events in general.

I've always settled for the traditional dating: last supper on Thursday, crucifixion on Friday and resurrection on Sunday. Although this verse bothered me quite a bit:

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

It is tough to get three days from Friday 3pm to Sunday 6am,let alone "three days and three nights." However, that concern was solved for me by my Christology professor who provides a view out there among scholars: an explanation that I really like.

It appears that the idea of the "third day" in the Jewish culture at the time signified the moment of God's power. So that when Jesus says that he'd rise on the "third day," it was not about a third 24 hour day but that God will display his power in Christ. This is brought out by Paul when he says in Ephesians 1: 19.20

19: And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20: Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

That phrase "according to the working of his mighty power" apparently is a superlative type greek construction that denotes an an explosiveness. It's not just the "power" but God's "mighty power." Almost like saying the "wet water." "Mighty power" is meant to get a point across. I like to say that imagine if God "stood up" and swung at someone/thing with all it's might, what would that be like? Well he did, he unleashed his power at death in the raising of Christ.

The resurrection is about God's power, his triumph, and less about counting three days after the death. But the one example that brought this reading home to me more than anything is the following.

Imagine that centuries from now, a far removed culture reads your diary in which you say, "she came through for me in the eleventh hour." That's an idiomatic expression that does not mean that she came through for you at eleven o'clock but that as time was winding down and you were out of options.

Christ rose on the third day in an unspeakable display of power that shall never be seen again. And now, as Paul does in 1 Cor. 15:55-57, we can mock death:

"O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."

Did the Franciscan Brothers of Peace, Schindler's Spiritual Counsel, kill their leader or just let him die? The Hypocrsy: Chapter 645

Via Dkos

Friars at Schindlers' side felt own loss

By TOM ZUCCO, Times Staff Writer
Published March 23, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They wear robes, sandals and cell phones.

And to be precise, they are friars, not monks.

For the past week, three members of a tiny ministry based in St. Paul, Minn., have been at the side of the Schindler family as it fights to have Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted.

The three from Franciscan Brothers of Peace, which has just 10 total members, have appeared with Bob and Mary Schindler on the steps of the federal courthouse in Tampa, and outside Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park.

They have come to Florida, they say, because they are staunch right-to-life supporters, because they can help raise money for the Schindlers, and because of what happened to Brother Michael.

In 1982, Michael Gaworski founded the order.

The fledgling group took over a former convent and the Brothers began collecting food and clothing for the needy, ministering to international survivors of torture, witnessing at a juvenile detention center and conducting sidewalk counseling at abortion clinics.

Gaworski suffered a heart attack in 1991 that left him in a condition similar to that of Terri Schiavo - with severe brain damage and dependent on a feeding tube for nourishment. For the next 12 years, the friars cared for Gaworski in their downtown St. Paul friary.

"Through his condition," Brother John Kaspari said Tuesday from St. Paul, "we came to embrace others in similar states."

Gaworski contracted pneumonia and died in 2003 at age 45.

"He would have required intubation to keep him alive," Kaspari said. "We chose not to go that route. His lungs were full of fluid."

The order, affiliated with the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, became involved with the Schiavo case last fall after one of its members heard Bobby Schindler, Terri Schiavo's brother, speak at a National Right to Life convention in Washington, D.C. The Brothers offered their assistance.

Kaspari said that the Brothers have become close to the Schindler family and that although they have tried to visit Terri Schiavo, they have been denied access.

Besides moral support, the Brothers also offer an option to those who want to donate money to the Schindlers. Although funds are raised directly through the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation, private donations are not tax-deductible.

"But we are a tax-exempt organization," Kaspari said. "People send funds to us, and we turn it around and distribute the funds as needed. For instance, we recently ran a newspaper ad and used the funds to pay for it."

As for their dress, the Brothers wear robes - or more correctly, habits - "to depict the vow of poverty and simplicity," Kaspari said. "And to be a recognizable instrument of God."

© Copyright 2003 St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved

Did Tom Delay kill his father or did he let him die? The Hypocrisy: Chapter 536

Turns out chief hypocrite Tom Delay has some explaining to do:

Via dkos

DeLay Family Outcome Different From Schiavo's

By Walter F. Roche Jr. and Sam Howe Verhovek
Times Staff Writer

6:03 PM PST, March 26, 2005

CANYON LAKE, Texas — A family tragedy unfolding in a Texas hospital during the fall of 1988 was a private ordeal -- without judges, emergency sessions of Congress or the raging debate outside Terri Schiavo's Florida hospice.

The patient then was a 65-year-old drilling contractor, badly injured in a freak accident at his home. Among the family standing vigil at Brooke Army Medical Center was a grieving junior congressman -- U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

More than 16 years ago, far from the political passions that have defined the Schiavo controversy, the DeLay family endured its own wrenching end-of-life crisis. The man in a coma, kept alive by intravenous lines and a ventilator, was DeLay's father, Charles Ray DeLay.

Then, freshly re-elected to a third term in the House, DeLay waited all but helpless for the verdict of doctors.

Today, as House Majority Leader, DeLay has teamed with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to champion political intervention the Schaivo case. He pushed emergency legislation through congress to shift the legal case from Florida state courts to the federal judiciary.

And he is among the strongest advocates of keeping the woman, who doctors say has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, connected to her feeding tube. DeLay has denounced Schiavo's husband, as well as judges, for committing what he calls "an act of barbarism" in removing the tube.

In 1988, however, there was no such fiery rhetoric as the congressman quietly joined the sad family consensus to let his father die.

"There was no point to even really talking about it," Maxine DeLay, the congressman's 81-year-old mother, recalled in an interview last week. "There was no way he (Charles) wanted to live like that. Tom knew, we all knew, his father wouldn't have wanted to live that way."

Doctors advised that he would "basically be a vegetable," said the congressman's aunt, JoAnne DeLay.

When the man's kidneys failed, the DeLay family decided against connecting him to a dialysis machine. "Extraordinary measures to prolong life were not initiated," said his medical report, citing "agreement with the family's wishes." His bedside chart carried the instruction: "Do Not Resuscitate."

On Dec. 14, 1988, the senior DeLay "expired with his family in attendance."

"The situation faced by the congressman's family was entirely different than Terri Schiavo's," said a spokesman for DeLay, who declined requests for an interview.

"The only thing keeping her alive is the food and water we all need to survive. His father was on a ventilator and other machines to sustain him," said Dan Allen, DeLay's news aide.

There were also these similarities: Both stricken patients were severely brain damaged. Both were incapable of surviving without continuing medical assistance. Both were said to have expressed a desire to be spared life sustained by machine. And neither left a living will.

This previously unpublished account of the majority leader's personal brush with life-ending decisions was assembled from court files, medical records and interviews with family members.

It was a pleasant late afternoon in the Hill Country of Texas on Nov. 17, 1988.

At the home of Charles and Maxine DeLay, set on a limestone bluff of cedars and live oaks above Turkey Cove, it also was a moment of triumph.

Charles and his brother, Jerry DeLay, two avid tinkerers, had just finished work on a new backyard tram -- an elevator-like device to carry passengers from the house down a 200-foot slope to the blue-green waters of Canyon Lake.

The two men called for their wives to hop aboard. Charles pushed the button and the maiden run began. Within seconds a horrific screeching noise echoed across the still lake, "a sickening sound," said a neighbor. The tram was in trouble.

Maxine, seated up front in the four-passenger trolley, said her husband repeatedly tried to engage the emergency brake but the rail car kept picking up speed. Halfway down the bank it was free-wheeling, according to accident investigators.

Moments later, it jumped the track and slammed into a tree, scattering passengers and twisted debris in all directions.

"It was awful, just awful," recalled Karl Braddick, now 86, the DeLays' neighbor at the time and a family friend. "I came running over, and it was a terrible sight."

He called for emergency help. Rescue workers had trouble bringing injured victims up the steep terrain. Jerry's wife, JoAnne, suffered broken bones and a shattered elbow. Charles, hurled head-first into a tree, clearly was in serious condition.

"He was all but gone," said Braddick, gesturing at the spot of the accident as he offered a visitor a ride down to the lake in his own tram. "He would have been better off if he'd died right there and then."

But Charles DeLay hung on. In the ambulance on his way to the New Braunfels hospital 15 miles away, he tried to speak.

"He wasn't making any sense; it was mainly just cuss words," recalled Maxine with a faint, fond smile.

His grave condition dictated a short stay at the local hospital. Four hours later, he was airlifted by helicopter to the medical center at Fort Sam Houston. Admission records show he arrived with multiple injuries, including broken ribs and a brain hemorrhage.

Tom DeLay flew to his father's bedside where, along with his two brothers and a sister, they joined Maxine. In the weeks that followed, the congressman made repeated trips back from Washington, D.C., his family said. Maxine seldom left her husband's side.

"Mama stayed at the hospital with him all the time. Oh, it was terrible for everyone," said Alvina (Vi) Skogen, a former sister-in-law of the congressman. Neighbor Braddick visited the hospital and said it seemed very clear to everyone there was little prospect of recovery.

"He had no consciousness that I could see," Braddick said. "He did a bit of moaning and groaning, I guess, but you could see there was no way he was coming back."

Maxine DeLay agreed that she was never aware of any consciousness on her husband's part during the long days of her bedside vigil -- with one possible exception.

"Whenever Randy walked into the room, his heart, his pulse rate would go up a little bit," she said of their son, Randall, the congressman's younger brother, who lives near Houston.

Over a period of days, doctors conducted a series of tests, including scans of his head, face, neck and abdomen. They checked for lung damage, performing a bronchoscopy and later a tracheotomy to assist his breathing. But the procedures could not prevent steady deterioration.

Then, infections complicated the senior DeLay's fight for life. Finally, his organs began to fail. The family and physicians confronted the dreaded choice so many other Americans have faced: to make heroic efforts, or to let the end come.

"Daddy did not want to be a vegetable," said Skogen, one of his daughters-in-law at the time. "There was no decision for the family to make. He made it for them."

The preliminary decision to withhold dialysis and other treatments fell to Maxine along with Randall and her daughter Tena -- and, his mother, said, "Tom went along." He raised no objection, she said.

Family members said they prayed.

Jerry DeLay "felt terribly about the accident," said his wife, JoAnne DeLay. "He prayed that if (Charles) couldn't have quality of life that God would take him -- and that is exactly what He did."

Charles Ray DeLay died at 3:17 a.m., according to his death certificate, 27 days after plummeting down the hillside.

The family then turned to lawyers.

In 1990 the DeLays filed suit against Midcap Bearing Corporation of San Antonio and Lovejoy Inc. of Illinois, the distributor and maker of a coupling that they said failed and caused the tram to hurtle out of control down the steep bank.

The family's wrongful death lawsuit accused the companies of negligence and sought actual and punitive damages. Lawyers for the companies denied the allegations and countersued the surviving designer of the tram system, Jerry DeLay.

The case thrust Congressman DeLay into decidedly unfamiliar territory -- the list of plaintiffs on the front page of a civil complaint. He is an outspoken defender of business against what he calls the crippling effects of "predatory, self-serving litigation."

The DeLay family litigation sought unspecified compensation for, among other things, the dead father's "physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and trauma," and the mother's grief, sorrow and loss of companionship.

Their lawsuit also alleged violations of the Texas product liability law.

The DeLay case moved slowly through the Texas judicial system, accumulating more than 500 pages of motions, affidavits and disclosures over nearly three years. Among the affidavits was one filed by the congressman, but family members said he had little direct involvement in the lawsuit, leaving that to his attorney brother, Randall.

Rep. DeLay, who since has taken a leading role promoting congressional tort reform, wants to rein in trial lawyers to protect American business from what he calls "frivolous, parasitic lawsuits" that raise insurance premiums and "kill jobs."

In September, he expressed something less than warm sentiment for attorneys when he took the floor of the House to condemn trial lawyers who, he said, "get fat off the pain (of plaintiffs and off) the hard work (of defendants)."

Aides for DeLay defended his role as a plaintiff in the family lawsuit, saying he did not follow the legal case and was not aware of its final outcome.

The case was resolved in 1993 with payment of an undisclosed sum of about $250,000, according to sources familiar with an out of court settlement. DeLay signed over his share of any proceeds to his mother, said DeLay aides.

Three years later, DeLay cosponsored a bill specifically designed to override state laws on product liability such as the one cited in his family's lawsuit. The legislation provided sweeping exemptions for sellers of such products.

The 1996 bill was rejected by President Clinton.

In his veto message the president said he objected to the DeLay-backed measure because it "tilts against American families and would deprive them of the ability to recover fully when they are injured by a defective product."'

After her husband's death, Maxine DeLay scrapped the mangled tram at the bottom of the hill and sold the family lake house.

Today she lives alone in a Houston senior citizen residence. Like much of the country, she follows news developments in the Schiavo case and her congressman son's recently prominent role.

She acknowledges questions that compare her family's decision in 1988 to the Schiavo conflict today with a slight smile. "It's certainly interesting, isn't it?"

Like her son, she believes there might be hope for Terri Schiavo's recovery. That's what makes her family's experience different, she says. Charles had no hope.

"There was no chance he was ever coming back," she said.

Verhovek reported from Canyon Lake, Texas; Roche reported from Washington, D.C. Also contributing to this report were Times researchers Lianne Hart in San Antonio and Nona Yates in Los Angeles.

My Jesus, I love Thee, I know Thou art mine;
For Thee all the follies of sin I resign.
My gracious Redeemer, my Savior art Thou;
If ever I loved Thee, my Jesus, ’tis now.

I love Thee because Thou has first loved me,
And purchased my pardon on Calvary’s tree.
I love Thee for wearing the thorns on Thy brow;
If ever I loved Thee, my Jesus, ’tis now.

I’ll love Thee in life, I will love Thee in death,
And praise Thee as long as Thou lendest me breath;
And say when the death dew lies cold on my brow,
If ever I loved Thee, my Jesus, ’tis now.

In mansions of glory and endless delight,
I’ll ever adore Thee in heaven so bright;
I’ll sing with the glittering crown on my brow;
If ever I loved Thee, my Jesus, ’tis now.

Good Friday--Just Another Day?

Good Fridays are so stange because it is the most solemn day of the year, but for everyone else it's just another day. It does get weird trying to balance the gravity with normal interactions.

My Friday Brain music mix so far has been Handel's "Thy Rebuke has broken his heart . . . Behold and see, if there be any sorrow, like unto his sorrow . . ."

and the other tune that's swirling around in the brain is a song I had heard eons ago called, "If God is dead." Unfortunately, I don't know all the words. It ends something like, "If God is dead, then who makes my life worth living. I'm glad, I know he lives, he lives, he lives, he lives, he lives."

I normally try to listen to Handel's Messiah at some point during the Triduum and I also try to watch Ben Hur. Ben Hur is the only film that I feel has really ever captured the fullness of the death of Christ. I guess the reason is that the story of Christ is about what he's done for us. And in the story of Judah Ben Hur, the power of Christ shines through: the healing, the forgivess, the teaching, providence. We'll see if there are enough hours in the day to accomplish this.

Hebrews 7: 19-28

19: For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
20: And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
21: (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
22: By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23: And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
25: Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26: For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27: Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
28: For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

You don't understand, sir. You don't want to wash my feet!

I was asked a couple of weeks back if I would be willing to participate in the parish's foot washing ritual on Holy Thursday. I laughed because, pastor may be loving and all, but you do not want to be exposed to my feet. Trust me.

But I said yes, I'll do it. If everyone turned down every request, then no one would do anything. I was able to get home early and take care of the feet in order to present a more pleasing foot.

It was an interesting experience. My wife and I had been discussing this whole bit about people herniating discs just because women's feet are being washed. We were glad our parish is much different than that. So at Church, the usher came up to me and explained the logistics, "After Father says, 'will the gentlemen getting their feet washed come up please' then . . ." An intense wave of sadness came over me. I generally don't get bent out of shape about anything in the liturgy, but this hit me.

My first impression when we finally did get called up was the immense akwardness at seeing all men up there. They had done a great job in diversifying the 12 of us, but I was not at all happy. I'm glad I did it, but I don't know if I ever want to be part of that again if it remains exclusive.

This is not about women being priests, it's about washing feet for God's sake! What is the big freaking deal?

Anyway, what strikes me about Jesus washing his disciples' feet is the shock value. He really was doing something that he really shouldn't have been doing, for who he was. Jesus' act made such an impression because of the degree of condescension he subjected himself too.

And in closing, unrelated but in the anticipation of the desolation of Friday and Saturday:

Lamentations 2:11-17

11: Mine eyes do fail with tears, my bowels are troubled, my liver is poured upon the earth, for the destruction of the daughter of my people; because the children and the sucklings swoon in the streets of the city.
12: They say to their mothers, Where is corn and wine? when they swooned as the wounded in the streets of the city, when their soul was poured out into their mothers' bosom.
13: What thing shall I take to witness for thee? what thing shall I liken to thee, O daughter of Jerusalem? what shall I equal to thee, that I may comfort thee, O virgin daughter of Zion? for thy breach is great like the sea: who can heal thee?
14: Thy prophets have seen vain and foolish things for thee: and they have not discovered thine iniquity, to turn away thy captivity; but have seen for thee false burdens and causes of banishment.
15: All that pass by clap their hands at thee; they hiss and wag their head at the daughter of Jerusalem, saying, Is this the city that men call The perfection of beauty, The joy of the whole earth?
16: All thine enemies have opened their mouth against thee: they hiss and gnash the teeth: they say, We have swallowed her up: certainly this is the day that we looked for; we have found, we have seen it.
17: The LORD hath done that which he had devised; he hath fulfilled his word that he had commanded in the days of old: he hath thrown down, and hath not pitied: and he hath caused thine enemy to rejoice over thee, he hath set up the horn of thine adversaries.

The Visions of Zechariah contd: Zechariah 5: 1-11

1: Then I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a flying roll.
2: And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I answered, I see a flying roll; the length thereof is twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits.
3: Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth: for every one that stealeth shall be cut off as on this side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off as on that side according to it.
4: I will bring it forth, saith the LORD of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by my name: and it shall remain in the midst of his house, and shall consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof.
5: Then the angel that talked with me went forth, and said unto me, Lift up now thine eyes, and see what is this that goeth forth.
6: And I said, What is it? And he said, This is an ephah that goeth forth. He said moreover, This is their resemblance through all the earth.
7: And, behold, there was lifted up a talent of lead: and this is a woman that sitteth in the midst of the ephah.
8: And he said, This is wickedness. And he cast it into the midst of the ephah; and he cast the weight of lead upon the mouth thereof.
9: Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings; for they had wings like the wings of a stork: and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven.
10: Then said I to the angel that talked with me, Whither do these bear the ephah?
11: And he said unto me, To build it an house in the land of Shinar: and it shall be established, and set there upon her own base.

"Ooops" Wish we hadn't said that! Are Florida bishops hiding their own statement?

Anyone else notice how the Florida Bishops Conference statement of February 15, 2005 is being pushed out of sight?

If you go to the Terri Schaivo page of the Florida Bishops Conference, there are statements everywhere, but that pretty recent statement is no where to be found. Why?

Could it be because it reflects the not-so-popular-with-the-Rabid-Right view that Michael Schaivo may, without violating Catholic principles, remove his wife's feeding tube?

Saint Terri Schaivo?

I'm not being flip here, but all this has me thinking. We all know how this situation will end. The tube will not be reinstated and Terri will pass into life. The self-induced apocalyptic fervor of the pro-lifers has reached unprecedented proportions and as some have proclaimed this "the new Roe v Wade" for them.

Already, we see comparisons between Terri and Holy Week, the cross, the passion of Christ, etc and the pro-lifers call this murder, starvation, etc which then, in their eyes, makes Terri a martyr and victim of the culture of death.

I don't see this impending sense of apocalyptic doom diminishing anytime soon. In fact, her passing will only boost the the fervor. And if so, there is only one action that is commensurate to the point that the pro-lifers are trying to make, canonization.

I honestly don't see how there wouldn't be a push for her canonization. The tricky part would be if the U.S. Bishops would go along. I suspect you'd find a handful on record who'd be willing to push it and if so, it is as good as done.

Raising the money would be a snap. As it is, Right Wing money men have taken up the cause and with the flood of small donations from the pro-lifers, the cause will be golden.

The other question would be the Vatican. I don't see an obstacle there. The Vatican would jump at this opportunity to make a point to Europe and to the world. So there really wouldn't be any bureaucratic obstacles, which means the cause can get started and move promptly to the Venerable or Blessed stage.

However, the real question is that of the sentiment of the faithful in the US. As it is 70-80% of the US population believe that the tube should remain out and that she should be allowed to die with dignity. The question is how that sentiment translates with Catholics. I would be utterly repulsed if this all unfolds, but is there a critical mass of Catholics who would not look kindly on this? I think not because, besides out-and-out liberals, many moderates who are uneasy about this whole thing and more neutral are afraid of the rabid right and of being caught in the cross hairs of a righteous crusade.

When the Pope made his remarks about gay marriage being part of the idealogy of evil, I mused that he was raising the temparature and stimulating a boiling point that would rid the Church of liberals once and for all. A push for Terri Schaivo's canonization, I maintain, would do the trick. It would crush the liberals and leave the Church in the hands of conservatives.

Hey, I love fiction. I love writing fiction: and so speculate like this, I will. Again, all this is unfortunate, but I don't see how things don't unfold they way I'm guessing they will.

In Spanish it transliterates to "Last Meal" right?

I heard a little girl today say, "Oh look, a picture of the last dinner!"

I wonder what PC revolutionary will eventually propose the idea of "Last Snack." After all, these days, no one sits down to meals anymore.

More on the Visions of Zechariah

Zechariah 4: 1-14

1: And the angel that talked with me came again, and waked me, as a man that is wakened out of his sleep,
2: And said unto me, What seest thou? And I said, I have looked, and behold a candlestick all of gold, with a bowl upon the top of it, and his seven lamps thereon, and seven pipes to the seven lamps, which are upon the top thereof:
3: And two olive trees by it, one upon the right side of the bowl, and the other upon the left side thereof.
4: So I answered and spake to the angel that talked with me, saying, What are these, my lord?
5: Then the angel that talked with me answered and said unto me, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.
6: Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.
7: Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it.
8: Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
9: The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it; and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto you.
10: For who hath despised the day of small things? for they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel with those seven; they are the eyes of the LORD, which run to and fro through the whole earth.
11: Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof?
12: And I answered again, and said unto him, What be these two olive branches which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves?
13: And he answered me and said, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.
14: Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the LORD of the whole earth.

T'was love with Newman?

Then there was a lady whom John Henry had met through his sisters. "In all this goodly array," Tom Mozley remembered, "there was not a grander or more ornamental figure than Maria Rosina Giberne. She was . . . the prima dona of the company. Tall, strong of build, with aquiline nose, well-formed mouth, penetrating eyes, and a luxuriance of glossy black hair, she would command attention anywhere." . . . She was entirely devoted to Newman--perhaps in love with him--who responded to her vivacious temperment with sensible caution. Though the had more than one serious quarrel she remained through thick and thin his fervent disciple. She entered a Convent after she became a Catholic and died in France a few years before Newman, his spiritual daughter to the end.

From The Oxford Conspirators by Marvin O'Connell.

Bill Frist: "Pull the Plug on Anencephalic Babies! We Can Harvest their Organs!"

Via Atrios

Frist Urged Changing The Definition of Brain Dead to Include Babies Born With Condition Comparable to Schiavo's

Frist wrote a book in 1989 called Transplant where he advocated changing the definition of "brain dead" to include anencephalic babies. Anencephalic babies are in the same state as Terri Schiavo except that she suffered a physical trauma that put her into a vegetative state while the anencephalic babies are born that way.

This remarkable discovery buttresses the argument that Frist's advocacy for Schiavo is wholly political. How does he explain this remarkable inconsistency? Here is the relevant passage on Frist as quoted by the New Republic in 2003:

"And, although Frist writes frequently about the ethical issues surrounding transplants--for example, the question of when death begins--he approaches these issues in starkly scientific terms, with little patience for religious objections.

"Near the end of the book, for example, Frist suggests changing the legal definition of 'brain death' to include anencephalic babies, who are born with a fatal neurological disorder but show just the slightest hint of brain-stem activity. Such a change would make it possible to harvest their organs for transplant--something the Catholic Church and pro-life groups oppose. 'Three thousand anencephalic babies were born a year, enough to solve our demand many times over--but we never used them.'" [The New Republic, 1/27/03]

Michigan Bill Would Ban Medical Decisions if Adultery is Involved

Detroit Free Press Via Steve Gillard

LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- A Michigan lawmaker is working on legislation that would prohibit a spouse having an affair from denying food, fluids or medical treatment to a wife or husband who cannot make such decisions.

Rep. Joel Sheltrown on Tuesday said he wants to avoid a situation similar to Terri Schiavo's.

The 41-year-old Florida woman has relied on a feeding tube to keep her alive since suffering severe brain damage in 1990. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, has fought for years to have her feeding tube removed because he said she would not want to be kept alive artificially.

The tube was disconnected Friday on the orders of a state judge, and a federal judge on Tuesday refused to order it reinserted.

Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, appealed the decision the same day to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, warning that their daughter was "fading quickly" and might die at any moment.

The Schindlers have said Michael Schiavo wants their daughter dead so he can marry his longtime girlfriend, with whom he has young children. They have begged him to divorce their daughter and let them care for her.

Sheltrown, a Democrat from West Branch, said Michigan should strengthen its protections before a similar situation happens here.

"While people, in happier times, may trust their spouses to make future medical decisions for them, situations change," Sheltrown said in a statement. "In a situation where an incapacitated patient lives at the mercy of an adulterous spouse, it is in the patient's interest to make a presumption in favor of life."

Michigan law already prohibits the denial of life-sustaining treatment, such as food and water, unless the patient has expressed that such action be taken, said Sheltrown, who expects to introduce the bill in about three weeks.

Matt Resch, spokesman for Republican House Speaker Craig DeRoche of Novi, said House leaders will review the bill when it is introduced and decide which committee to assign it.

Howard Brody, a professor at Michigan State University's Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, said it would be irresponsible to take up legislation related to Terri Schiavo's case as it continues to develop.

Brody said the current judicial process to consider such issues is a good one.

"Who would be the person to best know Terri's wishes and who could best report to us what Terri wanted? That person might well be the person who lived with Terri day in and day out," said Brody, who added that a court has not stopped Michael Schiavo from being his wife's legal guardian.

"Who are we to say that they're wrong?"

We might as well get really Christian here and make sure we have a very very Christian definition of adulteryy.

Mt. 5:28 "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Mt 5:32 "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

Save Terri . . . But Cut the Medicare She's On

Schiavo Case Puts Face on Rising Medical Costs
GOP Leaders Try to Cut Spending as They Fight to Save One of Program's Patients
By Jonathan Weisman and Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 23, 2005; Page A13


As Republican leaders in Congress move to trim billions of dollars from the Medicaid health program, they are simultaneously intervening to save the life of possibly the highest-profile Medicaid patient: Terri Schiavo.

The Schiavo case may put a human face on the problem of rising medical costs, both at the state and federal levels. In Florida, where Gov. Jeb Bush (R) is pushing a dramatic restructuring of the Medicaid program, the cost of Schiavo's care has become political fodder. In Washington, where a fight over Medicaid spending threatens to scuttle the 2006 budget plan, the role of the program in preserving Schiavo's life is beginning to receive attention.

"At every opportunity, [House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay has sanctimoniously proclaimed his concern for the well-being of Terri Schiavo, saying he is only trying to ensure she has the chance 'we all deserve,' " the liberal Center for American Progress said in a statement Monday, echoing complaints of Democratic lawmakers and medical ethicists. "Just last week, DeLay marshaled a budget resolution through the House of Representatives that would cut funding for Medicaid by at least $15 billion, threatening the quality of care for people like Terri Schiavo."

DeLay spokesman Dan Allen fired back: "The fact that they're tying a life issue to the budget process shows just how disconnected Democrats are to reality."

Lawyers for Schiavo's husband and guardian, Michael Schiavo, have said repeatedly that Medicaid finances her drug costs, but it is not entirely clear how dependent Schiavo's caregivers are on the joint federal-state health insurance program for the poor and disabled. In 1993, Michael Schiavo received a medical malpractice judgment of more than $750,000 in his wife's name, according to a report by her court-appointed guardian ad litem. The money was placed in a trust fund administered by an independent trustee for Schiavo's care.

Michael Schiavo's lawyers have said that $40,000 to $50,000 remains. Patient care at the Florida hospice where Schiavo lives averages about $80,000 a year, but the hospice now pays for much of her care. For two years, Medicaid has covered other medical costs, including prescription drugs, the attorneys have said in published reports.

Medicaid's share of Schiavo's care "is a big chunk," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who until this year was involved in the case as a state senator. "Governor Bush and President Bush are both professing deep concern for the rights of one disabled person, yet their rhetoric doesn't match their actions," she said.

Florida's Medicaid program is expected to cost about $14 billion this year, with the state covering 41 percent of the budget, said Jonathan Burns, spokesman for the state Agency for Health Care Administration. For every $1 Florida spends on Medicaid, it receives about $1.44 from the federal government in matching funds.

The governor has proposed limiting Medicaid spending and in essence giving each beneficiary a voucher to shop for a health plan. Advocates for the poor and disabled contend the approach would leave the most vulnerable without adequate coverage.

If it passes, "I guess Mrs. Schiavo or someone on her staff would have to find a network that will take care of her for the amount of money" the state provides, said Andrew Schneider, a Washington-based health care consultant who specializes in Medicaid.

In Washington, House Republicans approved a budget resolution for 2006 last week that would order $15 billion to $20 billion in Medicaid savings over the next five years. But when Senate leaders tried to follow suit with a budget that trimmed $14 billion from Medicaid, 52 senators balked. The Senate and House differences over the program may jeopardize lawmakers' ability to craft a budget this year, thus threatening all of President Bush's cost-cutting efforts.

Ron Pollack, executive director of the health care advocacy group Families USA, denounced the "two ironies" of the situation.

"At the same time congressional leaders were trying to keep Terri Schiavo alive, they voted to cut the Medicaid program that keeps many millions of people alive," he said in an interview. Jeb Bush, meanwhile, "is grandstanding about Terri Schiavo at the same time he is pushing real hard to place a limit on the dollars available for people's care, including care like Terri Schiavo is receiving," he said.

Republicans say such rhetoric further complicates the unavoidable task of controlling Medicaid's growth. "Too many people would rather resort to scare tactics than have a constructive conversation about ways to fix the nation's long-term budget crisis," said Gayle Osterberg, spokeswoman for the Senate Budget Committee.

The cost of care in cases such as Schiavo's has vexed governments for years. In 1999, then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush signed a law establishing procedures for hospitals and physicians to withhold life-sustaining care from patients with conditions deemed hopeless, even over relatives' protests. The legislation affords a family 10 days' notice to find another facility. Last week, Texas Children's Hospital in Houston invoked the law to remove a 6-month-old boy from his breathing tube against his mother's wishes.

It was a Republican, Rep. Steve King (Iowa), who first brought the issue of Schiavo's Medicaid support to Washington. On the House floor Sunday, he blasted Woodside Hospice, where Schiavo lives, for allegedly bilking Medicaid, citing a Government Accountability Office audit that he said ordered the company to repay $14.8 million in "inappropriately collected" fees.

The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast Inc., which operates Woodside, was cited in 1996 for nearly $15 million in payments for ineligible beneficiaries and patients who may not have been terminally ill. But the issue was Medicare charges, not Medicaid, and the investigator was the Department of Health and Human Services' inspector general.

Mike Bell, a company spokesman, said the not-for-profit did not have to repay any money. The investigation, which involved several hospice care providers, "led to clarification and directions going forward," he said.

But King was making a point other Republicans have argued: that waste and fraud can be wrung out of the Medicaid system without sacrificing patient care -- but only if Congress gives states more flexibility.

Said Osterberg: "The reason for the budget seeking . . . administrative modifications is to ensure the program is more efficient and financially sound moving forward, so that beneficiaries don't have to be kicked off down the road."

American Idol Analysis

I can't believe anyone would have time to watch this show. But I will indulge those who have time for such frivolity and give you the benefit of my analysis. For the record, I do not watch the show, I merely observe it:

First, here's the definitive order of picks.

Nikko Smith--Poor song choice. Singing style, has limited appeal, clearly an excellent vocal technician but I don't see much of a fan base. He's out next.

Nadia Turner--What the heck was that with the hair? 80s throwback? I don't think so. She sang "Time after time" which is a delicate sensitive song and she butchered it. She rushed through the song, vocals were flat, and tried to give it a Tina Turner "rolling" pizzazz which was a mistake and then at the end tried to capture the somber mood of the original.

Scott Savol--Where did this guy come from? Not an A+ song choice (Phil Collins' "Take a Look at Me Now"), but he brought his A game. He comes across as very sincere. I misunderestimated him. I had him going out at #9 before Mikalah, how dumb was that?

Mikalah Gordon--Rule #1, do not sing songs by Celine Dion, Aretha Franklin and Taylor Dane (BTW, what happened to her and Irene Cara?). I honestly don't know who her fan base is. She's a goner.

Vonzell Solomon--I wasn't sold on the performance. She's got big vocals and personality and I think that'll carry her some way, but with Scott gaining momentum, I don't see how she'll get past #6. She tends to shout a bit and there is that sense of control in her voice.

Bo Bice--I had him going out at week 6. You can call me a moron at this point, I'll accept. This guy is unbelievable. He is the real deal. I'm speechless. I'll buy his record.

Jessica Sierra--She sang "Total Eclipse of the Heart," one of my all time favorites. As usual, you gotta capture the orginal or go some place else with the song. Her performance didn't do much for me, but I think she resonates with people and not just because she's pretty. I think her fan base is perhaps the most varied. I have her going out at week 5 which I think is fair.

Anthony Federov--I like him. He tends to start slow but has great recovery speed. He is pleasant to watch and listen to.

Constantine Maroulis--Dude sang "i think I love you" by the Patridge Family. The guy is a natural performer. I have him ending up as the second runner up. I don't see him winning the Idol thing outright, but he's maximizing his limited vocal gifts with great stage presence and a charmy quirkiness.

Anwar Robinson--He's a refreshing kind'a guy, very unique voice tone. You never panick with him because you know he is always in control of his performance. He did Chaka Khan's "Ain't nobody" which is tough enough as it is. I though it was okay, but like Diana DeGarmo last year, I think he'll sail through untouched to the finals.

Carrie Underwood--I don't see how anyone can stop her, period. She is a star that has been waiting to happen. I didn't think tonite was her best performance. She obviously is a close-your-eyes and sing type, but she sang with her eyes open and seemed distracted. Nonetheless, the Rapture would have to occur between now and the final for her not to be the last one standing.

This was a much better show than last couple of years when they were asked to sing #1 hits. The last couple of years, the contestants picked obscure weird songs that had everyone scratching their heads when they had all this great billboard #1's to pick from. This time around, song selection was very good.

Interpreting Scripture

Scandal of Particularity lists 9 theses on interpreting Scripture, which got me thinking.

I generally take Scripture to be God speaking in literally in the words presented to us in the texts. Another pole to this definition is that Scripture is something of a contract between us and God. God inspired the writers. The writers wrote in their voice and words. God took ownership of what the writers said and has pledged to us that He would respect the words of the writers, thus we can depend on those words.

However, God is not constrained by the words or writings. Rather, since they are created by his inspiration, they given him as much free reign as he needs in fulfilling this contract and yet remain true to his original providential designs.

Zech 3 and our continuing fascination with the power and authority of angels

Zechariah Chapter 3

1: And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.
2: And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?
3: Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel.
4: And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.
5: And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD stood by.
6: And the angel of the LORD protested unto Joshua, saying,
7: Thus saith the LORD of hosts; If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by.
8: Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.
9: For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.
10: In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree.

Hebrews 1:7-9

7: And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8: But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9: Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Greenspan thinks Reagan was not the sharpest pencil in the box

Alan Greenspan's Presidential Point Spread

• The new GQ magazine features a nearly naked, blond young actress named Jessica Alba on its cover, but that wasn't the reason Washingtonians were hot to get their hands on a copy yesterday. Nope, the chatter was about an article on the inscrutable Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan. His morning bathing rituals are detailed therein -- he likes to write speeches in the tub -- but the really eye-catching material comes from a secondhand Greenspan quote offered by his friend of 50 years, Charles Brunie.

In an interview with GQ writer Wil Hylton, Brunie recounts a dinner conversation with Milton Friedman and Greenspan. Says Brunie: "I asked the two geniuses, 'Of all the politicians you have known, how would you rank their intellectual ability?' And Milton said, 'Well, on a Bo Derek scale . . . Nixon was a nine, and Reagan's a seven -- ' and Alan interrupted, 'No, no, Milton. Reagan's not a seven. He's a four!' Milton said, 'Alan, what do you mean by four?' Alan said, 'Well, Gerry Ford's a four.' And Milton said, 'I don't know what that means.' And Alan said, 'Well, if you gave Gerry Ford a series of data, no matter what the series was, he could not develop a concept. And Reagan is the same.' ''

But we have a bigger question: Where does Jessica Alba rank on the Bo Derek scale?

Asian Americans and the Soft Bigotry of High Expectations

Learning to Stand Out Among the Standouts

Some Asian Americans Say Colleges Expect More From Them

By Jay Mathews
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 22, 2005; Page A10

Robert Shaw, an educational consultant based in Garden City, N.Y., was working with a very bright Chinese American student who feared the Ivy League would not notice her at New Jersey's Holmdel High, where 22 percent of the students were Asian American, and she was only in the top 20 percent of her high-scoring class.

So, Shaw said, she and her parents took his daring advice to change their address. They moved 10 miles north to Keyport, N.J., where the average SAT score was 300 points lower and there were almost no Asians. She also entered, at his suggestion, the Miss Teen New Jersey contest, not a typical activity for the budding scholar.

It worked, Shaw said. His client became class valedictorian, won the talent portion of the Miss Teen competition playing piano and got into Yale and MIT.

"As admissions strategists, our experience is that Asian Americans must meet higher objective standards, such as SAT scores and GPAs, and higher subjective standards than the rest of the applicant pool," he said. "Our students need to do a lot more in order to stand out."

Asian American students have higher average SAT scores than any other government-monitored ethnic group, and selective colleges routinely reject them in favor of African American, Hispanic and even white applicants with lower scores in order to have more diverse campuses and make up for past discrimination.

Many Asian Americans and some educators wonder: Is that fair? Why shouldn't young people of Asian descent have more of an advantage in the selective college admissions system for being violin-playing, science-fair winning, high-scoring achievers?

Dat Phan, winner of NBC's Last Comic Standing had a part of his comdey routine where he tells the story of being the only Asian he knows who is bad at math. He says he routinely failed math in school and somehow, all the students seated around him failed too: couldn't explain that.

This article does not mention or the percentages of first generation compared to others. My hunch is that the Asian Americans that are excelling are more first generation than second or beyond. Just a hunch. Tends to happen with many immigrant communities.

The article goes on to ask why African Americans who are getting lower scores are being admitted in favor of high scoring Asian Americans. Also that many of these Black students are actually African or Carribean. To me, that question is kind of like asking why Ecclesiastes is in the same Bible with Matthew. You see where it is coming from, but it just doesn't fit, (so you must acquit). What I mean is that the government does owe it to African Americans to rectify the horrors it inflicted on the community. There is no clear, clear cut, short or easy way to do that. That's just the result of getting wealthy on the backs of black, souless, humanoid-looking, beast of burden, imported from the wasteland of Africa.

Rectifying wrongs, is not essentially about depriving anyone else of anything. The Asian American problem is one that needs to be worked on. But it is the closed and narrow mind that plays a zero sum game, Asians Americans or African Americans. Our times are the product of grave injustices and there are no free lunches, the debts come due at some point.

There's also the issue of the school and what it values as a complete education. If the experience of diversity is integral to the school's mission, then diversity is a priority and with that said, diversity should be integral to a school's mission. (For one, it chases the conservatives away--kidding! Any decent school worth its salt should have 8% conservatives but be sure to cap the conservative enrollment at 12%)

Anyway, these things are complicated, that's why people are paid boatloads of money to deal with these problems. If they can't do it, then resign and give me the job.

Here's the text of the Bush's "Presumption in favor of life"-but-pull-plug-in-the-case-of-the-indigent Texas law

Via Dkos

Section 166.046, Subsection (e):

If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient …

BTW: Here are the GOP talking points on Terri Schaivo obtained by DCInside Scoop. Said to have come from Santorum's office. Via dkos also.

NYU, #1 School for Philosophy?

According to Leiter Reports, NYU is ranked #1 in Philosophy programs nationwide and internationally!? Of course, I am not even in any position to judge that, nor am I protesting this, I'm just surprised. I'd never even heard of NYU's Philosophy Program, which is why it hit me out of the blue.

In looking at NYU's philosophy faculty's website, I see there's a lot of Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Mind and Philosophy of Language types. I suppose that's pretty much what conteporary philosophy is all about these days: mind/body issues, language and meaning, and science issues.

I find this interesting because Catholic Philosophy departments are a whole different animal. For instance, Catholic University's Philosophy department, to the contemporary eye is a History of Philosophy program. There's a pre-socratics person, a Plato(nic) [Plato-Augustine type] person, a bunch of Artistotaleans, Medieval Arabic person, Franciscan Scholastics Person, a bunch Thomas Aquinas people, a couple of Moderns, a couple of philosophy of science people and a healthy slew of German Kant to Husserl types. For its specialties, it is pretty top notch.

Boston College appears to have a similar faculty distribution and focus as Catholic University.

My perception is that Catholic philosophers feel that the work has been all done and all that's needed is basically a restatement in terms of modern science and contemporary world views. I've heard Catholic U philosophy students speak of with no hesitation of the utility of Aquinas' five ways of proving God's existence. I suppose that's why I am in Theology.

However, looking at Notre Dame's faculty, it's hard to see how one can get any more well rounded than that. But Notre Dame's a different beast. With all that money, they can do whatever they want. Georgetown, I suppose, is in the same boat. They have a very well rounded faculty and the school has boat loads of money to throw around.

Part of my interest here has to do with my present reading. I am reading about Newman and his Oxford buddies in the 19th century. Apparently, Oxford at the time was a joke educationally speaking and lagging in intellectual quality to the continental developments. Great Britain is always an interesting test case because it is a study in the effect of isolation and intellectual inbreeding. Most intellectuals in England at the time were simply unaware of developments in Germany and other places. There was no cross pollination of ideas and the few times English men ventured to explain the developments in German theology, it raised huge outcries.

Not that the German rationalists would have done much positive for British theology and piety, it is nonetheless exciting to imagine how John Henry Newman and others would have reacted to that stream of intellectual thought from the Kants, Hegels, and Schleiemarchers of the world.

I say this because the situation in Catholic schools seems to mirror that kind of isolation. Catholic philosophers engage in discussion among themselvs without much awareness of what's going on outside of those circles (simplistic and broad statement, I agree). Of course there is the issue of an anti-Catholic intellectual bigotry in the secular philosophy world, but why not? After all, religion has always appeared to impede honest intellectual investigations. Also, compounding things is that fact that the compatibility of faith and reason is a principle of faith. To the secular eye, it is hard to argue that Catholic philosophy is not operating with a presumption in favor of Church dogma.

Anyway, that's that.

"Wall of Fire" and "glory in the midst of her"

Zech. 2:1-13

1: I lifted up mine eyes again, and looked, and behold a man with a measuring line in his hand.
2: Then said I, Whither goest thou? And he said unto me, To measure Jerusalem, to see what is the breadth thereof, and what is the length thereof.
3: And, behold, the angel that talked with me went forth, and another angel went out to meet him,
4: And said unto him, Run, speak to this young man, saying, Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein:
5: For I, saith the LORD, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and will be the glory in the midst of her.
6: Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the LORD: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD.
7: Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.
8: For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.
9: For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me.
10: Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD.
11: And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee.
12: And the LORD shall inherit Judah his portion in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again.
13: Be silent, O all flesh, before the LORD: for he is raised up out of his holy habitation.

"Remove Life Support!" Says George W. Bush

Digby:

By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just yesterday

Mark A. R. Kleinman gives the details:

Sun Hudson, a six-month-old boy with a fatal congenital disease, died Thursday after a Texas hospital, over his mother's objections, withdrew his feeding tube. The child was apparently certain to die, but was conscious. The hospital simply decided that it had better things to do than keeping the child alive, and the Texas courts upheld that decision after the penniless mother failed, during the 10-day window provided for by Texas law, to find another institution willing to take the child .

Where, I would ask, is the outrage? In particular, where is the outrage from those like Tom DeLay, who referred to the withdrawal of Terry Schiavo's life support as "murder"? If it's appropriate to Federalize the Schiavo case, what about the people being terminated simply because their cases are hopeless and their bank accounts empty?

Sun Hudson is dead, but 68-year-old Spiro Nikolouzos is still alive, thanks to an emergency appeals court order issued yesterday. However, his life support could be cut off at any moment. A nursing home is willing to take him if his family can show that he will be covered by Medicaid after his Medicare runs out. Otherwise, the hospital gets to pull the plug.

Mr. Kleinman has more on this and his analysis on his page.

Where was the very concerned pro-life movement when G.W. Bush passed this law?

Where was the pro-life movement when this conscious 6 month old's life support was removed just this last week?

There has been enough disingenuous behavior as it is, IMHO.

I have mentioned previously that the situation is sad enough as it is and to make a public spectacle of what should be a private moment for family is unbelievable. We do know for a fact that the RNC has sent talking points out and called this a great political opportunity. The Florida Bishops on Feb. 15, 2005 have already made it clear that the subject threshold of burden lies solely with Michael Schaivo.

More recently Bishop Lynch has said:

Statement of Bishop Robert N. Lynch

The bishops of Florida have once again addressed the issue of the withdrawal of the artificial feeding tube from Terri Schiavo. As in the past, I join them in addressing this complex and tragic situation. As the local bishop and pastor for all the family parties involved, I would like to add the following. At the end of the day (the judicial, legislative days) the decision to remove Terri’s artificial feeding tube will be that of her husband, Michael. It is he who will give the order, not the courts or certainly the governor or legislature or the medical personnel surrounding and caring for Terri. In other words, as I have said from the beginning of this sad situation, the decision will be made within a family. A significant part of that family feels they are outside of the decision-making process and they are in great pain and suffering mightily.

I urge and pray that before the finality, one last effort be made for mediation. Normally, at the end of life, families of the person in extremis agree that it is time to allow the Lord to call a loved one to Himself, feeling that they have done all they possibly might to provide alternatives to death, every possible treatment protocol which might be helpful has been attempted. There is a peace. This will not happen in this instance because of the seeming intractability of both sides. I beg and pray that both sides might step back a little and allow some mediation in these final hours. The legacy of Terri’s situation should not be that of those who love her the most, loathing the actions of one another, but of a heroic moment of concern for the feelings of each other, guided by moral and ethical considerations, with a single focus of achieving the best result for Terri. I ask the Catholics of the Diocese of St. Petersburg in the waning days of Lent to pray hard to the “Author of All Life” for Terri and for her family.

Democracy Cell Project has a Blogswarm going on of which I have decided to participate. Tutterfly at DCP has a nice and eloquent post on the issue which I recommend.

This is a sad issue and the last thing we need is a public spectacle to serve political grandstanding needs.

Lamentations 1:12

"Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by? behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow, which is done unto me, wherewith the LORD hath afflicted me in the day of his fierce anger."

Biggest Night of Sci Fi Ever March 19

Stargate SG-1
Stargate Atlantis
Battlestar Galactica

Stargate SG-1

This was a strange episode in that the last two weeks were about an apocalyptic anti-climactic battle the between the good guys and the replicators, gouaould and Annubis. Now, we have a final two weeks that seem unconnected to previous weeks and previous events.

This week the lady whose patronage brought Daniel Jackson into the whole Stargate thing in the first place, passed away. Jackson spoke at her funeral and the lady's niece came up to Daniel and told him that the lady had some things that she wanted Daniel to have. Well, it turns out that it was her entire ancient Egypt collection. As he studied it they realized that there were stories about a special burning lght that had vasts amounts of energy. The figured out that it was a ZPM or Zero Point Module. These ZPMs are energy sources created by the Ancients and highly sought after. They are the ultimate power sources and you certainly do not need them getting into the hands of bad guys. More importantly, Stargate command could really use one, especially the folks stuck in Atlantis.

Now, I missed the dialog because something convinced them of the absolute necessity of getting the ZPM that they decided to use a time machine developed by the Ancients which they had in their possession. Col Carter, was much opposed, as it would alter the time line, but was overruled.

So back in time they go to the 2500 BC or something like that. Back to the time of Ra, the sun god. They get into the Ra temple and recover the ZPM. (Quick note: in the stargate world, Ra and other Egyptian gods are gouaould types and the pyramids are landing pads for their space ships.) However, as they move to get back, they find that the jaffar have discovered their cloacked time machine ship and so they are stuck. Of course Gen O'Neill would like to take them on and fight, but Carter stops him because such a high impact event would immeasurably alter the timeline.

They know, however, that in about five years the locals rebel and overthrow Ra and the gouaould leave and that site becomes the archeological site where the first stargate is found. So they decide to leave a video tape in a tomb at the excavation site to be discovered during the 20th century archeological dig.

Fastfoward to present day. Daniel Jackson in altered timeline is a pariah archeologist who is stuck teaching English as a second language. Samantha Carter is a PhD Astrophyscist stuck at a mediocre mundane job doing reviews of journal articles and not going anywhere with her life. They are both contacted and brought in by Air Force and the tape is revealed to them. Of course, they have no clue what's going on. O'Neill on the other hand is a loser who gives tours on a boat and refuses to go the with air force personel.

Well, Carter and Jackson are able to figure out a few things here and there and they discover that there is a stargate in Antartica. This, in the regular timeline, was known. Now, a team has to be assembled to go back in time to restore the regular timeline or something like that. Of course, Carter and Jackson are being shut out of the operation because they have no expertise in this sort of thing.

So next week, somehow O'Neill will be persuaded to join them and they'll go back in time and restore things. Like I said, a somewhat absurd and off kilter episode. Last week, there was the big moment of O'Neill and Carter finally acknowledging their surpressed feelings for each other after 8 years, but they do nothing with that. It is possible that, being that they were stuck in ancient Egypt, they may have gotten married, etc, so that'd be a way to move ahead with that. Not my favorite episode, but it probably is building to an exciting finale. We'll see.

Stargate Atlantis

The Wraith will be at Atlantis in 49 hours. Not only do the Wraith want possession of Atlantis, they want possession of the Stargate so that they can get the mother of all feeding grounds, the earth. The Atlantis crew decides to try out an Ancient satelite in deep space and use it to stop the Wraith. A team of three is sent out to fix it. They succeed in fixing it but run into a few complications. As a result, one of them is stuck on the satellite as the Wraith appear en route to Atlantis. The other two watched from a cloaked Ancient ship as the satellite works and destroys a major Wraith carrier, but the satellite malfunctions and the Wraith destroy the satellite and crew member. The good thing is that the Wraith pull back to reasses strategy thus giving Atlantis more time.

At Atlantis, they make plans to evacuate and enact a self destruct sequence so that the Wraith are unable to take over Atlantis. However, the self destruct sequence will be unable to destroy it completely, which is a problem. Another quandry is that Atlantis is a mystical place for the people of that galaxy and they plead with the Atlantis crew to not destroy it. They believe that the Ancients must have anticipated a day like this and program Atlantis to survive. Dr Weir tries to think of creating a back up database, but they do not have enough memory devices and the most they'd be able to save is 9% of the database, if that.

Also, they discover that they have a Wraith in Atlantis, who snuck in during a reconnaisance mission a few episodes ago. He is captured and tortured, but does not reveal anything about what he has been doing for two weeks. Eventually, he is killed.

Next week is the season finale and should be pretty exciting. I'm of the opinion that between Tela's new found telepathic abilities, Atlantis' resourcefullness and the abandoned Wraith lab discovered last episode, something good will happen for them, or there'll be no second season and that wouldn't make sense.

Battlestar Galactica

Good one. There was a terrorist guy who served his time and now is free. He is building a political movement which the fleet's leaders believe must be stopped at all cost. To assasinate him would make him a martyr which is unacceptable. During a council meeting, this guy introduces a motion for the election of a Vice President, which is surprisingly seconded by the Doctor guy who is creating a cyclon detector. Anyway, this terrorist guy is garnering major support and there is a mjor concern that if he wins VP, he'll have the President assasinated and he'll assume power.

It turns out that this terrorist guy did plan an assasination attempt which was flushed out fortuitously before the day of the votes. However, the status quo candidate was not making headway and was losing in the "polls." It was then the President noticed a TV interview with the cylon detector Doctor guy who came across very well. She then forced the status quo VP candidate to pull out for "health reasons" and convinced the Doctor guy to run and he won in a dramatic vote.

In other events, there's the two military people trapped on the cyclon planet, who have been on the run for days. The lady is a conflicted cyclon clone, whose mission is to bring the guy to the cylons, but she is in love with him and he with her. In this episode they decide to attack a building, I missed the reasoning behind it. One thing, though, in the last episode, a lady that they had killed earlier was seen walking around with some cyclons. The guy finally figured out that the cyclons were cloning humans. So at this building they sneak to the roof and observe as two clones of the woman they supposedly killed were talking as they separate and walk off, confirming his suspicion, he notices someone walking across the lawn. She looks up and sees him on the roof, it is a clone of his partner. He shoots and kills her. He then has a moment of flashbacks which clue him to the fact that she is a cyclon. He takes off as she calls him back, confused. But he doesn't stop and dissappears.

It's hard to see where they're going to go with both of them. It seemed that they were setting up for a cyclon defection as she would reveal that she was cyclon but loved him, etc. But no cigar. Another development to watch is the XO on Galactica. His wife seems to be in cahoots with the terrorist guy and is planning something for next week. The other thing is that it is still not clear to us, if she is a cyclon.

The next two weeks are the final two weeks, so it should be interesting how things get resolved.

Reactions from the Right on the Schaivo Case

As of yesterday the Judge ordered the Terri Schaivo's tube could be removed according to the wishes of her husband. This morning I was greeted with unusual (I don't know how else to describe them) pictures from Florida where it seemed people where in the throes of wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding the Schaivo case. Again, thousands of these cases occur each year in which a family member decides to pull the plug on a family member in a vegetative state. I am baffled why, if this is such a pro-life issue, why not then go to the crux of the matter and push for legislation on all such cases? Because they know that first of all, it is not the will of the people and secondly there is no basis to do that. But then, it really isn't about a pro-life reading on all such cases, is it? It is about this particular case because a point can be made in this case.

There are thousands of children, innocent children who have died in the Iraq war in the most horrible ways you can think as parents in despair watched helplessly. Many have died slowly in carpet bombings, in sicknesses, diseases, etc. Even if the conservatives don't like the adult Iraqis who deserve it, I'm sure they'd have some compassion to spare for the children? Or is out of sight, out of mind? Why expend all this energy on Terri Schaivo, who did not wish to be kept alive, but be unmoved by the horror of the plight of Iraqi kids dying slowly in this war? There is something so disproportionately out of whack in all of this. It simply doesn't make any sense.

Via HMS blog, I see that Peggy Noonan has a column on the Schaivo case. She says:

Here's both a political and a public-relations reality: The Republican Party controls the Senate, the House and the White House. The Republicans are in charge. They have the power. If they can't save this woman's life, they will face a reckoning from a sizable portion of their own base. And they will of course deserve it.

First of all, pro-lifers are never going to hold the Republicans responsible for anything because the movement is more about putting Republcians in power. They'll blame this on liberals and Democrats. Everything is the fault of liberals and Democrats.

On the other side of this debate, one would assume there is an equally well organized and passionate group of organizations deeply committed to removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. But that's not true. There's just about no one on the other side. Or rather there is one person, a disaffected husband who insists Terri once told him she didn't want to be kept alive by extraordinary measures.

That's a lie and she knows it. But lying for a pro-life cause is justified. This is as disingenuous as Senator Frist, a non-neurologist, diagnosing Terri Schaivo with nothing but a amateur home made video.

At the heart of the case at this point is a question: Is Terri Schiavo brain-dead? That is, is remedy, healing, physiologically impossible?
No. Oddly enough anyone who sees the film and tape of her can see that her brain tells her lungs to breathe, that she can open her eyes, that she seems to respond at times and to some degree to her family. She can laugh. (I heard it this morning on the news. It's a childlike chuckle.) In the language of computers she appears not to be a broken hard drive but a computer in deep hibernation. She looks like one of those coma cases that wind up in the news because the patient, for no clear reason, snaps to and returns to life and says, "Is it 1983? Is there still McDonald's? Can I have a burger?"

Again, this is so disingenuous that it baffles the imagination. Noonan is a smart woman and this for her is tantamount to wilfull deception. She knows, as does everyone, that Terri is not "brain dead." To be brain dead is to be officially dead and she knows that.

Then she ask, " is remedy, healing, physiologically impossible?" and answers, "No" How on earth does she come to that conclusion? Here's how she gets there: "Oddly enough anyone who sees the film and tape of her can see that her brain tells her lungs to breathe, that she can open her eyes, that she seems to respond at times and to some degree to her family. She can laugh. (I heard it this morning on the news. It's a childlike chuckle.)"

Again, how intellectually dishonest is this? This is the same type of lying nonsense that the Bush administration and the Republican party have constantly used in the past ten years. She is basing her conclusions on the tape! She knows what she's doing is dishonest. She knows, as well as anyone, that the Persistent Vegetative State is a state in which primitive brain functions exist, and one can sleep, wake, respond to physical stimuli, but is ultimately unconscious. That's the thing with PVS, they appear to interact with their environment, they even laugh, but physiologically, consciousness is simply impossible.

Further in her column she basically says that medicine is full of miracles and that someday they may be able to do something for Terri. In that statement, she's basically undone the Catholic principle of ordinary and extra-ordinary measures. If we adopt the Noonan/pro-life idea here, then everyone should be forced to say alive because we know in 10-25 years, medicine will be so advanced that many present ailments will have succesful medical therapies.

On a final note. I saw this on Don Bettinelli's site:

On Friday afternoon, less than a hour after probate court judge George W. Greer ignored federal subpoenas and ordered that Michael Schiavo remove the feeding tube from Terri which will cause her death by starvation, Terri Schiavo before multiple witnesses indicated that she wanted to live.

According to attorney Barbara Weller, one of the attorneys representing Terri’s parents, Mary and Bob Schindler Sr., when her parents and attorneys visited Terri at the Woodside Hospice where she resides to tell her they were going to remove her feeding tube, Terri began to cry and tried to say “I want to live.” Attorney Weller said she had a difficult time calming Terri down.

You've got to be kidding me!

Parents of the world unite!

Yes, this was actually uttered.

From WaPo

Ah, Fox News host John Gibson kindly enlightens us in his online column about that topic, homosexual marriage. He writes: "Gays can't have kids -- other than going to the abandoned kids' store and getting one or two, or borrowing sperm from someone with more sperm than brains -- so by definition they're out of the marriage game."

"It's this reality. Like omigod, I have to tell the maid to buy diapers and get the pool boy to walk the dog? Can't I just make out with Kevin all the time? Being married sucks."

-- Britney Spears, complaining in Allure magazine about her grueling life as a stepmother to Kevin Federline's two kids.

Rabbit Held Hostage

'Save Toby' Site Draws Rabbit Reactions

By David Segal
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 18, 2005; Page C01

Toby is a bunny with wheat-colored fur and innocent brown eyes. He's about 10 inches long and the picture of fuzzy-wuzzy cuteness.

Sadly, in a matter of months Toby will be chopped, skinned, sauteed and served in a wine sauce.

The Web site carries a variety of merchandise whose purchase goes toward the $50,000 needed to 'save' Toby. (Savetoby.com)

The anonymous operator of Savetoby.com has vowed to take this beloved pet to a butcher, slaughter the animal and then devour him in a midsummer feast, unless visitors to the site send $50,000 by June 30. You read it right: Send money, or the bunny is dinner.

"I don't want to eat Toby," the site operator writes on the home page, "he is my friend, and he has always been the most loving, adorable pet. However, God as my witness, I will devour this little guy unless I receive 50,000$ USD into my account from donations or purchase of merchandise."

To underscore the gravity of all this, there is a section with recipes for, among other dishes, Lapin Braise (take "1 Toby cut in serving-sized pieces, flour for dusting with salt and pepper"), Moroccan Hare Tagine ("Ingredients: Toby, olive oil, cinnamon") and Toby Confit ("Place Toby's legs together with the sliced garlic and rock salt in a bowl overnight"). In the gallery section, there's a photo of Toby on a cutting board, just to make sure you get the idea.

Activity on the Schaivo Front

The latest move in the Schaivo saga is that the Senate has issued a subpoena for both Terri and Michael Schaivo to appear to testify before the Senate. The thinking is that such a subpoena would prevent the tube removal and prolong Terri's life.

I just shake my head in disbelief. This is not pro-life. If half the energy that has been expended here was expended in a legitimate pro-life social justice cause, some real good stuff would be happening.

In reading the post this morning, I saw a quote by Bill Frist, MD, Senate Leader who proclaimed that Terri does not have PVS because he watched the video tape. That is nonsense. Bill Frist, as well as any other responsible doctor, will always tell you that you cannot diagnose anything without the facts. This same video has been the excuse for countless others who claim with confidence that Terri is conscious because the saw her on that video tape. This is disingenious at best. It is well known and established that PVS patients appear to be conscious but are not.

The court system has gone through this case with a fine tooth comb. It's been up and down the ladder. Even the Florida Bishops Conference and Bishop Lynch has made it clear that at the end of the day, Michael Schaivo may remove the tube and only him knows if he meets the subjective and personal threshold of burden of care.

The alarm with which pro-lifers are taking this case rings hollow to me. There is so much crap that goes on in this world, in our communities everyday: stuff that would make you cringe to your toes twice over. Things like abject poverty, rape, abuse, starvation, health calamities, homelessness, etc. Why don't we see this type of rage on behalf of those issues every now and then? We don't because those are not important issues. Rather, the Schaivo case is a great case that brings the requisiste publicity to make a point.

BTW, what happened to the vaunted principle of subsidiarity?

Anyway, the Washington Post had an editorial on this that I agree with:

The Schiavo Case
Friday, March 18, 2005; Page A22


CONGRESS DOES NOT generally smile these days on the power of the federal courts to review alleged constitutional errors by state courts. In 1996 it imposed significant procedural barriers for inmates who want their claims examined -- even inmates who might face execution and those who might be innocent. The idea was that the national government should defer to state courts and not seek to micromanage their justice systems -- even in matters of life and death. Except, apparently, in the case of Terri Schiavo, the Florida woman in a persistent vegetative state whom the Florida courts, after careful consideration, decided would not want to live under such circumstances. With Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube scheduled to be removed today, Congress sprang into action to pass legislation granting the federal courts the power to review the state court judgments that would let her die. (The Florida legislature is, for the second time, also acting to force her to continue living.) On Wednesday night the House of Representatives passed a bill to let "an incapacitated person" -- or someone who cares about him or her -- go to federal court whenever a state court "authorizes or directs the withholding or withdrawal of food" and when there is no undisputed living will. The Senate passed a narrower bill yesterday that would deal with Ms. Schiavo's case alone -- allowing her parents, who wish to keep her alive, a shot at the federal courts.

Both bills make a mockery of the professed conservative devotion to the sovereignty of states and the integrity of their courts. There is no great constitutional question to litigate here. Nonetheless, the broader House bill would create endless opportunities to involve the federal courts in heart-rending end-of-life struggles within families. And the Senate bill is nothing more than a warrantless intervention by the national legislature in a specific case that -- no matter how much members might dislike the result -- is no business of Congress. Yet Virginia Sen. George Allen (R) declared in a statement yesterday that he supports federal court review because, whatever the courts may have said, "when I see the videotapes of Terry Schiavo, it is clear she is conscious and has feelings."

The message to state courts is that they can do as they will with accused criminals and rely on federal law to shield them from review, but Congress will pull out the stops to overturn rulings -- however local -- that members don't like. That's not how the federal system is supposed to work.

This Washington Post Headline says it all

Afghan Crime Wave Breeds Nostalgia for Taliban

Can you say "failed policies"?

One for One on American Idol Picks

Lindsey C. was voted off last nite like I predicted. Next off, Nikko Smith.

More on Interracial Marriage

Via Black Feminist, I stumble upon this article on interracial marriages:

Cultural Taboos resist change

Movie actor Taye Diggs, a black man, received death threats concerning his interracial marriage to Broadway star Idina Menzel, a white woman and winner of last year's Tony Award for best actress in a musical.

The letters threatened the castration of Diggs if he didn't end his marriage. It also threatened death for Mensel and the bombing of New York's Gershwin Theatre, where Menzel was performing in the musical "Wicked."

Yikes!

Attitudes toward interracial relationships in general may have changed -- 4 percent of Americans approved of such relationships in a 1958 Gallup poll, while 70 percent approved in a 2003 Gallup poll -- but among those people still struggling to accept marriages between the wide variety of races and cultures in America, unions between black men and white women remain the unions hardest to accept, experts say.

Curious, as always, about the other 30%.

Negative attitudes toward such relationships range from those of white men such as Shawn Walker, chief operating officer of the white-supremacy group National Alliance, who sees the unions as the destruction of gene pools, to those of black women who denounce the unions for depleting the supply of available black men.

Black Feministe tackles this one. This is another one of those false equivalences. She rightly argues that Black women should not be compared to white supremacists, they are coming from very different places.

No other racial group in America has a gender ratio as disparate as the one in the black population -- there are 1.7 million more black women than men -- yet U.S. census figures from 2000 showed black men were 2.8 times more likely to intermarry with another race than black women.

In 2002, according to census data, marriages of black men to white women were 2.4 times as common as marriages of white men to black women.

Now, I did not know that. But can we avoid the foolish causality statements?

Anyway, the article goes on, you might want to read the whole thing and Black Feminist's post on the article.

Watching these discussion on interracial marriage is like looking in a portal and seeing a parallel universe in a time warp. Somethings sound reasonable, other things, make you wonder. IR talk is one subject area where the maxim that says, "opinions are like . . . behinds, everyone has one," holds. In addition to the 2 million and one opinions out there are a wicked admixture of stereotypes: black woman are raving jealous loud mouthed looneys who hate white women, black men need white women on their arms as status symbols, white men hate the white-woman-stealing black man, white women are clueless prizes for the taking, and gosh, those confused kids. BTW, Latinos don't exist . . . excuse me? . . . Asians?

ANWR Ammendment Fails

The budget bill that had the ANWR drilling language insert passed 51-49. The big shocker is that the 2 Hawaiian Democratic senators voted in favor of it. Apparently, they have struck backroom deals regarding self governance bills up for vote this session.

However, all is not lost on ANWR. Lorax at dkos has a very workable strategy. Check it out.

Saving ANWR

Even though I hardly post about environmental issues, the environment is one of the top issues for me. It was what turned me off Bush in 2000 after I voted for him, i.e, the Kyoto thing.

A side note. One big reason I voted for Bush in 2000 beside the "pro-life" issue was the environment. I thought that since he was a "good" man with a conscience and that since he was such a friend of big business, that God would touch his heart and make him talk to his big business friends and perhaps agree to raise the mileage requirements for vehicles. I know, I know. Some people have even called me a Black blonde.

Anyway, I mention ANWR because I got an email from Kerry today and acted on it. And to my delight I see that on Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, Steve and Nathan are kicking butt on environmental issues including ANWR.

Left/Right: Are Labels Wrong?

Gary Simms has post called "Leaving the Left Behind." He talks about reading the recent Jim Wallis book God Politics which rightly excoriates the Religious Right. Wallis is not sparring of the Religious Left either. Gary says:

I have not finished reading Jim's book at this writing but I am beginning to catch a glimpse of his vision that calls us to move from a Left vs Right approach. If we continue to rally ourselves around the Progressive Banner, we are no different then those we criticize. We too, become self-righteous bigots. We too, become too focused on our agenda and lose sight of God's agenda. We too, become the problem and not the solution.

So are left/right labels wrong and unchristian? IMHO, NO! NO! NO! NO!

I remember listening to a old time journalist on CSPAN who said "The average between the truth and a lie is a lie."

To self identify as Left/Progressive is fine and a good thing and certainly not unChristian. There's no reason to push for "balance" or moderation simply for the sake of it. Nor is there a reason to swear off partisanship for the sake of it. It all comes down to what you believe and what your convictions are and that's what places you where you are on the political spectrum.

John Henry Newman made a living off the Via Media as an Anglican until he realized that via media for itself is not a credible position. He came to realize that if he was in the fourth century, on one extreme would have been the Arians and at the other extreme the anti-Arians (also known as orthodox) and the Via Media were Semi-Arians (a heterodox position). He realized then that if he followed his Via Media principle at the time, he would have been a semi-Arian. So much for middle ways.

I haven't had the opportunity to read Wallis book, so prudence would dictate I read first before I run my mouth. But Prudence is off today. What I can't stand is the issue of false equivalences. It is okay to criticize the Right without having to take perfunctory shots at the Left for "balance." It's not the Religious Right reading the book anyway, it's us Lefties.

The Left-Right paradigm is what works and until that changes politically, there's no need to go scrambling for another paradigm.

I recall also that Peter Nixon had a Commonweal article on something similar, that both Left and Right have defective points and a distinctively Catholic voice is being lost in the public square. Fair enough. But the answer is not for Catholics to move to the center but for Righties to move Left. The center is not the answer in itself. For those at the Center because of political convictions, they are doing the right thing for them. But I don't believe in in the Center or moderation just to avoid taking a position on things or just to try to "average" things out.

I know Wallis is a liberal at heart so in the end, the Right probably gets a good whack on the head while the left gets the "naughty-naughty" finger. Still, we need to be clear, the Left is not the problem, the Religious and Catholic Right are.

Grassroots Action Needed: Bolton and PAYGO

Steve Clemmons is spearheading the effor to keep John Bolton from making a horrendous foreign policy worse with John Bolton.

Mark Schmitt is also urging action on the Chafee Feingold PAYGO Ammendment requiring fiscal responsibility vis a vis tax cuts or should we say, tax giveaways to the wealthy.

Mark points out that normally these matters go under the radar, but by shining a light on them, Senators get nervous. Read his post and call your senator to suppor the PAYGO ammendment.

Maryland Senate Seat Opening: Kweisi Mfume for Senate

Senator Sarbanes is retiring and there is a crazy scramble among Democrats to run for his seat. Kweisi Mfume has thrown his hat in the ring, of course there are many others to follow, such as Chris Van Hollen, Dutch Ruppersberger, Elijah Cummings, Glen Ivey, and few others.

I think we've gone long enough without having a representative number of Black senators in the U.S. Senate, for that reason, Kweisi Mfume it is for me. I think he'd do quite well. He has a very good public image, he is incredibly articulate, was a congressman, and then turned the NAACP's fortunes around in the private sector, he is not seen as a rabid partisan even though he is unquestionably liberal.

I think the race is his to lose. He'll certainly get Baltimore City/County, He'll scoop up the majority Black Prince George's county which is to the east of Washington DC. Montgomery County is tricky. Montgomery County is to the north of DC and is a very progressive and wealthy county, more white and currently run by Doug Duncan, the next governor of Maryland. Chris Van Hollen and other primary challengers will suck the oxygen out of Montgomery county for Mfume. Eastern and Western MD are as conservative as Alabama, so goes the talk on the street. Southern Maryland is where Mfume would have to get over the top. Southern MD is three counties, Charles, St Mary's and Calvert. Charles, the most populous, went slightly for Kerry and is 38% Black, so if Mfume can do well down here, he'll be fine. He'd have Baltimore, Prince George's Co, and Southern Maryland.

As for his NAACP tenure, Mfume was interested in striking bipartisan bonds. In fact a supposed rift broke out between he and Julian Bond who felt that there was nothing that the Bush administration had to offer and he was very harsh on the Bush folks. Mfume is the type who probably felt the same way but that still one must nonetheless maintain dialog and keep options open. I think he is well suited for the more collegial senate. So Mfume it is. That'll make two Black senators who will represent us well and not embarass us by hanging out with dictators and stuff.

CSPAN: "Balance" =Giving Voice to Holocaust Denier

Richard Cohen calls CSPAN on its foolish fair and balanced false equivalences:

C-SPAN's Balance of the Absurd

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A23

You will not be seeing Deborah Lipstadt on C-SPAN. The Holocaust scholar at Emory University has a new book out ("History on Trial"), and an upcoming lecture of hers at Harvard was scheduled to be televised on the public affairs cable outlet. The book is about a libel case brought against her in Britain by David Irving, a Holocaust denier, trivializer and prevaricator who is, by solemn ruling of the very court that heard his lawsuit, "anti-Semitic and racist." No matter. C-SPAN wanted Irving to "balance" Lipstadt.

The word balance is not in quotes for emphasis. It was invoked repeatedly by C-SPAN producers who seemed convinced that they had chosen the most noble of all journalistic causes: fairness. "We want to balance it [Lipstadt's lecture] by covering him," said Amy Roach, a producer for C-SPAN's Book TV. Her boss, Connie Doebele, put it another way. "You know how important fairness and balance is at C-SPAN," she told me. "We work very, very hard at this. We ask ourselves, 'Is there an opposing view of this?' "

As luck would have it, there was. To Lipstadt's statements about the Holocaust, there was Irving's rebuttal that it never happened -- no systematic killing of Jews, no Final Solution and, while many people died at Auschwitz of disease and the occasional act of brutality, there were no gas chambers there. "More women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber at Auschwitz," Irving once said.

American Idol: Definitive Order of Elimination Predicted

Week 12 Lindsey Cardinale

Week 11 Nikko Smith

Week 10 Nadia Turner

Week 9 Scott Savol

Week 8 Mikalah Gordon

Week 7 Vonzell Solomon

Week 6 Bo Bice

Week 5 Jessica Sierra

Week 4 Anthony Federov

Week 3 Constantine Maroulis

Week 2 Anwar Robinson

Week 1 Carrie Underwood

This is not what I'd like to see, but rather how I predict things will shake out. Some observations:

1. Nadia Turner at 10 may be a mistake. She could easily go as high as 8. I just don't know who her fan base demographic is.
2. Carrie Underwood may bomb at some point as she's forced to try different genres. The thing about doing different genres is that it can shake your confidence. So we'll have to see. Chances of her losing the competition are slim.
3. I am not a fan of Anwar Robinson but I think he has a charm and the voice to take him all the way. He really needs to cut the runs and begin to sing the plain ol' melody.
4. Constantine's charm and looks will take him to the top five, but his voice is simply inferior to the rest, he made the top 12 on looks and personality and not talent.
5. Vonzell is the best singer I think, but she'll only go so far, because she is too adultish and people are not looking for the serious singer but an idol.

Are Quakers Christians?

I've been following as Beppeblog has been considering leaving the Friends. In reading the posts, I was struck by the fact that Quaker is not necessarily synonymous with Christian. I didn't know if I read that right, but I had always assumed that the Friends were a Christian community. Am I right about that?

Joe Biden sold us out on the bankrupcy bill

Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, corporate home of the world, voted in favor of the recent unjust bankrupcy bill that just passed the Senate.

Mary at Pacific Views has more.

Let's just so, Joe Biden's chances of wining the Democratic nomination for 2008 are as good as me being elected successor to JPII.

Kid Oakland: A New York Education

Kid Oakland, formerly of dkos, has a interesting post up at his new home, Liberal Street Fighter. It's about a homeless lady he befriended in New York.

The Most Holy Sacrament

A friend of mine who was present at our daughter's batptism noted to me that when the priest asked if we would raise the kid in the faith, blah, blah, she thought, "Of course, those kids will get the faith better than most," and then she recalled a few conversations we had had and it dawned on her that, we may have a different thing in mind than the priest did. She was right.

I have no intention of enslaving my kids to Catholic doctrine at the expense of authentic Christianity even though they are Catholic and are being raised as such. When Catholicism and Christianity are in tandem, Catholicism great, but when they diverge, I err on the side of Christianity most times. Sometimes, I think the Catholic Church works like a cult and that you are just about required to "sacrifice" your children unreservedly to the Catholic gods. One misleading aspect of Catholicism and prime cultish aspect, in my view, is the present Eucharistic emphasis.

The Catholic Eucharist is a tricky thing to teach to kids. On the other hand it is extremely straightforward. The truth is straight forward, but the accretions and dogmatic facade is the tricky amd misleading part.

When teaching kids about the Eucharist, what do you say it is? The body and blood of Christ? I know many who teach their kids that it is Jesus. I wholeheartedly resist such characterizations, because are they are simply not true. The Eucharist is sacrament. A sacrament has two aspects to it, a sign and instrument, i.e, it signifies something and then is the instrument through which what is signified comes about.

Catholic orthodoxy since the Luther era has turned the Eucharist into a dogmatic threshold. Do you believe that the bread and wine have been completely and totally trans____ so that bread and wine no longer remain, but they are now Christ's body and blood? This is a case where tradition has clearly outrun the sacrament and has veered off in a direction that obscures the truth about the Eucharist.

Catholic theology and philosophy tend towards reification. So there's always a push to define the ontological status of things. This is what the Eucharist has fallen victim to.

Msgr Robert Sokolowski at Catholic University has a book called Eucharistic Presence and I like what he says about the Eucharist. I haven't read it in a while and I'm taking from his viewpoint but not at all representing it or him. But his perspective is that when Jesus was in the upper room celebrating the meal. He said, "do this in memory of me." Now, Jesus was celebrating this ritual with a Jewish template of a seder meal and anticipating his death as the lamb of God. And so Jesus' instructions to us are to re-present the ritual which means the following:

1. Recall that particular meal
2. Recall that that ritual meal was celebrating the passover
3. Recall that that ritual meal anticipates the death and resurrection of Christ

These recollections are all embeded in each other. Jesus' original meal contains in it the anticipation of his passion and death as well as he celebration of the passover. Our liturgical recollection then re-presents Jesus's ritual which has embedded in it, an anticipation of his death as the lamb of God, the fulfilment of passover. There is a complex interplay of memory and recollections in the ritual.

On the divine side of things. God has preserved the truth and presence of that ritual celebration with all its embedded matrix of anticipations and recollections so that we can re-present it in our celebrations.

This goes to the heart of "do this in memory of me." The "This is my body" part is not the main story, the main story is the entire interplay of context, anticipation, and words of Christ and presence of disciples." Over time, the "this is my body" has taken over and now that's what the Eucharist is about. To the extent that adoration and such devotions have become standard fare. The problem is that Eucharist is meant to be eaten and not adored and futher, the symbolism has succumbed to reification and destroyed the true sense of the ritual. The symbolism, which is all what I've mentioned above, is as important as any other part of the ritual, including the "this is my body" aspect.

As for the "this is my body," I think the whole thing has gotten out of hand. Those words are part of an entire ritual and it is the ritual re-presented that gives us access to the life of Christ as all sacraments should. The common argument Catholics give for our interpretation of the Eucharist is John 6 where Jesus says unless you're willing to eat his flesh and drink my blood, you can have no part of me, etc. People left him en masse then and they wouldn't have if he wasn't speaking literally. No offense, but that strikes me as a one of the weakest and dumbest arguments for something so important coming from smart people. It did not matter if Jesus spoke literally or figuratively, the point of what he said (or had been saying) was blasphemous.

Jesus said many things about himself in John's Gospel. He said that he was the Good shepherd and we were sheep, he also said he was door, and many other things including a vine and we are branches. John is full of all these "I am" and "you are" direct statements. There is absolutely no justification to latch on to one of these statements that is so obviously figurative and then claim it is literal yet at the same time maintain that we are obviously not vine branches or sheep, or that Jesus is not really literally a vine or any of the other things Jesus claimed to be.

The key to this "this is my body" phrase is in the institution narratives themselves. Jesus took bread and blessed it and gave it to them saying, "this is my body." It obviously was not his body. If he wanted to it to be literal, he would have cut his body and offered them his flesh and blood, from his actual body. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if he is handing them blessed bread and calling it his body, while he is yet bodily with them, then clearly, the entire ritual is awash in symbolism that explains the genuine sense of "body."

The concern in Catholic thought is that if the statement is primarily symbolic then it diminishes the Eucharist. Concern or not, the point is that the Eucharist is first and foremost, a symbol, and then an instrument. If the Eucharist loses its fundament symbolic character then it ceases to be a sacrament.

So back to what to tell the kids. What we certainly cannot tell them is that the Eucharist is Jesus, it is not. The Eucharist is the sacrament, i.e, sign and instrument of Christ's body, but it is NOT Christ. There is an actual Jesus Christ, who physically rose from the dead and is at a point (x,y,z,t). It riles me when kids are told that the Eucharist is Jesus, because then it defeats the purpose of the Eucharist which is to direct one's focus on the real actual Jesus who is a person that rose from the dead.

That risen Jesus is not hidden. It is with him that we are to have a relationship. Jesus as he is now, has a nose, eyes, hands, hair, toes, he is a man. The resurrection of Christ is an anchor of our faith. Does then the Eucharist inspire faith in this man Jesus? As it is currently practiced, no. The focus has shifted from Christ to the sacrament, the Eucharist, thus imbuing it with privileges that should be reserved for the living Son of God.

So what then do we tell the kids? If the Eucharist is not Christ, what are we to tell them? The Eucharist is Christ's holy sacrament. It is a holy ritual in which we remember, re-present and contemplate the Son of God. And even then, outside of the ritual, we understand the sacred hosts as the product of the Eucharistic holy ritual. The presence of the Holy, or even the idea of the presence of the Holy, is the legacy of the sacrament. The fact the we have a holy ritual in our midst in which phsyical holiness is made present to us to eat is the richness of the sacrament.

The ritual of the Eucharist was never meant to produce a Christ substitute for us, but a doorway to Christ.

So, Ono, do you believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, such that after consecration, there remains no longer bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ?

. . . . (Fingers tapping on the desk. The court is silent as magistrate lets his mind drift in anticipation to the warmth of the pyre on this cold day. "It's been slow around here, a nice warm fire and some excitement is sure to stir things up" he muses to himself. A chill sweeps through the court as seconds stretch out it in interminably long intervals. The weight of the moment is not lost on anyone. He speaks.)

That is the wrong question. It is futile and useless question that does nothing for the truth of the sacrament. All that I will say is that, of things in heaven and earth, nothing is holier than the preserved presence of that holy moment of Christ's life captured in the Eucharitic ritual and its fruit.

Biggest Night of Sci Fi Ever March 11

Stargate SG-1
Stargate Atlantis
Battlestar Gallactica

SG-1

Good stuff. Last week ended a two-parter in which the universe was saved from an invasion by the replicators. Also, the Jaffar, a race of symbiot warriors who had been deceived by and enslaved to the gouaould for centuries finally won their freedom by recapturing the sacred temple which housed the weapon that destroyed the replicators.

This week was a 90 minute special. Major themes were Daniel Jackson's ordeal, Col Samantha Carter, her dad and Gen. O'Neill and also the Jaffar had to make a choice about governance.

Daniel Jackson was killed in the last episode by Replicator Samantha clone, who had tried to dig into his mind to steal info. In this episode, he is in an intermediate stage. He has the option of going on to "ascension" which is a higher state of being and he could joint he venerated Ancients as such, or he could choose to die. He finds himself in a restaraunt and his waitress is an Ancient who he is familiar with and who had helped him ascend the last time he died. Obviously, she brings him here again and gives him the choice. However, he senses that something's not right. Why is she doing this, why is she frustrated at him? why does she keep saying that she won't do this again, when she's the one extending this grace to him in the first place?

As he tries to dig for answers, there is an obnoxious customer who keeps yelling for coffee and she ignores him or snaps at him. All this is occuring in that semi ascended state.

In the meantime Annubis, the bid bad dude, reveals his grand design. He used the SG-1 folks to destroy the replicators and provide him with control over all the stargates and now he plans to wipe out all life in the universe with his new found control.

The Jaffar are now free and Teal'C has been asked to serve on the high council. Sg-1 and the Tokrah are very concerned that the weapon used to destroy the replicators is now solely in the hands of the Jafar. They ask the jafar to destroy but they refuse to. It turns out to be a costly decision because Annubis tricks the Jafar fleet into pursuing his forces at a different location and then sends a different fleet to retake the sacred temple and possession of the weapon. He is succesful and now Annubis has the weapon. The is no ambiguity in Annubis' intentions, everyone knows that he plans to wipe out all life and then start all over again in creating new life subject to him.

As for Col Sam Carter, she is set to get married very soon but is having trouble actually going through with it. Her dad who is actually the Tokrah guy . . . actually, he is her dad with a Tokrah symbiot in his brain, is very sick. He reveals that the Tokrah symbiot is close to death and has been holding on. They tried to hold on till the wedding but it wasn't going to happen. Her dad met with the fiancee and obviously was not thrilled especially when the guy goes, "So you have that thing in your head?" The symbiotic relationship is as close as anything and her dad did not appreciate that. Anyway, her dad tells her that she shouldn't let rules get in her way. Basically, what has kept Gen O'Neill and Col Carter apart are Air Force regulation that prohibit relationships in direct command situations. Her dad was trying to tell her not to marry the wrong guy, but the one that she really loved.

O'Neill at the time is dating a lady who works at SG-1 and she finally comes into the office and breaks off the relationship. She says that it is obvious that he loves Col Carter and that it is stupid that they let rules get in the way of love. One of the previous scenes had Col Carter stop by O'Neil's house after she had broken up with her fiancee. She walks in on him as he is charring steak on a grill. She reveals that she has been sitting in his driveway for 10 minutes and needs to talk to him about something that she should have a long time ago. At that moment, O'Neill's girlfriend walks out to the patio and it is an akward situation. Sam didn't know she was there.

The big scene for them was as Sam watched through the glass as her father was dying and giving instructions to another Tokrah, O'Neill came and sat behind her and in a sweet gesture holds her as she watches her dad. There was some dialog which I can't remember, but we made it obliquely clear that he is always there for her, or otherwise phrased in normal parlance as "I love and will love you always."

Back to Daniel Jackson who is in the restaraunt setting pondering ascension. Daniel finds out that Annubis plans to wipe out all life and is furious at the Ancient that she'd let it happen. She counters that she is powerless to stop it. Well, what about the other Ancients? They want no part of it. The universe is such a tiny part of the existence of the ascendent that it is no big deal to them. Meanwhile, he has a couple of conversations with this obnoxious coffee yelling customer who reveals that the Ancient lady he'd been talking to is being punished by the Ancients because she's been helping people ascend against the wishes of other Ancients. Jackson also finds out from this guy that Annubis was a gouaould who she helped ascend but in a state of partial ascension, he turned to the dark side. Thus, Annubis is a partially ascended being and is unkillable, which accounts for his powers. Further, in a well choreographed scene, it is revealed that this obnoxious guy is Annubis. The Ancient lady's punishment is that since she cares so much for the universe then she condemned to watch it and worry about it and the reason she's being invovled with Daniel jackson was to find a way to undo the damaged caused by her creating Annubis.

At this point, in the universe, we are minutes away from Annubis' annihilation of all life. Stargate's the universe over have been activated and Annubis is about to send destruction. At that moment, the Ancient lady says she's going to stop him. He replies that she can't destroy him. "But I can fight you and you'd have to fight back." She then transforms in a beam of energy as does Annubis as their eternal struggle ensues. In the mean time in the universe, SG-1 and the jafar are perplexed that Annubis's forces have suddenly withered and the stargate action has ceased. As a result the Jafar destroy the weapon at the sacred temple, ensuring that Annubis cannot use it ever.

And, Daniel Jackson rejects ascension and is returned, naked, to SG-1.

Stargate Atlantis

Continuing the theme from last week, the Wraith are on their way to Atlantis and there is an impending sense of doom. On Atlantis, Tela is having nightmares, she is a human native of this part of the galaxy and not from earth unlike the rest of the Atlantis crew. In her nightmares, she is seeing the Wraith and in one she sees herself as Wraith.

Through counseling and some research, they find out that she does have latent Wraith genes in her and that some of her ancestors had been experimented on by the Wraith who were looking for a way to make them more edible. These genes account for how Tela has always been able to sense the Wraith. They find that the reason the Wraith stopped the experiments was that it gave humans access to Wraith thoughts but not vice versa. So using this ability, Tela is hypnotised and taps into the Wraith consciousness and is able to see their plans. The Wraith not only plan to capture Atlantis, it appears that they now know that the Atlantis crew is from earth where there is an abundant food supply . . . us.

So stay tuned for the next two weeks. If the Atlantis crew can stop the Wraith, then we'll all be alive in three weeks.

Battlestar Galactica.

This episode was much better than last week's oversexed show. This week, they find a cylon fuel depot and the show is about the plan to destroy it. It was pretty good. Much of the show was about the planning. Also, Starbuck, who is the ships' best pilot wants to go on this mission which is extremely delicate, but her knee hasn't healed quite yet and so she has to trust the other guy, who knows that everyone doubts him and compares him unfavorably to starbuck. But at the end of the day, he pulls some nifty maneuvers and destoys the Cyclon fuel depot.

This was Galactica at its best, focusing on the story, the tensions, the people, the science, and less on sex. Sorry, last week was just simply unbelievable how far they went.

The next two weeks, i think are season finales for all three shows, so it should be all good.

Bible Studies

The topic of bible studies has come up for me recently because a couple of people I know are working on scripture studies for Catholics, manuscripts. I have thought about pening a bible study in the past but it's never quite come together and now I know why. My orientation regarding scripture is very much fundamentalist and the problem has been that I have had a Catholic audience in mind.

In looking closely at Catholic bible studies, the orientation is different: the purpose of studying scripture is to deepen one's Catholic faith. As opposed to . . .? Some might ask. Well, as opposed to studying scripture for scripture's sake. For me, a bible study serves the sole purpose of getting to know the bible better, because it is the hinge of my faith.

The difference in the two orientations is this. Imagine if the Scriptures were largely discredited, to what extent would it affect your faith? For most Catholics, not much, because most Catholic's faith is rooted in the tradition and philosophy of the Church and not directly in Scripture. For me, and fundamentalists, the bottom falls out. (This discrediting has already happened to a certain extent, but that's another post.)

A scripture study, then, serves different functions for the differing orientations. For me, a scripture study helps me get into "the word" more, find out more about what God is saying, gives me more verses to chew on, makes more interconnections between verses, which expands the universe of God's voice. For most Catholics, a scripture study is to show the connections between the meaning of verses and stories and the tenets of the Catholic faith. The words themselves are less an issue than the point of the scripture.

For instance, Ps 50:2 says, "Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined." That verse is a gold mine for me and actually was as a fundamentalist. It was one of the rungs on the ladder that got me to believe in Mary as a Catholic-hating fundamentalist. In Catholic circles, that verse probably works best as an antiphon and the meaning is more in the entire Psalm than in the individual verse. That's fine, I just point out the difference.

So in a bible study that I'd do, I would want to correlate that verse with other verses that speak of "Zion" and see what that yields. For instance, Galations 4 speaks of "Zion, which is the mother of us all," and then there's Revelations 12 which speaks of the "woman" with children, and the connections go on and on.

The difference is in utility. The Catholic study seeks utility from scripture, while the fundamentalist, seeks God. I think it is fair to say that what the Eucharist is to Catholics, the bible is to fundamentalist (and for me). And so just as the understanding of the Eucharist for Catholics drives them to devotions such as adoration, so also the belief of fundamentalists drives them to adoration of Scripture. This scriptural "adoration" works in terms of knowledge. The more you know scripture the more you know God. This is why memorizing verses and spending time reading the bible is crucial for fundamentalist. Again, this is not to say scripture is not important for Catholics, but the fact is that you can be a good Catholic with minimal personal involvement with scripture reading.

I am overstating the case of adoration on the fundamentalists side because there is clearly the desire to utilize the lessons of scripture for daily living, nonetheless, one loses the true sense of what the bible means to fundamentalists if we don't get at the root. Also, I use the term fundamentalists loosely as those who see the written word as God's unfiltered word.

The Blog Circuit

Nathan of Fides, Spes, Caritas is leaving blogsphere because his blog has turned him into an angry, reactionary, type person. Blogs can do that to you, it is very true and very easy for that to happen. On the other hand, you can avoid that from happening.

I've blogged on and off since 2002 and there are times that I've faded out and then returned, for various reasons. But what I find is that your blog circuit affects your desire to blog. It's been said ad naussiam that St blogs is not a sweet little place, it is shark infested waters, and you have to navigate it very carefully, otherwise you spend your whole day fuming or depressed about things you read on these blogs. I used to read a quite a few Catholic conservative blogs earlier in my blogging days. It was sickening for me because there were very few if any progressives or moderates out there and conservative blogs have a tendency to exarcebate my clinical reflux problems. I stopped reading them because it is true that they tend to define you as an anti-______.

I took a break from blogging in late 2003 and in 2004 because I was moderating Catholics for Kerry, doing the Catholics for Kerry blog, moderating on the official Kerry website blog and forum, and doing online and on ground activism for Kerry. At the time I posted a lot on Daily Kos and other liberal sites and I had little desire to read Catholic blogs or even post on my blog. In fact, I only decided to return to personal blogging because I was able to find Catholic moderates and Catholic/Christian liberals.

My blog rounds now include liberal political blogs, philosophy blogs and moderate or progressive Catholic blogs. There are 2 or 3 conservatives I read just to see what's going on that side of the pond, (HMS, Welborn and Bettinelli), I do stop at Disputations, but I don't have much of a history with him to know where to place him on the spectrum (so maybe 4 conservatives). But this had done wonders for my blood pressure, psychological health, acid reflux, and even my cholesterol is doing much better because I don't read conservative blogs.

Come 2006, God willing I live, I may avoid Catholic blogs altogether again because Virginia resident and PA senator, St Santorum will be in the political liberal cross hairs and we will spare no righteous effort to get him out of a blue state. Being the flame throwing partisan that I am, I'll probably take a whack at Republicans and pro-life in every post in that politically charged atmosphere. But believe it or not there are many pro-life Republicans who I actually do not wish to offend (and believe me, being offensive to my political opponents is a virtue) who visit this blog . . . or maybe I'll just post an apology on the top of the page to those who I wish not to offend but insist that I must do the will of my Father. (I've been told I have a Messiah complex.) After Santorum is defeated, I will repent of all my misdeeds and it'll be love, love, love until, 2008, God willing I live, and we can take more whacks at pro-life and Republicans. Okay, I'm not even sure why I got on this topic.

Oh yeah, I was writing about Nathan leaving blogspere, sort of. Besides the political blogs I visit, my blog rounds are more about slices of life, thoughts, musings, etc and less about vitriol or anger at the latest Episcopal attrocity. Most Christian/Catholic blogs I read these days are not about taking a position, they tend to invite you into their thoughts or experiences, and there's none of that test of orthodoxy thing in every post as you find in many blogs on the dark side.

So, anyway, may the force be with you.

Full-on Smack on the Lips: The "Hi" Kiss

This morning I read the story about the Habitat for Humanity founder being fired for sexual misconduct. Habitat is a great organization and I think everyone recognizes that. But there were a couple of aspects of the article that tickled me and it is the issue of casual friendly hugs and kisses.

Apparently, sexual misconduct allegations were raised in the early 90s but were pushed aside at the urging of former Prez Jimmy Carter.

Carter also rose to Fuller's defense on the only previous occasion when sexual harassment charges against him became public. In 1990-91, five women who were current or former employees of Habitat told the board of directors that he had subjected them to unwanted sexual advances -- including kissing them on the mouth and touching their buttocks -- as well as vindictive behavior when he was rebuffed.

Here's what Carter had to say at the time in a letter to the board:

In the March 26, 1990, letter, Carter said he himself was given to physical displays of affection and appreciation, such as kisses on the cheek and hugs, to women he knew professionally and socially that were sometimes not welcomed. He wrote that he shook hands with several men and hugged and kissed several women at the dedication of the John F. Kennedy Library in 1979 and that the late president's widow had "visibly flinched" at his actions.

"Without minimizing in any way the significance of what has happened at Habitat, let me say quite frankly that I have had some similar kinds of relationships with some of my own female employees and associates. If one ever complained officially, there could be an avalanche of similar charges," Carter wrote in the letter, which Millard Fuller provided to The Washington Post.

Yikes! Kissing on the lips and touching of buttocks? or just kissing on the cheeks and hugging when clearly unwanted? Which sir?

Here's how the board saw the issue back in the 90s:

John Wieland, a Georgia developer who has built 26 houses for Habitat for Humanity and donated more than $500,000 to the organization, was on the board in 1990-91. "Our conclusion was that Millard was a hugger and was misinterpreted, and some people went out of their way to make something big out of something that wasn't really that big," he said.

I.e, "hugging"="kissing on the lips" and some "touching of buttocks"

I've known people who make a habit of saying hi to women, married or not, with full-on kiss on the lips. I've known were women spent many a minute trying to figure out how to go somewhere and avoid such a kiss.

I can see a kiss on the cheek, no biggie, but a full smooch on the lips I think is one of those things that one cannot assume is a highly esteemed, unversal value.

About people being "huggers" and absolutely needing to hug everyone, I fail to understand that. I do understand that many people are huggers, but what I don't get is the notion that one's personal desire to display affection by hugging would overcome the potential concerns of the huggee. If you need to hug someone that badly, it is possible that they may just as badly not need to be hugged by you at that time . We all have to pay attention to cues and the responsibility falls as much on the hugger to know that he is being . . . invasive.

If Gay Marriage is so evil and detrimental to society

Then shouldn't gays be considered equally evil and detrimental to society? And if gay marriage is worth raising hell over, why not just exterminate gays who are the real problem?

Why not let the hatred surface instead of hiding behind stupid excuses about protecting the institution of marriage?

Where's this coming from, you ask? I dunno, I just this post by Sandra Meisel and I just wonder how far down one has to dig to get to the real motives.

Poverty as Sacrifice--Newman on Risk of Faith

In the previous post I had written about how I wrap my head around the poverty thing, by seeing poverty as sacrifice of opportunity cost and less about lack of wealth. Well today, as I continued my lent reading on Newman's sermons, I found myself reading a sermon of his called, "The Venture of Faith."

Basically, his point is that faith must be for us a venture. He says:

If then faith be the essence of a Christian life, and if it be what I have now described, it follows that our duty lies in risking upon Christ's word what we have, for what we have not; and doing so in a noble, generous way, not indeed rashly or lightly, still without knowing accurately what we are doing, not knowing either what we give up, nor again what we shall gain; uncertain about our reward, uncertain about our extent of sacrifice, in all respects leaning, waiting upon Him, trusting in Him to fulfil His promise, trusting in Him to enable us to fulfil our own vows, and so in all respects proceeding without carefulness or anxiety about the future.

That sense of risking all we have on Christ's promise for what do not have, i.e, the promise of eternal life, is what I feel to an authentic sense of poverty. Not the sole sense, but a sense.

Newman again:

This is the question, What have we ventured? I really fear, when we come to examine, it will be found that there is nothing we resolve, nothing we do, nothing we do not do, nothing we avoid, nothing we choose, nothing we give up, nothing we pursue, which we should not resolve, and do, and not do, and avoid, and choose, and give up, and pursue, if Christ had not died, and heaven were not promised us.

This is related to Paul's point in 1 Cor 15 when he says that "if only in this life we have hope, then we are of all men, most miserable." Why? Because, we sacrifice much in the present for a future in the world to come and if it happened to be a false hope then we've practically wasted our lives. That is the kind of risk that Christ calls us to.

What is evidence of this risk, or what kinds of things constitute a true faith venture?

Thus almsdeeds, I say, are an intelligible venture and an evidence of faith.

So again the man who, when his prospects in the world are good, gives up the promise of wealth or of eminence, in order to be nearer Christ, to have a place in His temple, to have more opportunity for prayer and praise, he makes a sacrifice.

Or he who, from a noble striving after perfection, puts off the desire of worldly comforts, and is, like Daniel or St. Paul, in much labour and business, yet with a solitary heart, he too ventures something upon the certainty of the world to come.

Or he who, after falling into sin, repents in deed as well as in word; puts some yoke upon his shoulder; subjects himself to punishment; is severe upon his flesh; denies himself innocent pleasures; or puts himself to public shame,—he too shows that his faith is the realizing of things hoped for, the warrant of things not seen.

Or again: he who only gets himself to pray against those things which the many seek after, and to embrace what the heart naturally shrinks from; he who, when God's will seems to tend towards worldly ill, while he deprecates it, yet prevails on himself to say heartily, "Thy will be done;" he, even, is not without his sacrifice. Or he who, being in prospect of wealth, honestly prays God that he may never be rich; or he who is in prospect of station, and earnestly prays that he may never have it; or he who has friends or kindred, and {304} acquiesces with an entire heart in their removal while it is yet doubtful, who can say, "Take them away, if it be Thy will, to Thee I give them up, to Thee I commit them," who is willing to be taken at his word; he too risks somewhat, and is accepted.

I highlight the second paragraph because that's what I was talking about in the previous post: sacrifice of opportunity cost.

And then Newman ends with this great exhortation:

Alas! that we, my brethren, have not more of this high and unearthly spirit! How is it that we are so contented with things as they are,—that we are so willing to be let alone, and to enjoy this life,—that we make such excuses, if any one presses on us the necessity of something higher, the duty of bearing the Cross, if we would earn the Crown, of the Lord Jesus Christ?

I repeat it; what are our ventures and risks upon the truth of His word? for He says expressly, "Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My Name's sake, shall receive an hundred-fold, and shall inherit everlasting life. But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first." [Matt. xix. 29, 30.]

Poverty

Joe has a very interesting post on the vow of poverty and I think he hits all the right notes and makes a ton of sense.

The "virtue" of poverty seems to work better as an idea than as a lived virtue. It is hard to put your finger on the what exactly poverty is. Coming from the prosperity Pentecostal tradition, I am one of those who believes that neither poverty nor opulence makes you a better Christian, they both have their strengths and weaknesses, but I think God would rather we be well off that poor.

Years ago, when I was considering the priesthood, like Joe, I also had noble thoughts about poverty, sandals, toughing it out, asceticism, etc. I was particularly moved by the ascetic lifestyle by virtue of scripture and reading the early church hermits and monks. But there's always been the uber-pragmatic part of me that asks, "to what end?"

The truth is that Catholic religious orders would be hard pressed to argue that they live poverty. Many orders have very sufficient funds, members have access to what they need, there is no fear associated with the lack of a safety net, it is a very comfortable and safe "poverty." Basically, the institutional Church will always find a way to take care of its own.

When I had considered the Jesuits, I was speaking with some of them and basically, the way it worked with them was that in addition to the quite comfortable lifestyle of a New York Jesuit, you got a weekly or monthly stipend depending on your needs. Some would get golf clubs, others guitars, etc. I did not find this the least bit offensive. I had gone from wanting to be a bread-making Trappist to wanting to be a lavish triple PhD Jesuit, via the Carmelites and Franciscans, and at this point, the spiritual fit was more important than the lifestyle.

However, it was at a retreat with a Jesuit on Long Island that the poverty thing made sense for me. One thing that was plain among the Jesuits and those of us interested was that you were dealing with very ambitious and talented people. And I remember this Jesuit talking about how he was in charge of a retreat house and all the work he would put into it and never got any recognition. He noted that that was poverty to him. (I should note that running this retreat house was a significant operation to a certain extent). It then cast the poverty issue in terms of opportunity cost. I realized that just about everyone in that province could have gone on to a high powered secular jobs and earned mega bucks for the same effort presently being expended. That made sense to me. Poverty, for me, since that moment, defined itself primarily in terms of sacrifice. We see this in the story of the rich young man, you was unwilling to make a sacrifice for Christ.

I'm aware that this is not the primary or sole understanding of poverty, but for me, it is the way I wrap my head around the issue.

As for "Blessed are the poor." That is less a blessing associated with being poor, but rather a recognition that the poor have borne the wrong end of the crap shoot in this life and God will make it up to them in the world to come. But this promise is also available to all who chose to be "poor in spirit" even if well off in earthly goods.

By the way, the Marxist in me won't let the previous paragraph be the last word. Marx fumed that religion killed the hopes of the poor in that they became complacent in their oppression as they looked for a better world in death. Liberation theology is about subverting the domination of the oppressors and seeking liberation here on earth. Poverty is not a good thing and we need to fight it. The mistake Marx and his liberartion theology buddies make is that they choose not to realize that there is really a heaven and a heavenly reward in which every valley shall be exalted and every mountain and hill brought low, the crooked made straight and the rough places made plain, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed. It's just that this hope of heaven needn't stop us for fighting for justice here on earth. The desire to fight injustice here on earth needn't be rooted in crushing the idea of a heavenly reward.

So yes! Blessed are the poor.

Popcorn Stats

Blogger Martha martha is/was doing a no popcorn movie nite for her CCD class. They'll be watching the Passion of the Christ.

It got me thinking if TPOTC was good for popcorn sales or not. I haven't seen the movie, but it must have been prety intense in there and it just doesn't seem like the kind of show where you are comfortable fumbling through your bag of buttery, salty delights, as Christ receives yet another lash for your sins: just something about a loud slurp as Christ groans in agony.

I suppose this poses a catch-22 for movie theaters because the concessions are a huge part of the revenue. I'd be interested to see the popcorn stats for the period TPOTC was in its hey day and see what the trends were. I suspect they were down, but I happily stand corrected. I just don't think Jesus' suffering is good for popcorn sales.

Study Bottleneck

Only God knows what google searches that title will bring here. Anyway, as part of my lent reading, I've been plowing through John Henry Newman sermons. As much as there is the devotional aspect to the reading, it often pertains to the dissertation. Well, I am currently reading a sermon of his in his Plain and Parochial Sermons, Volume 4 "The Mysteriousness of our Present Being." I started this sermon on Wednesday or Thursday of last week and just finally got through. Why? It was a gold mine for my work. I kept runing into quote after quote after quote, which then forced me to open up the files and insert, rearrange and restructure, basically the whole nine yards. Needless to say, it create a huge bottleneck in my reading plans.

It is exciting, though, because the whole project is based on a hunch. It is based on some pretty good evidence, but there's nothing like seeing things line up like you hoped.

Because of past abuses (800 page dissertations), these dissertations are now supposed to be no longer than 250-350 words. Say what you have to say and get out. The problem, though, with doing comparisons is that these projects become unwieldy and out of hand and 450 pages into it, you are desparately searching for a way to end gracefully. I have no hope of a 250 pages and out, my notes and quptes have already exceeded that. I'm worried about 400+ and counting. But it's all good stuff. You have enjoy the topic and Newman is fascinating. The good thing for me is that I have loafed around for 2/3 years, during which i was doing some serious work on the idea, but also taking breaks from it, so now I'm ready to roll. so bring on the bottlenecks.

Common Ground Common Sense

has a cool new platform, check it out.

Dateline and Benny Hinn Expose

I caught the last 15 minutes of a Dateline expose on Benny Hinn last nite and I have to say that it left me with a rotten feeling. I'm no Benny Hinn fan, but I do believe that he is authentic as are many of the Pentecostal Preachers out there. The thrust of the criticisms seemed to be about his excessive lifestyle: "Lay-over" stops at Rome and London with lavish splurges on dinner, presidential suites, tips, etc. usually made on the way to and from crusades.

There apparently was a story about a boy who was featured on stage at one crusade as healed but they must have followed up and found it not to be the case. Big deal. In a hidden camera interview, they brought this up with Benny Hinn who told them that he only says what his staff tells him. In turn, his staff gets information from the people as they wait in line to get up on stage to testify. There's no way on earth that you can fact check there and then. However, i do know that many, many of these faith healing ministries have verifiable miracles that have lasted for decades. No one focuses on these because there is no sexy evil criminal preacher twist to them. The focus tends to be on those that didn't get healed or claimed to be but weren't.

Anyway, the cause for my consternation was that this descent into surfeit and sinful excess is curse that plagues these preachers. It kills me that after all these years it hasn't sunken into their skulls that you have to be careful with money and power, they corrupt. For instance, why on God's green earth does Benny Hinn have to pay himself between $500,000 and $1 million a year? There is absolutely no reason. Now, for those outside of this movement, it is clear that this crowd is simply misguided, perhaps, frauds. But for someone who came out of this movement, I think I know better than to say that about them. I have seen too much to doubt, so it rips me that they are so careless about their negative potrayal of the Christian gospel.

This "fall" from humilty is not new. It happened to earlier generations of pentecostal type preachers, I think of Kathryn Kuhlman and Aimiee Semple (?) among others. At least, with Oral Roberts, the man built a darn university and tried to find a cure for cancer. Okay, I'm going to take that back because I refuse to acknowledge anything positive about Fallwell and Robertson who have universities.

I left the Pentecostal movement because, among other things, these verses from 1 Timothy 6:6-11

6: But godliness with contentment is great gain.
7: For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
8: And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
9: But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
10: For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
11: But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.

It is the curse of being human. We need to seek money to be the Christians we would like to be. Yet, it is horridly destructive to seek that which we need, to be what we have to be. I guess it all falls into my over arching Qoholeth view of life, "vanities of vanities, all is vanity." Like Socrates once said, "Whatever you do, you'll regret it."

14: I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.
15: That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.

Rick Santorum's Sweatshops

I've been kicking a Santorum and his sweatshop initiative around as a potential post for a while, but I didn't quite have an angle until this post on Amy Welborn's site.

She quotes the Labor blog, which points out that Santorum's proposal to raise the minimum wage by over dollar is phony because he includes a poison pill exemption for companies with revenues below a million dollars. So while a million or so people will see their wages go up, over six million will lose their current minimum wage protection.

Of course of interest to me is the compassionate, we-love-the-poor Catholic Right pro-life response and it is typical, i.e, Republican. For instance there's this:

The Labor blog is quite confused. The Santorum bill will indeed help over a million workers by raising the wage. However, to apply it to small businesses could be a death knell to those enterprises. Think about raising the wage for each worker $1.10 an hour. Adding that up over the course of a year and multiply by two or three employees, and that is a considerable sum of money for such a small business. Even Catholic Social Doctrine does not require increasing wages to the point where it would jeopardize the whole enterprise.

And the comments are coming in fast and furious.

I run a small business with four part time employees. I have never paid minimum wage which is $5.15 (?). From the beginning, it never struck me as the honorable thing to do. It was not the smartest financial business decision but it was right. Besides, there is no free lunch, and you pay the price for paying low wages. The closest I came to the minimum wage was when, for period of 6-8 months, I hired a couple of people at $5.50 to help bottomline issues and of course, I paid the price for that. One left three months later to find a higher paying job and the other left 7 months later for a higher paying job. After that, it was back to 6/6.25 an hour. It's not that I can afford it, but I've since learned that I cannot get the quality and stability I want at minimum wage.

I also know that what's going to help my business is not wages, but disposable income. Ultra high debt levels plus ultra high gas prices, plus a shaky job market, plus sky rocketing healthcare and prescription drug costs and other factors are the economy killers, not the hiring of people at levels above the current minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage increases the disposable income in the economy among those most likely to spend it. And that does the economy good.

Somehow, for the Catholic Right, it is okay for Bush to give trillions back to millionaires and pennies back to hardworking middle class and poor folk. How about a real tax cut to middle class and poor people who are being crushed under regressive tax burdens? No! no! no! No tax breaks, unless they go to the wealthy, who don't need them, except perhaps to buy another $3 million brooch (and not from my store).

BTW, Santorum is the poster boy for compassionate conservatism. At least with him at the forefront of this compassionate conservatism, the movement is no longer hiding the fact that it wants to gut the coffers of the middle class and break the backs of the despicable poor. Between gutting Social Security, destroying the minimum wage safety net, siding with corporations against bankrupt individuals, ensuring sky rocketing medical costs, I think we are getting our due of the Republican culture of life agenda. Oh, by the way, at least we'll keep those evil gays pervs from marrying.

Front Loading the Democratic Primaries

There's been a major discussion in Democratic circles to change the dynamics of primary politics. Many feel that two unrepresentative states, NH and IA, are unduly influencing the party's choice of nominee. So for instance, whoever wins IA gains so much TV time that it is difficult for anyone to come back. Also frustrating for big states like Michigan and Pennsylvania is that by the time their primaries role around, the nominee has already been decided.

There's been talk of going to rotating regional primaries or some other model. One thing we are sure of is that nothing can be done to change the NH and IA frontrunner status in 2008. As a result (via MyDD) many larger states like PA and NC are moving up their primaries so as to front load the primaries and make their states more relevant.

At MyDD, a commenter, Blue State Boy, had a coupe of very interesting remarks that make sense to me:

If the Democrats had a single nationwide primary/ caucus in one day in 2004, Joe Lieberman would have been our nominee. It was only after polling in Iowas and NH in the fall of '03 showing Lieberman not doing well did he stop leading in the national polls. Without those small state polls, he would have continued to lead because of his 2000 name recognition.

and this astute observation:

Here we go again! The influence of Iowa and NH has increased significantly over the years because of the front loading of the primaries and caucuses.

Think about it, in 1984 Mondale didn't lock up the nomination until California in June, which was the story for decades. Starting in 1988, the Southern Super Tuesday strategy and the subsequent changes in '92, '96, '00 and '04 making IA/NH earlier and earlier (In '72 the NH primary was in March in '04 in was in January) with way too many states immediately following. Space them out! Give the candidates time to actually visit the states and create grassroots organizations instead of using the media to spin and spending millions on tv.

IA/NH only get a disproportionate amount of influence because there in not any time left to re-group and move on. Would the 1992 Clinton have been able to survive the current calendar? Or would Tsongas have had it all wrapped up?

Would Kerry have been the nominee or at least a stronger nominee with the 1984 calendar? Not sure, but spreading out the nominating calendar is the answer not even more front loading.

I'm agnostic about the process, but definitely in favor of a longer useful primary. I think NH and IA have gotten a touch too arrogant about the privilege. Although, I have to say that this backlash against NH and IA is spearheaded by Dean folks and it makes no sense. Dean was only able to become the mega star that he became precisely because of the way NH and IA are structured. They work well for no name candidates to gain traction.

As a Kerry supporter it all worked out well, but I think the NH and IA process helped Kerry as he had to deal extensively with one on one situations and unscripted group meetings. Unlike the Republican Party whose money people annoint a frontrunner and then muscle out challengers, the Democratic primary process is democratic.

I am looking forward to the 2008 primaries. Hillary is the supposed frontrunner, i can live with that and many pundits and loud mouthed Democrats have panned Kerry's chances, I can live with that too. What they haven't factored in is the resevoir of strong Kerry support and worship that's out there. Many of us realize that this is our one chance in a lifetime to put in a president that we all can be proud off, who will elevate the office to its natural prestige and define a vision for America and the world that we all can be proud off. Clinton and Bush have tarnished the image of the Presidency, with Kerry we have a chance to restore its glory. President G.W. Bush is quite possibly the worst President ever, only history will tell how far from the bottom rung he'll be placed.

MSNBC's Question of the Day

"Should foreign governments negotiate with insurgents to free hostages?"

Background

The latest firestorm over this debate stems from the weekend killing of an Italian secret service agent escorting an Italian journalist who was recently freed from hostage takers in Iraq. The wounded Italian reporter, Giuliana Sgrena, suggests that the shooting by American troops was deliberate because the United States opposes Italy’s policy of negotiating with kidnappers.

The question is quite simply idiotic and offensive. This is the typical Bush administration disregard for human life ethos seeping through. I suppose we should let non-U.S. hostages die because it doesn't suit Bush's political purposes. The gal that someone would even ask the question.

Quote of the Decade

Via Political Wire

"Being called vindictive and partisan by Tom DeLay is like being called ugly by a frog."

-- Travis County (TX) District Attorney Ronnie Earle, on 60 Minutes last night.

Biggest Night of Sci Fi Ever 3/4/05 Sci Fi Channel

Stargate SG-1

This was a continuation of last weeks episode. Last week the replicators, a borg-like, mechanical species, had launched a full scale attack on the universe and were systematically destroying the gouaould system lords. In the midst of all the chaos, the rebel Jaffar, a race of warriors enslaved to the gouaould whom they consider to be gods, captured the sacred temple which is the holiest site for them. This action was meant to be a signal to Jaffar everywhere that the gouaould are not what they claim. Anyway, Annubis, who is the evil lord big cheese, was anticipating that the rebel Jaffar would pull such a stunt and was ready by directing a massive fleet from battling the replicators to annihilate the rebel Jaffar once and for all. In the meantime, Daniel Jackson, the chief SG-1 scientist had been captured by the chief replicator, who is a "clone" of Col. Samantha Carter. She knows that in his mind there is info about the location of the one weapon that can destroy her and all the replicators and she needs to fish this out and destroy the weapon before SG-1 can get to it.

This week's episode was a good one. I had a few spine tingling moments. It had long been known that there was a massive weapon built buy the ancients at the sacred temple, but no one knew where or how to get to it. There was a huge wall of symbols and Col. Carter and their friend of the Tokrah race finally figured it out. However, they find out that the weapon is as advertised and it was so deadly that it would wipe out everyone, including all of them there. So they figure a way to modify it so that it only killed the replicators and left other races unharmed. However, they needed to send the blast everywhere in the universe that the replicators were, which was just about everywhere. The figure that the only way to do this was to send the blast through the entire network of stargates, this way they'd kill all the replicators. But to do so required the help of an enemy gouaould who had thd knowledge of all stargate codes. Fortunately,this guy was cooperative due to the fact that the fight against the replicators was fruitless.

Now while all this is going on, the replicators are on the move everywhere. Also, Replicator Samantha is invading Daniel's head to get him to yeild secret repositories of knowledge the ancients placed in him. But while she's doing this, he is also searching her head and sees the insidious plot she's hatched. Using his ancient powers, he is able to concentrate and freeze all the replicators in the universe for about a minute, but he loses concentration and replicator Sam kills him.

In the mean time on earth, replicators have invaded SG-1 and earth and it is looking very bleak.

Now as the Tokrah fellow is fine tuning the weapon the replicators land at the temple and begin to approach the occupiers. Col Samantha Carter screams at the Tokrah to hurry or they'll be dead in a seconds. At the same time, O'Neill back at SG-1 and a few soldiers are in a ferocious fire fight with the replicators, which look like mechanical large spiders, BTW. Also, Teal'c is at that moment in orbit above the temple in battle against the gouaould when the replicator's ships appear and begin to strike. They are powerless against the replicators and sheilds have just collapsed. The next shot will kill them.

In a great juxtaposition of scenes, they show Col Samantha Carter, Brig. Gen O'Neil and Teal'c, all in their respective situations firing away at the replicators. They focuse on each for about 30 seconds a piece and they all had the look of knowing that they were going to die, but with the determination and nobility that they fought till the end for a most worthy cause. Those moments sent chills down my spine. They captured something special in those few moments. But just as each in their situation was expecting death, the replicators froze. That was when Daniel jackson was able to access their collective consciousness and stop them. This bought them the few more seconds to finish the callibrations on the weapons and fire the weapon, which spread to all the stargates and killed all the replicators.

So the universe was saved. But Daniel jackson died. Like I said, I really liked this one.

Stargate Atlantis.

The Atlantis crew sends Tela and Major Shephard on a stealth recon mission to scout the Wraith army on its way to Atlantis. The Wraith are still light years away, but the Atlantis crew is able to get to them by using the Stargates. They stop at a planet in the path of the Wraith and warn them to hide. The Wraith stop at intervals and abduct hundreds in order to feed. Tela, who is familiar to these people, promises a family friend that they would come back for him. Shepard is upset because this is a recon and not a rescue mission.

It turns out anyway that they had to hide from the Wraith at this planet in the spot that she asked her friend to wait. In the end, the friend, his family and friends are saved and they get back to Atlantis.

Stargate Atlantis has done an excellent job with the Wraith mystique. They created a villain that strikes as much fear as any other. I think their fear level is as high as that of the borg. (Star Trek Voyager eventually ruined that borg mystique, by their frequent victorious encounters with the borg). But the Wraith do represent pure evil, much like the borg. The borg assimilate you against your will and make you part of the collective, while the Wraith eat you.

There was a particularly nice seen between Shephard and Tela when they had rescued the friends, she gave him a look that spoke unspeakable gratitude. yeah, it came across that well and powerfully. It is interesting beause they are the two main characters and so it is clear that at some point the show is going to create romantic tension between them. But I applaud the show for not rushing into it.

The gold standard is O'Neil and Carter in SG-1. It is clear that the characters are head over heels about each other, but they kept that distance and show is not about sex(iness) but about good ol' sci fi stuff. Evey now and then they feed the beast. For instance, there was an episode where O'Neil and Teal'C were being recycled in time repeatedly. The same situation over and over again. It was very funny as each time they retained the knowledge of the past time, so they were using each cycle to learn what to do to get out of the situation. In one of the cycles, O'Neil walks up to Carter and tells here that he resigns then kisses her and is immediately recylced to square one. In another situation, another Carter is brought through the Stargate from a parallel universe in which she is married to O'Neill in that world. These are the ways that SG-1 has played off that romantic tension, but they've kept it relatively clean, which is what I like.

I hope Atlantis can do the same and focus on the fun stories. I can't say the same about the last show of the evening.

Battlestar Galactica
For some reason, this show's producers think they must push every envelope sexually to get people to watch. 45% of the episode had to do with sex. I think it cheapens the show. Well, in this episode, testing of the crew has begun in order to smoke out cyclon imposters. But the scientist running the tests is seriously flawed and dishonest and so is not giving true results necessarily. That was basically most of the show, the drama and tension of waiting for test results. Again, they had too many over sexualized scenes, in fact, they had to include a warining about unsuitable scenes at the begining of the show.

Dominus(e)?, non sum dignus-Sacred Space and Liturgiam Authenticam

Steve had a post on worthiness in which he quotes the gospel centurion who says, "Lord, I am not worthy that to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed."

In the comments of that post, I noted that at mass I say that phrase in the latin, so that I can concentrate on it. Which made me think of a couple of things.

In the latin the verse goes something like this, "Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantem dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea." I started saying the latin phrase years ago during mass because I liked it. Also, I am one of those who feel that something major has been lost with the discarding of latin as the standard liturgical language. Now, I really could care less about litrugical correctness with the Mass, so this is not a major thing with me but an observation.

Everynow and then, in the past and in the future, God willing, I go to Protestant services. (Sometimes I need to hear solid bible based good ol' fashioned preaching and also, sometimes, I just need to raise my hand and praise God and know that i am among others who feel the same way). However, one thing that becomes apparent and quite jarring is the fact that I don't get the feeling of sacred space that I get at the Catholic mass. The Catholic Church is all about symbols. Even non sacraments are invested with so much symbolism it gets ridiculous sometimes. On the flip side, the investment in symbolism, sacramental and non-sacramental, creates a sense of sacred space during worship.

Unlike my fundamentalist days, I find that I now depend more on the sense of sacred space created on Sundays (Post on "dependency" later). As a pentecostal, we could set up anywhere and do our thing and the presence of God would be there powerfully, but now I have gotten accustomed to creating a deliberate sacred space for worship invested with symbolism. This is where I think Latin fits in.

As humans, it is inevitable that the more we do something, the more familiar we are with it and the more banality sets in. This is a cause of malaise in worship these days. One way latin can help this, is that by using it you rip yourself out of your regular scheduled world and are forced into a symbolic ritual world. Even if you can recite the latin words by rote, the fact that you don't speak latin everyday, wakes you up to the fact that you are involved in something different, you are in a different space.

Now, I am believer in the vernacular and all that and again, this all is not a dogmatic point, but I believe that there is a huge value in the use of a liturgical language. Not just in terms of uniformity but in terms of symbolism. I note that Protestatism is not at all devoid of ritual and symbol, I just don't think it is even close though, to the level of Catholicism.

A quick second point this brings me to is Liturgicam Authenticam, a document put out by Rome a few years back on the liturgy. I think the whole idea was in creating more faithful translations of the latin liturgy. So instead of saying, "and also with you," we should say "and with your spirit too." This centurion verse then would be affected too, right? So instead of saying, "Lord, I'm not worthy to receive you" we should be saying, "Lord, I'm not worthy that you should come under my roof." I must say, that would be a touch odd.

Don Henley

I can't say I'm a Don Henley fan. I think he is too smug and appears to think more of himself than he should, but then what megastar doesn't? When it comes down to it, there are only two songs of his that I can say do not grate on me:

Hotel California and End of the Innocence.

Say it ain't so!

Steve Clemons says Wolfowitz is being considered to head the World Bank. The administration is probably thinking it'll be a good way to cover up the budget shortfall crises they've created. "May be no one'll notice if I write in one less zero," PW thinks has he taps his money grubbing fingers on desk, his boss nods on the other end of the telephone.

Update: Wolfowitz pulls out of consideration for World Bank (via Laura Rozen)

Get the legal facts on the Schaivo case

At Abstract Appeal, the Terri Schaivo Information page. This is a blog devoted to the Florida court system.

Via Majikthise who offers a rebuttal to many misconceptions surrounding the situation.

Pope's Health, WYD 2005: Good Catch Ed

Ed Deluzian makes the observation that Cardinal Meisner of Cologne, who declared the Pope's continued recovery had an ulterior motive, World Youth Day 2005 in Cologne. He notes that if this Pope is not present, half the young people will not show up and projected revenues drop precipitously. I agree.

I was at World Youth Day 2002 and I can tell you that JPII was the main attraction. World Youth Day is his baby, so it makes sense. It would be tough for another Pope to generate the same kind of excitement.

I had a few roles at the WYD 2002 event. I was on the staff of the U.S. office. I was also in charge of one of the English speaking catechetical sites over the course of three days. On the first day, we had Archbishop Chaput: the next day was Bishop Turkson of Ghana (who is going places in the Church, look for him to be Pope some day) and on the third day was Cardinal Bevilacqua (believe it or not, the kids loved him, they were hanging all over him like he was their grandpa). I've worked with quite a few Bishops over the years and i have to say that they are generally easy to work with.

Coincidentally, I was an "official" photographer for the USCCB so many of my photos were used for the daily journals.

Here are the photos at Salvador del Mundo Catholic Church with Bishop Turkson (again, if there is an African Pope on the horizon, this is him).

I took all the photos on the last day, Sunday. Most people had arrived at the park the night before and spend the night there and the pope returned for the Mass and closing ceremonies. That Sunday morning, the place was like a refugee camp. It had rained the night before and it was squalid. I had spent the night in my comfortable hotel and took the press bus early in the morning, so I was spared all the discomfort. Anyway, this was my favorite picture:



I got a shot of the papal helicopter arriving. Cool, uh?

Catholic Carnival Clash

Nathan at Fides, Spes, Caritas reacts to the negative reaction his Catholic Carnival entry critical of the Pope received. Apparently a few conservatives swore off the carnival thing until guidelines are put in place to prevent heretics from polluting the waters.

I understand where the conservatives are coming from, believe it or not. In my staunchly conservative days, it riled me to no end that liberals felt they had to butt into conservative territory. "Can't they just live us alone!!!" I think most liberals/progressives (not the same in my book but another discussion) like dialog and are accepting of varied viewpoints. For instance, I used to "frequent" approved tridentine masses a while back (about once a month), and so I'd follow what was going on in that Catholic slice of life. And the word on the street among these folks, who were very, very, very conservative, was that you had a better chance of getting an indult tridentine mass approved if you were dealing with a liberal Bishop than with a conservative Bishop. Why? Because liberals don't have a set way, "Your way is just fine," we say.

Now, I actually just found out about these Catholic carnivals (I know, what cyber planet have I been on). I think I found out a carnival or two ago and I was very surprised to see that Nathan had submitted entries. My surprise stems from the fact that it is not a secret that St blogs is very, very, very conservative. And I was worried that sooner or later, it'll turn ugly.

Here's my theory about these attempts at dialog reflected in the story of the scorpion and the duck.

The scorpion needed to cross the river but needed help. He asked the duck to take him across.

"Oh no, Mr Scorpion. If I carry you across on my back, you'll sting me and I'll drown."

"But," said the scorpion, "If I sting you, then we'd both drown. Now, why would I do that?"

Mr Duck thought for a minute and it made sense. And so they went, scorpion on duck's back. Half way through the journey the scorpion stung the duck and as they were both drowning the Duck with much difficulty and the pain of betrayal asked, "Why did you sting me? Now, we're both drowning."

The scorpion replied, "I'm a scorpion. That's what I do."

The moral of the story? Don't carry scorpions across the river, or if you do, get inflatable vests (for one and let the damn scorpion drown) and a strong antidote.

Anyway, back to the carnival thing. If a liberal ever wants to engage with conservatives, the bottom line is that the conservatives involved have to want it. It can't be forced. The conservative crowd is one mean spirited crowd and the less mean spirited ones are afraid of the vitriolic ones. Dissent is not tolerated as the vicious patrol the territory seeking out traitors.

Now, Nathan has "declared war" on conservatives. I feel his pain, but I hope he just leaves them alone and moves on. Or maybe the phrasing is too strong for what he actually intends. For instance, for years I have sworn to call a spade a spade and I do not mind saying nasty things about conservatives or the pro-life movement, if I believe they are true or correct. That maybe taking the gloves off, but "declaring war" signifies a desire to destroy the opposition. Nathan, Republicans do that kind of thing, liberals don't. As much as don't like the opposition, we, more than others, understand that the world is not monolithic, and diversity in idealogy is not a bad thing.

I think Nathan has done the moderate and progressive Catholic community a huge service by forming that Alliance of moderate and progressive blogger's ring. That's how you strike back, be positive, build yourself up, don't obsess with the opposition, they aren't worth it and it'll only ruin your soul. If you feel that carnivals are good and you want to be part of one, then start one. Actually, Nathan does not need a lesson in taking initiative, I think his efforts speak for themselves.

I hope Nathan doesn't get too riled up by this. St blogs is hornets nest and you will get stung if you wander around too much. The conservatives don't like the liberals and this liberal does not like conservatives and we are wonderful community just radiating the love and unity of Christ without reserve, a true testament to God's love in Christ (swelling music--forte). I think this is one of those things were it's like a city and everyone sticks to their part of town and you enter the other parts at your own risk.

To conclude, I am going to sing one of my favorite songs:

Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me
Let there be peace on earth da da da (i forget the words)
to live each moment. . .(what the heck are you looking, haven't you ever seen someone get into a song before?)
to love each moment, . . something, something, each moment . . . eternally
Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me.

For the latest in philosophy faculty movements

Leiter Reports is the place to check out. Of course, he seems obsessed with the top 50 schools, but it is interesting to read, nonetheless.

Post-Modern Preaching

Via Transforming Sermons

Here's a website on postmodern preaching. Not that it applies to us lay Catholics who are unworthy to break open the bread of the Word, but it is very interesting:

Postmodern people respond best to a preacher who:

1. is a whole person. They want to know who we are and what we do, not just what we say and believe. They want to know the difference the living God has made in our personal lives.

2. speaks genuinely from the heart. Merely reading words from a manuscript is not enough. If we show an honest passion about a subject, it helps them to believe in that subject as well.

3. respects them as people. Postmodern people do not like to be controlled or manipulated. They do not respond to guilt or obligation. They do not want emotionalism for its own sake.

4. brings them to God. We are disciples, not preaching machines; we teach people to be disciples, not trained listeners. The purpose of the scriptures from which we preach is to change lives (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The Pro-life/Pro-choice debate of 850 BC: To Eat or not to Eat

2 Kings 6:26-29

26] And as the king of Israel was passing by upon the wall, there cried a woman unto him, saying, Help, my lord, O king.
[27] And he said, If the LORD do not help thee, whence shall I help thee? out of the barnfloor, or out of the winepress?
[28] And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow.
[29] So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son.

Hey there! Watch your language!

1 Kings 16:11

[11] And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.

There is a reason Juan Cole is a two-time Koufax Award winner

This post on the history of Lebanon puts the recent happenings in perspective.

Getting to Know You, getting to know all about you . . .

INFP

Year of the Dog

Leo

FWIW

Why Action-Babe Movies Flop

Washington Monthly Article by Christina Larson: Seven Mistakes Superheroines Make Why the latest action-babe flicks flopped.

Two of these action-babe movies of interest to me are Elektra and Catwoman. I saw neither, nor did I have an inkling of desire to see them. Elektra stars Jennifer Garner of Alias fame and Catwoman was, of course, Halle Berry.

Now, someone must have filled these women's heads with nonsense, because they seem to be under the impression that men will die to see them in scantilly clad outfits. Both movies were basically, "come get me, boys!" They did not even try to push a plot or storyline, their ads and trailers were all about sex(iness). They seem to think if they showed enough skin that men would come tripping over themselves to watch the movies. How idiotic!

These days, if men are that desparate to see women in revealing ways, it is only a mouse click away (unfortunately) and through the internet, men now view thousands of women that are far more beautiful than either one of those stars. So why would a man pay $7 to see Halle Berry in sexy tights, when he can gratify that need for free through the internet? The same holds true for Charlie's Angels 2 and Lora Croft 2. The marketing of those movies already precludes a female audience, so it is clear that they expect men to come flocking.

We also see a similar problem in the TV show Alias with Jennifer Garner. At every opportunity they find, she's in a sexy outfit and men just can't resist her charms as she does her spy work. Stupido! Drop the sex stuff, it only cheapens the actress and the show. There are much better and classier ways to capture erotic energy than imitating playboy. An analogical example is M. Night Shamalayan. Let's pretend that his latest movie, the Village, didn't happen. One strength of M. Night is that, like Stephen King, the horror is in your head, you really don't get to see much. You hear sounds, scuffles, or you don't know what's going to happen, etc and that messes with your mind, just like the Blair Witch Project. In the same way, if movie producers want to capitalize on Halle Berry's beauty or Jennifer Garner, you don't have to get all gauche. Get tasteful, put in a plot, make interesting characters, get somethings blowed up, and you'll get men in there.

It just goes to show that Hollywood does not respect, nor understand its male audiences. Those who need to see Berry as Eve will stay home anyway and those who are turned off by the blatant sexualiztion will stay home.

Oh, BTW, the article reference above gives different reasons. I think I agree with it.

A White House Day Pass Should Be Easy, Nicht Wa?

Jeff Gannon is the male prostitute, who somehow gained regaular access to the White House to fake being a reporter, but whose real mission was to give Scott McClellan a way out or soft ball questions and to be used as White House propaganda. BTW, Jeff Gannon was not his real name and the White House knew this, but then he was a plant. Anyway, the White House had claimed he operated on a day pass (for approximately two years) and thus did not undergo the rigorous background check he should have. Republicans have further claimed that day passes are relatively easy to get, so there was no favoritism on display here.

Well, FishBowlDC, a new media operation that covers the Washington DC press, decided to take a stab at the day pass issue. After all, Gannon represented a fake news agency run by the GOP and the FishBowl DC is a legit news organization.

So did FishBowlDC get a day pass and is it as easy as the Republicans claim?

Here's FishBowlDC's story.