Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Our Bloody Media

David Warren makes a strong point in re: media coverage of civilian deaths in the present Mid-East conflict:

It will not do for journalists to justify behaviour by the standards of the pack. It will not do for them to assume that only soldiers must answer difficult moral questions. In this case, they must ask or be asked: Who benefits from such reporting?

For the answer is obviously, Hezbollah. The very reason they take such trouble to assure a high body-count among non-combatants -- by for instance preventing civilians from fleeing the territory they control -- is to use their corpses as a weapon against Israel. The Western and Arab media oblige, by building this body-count into a drumbeat against Israel’s attempts to take the battle to the enemy.

Let me sharpen this point further. The value of civilian corpses to Hezbollah, and allied terrorist forces, depends on the media’s willingness to make an issue of them -- thereby inferentially blaming Israel for disasters that Hezbollah’s methods have contrived. Quite plainly: the more obsessively the media focuses upon this body-count, the higher it is going to be.



Yet another illustration of the consequences of ideas or the lack thereof. Our mindlessness has casualties.

Monday, July 24, 2006

One Nation Under God

Some would deny it, and foist their denial on the Constitution. The House is taking steps to prevent this:

Jul 19, 2006 (AP)— The House, citing the nation's religious origins, voted Wednesday to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges who might try to stop schoolchildren and others from reciting it because of the phrase "under God."

. . .

The pledge bill would deny jurisdiction to federal courts, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to decide questions pertaining to the interpretation or constitutionality of the pledge. State courts could still decide whether the pledge is valid within the state.


Opponents are arguing -- what else? -- that the bill is itself unconstitutional. Perhaps they have a point in terms of usage: that word can mean pretty much anything one wants it to mean; it has been watered down to a mere rhetorical trope. But here is what the Constitution actually says, for those interested:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.


Those invoking separation of powers have no case, as that doctrine is balanced by checks and balances, and Congress has one heck of a mighty check when it comes to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction! This may seem passing strange, but only because Congress has been asleep at the wheel for so long, allowing the Court to usurp so much power that no one remembers that the overwhelming majority of cases it decides could be stripped from the federal courts altogether by a mere congressional majority -- not even a constitutional amendment.

Of course, the SC is so bloated with power it could rule that the Congressional act is invalid, not for stripping the SC of power (and no bias of course), but for having improper motives: the infamous Lemon Test may strike again! (For those not in the know: any law passed for religious motives, and with which the Court disagrees, can be ruled in violation of the first amendment. In this case, if historical accuracy about our nation's relationship to God is deemed a religious purpose -- and how can it not be since the Court's doctrine presupposes the opposite relation to God? -- this otherwise valid law could be ruled null and void.) Only an all out war between Congress and the Court could tame it now, unless the justices decide prudently to back down, or to revert to the Constitution voluntarily.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

What can States Do?

. . . about abortion, that is, the Supreme Court apparently having stripped them of all power over the matter?

The state of Louisiana thinks otherwise, as NRO reports:

Led by women with the courage to share their stories of profound grief and medical trauma that they suffered after they chose the “choice,” Louisiana has passed legislation to outlaw the human-rights violation known as abortion on demand. Governor Kathleen Blanco, a woman and a Democrat, signed the bill into law on Sunday. But the legislation has confounded abortion-industry lawyers who will not be able to follow their usual pattern of challenging the law in federal court the minute the ink on the governor’s signature is dry.

That’s because the bill, La. S.B. 33 by Senator Ben Nevers, has a Post-Roe Activation clause, meaning that the law goes into effect only when “[a]ny decision of the United States Supreme Court. . .reverses, in whole or in part, Roe v. Wade,. . .thereby restoring to the state of Louisiana the authority to prohibit abortion.”


What will this accomplish? The law was the reult of full hearings in which the legislature acted as if it were making law. The justification for Roe, if we can call it that, depends in part on the lie that the nation is willing to follow the Court's lead on this -- that the Court is mercifully providing much-needed unity on an issue that Americans just can't resolve on their own. Continued public debate on the issue is interpreted in the Orwellian light of providing further evidence that such unity is needed. Rather than admitting failure, the court insists that its stubbornness will eventually make us one again. As the piece argues,

PRA [post-Roe-activation] legislation allows state legislators to act with the goal of creating an environment that reveals a growing political will to appoint and confirm that fifth Justice [who will vote against Roe]. Imagine the scenario of state after state holding committee hearings to consider what legalized abortion has done to the very women that were alleged to have been its biggest beneficiaries. Imagine the people in state after state standing up to proclaim that abortion is a crime against humanity that we will no longer endure. When a Supreme Court vacancy opens, the president and Senate would not have to read the tea leaves; rather, they could just look at the numbers of states who have enacted legislation evidencing their desire to restore the Declaration’s mandate to protect the inalienable right to life.


States have governmental authority if they are willing to yield it. They serve as one of the checks in our system of checks and balances. They can put real pressure on the Court to desist in its usurpation of state police power. Who knows, perhaps they could even swing a justice before another one drops dead or retires.

Monday, June 19, 2006

Bureaucracy of Death

June 12, 2006
BY CORRINE OLSON

SIOUX FALLS ARGUS LEADER
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- The Internal Revenue Service is warning religious leaders in South Dakota that their churches' tax-exempt status could be jeopardized if they campaign against a challenge to a law that bans nearly all abortions in the state, a proposal that could be on the November ballot.


Compare Warren's point about regulation and the death of manhood. Also, Tocqueville's insight that bureaucracy excels not at doing but preventing; not at fructifying but at preventing things from being born . . .

Newspaper accounts from across the nation show some examples of that IRS interest:

An Episcopal church in Pasadena, Calif., was audited after a rector gave a sermon titled "If Jesus debated Senator Kerry and President Bush" and discussed the war in Iraq and abortion rights.


A complaint was filed against a Boston church where the pastor introduced Sen. John Kerry as the "next president of the United States." The church's lawyer argued the introduction was not intended as an endorsement.


An Ohio church had a complaint filed against it because it invited the Republican gubernatorial candidate to speak, but not the Democratic candidate. The complaint said the Democrat was not invited because he opposed a ban on same-sex marriage.


In New York, a group called Catholics for Free Choice filed a complaint against Priests for Life, saying that via e-mail and a blog the anti-abortion group said it would campaign for "pro-life" candidates in the 2006 elections. The IRS also got complaints that said churches gave political parties their membership directories.

Some religious leaders' increased involvement in the last election campaign made some people uneasy. Conservative religious groups were credited with helping Bush's campaign by telling voters that he shared their Christian values.

Civilizational Collapse

Society depends on common action, which presupposes common ideas. Not just any ideas, of course -- collective stupidity is not less stupid for being collective. But something must hold us together if we are to rise above anarchy.

Everywhere you look there are signs of social decay. David Warren is a great commentator on these signs. He explains, for instance, the cause of division between left and right:

The constant ambition is to deprive the individual of the freedom and security that only the state can assure, while making him a ward of the state in his private behaviour. To do this effectively, the entire moral order of a society must be systematically destroyed. In particular, the seemingly impregnable institution of the family must be undermined and subverted, and likewise religious and independent social institutions -- for it is from these a society acquires its moral backbone. Break them, and the citizen becomes a kind of jelly to be fit into any desired new mould.


There are those who relish this, and those who accede to it out of temptation (undermining the family = sexual titillation). Warren finds the deepest cause of this in a kind of perverse sexuality:

The reasons for this go deeper than public policy, to the profound narcissism that has taken over the “liberal” mind. I am not suggesting the average liberal is a criminal. He hasn’t the guts for that. But in the phantasia of his consciousness he is attracted almost sexually to the idea of “transgression”; to soiling the respectable. This is why, for the Left, “free speech” usually comes down to protecting pornographers; whereas for the Right, it is usually a matter of protecting the right to voice an opinion in good conscience.


An interesting question for me is whether the bottom motive is really transgressive or nihilistic. The point, Warren perceptively argues, is to submerge the indivdiual into the state -- and why? The desire is part and parcel of the Enlightenment: human life must be rationalized. But the human spirit stands in the way. Men are not cogs in a machine to be programmed so as to solve all problems. So they must be tamed. Fascinating, that this project to eviscerate the human soul could become pseudo-erotic in character, so that the path to nothingness would seem exciting, liberating, pleasurable! Quite a nut to crack here.

In any case, those on the right have some sense of what's coming and resist it, to some degree.

This does not make it seem promising to be 'conservative' today -- a sign of Warren's precision. A case in point:

the feminist movement succeeded in de-legitimizing the male sex, and we now have a public system of misandry. It has been stripping our whole society of the masculine protections we need to survive in a cruel world. It has been stunting the growth of boys in playground and schoolroom, and thus depriving women of their supply of grown-up men. And in return for the elimination of a few petty injustices, feminism has sent men and women, by their millions, via an earthly into a perpetual hell.

And yet this man-hating movement could be over-rated. For feminism is itself only part of something larger: the self-destruction of a wonderfully paternal social order, that brought the world the highest civilization it had ever seen. “It’s just our castles burning.”


Lest we think the fault is in us alone, Warren has this to say about the global situation and civilizational decline:

But no reason to think it is because the great mass of Muslims have been seized by religious enthusiasm. On the contrary, I have the strongest possible hunch, from everything I know about the current Muslim East, that the opposite is true. The world of Islam is suffering a crisis of belief, parallel to that in the West, though so different in its outward expressions that we do not recognize it. Indeed, the failure of what we fondly call “moderate Muslims” to stand against the fanatic tide, is among the leading indicators that the “mainstream” of Islam has hollowed out. . . .

We don’t see this possibility because our eyes are trained upon what is typical of the crack-up of a Christian society -- absurd parodies of old Christian doctrines, such as tolerance for anything at home, and surrender-pacifism abroad. But the same planetary loss of faith, infecting the Muslim world, produces instead absurd parodies of old Islamic doctrines, such as Talibanism at home and gratuitous terrorism abroad. In other words, both civilizations are entering their “second childhood” of senile dementia, but each in his characteristic way.

So that a better way to phrase the question, “Who will win this clash of civilizations?” might be, "Which one is collapsing faster?"


What to do as the world threatens to collapse all around you? Here is an offering by our president:

Complaining that television and radio shows in recent years have "too often pushed the bounds of decency," President Bush signed legislation yesterday to escalate dramatically the penalties against broadcasters who violate federal standards.

"The language is becoming coarser during the times when it's more likely children will be watching television," Bush said, citing a study of nighttime programming. "It's a bad trend, a bad sign." He noted that complaints to regulators have exploded since he took office. "People are saying, 'We're tired of it, and we expect the government to do something about it.' "


I would not lump this with the banning of smoking in bars. I would not suggest that Warren's point about the correlation between regulation and the diminishment of man applies to censorship (as regulation). No, such regulation attempts to defend the turf of the family, the ability to raise children in decency and thus to make them that much freer of the seductive power of the annihilating state Warren describes. Problem is the government action cannot and will not go far enough:

Broadcasters and free-speech advocates argue that the legislation attacks expression and unfairly targets broadcast networks while cable and satellite programming remains beyond the reach of federal regulation. The main television networks and affiliates recently sued to challenge the government's power to regulate on-air content.

The National Association of Broadcasters yesterday released the same statement it issued when the legislation passed, calling "responsible self-regulation" the preferred path and asserting that any rules "should be applied equally" to cable and satellite outlets.


Self-regulation is of course a lark, but the initial point is fair: this will not affect most media. It is not for that reason worthless. It makes a point. One could even argue that its very inconsistency is a virtue, since part of the soulless order of modern society is the idea that all legislation must be uniform. Contradiction within the soul is a disease, but contradiction in social order can be better than conformity to a base standard. I support what the president is doing but I take little hope from it in itself.

The virtue of hope comprises Warren's topic in my final quotation:

It follows, that Father’s Day is a day on which men should renew hope. Why? Because there is always hope of recovery, while we breathe, and our society still exists. Fathers, take your lumps and get on with it: for so long as a man would rather be a man, he isn’t beaten yet.


Amen.

Sunday, June 04, 2006

I'm Still Alive

But is Eddie Vedder? Haven't heard from him lately either.

More soon.

Monday, February 20, 2006

You Have to Read It to Believe It

"The Rev. Donna Schaper is senior minister of Judson Memorial Church in Manhattan." She wants us to know that she murdered a baby, and that's OK.


I had an abortion 19 years ago. I am not bragging, nor am I apologizing. . . . I also find the very intimidation that I experience in telling my story to be the reason I must speak. Why would I be afraid? Because anti-abortion people like to punish people into their version of morality. . . . I happen to agree that abortion is a form of murder. . . . I know I murdered the life within me. I could have loved that life but chose not to.


The 'minister' wants us to know that any reference to her own conscience is merely an attempt to oppress her by denying her the constitutional right to murder. (N.B. the court in Roe acknowledged that, if the baby is a person, there can be no right to kill him or her. Our justices are not quite this confused.)

Exodus aside, the good minister has ample authority for saying 'thou shalt go ahead and kill when thou dost feel that is it the right decision for thee'.


I did what I think men do all the time when they take us to war: They choose violence because, although they believe it is bad, it is still better than the alternatives. The "just war" theory assumes that human beings get caught in terrible choices all the time. This freedom is not just for men; it is for women also.


Forget for a minute that, since 1920, men have been constitutionally incapable of 'taking us into war' without the cooperation of the fairer sex. Forget also little things involved in this decision like public authority and the duty to protect nations. Our minister discovers her own license to kill in what she calls 'maturity' (which used to be called 'immaturity', but nevermind):


When I made my choice to end life, I was behaving as an adult. . . . I behaved as an adult who is also a sexual being. Things happen sexually between people that are not always controllable. The unprotected sex I had with my husband while nursing our twins had a consequence that neither of us desired. . . . Because women are mature sexual beings who make choices, birth control and abortion are positive moral forces in history. They allow sex to be both procreational and recreational, for men and for women.


The fate of nations is as nothing compared to the good of unfettered sexual recreation.

The dear minister is 58. Apparently, her generation raised adolescence to the status of beatitude. I permit myself to hold out for something more, even if in the minister's eyes it makes me a chauvinist . . .

Saturday, February 18, 2006

Follow France

Never thought I'd say it, but lookie here:


French Government Report Says No to Homosexual “Marriage”

By John-Henry Westen

PARIS, February 16, 2006

A government commission set up at the request of the President of the French National Assembly has concluded that homosexual ‘marriage’ and adoption by homosexual couples, and medically assisted procreation for homosexual couples should not be permitted by law. The decisive factor to the report's conclusions, after an investigation of more than a year, was the commission’s decision to act “to affirm and protect children’s rights and the primacy of those rights over adults’ aspirations.”

. . .

The Mission considered demands for marriage to be made available to same-sex couples, and was of the view that it “is not possible to think about marriage separately from filiation: the two questions are closely connected, in that marriage is organized around the child.” Said the report: “ Marriage is not merely the contractual recognition of the love between a couple; it is a framework that imposes rights and duties, and that is designed to provide for the care and harmonious development of the child. Foreign examples demonstrate this: countries that have made marriage available to same-sex couples have all, simultaneously or subsequently, authorized adoption by those couples and developed systems for assisted procreation or surrogate gestation, to enable those couples to have children.”

The report stated: “It would in fact be incoherent, if couples were regarded as equal, to remove the prohibition on marriage and preserve it for filiation.”

Summing up its decision process on the matter, the Information Mission says, “Making marriage available to same-sex couples therefore presupposes that they will also be given the right to adopt and receive medical assistance for procreation, and even the right to use surrogate mothers, because such couples are not fertile. The Mission is divided on this subject. It considered the consequences for the child’s development and the construction of his or her identity of creating a fictitious filiation by law – two fathers, or two mothers – which is biologically neither real nor plausible. Diametrically opposed representations were made by the people heard on this point, and they failed to persuade a majority of the Mission to support recognizing a right to a child or a right to marriage, for same-sex couples. A majority of the Mission does not wish to question the fundamental principles of the law of filiation, which are based on the tripartite unit of ‘a father, a mother, a child’, citing the principle of caution. For that reason, that majority also, logically, chose to deny access to marriage to same-sex couples.”

Extraordinary Minister Shortage

The most hilarious thing I've read in some time . . .
Site Feed