Eric Johnson: February 2005 Archives

Last weekend, I had what I like to call a Good Parenting Moment. I was allowing Christopher, the toddler, to wander around me as I was building a pair of bookshelves in the driveway. Normally, I keep all harmful objects above chest level, so no children try to play with them (there are always swarms of kids playing on our end of the street whenever the temperature is above 40 degrees).

Clamping a saw guide onto a piece of plywood, I looked up. With an expression of pure joy on his face, Christopher was squirting long streams of Spectracide, a weed and grass killer, from a bottle he found. Luckily, the nozzle was pointing away from his face and the Spectracide was landing on the driveway. I lunged over to him and grabbed the bottle away from him. I'm still not sure where he got it — the bottle was left over from the previous owners, and all chemicals are five feet off the ground.

I would like to hear other people's Good Parenting Moments. It will make all of us feel better about ourselves.

Last post of the afternoon: I can understand a judge deciding to let Terri Schiavo live. In our fallen world, I can understand a judge deciding that Terri's husband can get the medical establishment to kill her. But what I can't understand is why a judge would give permission to kill her in three weeks. If I understand the ruling correctly (and I haven't read the text), the judge is conceding that Terri is medically dead already, so why wait three weeks? Not only is the decision wrong, it doesn't even make logical sense.

I'm trying to think of some way to introduce this article, but words are failing me. Just read the first few paragraphs and you'll see why.

Wife details family gathering with Thompson dead in chair

By Jeff Kass, © 2005, Rocky Mountain News
February 25, 2005

ASPEN — Hunter S. Thompson heard the ice clinking.

The literary champ was sitting in his command post kitchen chair, a piece of blank paper in his favorite typewriter, dead of a self-inflicted gunshot through the mouth hours earlier.

But a small circle of family and friends gathered around with stories, as he wished, with glasses full of his favored elixir — Chivas Regal on ice.

"It was very loving. It was not a panic, or ugly, or freaky," Thompson's wife, Anita Thompson, said Thursday night in her first spoken comments since the icon's death Sunday. "It was just like Hunter wanted. He was in control here."

Anita Thompson also echoes the comments that have been made by Hunter Thompson's son and daughter-in-law: That her husband's suicide did not come from the bottom of the well, but was a gesture of strength and ultimate control made as his life was at a high-water mark....

I sincerely hope Thompson isn't undergoing eternal torment, but how does one begin to unpack how sick these people are? God help them — send somebody quickly.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is calling for real presidential elections in Egypt, something he's never done in 24 years. They might end up being rigged, but symbolism is important.

Aside: it's great when AP uses native stringers to report on the Mideast.

The audience before [Mubarak] at Menoufia University broke into applause and calls of support, some shouting, "Long live Mubarak, mentor of freedom and democracy!" Others spontaneously recited verses of poetry praising the government.

The credulous tone sounds like Pravda in the bad old days.

In my estimation, the Islamofascists have made a serious strategic error by choosing to make terrorism and perverted religiousity into their sole means of gaining support. This essentially concedes all other aspects of economic and civil life to America and her allies. We can show that by accepting basic human freedoms, people can eat well, watch their children grow in safety, have better jobs, and alleviate corruption in public life, all while continuing to honor God in their own way. Their slogan is, "Support us because God wills it, or we'll blow up your house." Not the best way to gain the support of The People.

Here's a quick review of the last 15 months in the Mideast:

Afghanistan: Held free and fair elections. Currently governed by a liberal regime (by regional standards). Working to exterminate the last holdouts of armed Islamofascists.

Egypt: Making moves to allow real national elections.

Iran: The government is still one of the most oppressive in the world, but their people don't support them. Reform or regime change is practically inevitable, though it might not happen for years; any new government is almost guaranteed to be more pro-Western and pro-U.S.

Iraq: Held elections which the Islamofascists didn't enter and couldn't disrupt. Working to build a civil society in most areas of the country, and even the Sunni-dominated areas have apparently realized they're going to lose out if they don't play ball with the new government.

Israel: Withdrawing settlers from Palestinian areas. Moving toward restarting talks with the Palestinian authority.

Jordan: Continues its quiet, under-the-table alliance with America by training Iraqi security forces and providing logistical support to non-military programs in Iraq.

Libya: Dismantled its nuclear bomb program (which was alarmingly advanced) and opened itself to the West.

Saudi Arabia: Felt compelled to hold sham elections where the only candidates were the ones vetted by the religious ministry. Still, they didn't feel compelled to fake elections before.

Syria: Starts making noises about withdrawing from Lebanon, which is a good start.

We can be sure that we will suffer setbacks, but President Bush doesn't look so crazy anymore for saying Iraq was the key to eliminating despotism and oppression in the Mideast. Still skeptical? Try this: think of one large regional trend that is going against us right now, or a country that is becoming less friendly to democracy and freedom.

In sum, our Islamofascist opponents are losing men, territory, and popular support. This isn't the time for triumphalism or complacency, but let's be honest: America and her allies are willing the war on terrorism, and the Mideast as a region is moving toward liberalization.

I am not the resident expert on the Terri Schiavo case (that would be Pete), but I had to comment on the following little nugget from this story:

Michael Schiavo says his wife had expressed wishes not to be kept alive artificially, although she left no written directive. He said he is determined to carry on in the case out of love for his wife.

"This case is about Terri Schiavo's wishes," Felos said. "It's about her wishes not to be forced-fed, her wishes not to be kept alive artificially."

Aww. Such a trooper — fighting an endless court battle to judicially kill his wife by starvation.

Somebody remind me: Michael stands to gain something when Terri dies, right? I mean, beyond the ability to marry his shack-up floozy who gave birth to their bastard children? Or does he give up the right to her malpractice settlement money?

The Islamic Saudi Academy is right across the street from the strip mall where I bought my first goldfish, which is next to the comic book store where I spent many of my allowances. It used to be a Fairfax County high school, and then it became a junior high (I believe John and Steve Schultz attended it for one year.) When it and another school were combined, it stood vacant until the Saudis leased it from the county. Now it's a madrassa for Islamofascists and their children.

I was going to republish some news excerpts about the ISA, but this article has so much information that I'll direct your browsers over there. Suffice it to say that they teach hatred of Judaism and Christianity as part of their extreme Wahabbi Muslim faith. Jews are evil and good Muslims will kill all of them on Judgment Day. You've heard all of this before.

That's bad enough, but last year the Maryland state police arrested the former comptroller for casing the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, stopping by the side of the road to videotape its structure. It turns out that he belongs to Hamas. Now a Saudi American alumnus has been indicted for plotting to murder the president. Maybe the guy is innocent, but given the range of evidence that the Feds say they will produce, it doesn't look good for him.

The next time the ISA's lease comes up for renewal, I hope somebody on the county board of supervisors has the guts to oppose it. The school is run by the Saudi embassy, and so it benefits privileged families of a corrupt, oppresive regime. Let them rent space in an office park. Other than filthy lucre, there's no reason my local government should help them spread their anti-American, anti-Jewish, and anti-Christian ideology.

UPDATE: Here is what our local jihadi had when he was arrested:

I don't know what's wrong with the gun magazine. Considering most Virginia households have at least one firearm, that's not terribly unusual....

Immigration is a complex issue, without a doubt. Many of the questions related to it are economic, and thus highly debatable. Neither the side favoring reduced immigration levels nor the side favoring high immigration levels can agree on the basic facts involved. Even a relatively straighforward question such as, "Are immigrants a net drain on the economy?" is contentious.

For my money, the immigration restrictionists have the better argument on strictly economic grounds. If immigrants contribute to the economy, they don't contribute much. The vast majority of today's immigrants are poor and unskilled. The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay less than 4% of the income taxes, and their share of Social Security and Medicaid taxes is similarly small. Against this must be balanced the huge social costs of immigration: educating children; providing care for elderly relatives who are "imported" after a legal immigrant establishes his residency; the high crime rates associated with many immigrant communities, etc.

Despite this evidence, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops argues flatly that Mexican immigration in particular is a boon to the American economy. In "Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope," the USCCB, in conjunction with the Mexican bishops, states that "the United States needs Mexican laborers to maintain a healthy economy." Why? The paragraph does not say.

Another USCCB policy paper, written to buttress the case for legalizing illegal immigrants, inadvertently blows away that factoid: "Undocumented immigrants from Mexico alone contributed between $154 billion and $220 billion to the Gross Domestic Product of the United States in 2000." Let's accept that higher number, and inflate it to $250 billion to account for inflation and additional illegals. This year, the U.S. will have a $12,000 billion economy (see table 1.1.5), so they contribute about 2% of the GDP. By way of comparison, the Federal Reserve Board expects GDP to grow 3.5 to 4% this year. So this vital segment of the American economy, in strictly economic terms, is equivalent to perhaps six or eight months of decent growth.

You may object that people are not cold statistics, and that it is inhuman to consider them as such. Very true, but it is expedient to demolish the pragmatic argument first, so we can clarify the issue (and I would also point out that the USCCB is the one making the utilitarian case, not me.) If high-immigration apologists would make a straightforward moral argument, we would not have to get into pragmatics. Of course, the USCCB does make that moral argument, though these two paragraphs of theirs are irreconcilable:

II. Persons have the right to migrate to support themselves and their families.
35. The Church recognizes that all the goods of the earth belong to all people.
When persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right.

III. Sovereign nations have the right to control their borders.
36. The Church recognizes the right of sovereign nations to control their territories but rejects such control when it is exerted merely for the purpose of acquiring additional wealth. More powerful economic nations, which have the ability to protect and feed their residents, have a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows.

If something is a "right," it is something to which a person is entitled regardless of the circumstance. In that respect, how can there be a "right to migrate," that is, the right to cross national borders, if nations have the "right to control their borders"? Which right trumps which?

If you read the documents and position papers of the USCCB, you come to the inescapable conclusion that they do not regard illegal immigration to be a "real" crime. Indeed, you come away with the impression that people should be allowed to travel, reside, and work wherever they want, and with no restrictions. Anyone who thinks differently is in need of conversion:

Faith in the presence of Christ in the migrant leads to a conversion of mind and heart, which leads to a renewed spirit of communion and to the building of structures of solidarity to accompany the migrant. Part of the process of conversion of mind and heart deals with confronting attitudes of cultural superiority, indifference, and racism; accepting migrants not as foreboding aliens, terrorists, or economic threats, but rather as persons with dignity and rights, revealing the presence of Christ; and recognizing migrants as bearers of deep cultural values and rich faith traditions.

I solemnly disagree with the USCCB's esteemed bureacrats on this one. I believe that all immigration should be drastically curtailed by 80-90%, and this belief does not spring from "cultural superiority, indifference, [or] racism." Rather, I object to high immigration levels precisely because it is socially unjust to allow it.

States have a prior moral duty to their citizens. That's their place in God's temporary plan for us, until Christ comes to reign in glory and then we won't need states anymore. In the meantime, the world is divided into polities that are supposed to protect their citizens from harm, and provide an environment for them to flourish.

The Church teaches that states (and we) ought to consider the effects of a given action on the poor, before enacting any law connected with economics. This is called the "preferential option for the poor." We can thus see that in the Catholic scheme of things, states take care of their people, and should care particularly for the poor and the most vulnerable.

High immigration levels hurt the poor and the vulnerable, and are thus immoral. How do they do that? Through supply and demand: immigrants, legal or illegal, flood certain parts of the labor market, driving down the price of labor. Businesses love that, but it ends up screwing over the people who were already in the U.S., including less recent immigrants. If these labor market segments were more static, businesses would be forced to train these workers, give them better equipment, and pay them more.

High immigration levels not only hurt the poor and the vulnerable in the U.S., but also in Mexico and other countries, too. It allows underdeveloped nations to ship their "surplus" population abroad, instead of dealing with their own faulty economies.

Illegal immigration fosters disrespect for the law, but even legal immigration keeps poor people poor. How can the bishops' conference possibly support such a harmful thing?

At one point on Valentine's Day, Pete Vere and I were walking side-by-side, with him holding a rose. But it was okay — Canada had not yet passed its gay marriage bill.

I was only in Ottawa for two nights, and Pete was kind enough to show me to the Heart and Crown pub so I could get some food after my run-in with Canadian immigration. The next night, we went back with frequent Catholic Light commenter Tim Ferguson, the Latin professor from Pete's university, as well as Pete's lovely wife and his two cute, impish daughters. After the ladies went home to bed, we met up with two other friends of Pete and went to something called "Tim Horton's," or I think that's what it was called. They sell good doughnuts there, whatever the name is.

I don't want to post the names of the other people, because I haven't asked their permission, but I did enjoy meeting everyone. If I get back to Ottawa, I look forward to seeing you guys again. And if anyone's ever in the D.C. area, let me know and maybe we can meet up at some point.

What if the "Hokey Pokey" really is what it's all about?

I'll write again about going out with Pete, but first, a quick account of how I actually got into Canada. It wasn't smooth. When I got to the customs desk at Ottawa's airport, I had forgotten to fill out my declaration card. Maybe that's an indication of criminal behavior, because a few minutes later they sent me to the immigration desk, where I was made to produce:

• My official government passport;

• Both of my identification badges from the Nameless Entity;

• My driver's license (to verify my SSN);

• The official message from the Entity authorizing me to travel abroad on behalf of the U.S. government; and

• My business card. (I'm still puzzing through that one — anybody can fake a business card.)

So they knew I was there on official business of the United States, yet they made me give all this documentation and then interrogated me for 10-15 minutes ("Where are you staying? What are the names of your contacts? What are you going to be doing here? What office do you work for?") I was very close to asking them to contact the U.S. embassy so they could intervene, but suddenly the immigration guy let me go. It was all rather shocking.

(WARNING: There are some graphic descriptions of violence in this post.)

It's not unusual for a comment thread to center on a minor point within a post. That happened here, when I made a parenthetical remark about Kevin Miller describing the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings as immoral. "I am open to the argument," I wrote, "but since the entire Japanese population was being mobilized for war, I tend to think it was legitimate."

Most of the people who commented were Catholic Light regulars, and I have to say, I'm a little disappointed in you guys. Instead of responding to my invitation to discuss the matter, you were sarcastic, belittling, and one person even implied I am Protestant (not that there's anything wrong with that!), or at least I think like one. Kevin was the only one who responded in a serious, reasonable manner. I deleted a couple of comments that I can only assume were written rashly.

Before I explain my opinion fully (and it is merely an opinion) about our nuclear strikes on those two cities, I will define my boundaries. I am not arguing for a blanket approval of all American military action, and I am quite capable of recognizing when our nation has not used force properly or with moral rectitude. Those occasions include the Mexican War, probably the Spanish-American War (though we were intervening to help freedom fighters), and just about every small intervention in the Western Hemisphere from 1900-1940, e.g. Nicaragua, Haiti, etc.

Still less do I want to defend the Anglo-American strategic bombing campaign in World War II. In practical terms, bombing German cities to rubble did very little to end the war, as it intensified German resistance. It didn't disrupt their war production as much as one might think, either. The Allies found the German war planning headquarters and obliterated it during one ferocious raid, but production soared after that. Production only slowed when the Allies started capturing German-held territory. In human terms, the campaign was an unmitigated disaster. While the motivation was understandable, given that thousands of innocent British subjects died in indiscriminate V-1 and V-2 bombings, the explosives dropped on the Nazi empire were often motivated by malice, not military necessity. Until the last few months of the war, RAF and U.S. Army Air Corps crews suffered casualty rates similar to the Marines and soldiers in the Pacific theater. This campaign was thus neither militarily nor morally justifiable.

In Catholic teaching, it can be licit, under certain very limited circumstances, to bring about the death of the innocent if their death is incidental to a morally good end. This is the "principle of double effect." This does not always refer to accidental death: it is licit, for example, to administer painkillers to terminally ill patients that will certainly hasten death, if the willed end is to palliate the pain and not to kill.

The Catechism spells this out explicitly in the matter of lethal force:

(2263) The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not."

(2264) Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.

(2265) Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.

The passage above in bold seems to be the crucial one, for it gives us the right way to frame this issue: was the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "more than necessary violence"? Let us state plainly what the bombings were — the use of massive, overwhelming force against two population centers, with the certainty that many innocent lives would be lost. The object was not merely to destroy military infrastructure, or to kill military personnel, but to show the necessity of immediate surrender. Something like 300,000 people were killed, including thousands who in no way could be considered legitimate targets.

Although these were the first times that atomic bombs were used in war, it was hardly the first time war caused mass death among the innocent. People seem to imagine that modern warfare was uniquely destructive, and in may ways it is; gunpowder and bullets are very efficient technologies for killing. Yet most armies in history, if they were campaigning more than a few score miles away from their garrisons, foraged for food in the countryside, devouring crops and livestock at will. The armies of the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) knew that by emptying the granaries of German peasants, they were condemning multitudes of innocent people to slow, certain death.

To properly consider this question, it helps to consider some of the relevant facts:

1. The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had legitimate military targets within them, and were central to what remained of the Japanese war effort.

2. As I mentioned, the Japanese warlords were training anyone who was capable of giving resistance to the American invaders. They accepted that they could not win the war, but they were prepared to let everyone in Imperial Japan die rather than surrender to the Americans.

3. The warlords could do this because Japanese society was a totalitarian society, probably more completely totalitarian than any other society before or since. Because of Japan's geography and history, the Imperial government dictated practically every aspect of daily life. Fealty to the Emperor was total; no mortal was allowed to look at him, and he was revered as divine. A maximalist, fascist version of bushido, the ancient samurai's code, placed an extreme emphasis on warfare, and every Japanese citizen was expected to support the military effort. This was not a temporary condition, as in the wartime mobilizations of Britain and the America. Unless this religious-military regime was utterly and completely crushed, it would almost certainly reassert itself — particularly if it suffered a humiliating but partial defeat.

4. This totalitarian mentality translated into a complete disregard for human life, and spawned the death-cult of the kamikaze. It meant that Japanese soldiers would not surrender even if they were surrounded by Marines and had no possible hope of escape. It meant that they would do practically anything to kill Americans, including feigning death and then attacking, or pretending to surrender and blowing themselves up when their enemy got too close. If you get a chance, read some of the first-hand accounts of the Pacific campaign. There's one particularly graphic account in "Flags of Our Fathers" where one of the men who raised the flag on Iwo Jima finds the body of his friend, a fellow Navy corpsman, who was tortured to death by the Japanese. His corpse was almost unrecognizable, and his genitals were severed and stuffed into his lifeless mouth.

5. Speaking of war crimes, in "American Caesar," his biography of General Macarthur, William Manchester describes the recapture of Manila, which included the deliberate destruction of Catholic churches and desecrations of the Eucharist (many Filipinos bravely tried to consume it before they were slaughtered.) Japanese soldiers gouged out babies' eyes in front of their parents. This was entirely in keeping with Japanese ideology, which taught that they were a master race and all other peoples were more or less subhuman. There were many similar incidents in Manchuria, Korea, and much of the Pacific Rim, long before the Americans intervened.

6. Removing the Japanese from Okinawa took something like 180,000 American casualties. Even after four years of the bloodiest and most destructive war in human history, that total shocked the U.S. military and public. War planners began talking about a million casualties to capture the Japanese mainland, even a million dead. Japanese deaths would have been in the millions, if not the tens of millions.

Killing a third of a million people is an unimaginable horror, and one that could not be morally acceptable under almost any circumstance. That being said, given the likelihood that many more people would have died in a conventional attack, and that nothing less than a lethal blow against Imperial Japan would have destroyed the threat to world peace that it represented, I believe that the direct attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified as a proportional response to end a Japanese-instigated war and the murderous political theology that caused it.

ADDENDUM: Richard asks in another comment thread whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were selected for military reasons. Here is an explanation of the target selections, written soon after the war:

Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. To quote a Japanese report, "Probably more than a thousand times since the beginning of the war did the Hiroshima citizens see off with cries of 'Banzai' the troops leaving from the harbor"....

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The narrow long strip attacked was of particular importance because of its industries....

Two weeks ago, Kevin Miller alerted me to his post about Marquette University's suppression of a College Republican fundraiser. The CRs had an "Adopt a Sniper" program, with the proceeds benefitting troops overseas. Marquette University, ever the stickler for Catholic morality, thought this was just too much, and got all medieval on the GOP's hineys, breaking out the campus inquisition, the rack, the iron maiden (excellent!), and other horrors in order to squelch their freedom of speech.

Kevin and I have disagreed here on Catholic Light about the definition of torture, and I would enjoy hearing him explain why the atomic bombings of Japan were immoral (I am open to the argument, but since the entire Japanese population was being mobilized for war, I tend to think it was legitimate.) However, Kevin says in this episode, "I submit that Marquette's reservations have little if anything to do with Catholicism, and much if not everything to do with irrational politically correct emotionalism," and explains why.

I second Kevin's argument, particular about the nature of the sniper's work. It's very difficult for a sniper — as opposed to, say, a bomber pilot or artilleryman — to accidently kill the innocent, as a well-aimed bullet is the very definition of a precision-guided munition. A sniper demoralizes the enemy, causing them to give up more quickly. He epitomizes the virtues of patience and fortitude, which are essential to his duty.

Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, the most famous Marine sniper, saw things differently from Marquette University. To him, being a sniper was about saving lives: "Hell, anybody would be crazy to like to go out and kill folks....I never did enjoy killing anybody. It's my job. If I don't get those bastards, then they're going to kill a lot of these kids. That's the way I look at it."

Gunny Hathcock probably killed 300 Vietnamese soldiers in Vietnam, equivalent to about seven platoons. Yet he won a Silver Star for saving lives at the risk of his own:

Ironically, the only decoration for valor that he won was for saving, not taking, lives. On his second tour in Vietnam, on Sept. 16, 1969, he was riding atop an armored personnel carrier when it struck a 500-pound mine and erupted into flames. Hathcock was knocked briefly unconscious, sprayed with flaming gasoline and thrown clear. Waking, he climbed back aboard the burning vehicle to drag seven other Marines out. Then, "with complete disregard for his own safety and while suffering an excruciating pain from his burns, he bravely ran back through the flames and exploding ammunition to ensure that no Marines had been left behind," according to the citation for the Silver Star he received in November 1996, after an extensive letter-writing campaign by fellow Marines had failed to win him the Medal of Honor for his exploits with a rifle.

This label appears on a plastic container in which, ironically, we were storing toddler clothes. Gotta love trial lawyers for forcing these things on us. (I love that the kid is hovering in mid-air inside the container.)

CL reader Mike wants everyone to know that Christopher West, noted author and speaker on marriage and sexuality, will be coming to Laurel, Maryland soon.

I thought I recognized the name, then I remembered that at one time he was in my living room frequently. When I was a batchelor, one of my roommates was a grad student at the John Paul II Institute, and so was Chris West. Chris hung out with my roommate sometimes, and also he came to several of our house parties. (Let me tell you, there's nothing quite like partying with theology students! They party like it's 1399!)

But as always, I digress. Chris is a bright guy and has many valuable things to say. Full details are here. Here's a short description:

Christopher West, best-selling author and dynamic speaker, will visit St. Vincent Pallotti High School in Laurel, Maryland on Saturday, March 12 to conduct a workshop on Pope John Paul II's revolutionary work, the "Theology of the Body."

The workshop will run from 8:45 am-4pm (Mass at 8:00
a.m. at St. Mary of the Mills across the street from
the high school) and the cost is $20, which includes
workshop materials.

Does anyone else get Bernie Mac and Cedric the Entertainer confused?

This is the latest member of the Johnson family. Ain't he or she cute?

We haven't decided whether to find out what the sex is yet. But the baby is healthy, and that's all that really matters.

This brief tale is a summary of the motion picture called "Vanity Fair," which made its debut last year. First, I should like to set the scene, so that you may know the circumstances under which it was viewed. I should think that other reviews would benefit by providing such knowledge to readers; it does violence to the truth unless a writer reveals, exemplo gratia, that he traveled to the motion picture theatre after a bitter dispute with his wife, or, in Roger Ebert's case, if his gout was acting up that evening.

On the way home from my place of employment last Friday, I had decided to cleanse my soul by participating in the sacrament of reconciliation. One of the parishes near my home, named for Saint Louis of France, distributes God's merciful grace at half-past five in the evening. To my chagrin, when I arrived at thirty-four minutes past the hour, there were already a dozen people ahead of me. My own parish is known for its strict approach to the Holy Faith, but Saint Louis makes it look like Unitarians of the Loose Observance. Judging that I would not be able to return home for another hour, and knowing that my expectant wife would want me home sooner, I prayed before the exposed sacrament, and left the church, resolving to return in the next day or two.

I stopped at a pastry shop down the road from my home, which closes at the hour of six, several minutes before I journey past it in the evenings. The shop is known for its fine sweet confections, and most of the persons behind the counter are young ladies who live in that locality. Its sole detraction is that male youths are attracted to the ladies, like vultures to carrion. I enquired if they had any chocolate desserts, which my wife regards with great delight. The handsome shop-maiden guided me through my selections, which later turned out to be exquisite. As she helped me, the young lady was quite pleasant, and as I completed the transaction she smiled and bade me goodbye in such a way as to suggest that my presence was not entirely disagreeable to her. For a man of my advancing years, this was indeed flattering.

I will not detail the portion of the evening devoted to cajoling and issuing threats unto the Johnson children, at least the three that are not in utero, as those events are unedifying. At last, when the children were in their bedrooms, I piled high the logs and set a gloriously bright, warm fire in our hearth. I poured a cup of fresh coffee for myself, and steeped a cheerful cup of Earl Grey for my wife, and we began to eat and drink and (you were wondering if this was ever going to come) watch "Vanity Fair."

The first difficulty with the motion picture was apparent, for you see, the heroine, Becky Sharp, is played by Mrs. Reese Witherspoon, whose personal charms are apparent, her skills in drama well-honed, but her countenance is that of a twenty-first-century woman, not of one who lived two centuries prior to our day.

Even more seriously, the pace of the drama was like that of an addled sufferer of heart disease. The film is based on the novel by William Makepeace Thackeray, who besides having a name that is most unusual and enjoyable to pronounce (I urge you to try it), wrote works of great complexity and density of plot. I have viewed but one other filmed version of a Thackeray novel, entitled "Barry Lyndon," crafted by the misanthropic genius Stanley Kubrick, and its length is an hour longer than "Vanity Fair." That length seems more suitable to the scope of Thackeray's intent.

The actors made very little impression upon me, save for Romola Garai, whose performance I enjoyed, and whose face suited the time and place of the film, but I cannot in good conscience praise anyone who knowingly agreed to be in "Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights," which I have not, in point of fact, actually seen, but the idea of which is as risible as "Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo." The men were mostly nonentities; only Gabriel Byrne elevated himself. Mrs. Witherspoon gave her customary zeal, and the countless hours she doubtless spent with dialogue coaches paid off with her accent, which was plausible at the very least.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the moment when the film, to use a phrase that is foreign to the faux-Victorian idiom that I have adopted for this post, "jumped the shark." Becky organises a dance number for the king of Britain, and persuades aristocratic ladies to participate. The result looks much like a Madonna video, circa 1987, and it was enough to transform my hitherto ambivalent opinion about the film into mild dislike.

One of my best friends studied under a strictly orthodox professor at a prestigious Catholic university, and that scholar did not like America. He is well-known in Catholic intellectual circles for his critique of the American founding, which, he says, was flawed because it is rooted in secularism.

That is not enough to conclude that he dislikes America. A nation's political arrangements will reflect its character, sure, but that isn't the only component. But this professor rejects American society in many respects. He condemns the superficial way people relate to one another. He decries its music. He condemns our fast food, and it bothers him that we Americans have no room in our hearts for metaphysics.

I met this professor in person twice, and he is quite engaging and personable. His contempt for his motherland is nothing if not rational, although tinged with elitism. Indeed, I agree with many aspects of his critique. Most American popular culture is vulgar garbage. Far too many of our fellow citizens revere rootlessness, and I certainly would not defend what passes for food on many dinner tables.

But where the professor's critique breaks down is his choice of Italy as an exemplary nation. Now, I love Italy, as it happens. I've been there a couple of times (our honeymoon was in Rome), and my wife and I could easily spend several months happily touring and eating our way around the peninsula. I show my kids books with Italian art, and often I cook Italian food.

Yet to anyone looking with Catholic eyes, Italy has some serious problems as well. Italy maintains a deeply Catholic culture, but it is dying. I don't mean that it is changing into something else. I mean it's literally dying: the Italian birthrate is 1.2 children per adult woman during her life. Other social indicators are better than the States — their abortion rate is very low, as is the divorce rate (which reflects traditional attitudes toward marriage, true, but also widespread acceptance of extramarital sex and cohabitation.) Italy has tons of priests, and more Italians go to church than in any other European country, save perhaps Ireland.

Yet it is the birthrate that is the most telling statistic. It shows that, far from being the generous and people-oriented people the professor would like them to be, Italians are deeply selfish, content to wallow in the vita bella without perpetuating it. They care about their cultural riches the same way the prodigal son cared about his father's wealth: as a source of stimulation and amusement, not something to be protected and nourished.

So it would seem that the professor, while ostensibly approaching the matter from a Catholic perspective, has very little to stand on here. America — largely Protestant, and officially secular — has a higher level of religious committment than Catholic Italy, which teaches religion in state-run classrooms. The source of his antipathy must lie elsewhere.

But it is not for me to probe his psyche. Rather, I have to ask: if you're that deeply dissatisfied with the U.S., and you think another country is a utopia, why not move? He has taught in Italy before, and speaks fluent Italian. If being in Italy is good for your soul, and America is hazardous for your spiritual health, well then, isn't the choice obvious?

Personally, I don't think I would want to leave America even if I agreed with the professor's critique. If you think your nation has gone astray, you ought to love her the same way you might love an alcoholic mother: with sadness, to be sure, but always with prayers and actions directed at reforming her character.

As Merle Haggard famously sang, "If you don't love it, leave it." Thousands of Americans are taking him up on that offer, and none too soon. If you think you are too good for America, I, for one, will not convince you otherwise. Take your revenge on Bushitler and AmeriKKKa! Deprive us of your intelligence and moral certitude!

Unfortunately for Pete, these folks are moving to Canada. Given the close-run scare the Left received in the last Canadian elections, they should be lobbying for our American moral betters to move north.

When Stalin was in charge of the Soviet Union, "enemies of the state" would often appear in public to recant their "crimes." When Ivy League presidents mention uncomfortable truths about human sex differences, they pretty much have to do the same thing:

"I have long been aware of the many challenges women face in pursuing academic careers, but in the past several weeks the nature and extent of these challenges have been made particularly vivid to me," said President Summers. "It is time for Harvard to step up and affirm in strong and concrete terms its commitment to the advancement and support of women pursuing academic careers...."

Does anyone seriously think Harvard has been discouraging women from seeking tenure?

As far as I know, nobody has taken the time to refute Summers' original point: men tend to be overrepresented at the left and right ends of the bell curve when it comes to math and science aptitude, so they will be overrepresented at the elite levels of those disciplines. (They also make up a higher proportion of the remedial students.) That doesn't mean "women can't do math or science." It simply means that fewer women have the capacity to do those things at the highest levels of achievement.

Also, it's a well-known fact that women give birth, and many of these mothers want to care for their children full-time, at least while they (the kids) are young and helpless. This is great for the kids, but it can put one's career in slow-motion for a while.

And what's wrong with that? In the grand scheme of things, what's more important — being a good mother, or being a good Harvard professor? (Hint: dozens of societies have succeeded without Harvard professors, but no society has figured out how to perpetuate itself without mothers.)

Modern public speaking is a dessicated, joyless art, and it's probably unfair to single out one public speaker for special criticism. But I think Senator Harry Reid of Nevada can take it. Reid, who for some reason is the Senate minority leader, gave one of the most pathetic speeches I've seen in a long time. When giving a TV speech, Tom Daschle always sounded like a sex criminal denying his crimes, but Reid makes Daschle sound as entertaining as Chris Rock. His joke about a kid from his hometown of Searchlight was as flat as a pancake. It got worse from there.

You know, today is Groundhog Day. And what we saw and heard tonight was a little like the movie "Groundhog Day" -- the same old ideology that we've heard before, over and over and over again. We can do better.

Funny, I had just finished telling my wife something similar: that Harry Reid could have given the same speech 10, 15, even 20 years ago. In fact, I remember some grumpy Democrat in 1988 criticizing Reagan's speech for containing "ideology." He didn't mention "Groundhog Day," probably because the movie was still several years in the future. But otherwise, I'm pretty sure it was the same speech.

He goes on:

Will we be able to tell young people, like Devon back in Searchlight, that America is still the land of the open road and that you can travel that open road to the place of your choice?

This came right after Reid dumped on the idea of letting people keep some of their own Social Security money. Because to the Democrats, "the open road" and its destination must be provided by the government, and any threat to government confiscation of wealth must be attacked.

The writers and readers of Catholic Light have criticized the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia for its lackadaisical attitude toward doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical fidelity. This criticism is hardly unfair: the now-retired Bishop Sullivan emphasized "social justice" above all else. He was also on the national board of Pax Christi USA, a wacky "Catholic" "peace" group formed to give a veneer of legitimacy to secular anti-war activism. Virginia has more active duty military members than any other state except California, and thus Bishop Sullivan's occupation of the See of Richmond was quite discordant.

I was confirmed in our university's Catholic ministry, which was part of the Richmond Diocese. In my two-and-a-half years of attending Mass there, I don't remember any mention of spiritual formation, abortion, chastity, selecting a spouse, or any other topic that is vitally relevant to young adults. If it was controversial, Father wouldn't touch it.

Actually, I'm sitting here trying to think of something, anything that Father taught us, and I'm drawing a blank. I can remember him delivering earnest homilies in the manner of a motivational speaker (large gestures while moving around in front of the altar.) I remember him being personable, and he was popular with students, but that was because he approached his ministry like a camp counselor: just keep the kids happy, supervise some fun activities, don't challenge them too much. They'll move on to other things soon enough.

My wife and I were in Williamsburg two weekends ago, the first time we have ever left our three kids with anyone overnight. We had planned to go to the Byzantine-rite parish near where we were staying, but we woke up too late (ah, blissful sleep!) So we went to St. Bede's, a parish on the other side of town.

The church itself is less than a year old, although the parish has been around since the '30s. Encouragingly, when we arrived there were dozens of families piling out of cars — so many that I had to drop off my wife at the door and drive about a quarter-mile to park. The people were generally dressed conservatively, and entered respectfully.

Still, because most of the Richmond churches I've attended or heard about are at least a little kooky, I was still skeptical. Then they read some parish announcements. They were having a holy hour for teens, which apparently had been quite successful in the past. This made me take notice.

Holy hours are one of those things that have no earthly purpose whatsoever, and thus they're a good indicator of good, solid Catholicism. Nobody goes to holy hour to show off their moral goodness, or out of intellectual pride. The focus is on Christ in the Eucharist, and it's good practice for when, we hope, we prostrate ourselves before the Lamb and adore him in the fulness of his presence. And to encourage teenagers to do such a self-negating thing — that takes true spiritual leadership.

The pastor, Monsignor William Carr, celebrated the Mass with dignity and without any special flourishes. His homily was exceptional, and we're used to good homilies. His theme was the Enlightenment's view of freedom, which, he said, was fine as far as it went, but it did not address the deepest needs of man, and often becomes perverted into freedom for its own sake. He included a short, pointed critique of Immanuel Kant's philosophy, and showed how freedom-as-selfishness led inevitably to injustice toward others, including abortion. I'm not doing justice to the breadth of his homily: I have rarely heard so much good material covered so smoothly and so well.

Thank you, good monsignor, for giving us such a truly inspired opportunity to worship. If it was typical, then the people of St. Bede's need to thank God every Sunday for their parish's shepherd.