Eric Johnson: May 2006 Archives

The word "tragedy" gets abused a lot these days, but here's something truly tragic:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. forces killed two Iraqi women — one of them about to give birth — when the troops shot at a car that failed to stop at an observation post in a city north of Baghdad, Iraqi officials and relatives said Wednesday. Nabiha Nisaif Jassim, 35, was being raced to the maternity hospital in Samarra by her brother when the shooting occurred Tuesday.

The U.S. military said coalition troops fired at a car after it entered a clearly marked prohibited area near an observation post but failed to stop despite repeated visual and auditory warnings.

Given the frequency of suicide car bombings in Iraq, the rules of engagement are justified. That is no comfort to the family involved. And imagine if you were the gunner who killed the two women -- knowing that you acted properly, and in ignorance of what the vehicle was really doing, is no comfort either.

But there's a reason Kim Gamel of the AP filed an 800 word story on a simple incident: to blur the moral distinction between accidental killing and murder.

[The victim's brother] said the killings, like those in Haditha, were examples of random killings faced by Iraqis every day.

The killings at Haditha, a city that has been plagued by insurgents, came after a bomb rocked a military convoy on Nov. 19, killing a Marine. Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., a decorated war veteran who has been briefed by military officials, has said Marines shot and killed unarmed civilians in a taxi at the scene and went into two homes and shot others.

Kim didn't mention that the congressman, a living disgrace to the Marine Corps, declared that the Marines were guilty though none have been charged with anything yet, and he implicated the Marines' chain of command, too. Very discreet. Then she reveals her main theme:

Former Iraqi Foreign Minister Adnan Pachachi told the BBC that the allegations have "created a feeling of great shock and sadness and I believe that if what is alleged is true — and I have no reason to believe it's not — then I think something very drastic has to be done."

"There must be a level of discipline imposed on the American troops and change of mentality which seems to think that Iraqi lives are expendable," said Pachachi, a member of parliament.

Pachachi was being droll -- for if anyone considers Iraqi lives expendable, it's other Iraqis. And then comes...you can see this coming...Abu Ghraib!

If confirmed as unjustified killings, the episode could be the most serious case of criminal misconduct by U.S. troops during three years of combat in Iraq. Until now the most infamous occurrence was the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse involving Army soldiers, which came to light in April 2004 and which Bush said he considered to be the worst U.S. mistake of the entire war.

I wouldn't put barking dogs and naked Iraqi pyramids on the same level as mass murder, but the AP is as mainstream as journalism gets, and mainstream journalism decided two years ago that Abu Ghraib is equivalent to Dachau.

It's 5:00 a.m. in Baghdad as I type this. Thousands of Marines and soldiers have already woken for the day, and they are getting their gear ready to go out on patrol, man checkpoints, give fire support, render medical aid, and countless other tasks. Over the last three years, hundreds of thousands of men have risked their lives to save Iraqi civilians, and many more will in the future.

If Marines really committed murder in Haditha, people like Kim Gamel of the Associated Press will use their guilt to eradicate any good that servicemen did in Iraq. They've done a good job so far: most of the American public thinks that the war hasn't been worth the cost. Who can blame them? The feckless Big Media never ceases to highlight bad events in Iraq, and no one can answer them effectively.

It's good to be Big Media. You don't even have to conceal your biases anymore.

Senate Passes Immigration Bill Overhaul By DAVID ESPO

WASHINGTON (AP) - Legislation to secure U.S. borders and offer millions of illegal immigrants access to the American dream cleared the Senate on Thursday, a rare election-year reach across party lines and a triumph for President Bush.

The issue at hand was, apparently, "access to the American dream." What kind of horrid monster would be against access to the American dream?

You'd never know it from the article, but would-be immigrants can apply for access to the American dream at over 260 U.S. embassies and consulates throughout the world. Trouble is, they might refuse you for trifing reasons, such as no demonstrated ability to support yourself, or maybe you stabbed somebody in an argument and went to jail for six years. The other option, sneaking into the U.S., will then become more attractive.

Therefore, the Senate wants to grant amnesty -- sorry, access to the American dream -- to people whose first act on American soil was to commit a crime. In this debate, we have lost sight of that simple fact: It is already a crime to enter the United States and take up permanent residence without a visa. The Senate bill pretends to "secure the borders" by building some new fences and hiring some new Border Patrol agents. This is what they mean by a "compromise bill" -- the Republicans get to pretend to their constituents that they are "serious" about defending our borders, and the Democrats get to spend more tax money, while knowing that the enforcement will never materialize.

Those in the country unlawfully for five years or more would be permitted to remain, continue working and eventually apply for citizenship. They would be required to pay at least $3,250 in fines and fees, settle any back taxes and learn English.

These sound great, but they won't happen. What does "required to pay" mean, anyway? Who will track them down and make them pay? Immigration and Customs Enforcement? Federal courts? The IRS? These are illegal residents who have managed to dodge the law for a half-decade and more: you think they won't dodge the tax man?

And the requirement to learn English is an utter joke. Again, how will that be enforced? You only have to take a literacy test if you apply for citizenship. Permanent residents don't need to know English. (The guidelines for applying for permanent residency are here.) If learning English wasn't a problem for five or more years, it probably won't be a problem at all.

In other words, this is like a common-law marriage -- you shack up long enough, you're de facto married. You live in America long enough, you get to be a permanent resident, and maybe even a citizen with full civil rights, including the right to vote.

American citizenship used to mean something. The Founding Fathers risked their lives to establish it. Multitudes have died to keep it. And the United States Senate wants to give it away for $3,250 in fines and fees, plus back taxes. What gutless, loathsome, contemptible bastards.

Many Catholics take a cavalier attitude toward mass immigration, including commenters on this here blog. "Sure, immigration might be a problem," they say, "but at least most of the immigrants are Catholic!"

How can we face our fellow citizens in the public square and argue for our views if we take that attitude? Translated, this says to our opponents, "Either agree with our arguments, or we'll import zillions of foreigners and your guys will never get elected again because Latin Americans aren't keen on abortion or gay marriage or all those other things you like so much."

There are two problems with that approach. First, it treats American citizenship as if it means nothing -- hardly a convincing tactic to anyone who is the least bit patriotic. Second, it isn't true, because the current wave of immigrants will enshrine the Culture of Death for at least another generation.

I've met lots of Mexicans, and I've been to Central America a couple of times; Latin America as a whole is unquestionably more morally traditional than the U.S. But in the end, it won't matter: Latinos will vote for Democrats, because the Democrats will promise them welfare, medical care, and subsidized education, and in the end, those goodies will trump moral traditionalism.

This is not an ethnic slur, it's a sociological fact. Immigrants of all ethnicities overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. This is true of poor Salvadoran laborers and wealthy Indian entrepreneurs. There are a few anomalies -- Vietnamese and Cuban immigrants trend Republican -- but they do not disprove the rule.

That's why California, which 40 years ago elected Ronald Reagan, now will have pro-abortion governors in the future. Arizona, which sent Barry Goldwater to the Senate, now drifts leftward; Colorado continues on the same path, and as more Mexicans are naturalized and begin voting, Texas will follow in a decade or so.

And the Democrats they're electing in these states aren't like the morally conservative Democrat politicians that you can find in Mississippi or Alabama. Even if they elect Republicans, they will be weak on moral issues. Look at Schwarzenegger, and you will see the future of American politics.

If you agree with mass immigration on Catholic grounds, and I disagree with it on Catholic grounds, we can agree to disagree. Just don't think the country will be moved closer to Catholic teachings because of it.

Two postscripts:

1. Latin immigrants won't necessarily remain Catholic, even if they were Catholic to begin with. In the Arlington Diocese, where I reside, there are about 300,000 Spanish-speaking immigrants, and only about 10% actively practice the Catholic faith. Evangelical and Pentecostal groups are much better at getting Hispanics involved.

2. Read about the American Church in the 19th century, and the widespread resentment against the Irish domination of the Catholic clergy and institutions. But as the Mass was in Latin, there was no controversy about the language of the liturgy. Catholic schools taught their classes in English. But if the current illegals are given amnesty, and 40 million additional Latino immigrants come to the U.S. because of family reunification laws (a low number, by some estimates), we will essentially have two parallel churches in the same country, one English, one Spanish, each with their own liturgies, traditions, institutions, clergy, religious, and laity. Many bishops will be forced to contend with two linguistic blocs within their dioceses, and will have to adjudicate an endless series of disputes between the two.

Will that be a source of unity, or division?

Would you agree that the Catholic Church has an image problem? The causes aren't just third-rate novels like "The Da Vinci Code" or the "discovery" of "The Gospel of Judas," as if spurious ancient writings about Jesus Christ were something new under the sun.

No, the image problem is largely self-imposed these days. The Church's enemies magnify the flaws of her members, to be sure, but they did not instill those flaws, nor do they install those members into positions of power.

Primarily, the Church's reputation has suffered because of the priest sex scandals. I would argue -- I have argued -- that the laity share the blame, for insisting that their clergy be "nice," non-judgmental, and non-dogmatic. But the primary responsibility rests with the bishops who did very little to stop the problem, beyond moving offending priests into therapy or reshuffling them into different jobs.

The scandal, then, stemmed from bad governance. (If you think the problem was because priests can't get married, you came to the wrong blog.) Instead of confronting the problem and causing a temporary disruption, bishops opted for a "soft" approach that would not cause grave scandal to non-Catholics. The result was an even more grave scandal when the facts came to light. To those outside the Church, it looked like bishops were doing what was good for their "tribe" instead of doing what was right. And there was much truth in that assessment.

In light of that, non-Catholics will be forgiven if they think the bishops' defense of illegal immigration is just another cynical ploy. In this case, the prelates want to continue the flow of immigrants so they can increase the size of their flocks and wield more influence in society.

I do not pretend to know what goes on in the heads of the bishops, whether individually or collectively. Personally, I doubt that they are that coldly calculating, and they genuinely believe that legal and illegal immigrants should all be granted citizenship, showered with various forms of public assistance, and receive a gentle kiss on the forehead before going to sleep every night. But you can't blame the public at large for harboring doubts.

During my youth, I worked on a construction site and four different restaurants. A large percentage of my co-workers were immigrants, and I got to know their personal lives -- what it was like growing up in Central America, what their lives were like now. I also think of the kids in the multi-ethnic neighborhood where I grew up. For several years, I played on a league soccer team drawn from our housing development, and only two players had been born in the U.S. (Not me: I was born in Germany.) As you'd expect, we won almost every game.

So when I write about immigrants, I'm not just talking about the guys who cut my lawn. From first-hand experience, I can see how difficult it is for those in the lowest economic strata of our society...working two or three jobs, hoping they won't get sick, trying to survive in a very expensive area of the country.

To those of you who think illegal immigration is no big deal, I ask you this: why do you want to hurt those struggling workers? You may protest that you just want to give immigrants a chance at a better life. But admitting millions of unskilled or low-skill immigrants -- legal or illegal -- depresses wages among the poorest workers.

That point should be so obvious that only a fool or a professor would deny it. When they seek employment, workers don't apply for "a job," they seek jobs for which they are qualified. Employers such as restaurants and construction companies do not need to pay better wages or provide better working conditions, because they know they can replace their workers easily.

It will only get worse over the next decade. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, job growth will be almost exclusively in high-skill sectors. (Click the thumbnail to see the official chart.) Job losses will be in low-skill sectors (read the full article from the BLS.)

Yet if the Senate's immigration "reform" bill is enacted, it will increase, not decrease, the supply of low-end workers, as the number of low-end jobs dries up. We will have more people fighting for fewer jobs at lower wages.

Once again, could someone please explain what is "just" about that?

I have been stewing about the Church's response to the sham immigration "reform" bills percolating in the Senate. This response has been led by Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles, who has never been noted for any political activism that didn't involve running interference for liberal Democrats.

The cardinal's position boils to this: the United States should abandon its southern border and let everyone in. In Mexico alone, according to a recent survey, something like a quarter of the population would move to the U.S. if given the chance. That means about 28 million people, in addition to the 11 million illegals already here.

This is not a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. It has little to do with the Gospel. It is the cardinal's personal opinion. Let's go to the Catechism:

The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

How can immigration possibly be a "natural right" in the same sense as the right to life, if it is subject to "various juridical conditions" -- and thus can be denied if the civil authority sees fit? The answer must be that it is a conditional right, based on dire circumstance. Like the classic hypothetical situation where a man takes bread from a store to feed his family, the Catechism presumably means that a person has the right to leave his homeland if the alternative is death (which is the literal reading of "livelihood.")

Mexico is a Third World country, but they are well-off by Third World standards. They have a trillion-dollar economy, which works out to over $10,000 per capita. Compared to regional neighbors Guatemala ($5,200), El Salvador ($5,100), Honduras ($2,800), and Nicaragua ($2,400), Mexico is quite wealthy. Its citizens aren't fleeing north because they are starving, they are trying to improve their economic prospects. Big difference.

The Mexican government wants to keep exporting its poor, mainly so it won't have to undertake necessary social and economic reforms to solve its internal problems. I cannot recall the good cardinal, or any other prelate, calling on Mexico to institute "social justice" measures -- for instance, to insist on honest judges or property rights for all classes, which would help their economy immeasurably.

What about the effect on black people? They are Americans who helped build this country, contributed sons to fight and die in its wars, and have contributed heavily to the cultural life of the nation. Two-thirds of blacks are middle class or richer, but one-third aren't. They deserve prior consideration in any social decision regarding mass low-skill immigration, and their interests should be protected. Same thing with poor whites, or poor Hispanics, or any other poor person.

No matter how rich or powerful it is, the United States is a country like any other, and it has the right to require documentation of immigrants, to refuse entry to criminals, and protect its poorest and most vulnerable citizens against economic calamity. Aiding and abetting a corrupt and dysfunctional government, impoverishing the poor, imperiling our common culture -- how exactly does mass immigration further social justice?

The L.A. Times tells us that "Sex is essential, kids aren't," in an editorial by David P. Barash, professor of psychology at the University of Washington. It seems that the psychiatric profession, or at least this guy, embraces the idea of free will wholeheatedly:

And evolutionary biologists (including me) are asked, "How can this be?" If reproduction is perhaps the fundamental imperative of natural selection, of our genetic heritage, isn't it curious — indeed, counterintuitive — that people choose, and in such large numbers, to refrain from participating in life's most pressing event?

The answer is that intentional childlessness is indeed curious — but in no way surprising. It is also illuminating, because it sheds light on what is perhaps the most notable hallmark of the human species: the ability to say no — not just to a bad idea, an illegal order or a wayward pet but to our own genes.

When it comes to human behavior, there are actually very few genetic dictates. Our hearts insist on beating, our lungs breathing, our kidneys filtering and so forth, but these internal-organ functions are hardly "behavior" in a meaningful sense. As for more complex activities, evolution whispers within us. It does not shout orders.

People are inclined to eat when hungry, sleep when tired and have sex when aroused. But in most cases, we remain capable of declining, endowed as we are with that old bugaboo, free will....

Ignore (if you can) the smug, facile cheerleading for the culture of death, and the blithe disregard for what German depopulation will mean for the world's future. (Hint: no beer, no pork sausages.) Isn't this the perfect argument against those who argue that homosexual behavior is pre-programmed into certain people? Even if it is, David P. Barash, professor of psychology at the University of Washington, says that homosexuals don't have to obey it.

Taking this a bit further, we often hear that teenagers "are going to have sex anyway" so we might as well equip them with condoms and pills to protect against the consequences. But if David P. Barash is right -- and I think he may be -- young, unmarried people don't have to get it on! It's just an urge, and they can say "no" to it!

Wait...you say the professor might not agree? But those are the clear implications, aren't they?

Over the last few weeks, I have been haunted by these questions:

1. How long will the war against Islamofascism last?

2. How many people will die as a result?

3. Will the Islamofascists win, or will their non-Islamofascist opponents win?

I'm interested in what you think — please contribute your own views. My answers are:

1. 10-15 years, though it may drag on for several more decades.

2. Somewhere between 500,000 and 20 million will die, but I will guess 2-3 million. My reasoning goes as follows: over a decade, the Islamofascist regime in Khartoum killed 1 million Christians and animist "rebels" in southern Sudan. I believe that there will be two or three similar genocides, given the number of countries in which the Muslim radicals operate, and the large populations involved. The low number seems far too optimistic. A nuclear war with Iran, Israel, and/or Pakistan involved as belligerents could easily kill 15-20 million.

3. We will lose, and the Islamofascists will win.

Four years ago, I would have strongly disputed the last point. But four years ago, I thought that the "War on Terror" would be an interlude after which we would go back to arguing about abortion or a flag-burning amendment or whatever else.

It isn't working out that way. We now live in a post-post-September 11 world. Americans were willing to support a "War on Terror" as long as it meant wiping out or containing regimes that promote terrorism. When we slaughtered the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and deposed the terrorist-supporting regime in Iraq, the public was willing to support it.

But we are facing an enemy determined to wear us down, in the classical Arab fashion of avoiding direct battle and harassing their enemy with raids until his will is broken. Our Western tradition of seeking a decisive military confrontation — a tradition that stretches back at least 2,500 years to the ancient Greeks — chafes at the idea of patiently rooting out a malign force and supplanting it with congenial institutions. Westerners want the "War" to cease so they can get back to their daily lives. But jihadis don't have day jobs, because their countries' economies are moribund. They have plenty of time on their hands for mortal thoughts.

You may think I am referring to Iraq, but I am thinking further down the road. Iraq is neither the first nor the last time that we have faced an insurgency enmeshed with the local population. Nor is it the last time we will confront jihadi thugs. In the next couple of years, Iran will get nuclear weapons. Those weapons will give them newfound influence to wreak great evils in the world. And the United States, and every other free nation in the world, won't do a f——— thing about it.

That is because to most Americans, the "War" doesn't exist. Few people are affected by it directly. It consumes very little of our gigantic economy's abundance, and has (relative to our population of almost 300 million) produced low casualties from a historical perspective. There is no sense of urgency, and little desire to prevent Iran from getting its nukes.

Knowing this, Iran will continue to expand its sphere of influence in the Middle East and Central Asia. Iran's allies will continue to kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, and elsewhere as opportunities present themselves. Bit by bit, piece by piece, they will consolidate their gains until they are the Islamic superpower they aspire to be, vouchsafed by their nuclear deterrent. Muslim states, out of fear and religious solidarity, will side with Iran or at least do nothing to antagonize it.

The only thing that might jeopardize this plan is another clumsy, September-11-style terror attack. That might rouse Americans and other free peoples into action. Iran will studiously avoid this mistake.

Besides nuclear technology and thuggery, the Iranian regime and other Islamofascists have another advantage: culture. No, not high culture; they have no interest in art, architecture, literature, music, or any other beautiful thing. I mean culture in the most primitive sense, the soil in which they grow and thrive. There are few truly secular Muslim countries. Some nominally secular states do exist in the Muslim world, but their populations are sustained by an essentially Islamic worldview. States were not sanctioned by the Koran, so they have no real standing to a pious Muslim, unlike in Christianity where they have a temporary but divinely-sanctioned role in human life.

Within Islam, the only sanctioned institution other than the teachings of Mohammad himself is the family. Religion and family reinforce each other and provide a strong cultural basis for Muslim societies. Today, these societies are often anemic and dysfunctional, and the more anemic and dysfunctional, the more likely they are to produce Islamofascists. But religion and family are far more powerful and enduring influences than secularism and consumerism, the chief twin values of Western elites. In the long run, the men animated by stronger forces will wear down the men sustained by weaker ones.

As I said above, I did not believe that the "War on Terror" would last more than a couple of years, as I did not think it represented a true challenge to our civilization. Like many others, I spent the 1990s thinking that the challenge was mainly from within: lack of faith in God, lack of confidence in, and knowledge of, the four pillars of our own culture (Greece, Rome, Judaism, and Christianity).

Now we face a determined enemy bent on our destruction, and we do not have the internal strength to resist. Either Western civilization will recover and renew itself by embracing the Cross once again, or it will perish eternally. The only other alternative — that Islamofascists will lose their appeal, and will not use suicide bombers and nuclear devices to work their will — is highly unlikely.

Richard notes that Rod Dreher, religion correspondent for the Dallas Morning News and a convert, is considering leaving the Church.

This isn't very surprising. A while ago, many people chastised Rob for his increasingly unhinged writing about the gay sex scandals. Catholic Light had commentary such as this and this, where Rod himself left a drive-by comment.

There is a strong element of narcissism in Rod's public conduct: Me, me, me. What I think, what I experience, what I believe. Playing out one's most intimate internal struggles for public consumption, in a manner that calls attention to one's own virtue, is not the approach of a serious man. It is the hallmark of the adolescent.

Sounds harsh? Maybe so, but it's the root of the problem. Rod is not having an intellectual difficulty. He believes that he has the right -- no, the duty -- to stand in judgment over the Church and her clergy. Read this 2004 column, where Rod "outs" his parish priest who was accused -- not arrested, much less convicted -- of molesting a male minor. Google isn't telling me what the resolution was.

I spent the next several days trying to find whatever information I could about Father Clay's situation. It was true: Father Clay had been banned from active ministry.

What to do with this information? I wasn't worried about Father Clay. I was worried about Father Allan Hawkins, the parish's very fine pastor, and the good people of the congregation.

I thought: Can't this be handled quietly, so Father Hawkins and the parish aren't embarrassed?

And then I thought: If I go that route, I am no better than the bishops and others I have criticized. They kept it in-house for the sake of the church and led us all off the cliff. Public exposure is the only sure way to handle Father Clay.

Father Clay might have been an innocent man unjustly accused, swept up in the frenzied reaction to the scandal. But Judge Rod will not be deterred by considerations of prudence, avoiding scandal, or protecting the reputation of others. Father Clay was accused, and so he must pay!

God is allowing Mr. Dreher's faith to be tested. Will he be a man and contend for it? Or will he allow his own personal disappointments to divert him into rejecting the head of the Church? I pray it is the former.