A follow-up to my post “Movies you won’t see anytime soon.” How could I forget the chronological plot elements you’ll almost never see, such as:
+ The 1950s: An employee at a movie studio thinks it’s terrible that Senator McCarthy is trashing people’s reputations, but points out to his colleagues that there are millions of Soviet troops forcibly occupying Eastern Europe, and the USSR stole the hydrogen bomb so they could use it on us, so maybe there’s something to this communist threat after all?
+ The 1960s: A kid from a radical leftist New York family goes to college and starts hanging around the hippies. He discovers that drugs and free love aren’t as good as his parents told him they’d be. He rebels by burning his Jimi Hendrix records, switching his major to Finance, and courting a demure coed from Utica.
Author: Eric Johnson
A million bucks for other people’s blood
PFC Jessica Lynch, former soldier, is getting a million bucks for telling “her story” in a forthcoming book. She says she doesn’t remember the attack on her convoy, the accident that caused her massive injuries, or much of her captivity. Considering she’s only 20 years old, that ought to be a short biography.
The father of one soldier killed in the convoy attack, Randy Kiehl, doesn’t think Lynch should be profiting from her comrades’ deaths. At last, someone in his position is willing to question the canonization of Jessica Lynch. As I wrote before, I wish her well, but I don’t think her experiences were more praiseworthy than others.
Lynch ought to donate that money to charity, or better yet to the dependents the dead soldiers left behind. May God rest the soul of your son, Mr. Kiehl, and comfort you.
Real Catholics can’t be judges?
Miguel Estrada, a Catholic of Honduran ancestry, withdrew his name from consideration to the Federal bench yesterday. Nobody thought that Estrada was unqualified. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law and his resume is impeccable. But he’s not liberal, so he’s now one more Romanist scalp the Democrats can nail to their Senate office walls.
This summer, Democrats have defended themselves against charges that they are anti-Catholic, since they are stalling many of Bush’s nominees and a lot of them are Catholic. They’re right in that they are not merely anti-Catholic: they are prejudiced against any Christian who holds to the ancient faith. Specifically, they’re afraid that nominating traditional believers might threaten the One Big Thing they have written into the foundation of their part. Recall the gauntlet they put John Ashcroft through when he was nominated, and how he remains their whipping boy because he PRAYS IN HIS OFFICE before his workday begins!
The Dems haven’t presented any evidence that these snake-handling nominees will disregard the law; the simple fact that someone has “deeply held [Christian] beliefs” is enough. You may reply that the Republicans did the same thing to President W.J. Clinton. You would be wrong. They did indeed stall many of his nominees, and even blackballed a few (both tactics have a long, venerable history in the Senate). However, the GOP could have rejected Clinton’s judicial nominees on solid grounds, because in 1992 Clinton promised to only nominate judges who would uphold Roe vs. Wade. Regardless of the merits of the case in front of them, they would rule in favor of the abortion license, widely construed. Imagine if a judge said before confirmation that he would uphold all death penalty sentences, regardless of the facts.
Senate Republicans, remarkably, discovered their collective spines and are firing back. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, himself the victim of these smarmy tactics, has been pressing the nomination of Alabama Attorney General Pryor, another Catholic. Pryor made the mistake of opposing the One Big Thing in print, even in cases of rape or incest. In a Judiciary Committee hearing, Sessions said:
“Well, let me tell you, the doctrine that abortion is not justified for rape and incest is Catholic doctrine. It is a position of the pope and it’s a position of the Catholic Church in unity. So are we saying that if you believe in that principle, you can’t be a federal judge? Is that what we’re saying? And are we not saying, then, good Catholics need not apply?”
Democrats on the committee, which has a depressing number of rabidly pro-abortion Catholics, went nuts. When one of them said that Sessions, a Protestant, had no right to tell them what Catholics do and don’t believe, he shot back, “Some Catholics don’t believe in Catholic doctrine.”
Right on, brother Sessions! (Read the account of the exchange here.)
This shows — if you needed more evidence — that Evangelicals are the best friends of faithful Catholics in the culture today. I’d rather be governed by Southern Baptists than secular liberals. As long as they don’t prohibit me from going to Mass, spreading my faith, or buying wine, I would be happy to let them take over.
Republicans should put Miguel Estrada’s face in campaign ads next year. The Democrats pretend that they’re the party of inclusion and acceptance, but they’re the ones rejecting people on the basis of religion and ethnicity. Throw it back in their faces.
Why we need a Federal Marriage Amendment immediately
California, home to one-eighth of the American population, has decided to legalize gay marriage.
You’d never know that from the news story. The state legislature approved “rights” for “domestic partnerships,” which sounds so boring and normal. If you didn’t know better, you’d think it was a business-related issue. The Associated Press reports:
…the bill would give domestic partners the ability to ask for child support and alimony, the right to health coverage under a partner’s plan and the ability to make funeral arrangements for a partner.
Other provisions would give domestic partners access to family student housing, bereavement and family care leave and exemptions from estate and gift taxes, and in the event of a partner’s death, the authority to consent to an autopsy, donate organs and to make funeral arrangements.
It also would prevent courts from forcing a domestic partner to testify against the other partner in a trial, and it would give domestic partners the ability to apply for absentee ballots on a partner’s behalf….
Two years ago, the Legislature passed a measure giving domestic partners about a dozen rights previously available only to heterosexual spouses or the next of kin, including the right to make medical decisions for incapacitated partners, to sue for a partner’s wrongful death and to adopt a partner’s child.
As the article notes, some people think this bill violates Proposition 22, a ballot intiative enacted in 2000 with 61% of the vote, which defined marriage as one man and one woman. That raises the question, “What marital benefit doesn’t this bill provide?” I’m racking my brain. Maybe you could think of one. Seems to me that the legislators have invented a legal relationship, called it “domestic partnership,” and attached all of the rights and privileges pertaining to marriage. Since they don’t call it “marriage,” they aren’t circumventing Proposition 22.
It’s a cute ploy, however illegal it is. Then again, how often does the Left consider piddly things like “the will of the people” or “the law” when they get in the way of their agenda? Their new slogan should be “Celebrate diversity. Or else.”
As a committed federalist, I believe in the Tenth Amendment. I don’t like it when federal law usurps a function of the states, and regulating marriage is primarily a state responsibility. But when a few states want to impose gay marriage on all the other states — over the objections of their own citizens, in California as in Vermont — then it’s time to write the definition of marriage into the Constitution. The Federal Marriage Amendment reads thus:
“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
Draw the line right here, right now. In the 19th century, Catholic immigrants sometimes had to defend their churches by force, facing down violent mobs to protect the houses of God. Physical force isn’t called for, but the same kind of moral commitment is.
Don’t think, “Gay marriage won’t really happen.” Abortion happened. Easy divorce happened. Contraceptives for 12-year-olds happened. You don’t have to be an alarmist to see that gay marriage will happen if nobody does anything about it.
Hate the fussy, love the fusser
My daughter, Anna, is three years old, and has the personality of an exceptionally curious, willful puppy. Last night, I had to reprimand her for disobeying — a common occurence — and she said through her tears, “Daddy, do you love me even when I’m fussy?”
Before I gave the standard reply (“I always love you, no matter what”) my older son Charlie piped up: “Yes, he loves you, Anna, he just doesn’t like the fussy!”
I don’t want to read too much into a 4-year-old’s comment, but it’s delightful to see a small child grasp the idea that you can love people without approving of all of their actions. Yet how many adults argue that unless we approve of their vices, we are unloving bigots? Sometimes, kids really are wiser than adults, or at least they see things more clearly.