Category: Politics

Here in Massachusetts, our overlords in the legislature have been obstructing the progress of a marriage-protection amendment to the state constitution by refusing to vote up-or-down on the petition. On Sunday afternoon, there’s an opportunity to talk back to them when marriage supporters rally at the State House.

The editor of Le Monde diplomatique complains because international observers are not accusing Mexican officials of vote fraud. Normally, when international observers watch an election and don’t protest, then one is left with the impression they didn’t find anything major to protest about. But for Mr. Ramonet and the Mexican Left, the existence of massive fraud must not be questioned. Foreigners’ silence only means that they are part of the American hegemony that gives victories to “the ruling Catholic rightwing National Action party (PAN)” (boo, hiss).

Human Events asks: will Pennsylvania social conservatives decide to stay with Rick Santorum once they learn that senate candidate Bob Casey opposes a marriage protection amendment?
(HT: CaNN)

Back in the years c. 1990-2000, George Will was probably the best and most effective conservative columnist around. His syndicated columns, Newsweek commentaries, and full-length books usually received respectful notices, including from liberal publications. Even within the confines of an opinion column, Will managed to pack more erudition per column inch than any other writer.
Yet there were problems for anyone who admired Will. The first sign of creeping jackassery was back in the ’80s, when Will got it into his head that tax cuts were bad and that the Feds should raise taxes to cover the deficit. Not an uncommon opinion (among Democrats), and not totally indefensible. But it was the way he dissented from the conservative line that was so infuriating. If you didn’t agree with him that an additional 50-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax, you were irresponsible and childish. He was the schoolmaster, you were the naughty little child who couldn’t seem to pay attention in class.
It was this magisterial style that I appreciated when it was deployed against people who were truly childish and immature, like President Clinton. When he used it to argue against my own views, I began to understand why my left-wing friends found him so maddening. A high-church Episcopalian, Will often displays the worst tendencies associated with that tiny sect: haughtiness, snobbery, and a habitual preference for talking down one’s nose at one’s intellectual inferiors — which includes just about everyone.
He will brook no dissent himself, even when he has his facts wrong. Here’s a telling excerpt from the Wikipedia entry for George Will:

Will’s journalistic ethics, along with those of the newspaper that syndicates his column, The Washington Post, have also been questioned by conservative critics at Accuracy in Media (AIM). In their Media Monitor, AIM revealed that in December of 2004 The Post, in an article related to the Indian Ocean tsunami, claimed that, after the 1755 Lisbon earthquake, Catholic priests “roamed the streets” hanging suspected heretics, whom they blamed for the quake. Such a charge appears nowhere in the historical record, and The Post was duly informed of that fact. Not only did The Post fail to retract the calumny, but its columnist, Will, quoted as fact the same charge as it appeared in the 2005 book A Crack in the Edge of the World, by the English author Simon Winchester. Though notified of the complete falsity of the charge, neither Will nor Winchester, unlike others who mistakenly made the claim, has taken any steps to correct his error.

He’s also showing disturbing signs of Paleocon Disease, where every fault of American foreign policy can be blamed on the “neoconservatives”:

The administration, justly criticized for its Iraq premises and their execution, is suddenly receiving some criticism so untethered from reality as to defy caricature. The national, ethnic and religious dynamics of the Middle East are opaque to most people, but to the Weekly Standard — voice of a spectacularly misnamed radicalism, “neoconservatism” — everything is crystal clear: Iran is the key to everything.

“No Islamic Republic of Iran, no Hezbollah. No Islamic Republic of Iran, no one to prop up the Assad regime in Syria. No Iranian support for Syria . . .” You get the drift….

Will doesn’t bother to refute the Standard’s premise that Iran is driving much of the murder and mayhem throughout the Middle East. It’s like writing in 1983 that the actions of Nicaragua, East Germany, and North Korea had nothing to do with the Soviet Union — or that the Soviets were largely irrelevant. Does Will think that Iran isn’t bankrolling and directing Hezbollah? That they aren’t allied with Syria? That’s news to most people, I should think.
Will isn’t quoted much in the conservative blogosphere anymore. His general opposition to most aspects of the War on Terror has something to do with it, but I suspect it’s also because people have grown weary of his hectoring tone. Maybe they’re tired of the hackneyed baseball references, which are supposed to show Will’s “egalitarian” side:

Neoconservatives have much to learn, even from Buddy Bell, manager of the Kansas City Royals. After his team lost its 10th consecutive game in April, Bell said, “I never say it can’t get worse.” In their next game, the Royals extended their losing streak to 11 and in May lost 13 in a row.

Hang it up, George.

The cause of “Tibet” appears, at first glance, to be one of those fashionable causes that celebrities love to embrace. Anything endorsed by Brad Pitt, Richard Gere, and the Beastie Boys is suspicious, don’t you think?
Yet Tibet the nation, as opposed to Tibet the cause, has a very legitimate grievance against the Chinese government that has attempted to absorb it. China has murdered several hundred thousand Tibetans during their obscene occupation, and driven a similarly large number into exile. Now they are encouraging Han Chinese immigration into their restive “territory,” and ethnic Tibetans will soon be a minority in their own ancestral lands.
The one bright spot for Tibet is its spiritual and would-be temporal leader, the Dalai Lama. Normally, one may safely assume that any Eastern spiritual leader known to Westerners is a charlatan, more interested in selling books and conducting seminars than achieving inner peace. A sure mark of the religious dilettante is the remark, “I’m interested in Eastern spirituality.”
Real Eastern spirituality, as opposed to the denatured, consumerist version, has some rough edges to it. For one thing, the various moral codes differ, but they generally agree that giving into one’s sexual passions is not the way to achieve happiness. Many strains of Buddhism place a very low priority on any bodily activity; celibacy is widely practiced and considered a highly desirable state for advancing in the life of the soul.
All of these points are raised in this account of an interview with the Dalai Lama. He takes a dim view of homosexuality, which might surprise his lefty fans. Not to mention his chummy behavior with their Black Beast:

Although he appeared not to approve of the war in Iraq, he was admiring of [President] Bush.
“He is very straightforward,” said the monk.
“On our first visit, I was faced with a large plate of biscuits. President Bush immediately offered me his favourites, and after that, we got on fine. On my next visit, he didn’t mind when I was blunt about the war.
“By my third visit, I was ushering him into the Oval Office. I was astonished by his grasp of Buddhism.”

This passage could have come from Popes Benedict or John Paul:

“It is fascinating. In the West, you have bigger homes, yet smaller families; you have endless conveniences — yet you never seem to have any time. You can travel anywhere in the world, yet you don’t bother to cross the road to meet your neighbours,” he said.
“I don’t think people have become more selfish, but their lives have become easier and that has spoilt them. They have less resilience, they expect more, they constantly compare themselves to others and they have too much choice — which brings no real freedom.”

I read another article where he condemns syncretism, and gently chides Westerners for trying to combine elements of Buddhism, Christianity, and bits and pieces of other religions and spiritual practices. He doesn’t think that’s healthy, and usually recommends that people work from within their tradition unless they have a true conversion of the heart.
The late Holy Father attempted to reach out to leaders of other religions, including the Dalai Lama. Over the years, self-styled defenders of the faith have criticized him for this. But isn’t this a man we should be working with? Sure, make it politely clear that we are not compromising our faith in the One, True God, but we as Catholics should work with any man of good will.
Read the whole article. It isn’t very long.