I know there's a way to make these posts shorter: i.e., to have a link that takes one to the rest of the text. But I don't know how to do it.
If anyone ever visits this blog, and knows how to do that, please let me know.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Can any good thing come from NPR?
On NPR this morning, not one but two good stories back to back!
The first one was an interview with George Ayittey, a professor of economics at American University, who said what Africa needs isn't mysterious: it needs honest capitalism (i.e., more market economics and less kleptocracy).
Then, an item on pain -management that offers hope. (Pain-management is the key, underlying issue to a lot of the euthanasia debate, and a justice issue: if our laws and law-enforcement regimen interferes with pain-management and comfort-care, that is unjust. Something our bishops ought to take a look at.)
Add in a story on "union wars" in West Virginia, told from the usual, top-down, quasi-Marxist perspective, but nonetheless didn't completely whitewash union thuggery...not bad for National Proletarian Radio.
The first one was an interview with George Ayittey, a professor of economics at American University, who said what Africa needs isn't mysterious: it needs honest capitalism (i.e., more market economics and less kleptocracy).
Then, an item on pain -management that offers hope. (Pain-management is the key, underlying issue to a lot of the euthanasia debate, and a justice issue: if our laws and law-enforcement regimen interferes with pain-management and comfort-care, that is unjust. Something our bishops ought to take a look at.)
Add in a story on "union wars" in West Virginia, told from the usual, top-down, quasi-Marxist perspective, but nonetheless didn't completely whitewash union thuggery...not bad for National Proletarian Radio.
Not a penny
As might be evident from the last post, I listen to NPR's "Morning Edition." Every morning. Despite its pretensions and ingrained leftism, it's very good.
I listen to Car Talk, when I can, on Saturday mornings, and "All Things Considered" when I'm in the car in the late afternoon.
Every year, when the station to which I usually listen has it's pledge drive, I turn to another NPR-affiliate for that week, so I don't have to endure it.
Nope, I don't send a penny to NPR. And I feel not the least twinge of guilt.
Nobody makes those folks at the station send the signal into my house. If they want to go to a subscription-radio format -- which I believe is the latest thing -- they are free to do so. If they take it away, I have no complaint.
But the nice folks (I am sure they are nice) on the station seem to think a contract is made, merely by their beaming out the signal. Nope, sorry.
What's more, they get money from me. Not a lot, I admit; but they get a little nick off my paycheck, against my will. No media outlet in this nation ought to get a penny of tax money, as far as I am concerned.
So: not a penny. Do you think I'm bad?
I listen to Car Talk, when I can, on Saturday mornings, and "All Things Considered" when I'm in the car in the late afternoon.
Every year, when the station to which I usually listen has it's pledge drive, I turn to another NPR-affiliate for that week, so I don't have to endure it.
Nope, I don't send a penny to NPR. And I feel not the least twinge of guilt.
Nobody makes those folks at the station send the signal into my house. If they want to go to a subscription-radio format -- which I believe is the latest thing -- they are free to do so. If they take it away, I have no complaint.
But the nice folks (I am sure they are nice) on the station seem to think a contract is made, merely by their beaming out the signal. Nope, sorry.
What's more, they get money from me. Not a lot, I admit; but they get a little nick off my paycheck, against my will. No media outlet in this nation ought to get a penny of tax money, as far as I am concerned.
So: not a penny. Do you think I'm bad?
Courage
My cousin, who lives in Thailand, is battling cancer.
He found this prayer written out by his mother--and my aunt--in a prayer-book.
Give me courage, Lord,
When I would fail Thee
When hope would surrender
To dark despair
When night comes down
And the storms are raging
Fill my soul with the
Strength of prayer.
When the road is long
And the load is heavy,
And the tempter’s haven
Is fair to see.
Speak to me, Lord,
In my hour of weakness
And give me courage
To strive towards Thee.
Brian O’Higgins
Republic of Ireland
He found this prayer written out by his mother--and my aunt--in a prayer-book.
Give me courage, Lord,
When I would fail Thee
When hope would surrender
To dark despair
When night comes down
And the storms are raging
Fill my soul with the
Strength of prayer.
When the road is long
And the load is heavy,
And the tempter’s haven
Is fair to see.
Speak to me, Lord,
In my hour of weakness
And give me courage
To strive towards Thee.
Brian O’Higgins
Republic of Ireland
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
SCOTUS, POTUS
Over at Real Clear Politics you can read The Supreme Court Circus Is Coming To Town, by Thomas Lifson, who writes for The American Thinker.
Very good analysis of the Supreme Court nomination fight in the offing.
An exerpt:
So the Democrats are being forced onto a path which will alienate the swing voters it needs to win presidential elections and Senate seats in those states not firmly in the blue camp. The only question is whether or not the Republicans, long called Stupid Party for their lack of political wiles, will have the wit to get out of their way....
From my standpoint, the best nominee the President could present us with is Judge Janice Rogers Brown....
She has a very public, very articulate position on the issue of takings – where the government forces a homeowner out of a longstanding abode, merely to garner greater tax revenue, or some other advantage to itself. The Kelo decision has electrified the public more than any other Supreme Court decision since Roe itself....
Politicians and pundits have been relatively slow to pick up on the public’s anger and fear that rich developers, in concert with tax-hungry local officials, will seize their homes if property values rise to the extent that it becomes profitable for them to do so.
He makes a point about the "nuclear option" being back on the table, but he predicts it won't be necessary (good!). He seems to defer to Bush's judgment about Alberto Gonzales -- if he picks Gonzales, he must be good, and his conservative critics wrong. Trouble is, that wasn't true with O'Connor, Kennedy or Souter.
As many are saying: now Bush proves himself the prolifer he and his cheerleaders want us to believe he is.
Stay tuned.
Very good analysis of the Supreme Court nomination fight in the offing.
An exerpt:
So the Democrats are being forced onto a path which will alienate the swing voters it needs to win presidential elections and Senate seats in those states not firmly in the blue camp. The only question is whether or not the Republicans, long called Stupid Party for their lack of political wiles, will have the wit to get out of their way....
From my standpoint, the best nominee the President could present us with is Judge Janice Rogers Brown....
She has a very public, very articulate position on the issue of takings – where the government forces a homeowner out of a longstanding abode, merely to garner greater tax revenue, or some other advantage to itself. The Kelo decision has electrified the public more than any other Supreme Court decision since Roe itself....
Politicians and pundits have been relatively slow to pick up on the public’s anger and fear that rich developers, in concert with tax-hungry local officials, will seize their homes if property values rise to the extent that it becomes profitable for them to do so.
He makes a point about the "nuclear option" being back on the table, but he predicts it won't be necessary (good!). He seems to defer to Bush's judgment about Alberto Gonzales -- if he picks Gonzales, he must be good, and his conservative critics wrong. Trouble is, that wasn't true with O'Connor, Kennedy or Souter.
As many are saying: now Bush proves himself the prolifer he and his cheerleaders want us to believe he is.
Stay tuned.
Daily homily: Jacob wrestles with God
Today’s first reading describes Jacob the night before
he meets his brother Esau after many years.
You may recall Jacob mistreated his brother:
Remember how Esau
"sold his birthright" for a bowl of stew?
Jacob could have simply shared.
Remember how Jacob, with his mother,
Deceived Jacob’s father, Isaac,
so that Jacob received the blessing, instead of Esau?
After that, Jacob fled the country.
Now, after many years, he’s coming back, and he’s afraid.
In today’s reading, Jacob wrestles with "an angel"—
Or, as many read this, he wrestles with God.
This is Jacob’s whole life.
He manipulated and deceived,
Rather than let God make things happen for him.
Jacob’s family life was messed up:
He had two wives,
plus he had children from two maid-servants,
and he played them against each other;
no wonder his sons hated each other:
Remember how Joseph taunted his older brothers—
They hated him for it—they sold him into slavery!
Eventually, they all ended up in Egypt;
All Israel ended up in slavery for 400 years!
What if Jacob hadn’t pitted his children
against each other?
The meeting with Esau, as it happens, is peaceful.
They seem to be reconciled.
But something very sad happens:
After they embrace, they part—
Esau seems willing to stay with his brother;
But Jacob is afraid, so they part.
They meet once more—at the funeral of their father.
Isn’t that sad?
How often angry words of ours
end up being the last words we speak to someone.
How often pride keeps us
from being the first to pick up the phone or write a note.
Jacob wrestles all night!
And he walks away limping.
He—like us—was a slow learner!
What if he had learned the wisdom
Of something the poet Dante said—
So simple and profound:
"In your will is our peace."
he meets his brother Esau after many years.
You may recall Jacob mistreated his brother:
Remember how Esau
"sold his birthright" for a bowl of stew?
Jacob could have simply shared.
Remember how Jacob, with his mother,
Deceived Jacob’s father, Isaac,
so that Jacob received the blessing, instead of Esau?
After that, Jacob fled the country.
Now, after many years, he’s coming back, and he’s afraid.
In today’s reading, Jacob wrestles with "an angel"—
Or, as many read this, he wrestles with God.
This is Jacob’s whole life.
He manipulated and deceived,
Rather than let God make things happen for him.
Jacob’s family life was messed up:
He had two wives,
plus he had children from two maid-servants,
and he played them against each other;
no wonder his sons hated each other:
Remember how Joseph taunted his older brothers—
They hated him for it—they sold him into slavery!
Eventually, they all ended up in Egypt;
All Israel ended up in slavery for 400 years!
What if Jacob hadn’t pitted his children
against each other?
The meeting with Esau, as it happens, is peaceful.
They seem to be reconciled.
But something very sad happens:
After they embrace, they part—
Esau seems willing to stay with his brother;
But Jacob is afraid, so they part.
They meet once more—at the funeral of their father.
Isn’t that sad?
How often angry words of ours
end up being the last words we speak to someone.
How often pride keeps us
from being the first to pick up the phone or write a note.
Jacob wrestles all night!
And he walks away limping.
He—like us—was a slow learner!
What if he had learned the wisdom
Of something the poet Dante said—
So simple and profound:
"In your will is our peace."
Monday, July 04, 2005
Gettysburg vs Philadelphia
As I recall, NPR routinely has at least moderately famous people, with nice voices, read the "Gettysburg Address" every 4th of July. Maybe I was lucky, or maybe it's because I got to sleep in this morning, but I didn't hear it; I can't imagine they've gotten tired of it.
But -- in line with the question of the divisibility of the Republic, referenced below -- could there be a more blatant case of Orwellian conversion of meaning, than how President Lincoln transposed his vision of an absolutely (more on this term shortly) unitary state, on the vision of our Founders of these united States?
Have we forgotten that the Declaration is a statement of secession? Re-read the famous, opening paragraph (which we used to make schoolkids memorize):
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Now, I happen to think it would have been a tragedy, perhaps a catastrophic one, had secession succeeded. It was a tragedy of major proportions that secession was suppressed as it was. The way the War was conducted will always be a stain on our nation's soul. It is appalling that what should embarrass us is so often dressed up as something to be proud of: the central government of the United States made near-total war on one section, because it wanted to depart.
One wonders: considering the appalling violence, and destruction, that was visited upon those states seeking to depart, in order to cudgel them into submission, what if that level of coercion had been insufficient? What further measures would have been deemed acceptable? At what point does the central government say, "this is too much?"
Would even more direct assaults on the civilian population have been acceptable? If, subsequent to the military "pacification" of the former Confederate States, elections had either produced new, secessionist legislatures, or -- in order to prevent that, huge numbers of those states citizens had to be indefinitely disenfranchised, would that have been acceptable? In that event, how about "re-education" of the civilian population?
Remember: President Lincoln had the lawfully elected legislature of Maryland arrested because he expected it to vote for secession.
What if the civilian population simply refused to be "pacified"? What reprisals are acceptable? The Romans had a practice of decimation: kill every tenth person.
Ask yourself: if the United States government had had nuclear weapons...would it have used them? Are you sure it wouldn't have?
But -- in line with the question of the divisibility of the Republic, referenced below -- could there be a more blatant case of Orwellian conversion of meaning, than how President Lincoln transposed his vision of an absolutely (more on this term shortly) unitary state, on the vision of our Founders of these united States?
Have we forgotten that the Declaration is a statement of secession? Re-read the famous, opening paragraph (which we used to make schoolkids memorize):
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Now, I happen to think it would have been a tragedy, perhaps a catastrophic one, had secession succeeded. It was a tragedy of major proportions that secession was suppressed as it was. The way the War was conducted will always be a stain on our nation's soul. It is appalling that what should embarrass us is so often dressed up as something to be proud of: the central government of the United States made near-total war on one section, because it wanted to depart.
One wonders: considering the appalling violence, and destruction, that was visited upon those states seeking to depart, in order to cudgel them into submission, what if that level of coercion had been insufficient? What further measures would have been deemed acceptable? At what point does the central government say, "this is too much?"
Would even more direct assaults on the civilian population have been acceptable? If, subsequent to the military "pacification" of the former Confederate States, elections had either produced new, secessionist legislatures, or -- in order to prevent that, huge numbers of those states citizens had to be indefinitely disenfranchised, would that have been acceptable? In that event, how about "re-education" of the civilian population?
Remember: President Lincoln had the lawfully elected legislature of Maryland arrested because he expected it to vote for secession.
What if the civilian population simply refused to be "pacified"? What reprisals are acceptable? The Romans had a practice of decimation: kill every tenth person.
Ask yourself: if the United States government had had nuclear weapons...would it have used them? Are you sure it wouldn't have?
'It is their right, it is their duty'
Every 4th of July, I try at least to look at the Declaration of Independence, if not to read it in its entirety. That we can be biased, as Americans, does not prevent it from really being true, that this was the stellar product of a stellar generation, not just in the history of this nation, but of mankind. (British historian Paul Johnson makes this point in his History of the American People.)
I love the Declaration, and the Constitution that followed it. The text that scrolls on my computer screen, when it is idle, is as much of the text of the First Amendment as Windows will allow. I'd have the Second Amendment -- equally as important -- if I could.
Does this sound odd for a priest?
Well, I am an American, and proud of it. (I laugh as I consider that the folks who usually speak of "American Catholics" don't have me in mind--I wear a cassock, own a biretta, pray the office in Latin part of the time, and I know how to offer Mass ad orientam, in latina...)
Also, I used to work in politics. Some like to suggest I've "cleaned up my act" in becoming a priest, but I'm proud of what I did in politics. There's plenty to be cynical about, but I maintain: politics is a noble profession.
On this Independence Day, I'm heartened by something I read at Fr. Jim Tucker's Dappled Things (http://http://donjim.blogspot.com/), about the Pledge of Allegiance:
The consideration of mindless nationalism leads me to the second part of this post, which will seem to be something of a political heresy to many. All sorts of people got their drawers in a knot over the decision to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance in California (or somewhere out there in the dusty West). All of a sudden, "under God" buttons started showing up, and petitions were circulated to "keep God in the Pledge" and not to "let the Pledge be mutilated." I scandalized more than a few people, including some well-meaning Knights of Columbus, when I responded that I don't believe in the Pledge of Allegiance to begin with and that not only do I think it's fine to take "under God" out, I'd be happy to see the whole damned thing discarded.
Fr Jim goes on to say:
The Pledge, unique (to my knowledge) in the history of nations, comes mighty close to being an oath. If allegiance means we won't commit treason against the United States, fine.
But it seems to me that allegiance goes a bit further than that, more along the lines of "My country, right or wrong," and I can think of all sorts of circumstances in which the Republic has been on the wrong side of wars and has perpetrated all sorts of mischief, and my allegiance certainly isn't with that.
Likewise, the notion that allegiance can be given to the flag in addition to the "Republic for which it stands" is just silly.
...which, to my mind, sounds an awful lot like idolatry. What if we reversed the words, to say: "I pledge allegiance to the Republic, and honor the flag that is its symbol"?
I likewise reject the notion that the nation is indivisible. People have a natural right to dissolve political bands that become odious or injurious to liberty, as the Declaration of Independence (the signing of which we are celebrating on Monday) declares as its foundational principle, and this applies to the United States just as much as it applied to the British Empire in 1776.
That reminds me of the modifications I've discovered people offer, here and there, to the pledge.
I used to live in Northern Virginia, as Fr. Jim does now; I don't know if he encountered it, but it was customary, at Knights of Columbus meetings, when the pledge was recited, for most to add, at the end, "born and unborn." Coming back home to Ohio, I haven't heard it here; I'll see what I can do to spread it.
Far more subversive, uttered sotto voce by some of my fellow right-wing crazies, was the modification of "indivisible" to divisible; perhaps Fr. Jim will want to mutter that softly at future Knights' Council and Assembly meetings.
He linked a site with a fascinating account of the pledge (I am a little skeptical about such things, but it may well be genuine, you decide for yourself):
The origins of the Pledge.
The original salute to the flag.
Go to Fr Jim's website, look for July 2 entry, to read it all.
I love the Declaration, and the Constitution that followed it. The text that scrolls on my computer screen, when it is idle, is as much of the text of the First Amendment as Windows will allow. I'd have the Second Amendment -- equally as important -- if I could.
Does this sound odd for a priest?
Well, I am an American, and proud of it. (I laugh as I consider that the folks who usually speak of "American Catholics" don't have me in mind--I wear a cassock, own a biretta, pray the office in Latin part of the time, and I know how to offer Mass ad orientam, in latina...)
Also, I used to work in politics. Some like to suggest I've "cleaned up my act" in becoming a priest, but I'm proud of what I did in politics. There's plenty to be cynical about, but I maintain: politics is a noble profession.
On this Independence Day, I'm heartened by something I read at Fr. Jim Tucker's Dappled Things (http://http://donjim.blogspot.com/), about the Pledge of Allegiance:
The consideration of mindless nationalism leads me to the second part of this post, which will seem to be something of a political heresy to many. All sorts of people got their drawers in a knot over the decision to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance in California (or somewhere out there in the dusty West). All of a sudden, "under God" buttons started showing up, and petitions were circulated to "keep God in the Pledge" and not to "let the Pledge be mutilated." I scandalized more than a few people, including some well-meaning Knights of Columbus, when I responded that I don't believe in the Pledge of Allegiance to begin with and that not only do I think it's fine to take "under God" out, I'd be happy to see the whole damned thing discarded.
Fr Jim goes on to say:
The Pledge, unique (to my knowledge) in the history of nations, comes mighty close to being an oath. If allegiance means we won't commit treason against the United States, fine.
But it seems to me that allegiance goes a bit further than that, more along the lines of "My country, right or wrong," and I can think of all sorts of circumstances in which the Republic has been on the wrong side of wars and has perpetrated all sorts of mischief, and my allegiance certainly isn't with that.
Likewise, the notion that allegiance can be given to the flag in addition to the "Republic for which it stands" is just silly.
...which, to my mind, sounds an awful lot like idolatry. What if we reversed the words, to say: "I pledge allegiance to the Republic, and honor the flag that is its symbol"?
I likewise reject the notion that the nation is indivisible. People have a natural right to dissolve political bands that become odious or injurious to liberty, as the Declaration of Independence (the signing of which we are celebrating on Monday) declares as its foundational principle, and this applies to the United States just as much as it applied to the British Empire in 1776.
That reminds me of the modifications I've discovered people offer, here and there, to the pledge.
I used to live in Northern Virginia, as Fr. Jim does now; I don't know if he encountered it, but it was customary, at Knights of Columbus meetings, when the pledge was recited, for most to add, at the end, "born and unborn." Coming back home to Ohio, I haven't heard it here; I'll see what I can do to spread it.
Far more subversive, uttered sotto voce by some of my fellow right-wing crazies, was the modification of "indivisible" to divisible; perhaps Fr. Jim will want to mutter that softly at future Knights' Council and Assembly meetings.
He linked a site with a fascinating account of the pledge (I am a little skeptical about such things, but it may well be genuine, you decide for yourself):
The origins of the Pledge.
The original salute to the flag.
Go to Fr Jim's website, look for July 2 entry, to read it all.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
First Weekend, first homily
Believe it or not, I just became pastor this weekend.
I invite you to imagine the scene from the donkey’s point of view, as he rides into Jerusalem, and everyone gathers around, shouting and singing, throwing palm branches down before him.
Imagine what the donkey thinks: “Wow! I must be something pretty special!”
Becoming your pastor, I take that illustration to heart!
I suspect many have questions: How will Father Martin handle things? What will he do as pastor? The time will come, soon enough, for all that. I’m going to be here a long time!
I know I speak for you when I say we owe Father Grilliot a debt of thanks for helping us the past few months. He and I will be working closely together.
I’m so grateful, as I know you are, for Father Caserta being such a caring presence. We are fortunate to have them helping us.
Whatever changes come for us, you and I will tackle them together. For now, my job is just “getting to know you.”
But I think it’s so fitting the Lord provided that we had these readings today. Because my job—and yours, if you don’t mind me saying it—is to be a good donkey: to carry the Lord wherever he wants to go, to bring the Lord to people who need him, and not get in the way.
Someone out there might want to see the homily I gave:
Our first reading, from a prophet a long time before Jesus was born, reminds us of the Lord riding into Jerusalem on a donkey; the event we commemorate every Palm Sunday.I invite you to imagine the scene from the donkey’s point of view, as he rides into Jerusalem, and everyone gathers around, shouting and singing, throwing palm branches down before him.
Imagine what the donkey thinks: “Wow! I must be something pretty special!”
Becoming your pastor, I take that illustration to heart!
I suspect many have questions: How will Father Martin handle things? What will he do as pastor? The time will come, soon enough, for all that. I’m going to be here a long time!
I know I speak for you when I say we owe Father Grilliot a debt of thanks for helping us the past few months. He and I will be working closely together.
I’m so grateful, as I know you are, for Father Caserta being such a caring presence. We are fortunate to have them helping us.
Whatever changes come for us, you and I will tackle them together. For now, my job is just “getting to know you.”
But I think it’s so fitting the Lord provided that we had these readings today. Because my job—and yours, if you don’t mind me saying it—is to be a good donkey: to carry the Lord wherever he wants to go, to bring the Lord to people who need him, and not get in the way.
About the Horoscope
Father Martin Fox
By the way, if you chance upon the zodiac/horoscope stuff in my profile, just know this...
Blogger did that. I'm too stupid and/or too lazy to figure out how to get rid of it.
I happen to think that stuff is just about pure crap. No, sorry, that isthe technical name for it!
By the way, if you chance upon the zodiac/horoscope stuff in my profile, just know this...
Blogger did that. I'm too stupid and/or too lazy to figure out how to get rid of it.
I happen to think that stuff is just about pure crap. No, sorry, that isthe technical name for it!
Opening Salvo
Welcome to my "blog."
(I still remember the homily -- less than a year ago -- in which I mentioned blogs; my spot-check of parishioners afterward discovered no one who knew what that is!)
In all honesty, I really have better things to do with my time; but this is what I'll do instead of worse things I do, when I'm not -- for whatever reason -- doing those better things. Such are the compromises we make. At least I'm candid.
I intend to share my thoughts, post my homilies if you really want to see them, give my friends something to do when they are wasting time on the Internet, and -- to tell the truth -- stroke my ego a little bit.
Or bruise it. Because I may, shortly, discover that, unlike some other people who make this look effortless, I am really bad at blogging. Or, worse, I may discover that regardless of the sort of blogger I am, no one will come here to find out!
(I still remember the homily -- less than a year ago -- in which I mentioned blogs; my spot-check of parishioners afterward discovered no one who knew what that is!)
In all honesty, I really have better things to do with my time; but this is what I'll do instead of worse things I do, when I'm not -- for whatever reason -- doing those better things. Such are the compromises we make. At least I'm candid.
I intend to share my thoughts, post my homilies if you really want to see them, give my friends something to do when they are wasting time on the Internet, and -- to tell the truth -- stroke my ego a little bit.
Or bruise it. Because I may, shortly, discover that, unlike some other people who make this look effortless, I am really bad at blogging. Or, worse, I may discover that regardless of the sort of blogger I am, no one will come here to find out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)