Here’s a Scary Thought . . .

CBS News reports:

In describing the reasons he believes the Republicans’ presumptive nominee for president would be better prepared than the Democrats’ to lead the nation next January, Sen. Joe Lieberman said that history shows the United States would likely face a terrorist attack in 2009.

"Our enemies will test the new president early," Lieberman, I-Conn., told Face The Nation host Bob Schieffer. "Remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration."

Let’s hope he’s wrong about that.

MORE.

Now Playing – Catholic Answers Live Movie Reviews

Just a quick post to let y’all know I’ll be appearing on CATHOLIC ANSWERS LIVE tonight at 3pm Pacific (6pm Eastern) discussing current movies, including WALL*E, which I recently caught a screening for.

Does it contribute to the trend of noted in my previous post about 2008 being a better-than-average year for family films?

In a nutshell: Oh yeah.

Hope you can tune in.

A Conversation With Justice Scalia

Below is an hour-long video interview with Justice Antonin Scalia which was aired on the Charlie Rose Show.

Charlie Rose comes across at numerous points not as a serious journalist as a hard leftie who thinks he’s a serious journalist and who insists on viewing every issue through an ideological lens–although in fairness to him he does at times try to view things from what he takes to be Scalia’s perspective.

Despite the annoying Rose-factor, though, the interview is still well worth watching due to the remarkable candor and insight of the man being interviewed.

Prayer request

Half an hour ago, as our family was on a walk/bike-ride in the park across the street from our house, five-year-old Anna lost control of her bike and rode off the embankment of the watercourse running through the park, falling with her bike eight feet onto solid stone with hardly any water. Suz saw it coming and screamed but wasn’t close enough to do anything.

At this moment Anna in an ambulance in front of our house with Suz, wearing a neck brace and strapped to an immobilizing board. They’ll be heading to the emergency room soon. I’ll be staying here with the kids.

Anna’s left arm is broken. Thankfully, that seems to be the worst of it. She’s wet and dirty with a bloodied nose and various cuts and abrasions, but she did not lose consciousness and there’s no reason to think she has suffered any serious injury.

Anna just turned five yesterday. She’s our fourth of five, and this is our first visit to the emergency room, so you could say we’re about due.

Prayers appreciated. Updates to come.

UPDATE (8:58pm): I just heard from Suz. The good news: After the first set of X-rays, the doctor has cleared Anna’s neck, so the neck brace can come off. That’s a huge relief to Anna comfort-wise as well as a good sign overall. The not-so-good news: They haven’t decided whether to put her under general anaesthesia, which would require a five-hour wait since she last ate… so they’re not coming home any time soon.

UPDATE (12:27am): Anna is home. Her arm is in a temporary cast and a sling. She was in good spirits and fell asleep almost immediately on being put to bed. Thanks to all for prayers.

Eight feet is a really big drop — for anyone, kid or adult. It could so easily have been worse. Thanks be to God.

Beyond the Nanny State

Article 7
Every family has the right to live freely its own domestic religious life under the guidance of the parents, as well as the right to profess publicly and to propagate the faith, to take part in public worship and in freely chosen programs of religious instruction, without suffering discrimination.

(empahsis added)
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

This seems beyond outrageous, almost beyond parody.

Apparently, a Canadian judge has effectively ruled that parents can’t impose disciplinary measures for pre-teen children that judges find excessive. (Yankee cap tip: First Things; see here and here for more commentary.)

The plaintiff: a twelve-year-old girl. The defendant: her divorced father.

The plaintiff’s offense: using a friend’s computer to visit social websites disallowed by dad — and posting "inappropriate" pictures of herself on dating sites, among other infractions.

The defendant’s verdict: grounding, and specifically missing a 6th-grade camping trip (apparently, a big deal in Canada).

Note that, apparently, the girl is the plaintiff and the father is the defendant. I’m no lawyer, but usually when the severity of a verdict in relation to an offense is appealed to a judge, isn’t it the defendant doing the appealing? And if so, wouldn’t that be because judges ordinarily hear appeals in legal cases — not domestic, non-legal disciplinary decisions of law-abiding parents? (Lawyers, help me out here.)

Here, it would seem, we have a young girl with a troubled youth engaged in risky and inappropriate behavior, and a dad struggling to protect his daughter from her own mistakes and maintain a level of responsibility and discipline in a troubled house.

We also apparently have a girl who has apparently been the subject of a bitter custody dispute for most of her life, who has been around lawyers and judges as long as she can remember, who has seen lawyers and judges making family decisions regarding her future and her parents’ rights, and has come to view this as the natural order of things.

Worse, we have a lawyer willing to take the girl’s side.

Worst of all, we have a judge — Madam Justice Suzanne Tessier of the Quebec Superior Court, for the record — who was not only willing to hear the "case," but in fact took the girl’s side against her father, ordering him to permit her to go on the trip.

It seems there was no question of anything criminal here — no physical abuse or anything of the sort. The judge simply thought the father’s punishment was excessive.

Is there any ordinary, non-insane human being whose immediate response to this is anything other than: Who cares what she thinks? Even if she’s right, what business is it of hers? Since when did domestic, non-legal disciplinary decisions of law-abiding parents become subject to judicial review?!

The camping trip is now over, but the father is moving to have the ruling overturned anyway, arguing that his moral authority with his daughter has been undermined. No flipping kidding.

The phrase "nanny state" doesn’t begin to capture it, since, at least in non-Crazy Town, parents overrule nannies, not the other way around.

Any lawyers want to comment?

GET THE (OUTRAGEOUS) STORY.

COMMENTARY.

MORE COMMENTARY.

Success with women

Yesterday I was reading a story at the Telegraph website and noticed a couple of intriguing "Editor’s Choice" headline links.

One intrigued the contrarian in me: "’Bad boys’ have more success with women."

This seemed counter-intuitive to me. Most of the women I know want good men, not "bad boys." As for the guys in my circle of male friends here in NJ, while I won’t deny we have our faults, I’m not sure we’re really what one would consider "bad boys." Yet on the whole we all seem to be pretty spectacularly successful with women: Nearly all of us are happily married to our first and only wives, all devout women and good mothers, with three to six kids. Most of our wives are committed homeschoolers. How much more success could a man possibly hope for?

Certainly I, blissfully married to a domestic and maternal goddess as I am, consider myself supremely successful on this front. (We have five, with number six on the way.) Still, could I be missing something? Could some form of "bad boy" behavior somehow give me even more success? I clicked the link.

Imagine my disappointment. "Secrets of James Bond’s success with women unravelled," the headline blared. The lede: "According to a new study, men who are narcissistic, thrill-seeking liars and all round ‘bad boys’ tend to have the greatest success finding more sexual partners."

Oh. Is that all. "More sexual partners." Talk about bait and switch. I thought it was about "more success with women." Like James flipping Bond is more "successful" with women than I am. Puh-lease.

And what’s the science behind this discovery? The story goes on:

Scientists believe that the root of their good fortune is simply that they try it on with more women, therefore by the law of averages are likely to ensnare more.

They say these type of men adopt a more predatory, scatter gun approach to conquests and have more of a desire to try new things which helps when it comes to meeting women, according to the study highlighted by New Scientist magazine.

Sooo… "bad boys" have lower standards, and the more women a guy is willing to sleep with, the more willing women he’s likely to get. Thanks for that startling news flash.

Now, here’s the kicker.

I went to the New Scientist website looking for the article. And right there, under "Latest Headlines," was the following blurb:

Church provides hope of faithful spouses
People use the religious community’s mating market to find a life partner who will provide a large family but won’t cheat, finds a study

Hey, maybe New Scientist does have something to say about "success with women" after all.

Here’s the interesting part of the story:

Weeden suggests that looking for partners within a religious community reduces the risk of adultery in couples adopting a monogamous, high-fertility mating strategy as there is a large fitness cost if the marriage fails: men risk losing substantial investment if the woman cheats; women risk being abandoned with a large brood and fewer resources to care for them.

"Religious groups make this deal more plausible to both partners," Weeden says. "You surround yourself with people who strongly believe that one of the worst things you can do is to abandon your spouse or sleep around."

Now, there’s some reductionistic nonsense here, in that the article suggests that churchgoing is largely or entirely a function of reproductive strategy. If that were the case, celibacy would be a really, really strange phenomenon.

So, did the Telegraph run this second story on why churchgoing guys have more success with women? I did a search at the Telegraph on "church" and couldn’t find it.

What I did find was that practically all recent "church"-related stories at the Telegraph were about controveries over homosexuality … particularly the recent Anglican clerical "gay wedding" flap.

Hm. Homosexuality and gay weddings … in church. And churchgoing is supposed to correlate with … reproductive strategy … Excuse me, my head hurts.

Getting back to the New Scientist story on churchgoing, the researcher observes: "Hardly any of the students in our study were regular churchgoers… but those who saw themselves as having many kids in stable marriages were the ones who were anticipating regular church attendance in the future." This, he argues, supports his reductionist interpretation that churchgoing is largely about reproductive strategy.

Yet, once again, what do we know about correlation and causation? It couldn’t possibly be, could it, that it’s the religious students who see themselves potentially with families, rather than the family-prone students who see themselves as likely church-goers?

Of course, a researcher who thinks in purely Darwinian terms would never ask that question.

Which is another way of saying that the Darwinian qua Darwinian can never fully understand religion … or success with women.

Futurist David Zach – Forward! Into the Past!

The first featured speaker at the 27th Annual G.K. Chesterton
Conference (which also marked the 100th anniversary of Chesterton’s
Orthodoxy) was David Zach, a Futurist.

Well, American Chesterton Society president Dale Ahlquist said some
things first, but graciously yielded the podium after numbers of us
began to stretch and look at our watches, while others feigned keen
interest in studying the scrap iron that adorned the walls of the
O’Shaughnessy Education Center lecture hall (I learned later that it
was a sculpture, which made me feel sad that someone has apparently blown it up. I wondered what it looked like before…?).

First of all, just the idea of hearing a professional Futurist is sort
of exciting. David Zach thinks a lot about, and gets paid to talk
about, the future. Being a solid Chestertonian, though, he thinks about
it with an eye to the past and the present. He maintains that without our most worthwhile traditions and principles, we are lost in the
future without a compass.

David Zach proposes,

"When looking at the world, you can divide much of
it into Fads, Trends or Principles. A little mantra for this is that we
should Play with Fads, Work with Trends, and Live by Principles… in modern times, we are too often Seduced by Fads, Ignorant of Trends, and Resistant to Principles.".

Like you might expect of a clever futurist, David Zach makes very
effective use of computer graphics to augment the points in his talk.
Not just slides, but little animations and such like. He is a very
engaging, energetic speaker, and great fun to watch and listen to,
though I told him in the elevator afterward that I was disappointed he
hadn’t said anything about jet packs or hover-cars.

In a little pamphlet he handed out for the talk, David Zach concludes,

"Not all principles are equally valued, just like not all change is
forward. The great struggle of our age is to define what should change
and what should stay the same."

The disease of our age is that we think that change is inherently good,
that new = better. We don’t know the value of the things we leave
behind until it’s too late.

If you’re in need of an inspiring and thought provoking speaker, you
can’t go wrong with David Zach. He was tough act to follow, which is
probably how he ended up being the only speaker that night.

Besides Dale.

David Zach, futurist – www.davidzach.com

(Visit Tim Jones’ Blog Old World Swine).

Life, Truth, Beauty, Unity – and Beer

Chesterton2Hey, Tim Jones, here.
I can’t hope to give an adequate description of my experiences at the
2008 Chesterton Conference (my first) without writing some kind of
book, I can only – by way of apology – say with Inigo Montoya "Let me
‘splain… No, there is too much… Let me sum up…".

I’ll try to sum up by giving some sense of what it was like on the
last night of the conference, after all the speakers had spoken, the
presenters had presented, the toasters toasted.

The weather was iffy in Minnesota last Saturday night, so the ending
celebration – the after-party – was moved indoors. Now, "indoors" in
this case means into a college cafeteria… not exactly the kind of
place that oozes atmosphere or encourages warm conviviality. We had
enjoyed earlier some nearly perfect evenings drinking and visiting
under the stars late into the night, but we would have to cap the
conference milling around folding tables under fluorescent light
fixtures and acoustic tile. Blecch, right?

A weird thing happened though. People began to talk, and beer and
wine and cheese were brought forth, and very quickly it began to be so
noisy that we all had to shout to be heard.

I wandered around a bit, drifting into and out of the orbits of
ongoing conversations… comparing notes with a futurist (David
Zach)… trying to get a grip on the importance of beauty (Dale
Ahlquist)… watching a very spirited discussion between an
ebullient Englishman (Joseph Pearce) who seemed to be actually
defending the legendary obtuseness of Americans to an American (Scott
Richert) who had apparently grown impatient with it. The thing is,
these last two were arguing like brothers argue. They could be perfectly honest and passionate in their argument without fear of offending the other, because (really) they loved one another. Their differences were real, but what they had in common was much more real, and made the differences safe to argue with passion, and they knew this. It was a joy to watch.

One could be tempted in such a circumstance to think "These must be
important people", but that’s not the case. It wasn’t a matter of
"important people talking about things", it was just "people talking about important
things"… the only things that ultimately matter; Life, Truth, Beauty,
Goodness, Joy – things such as that – and all of us deeply grateful for
the opportunity. It was a truly liberating thing to know that most
everyone you met – even if they were very different from you – shared
the same common root, that grounding in the love of Truth which is the
love of God. This made our differences come alive, in a way. As Dale
Ahlquist had said earlier, "We don’t strive for diversity… we just
achieve it.".

In the various talks given throughout the weekend, there had been in
the audience always a joy bubbling just under the surface, the
readiness to laugh out loud or to interrupt (like one might interrupt a
family member without rudeness or worry) with a joke or comment. These
Chestertonians were (by worldly standards) just confoundingly happy and
indefensibly content. No one has the right to be that well adjusted.

You could hardly hear yourself think for all the laughter in the cafeteria that last night.

Imagine; You are standing with a cup of home brewed beer (or wine)
in one hand, a hunk of good cheese in the other, talking with new
friends about things that really matter, surrounded by laughter. There
are children ducking in and out and under the tables, squealing and
playing hide and seek. There is a group of teens and young people (a
surprising number, to me, given that we’re spending all weekend
ostensibly talking about a dead Englishman) off in a corner where they
have cleared a sufficient space, wheeling in some kind of wild,
improvised dance, like pairs of figure skaters who wandered in from an
Olympic ice rink (a little later, the teens are flipping the younger
children upside down, or swinging them around in great, breathless
arcs).

Then a man (Mark Pilon?) produces, seemingly out of thin air, a
hammered dulcimer and sets it up in a corner and begins playing; The Rights of Man, Star of the County Down… and he’s really good. Spontaneous hoots of applause and gratitude erupt from the crowd after every tune.

It’s a delightful, almost raucous scene… good drink, friendship, music, dancing, and none of it planned (well, the drinks were
certainly planned, but you can’t leave everything to chance). This
jovial spirit just seemed to rise up out of the floor like a mist and
coalesce into little pockets and eddies of good feeling.

It reminded me for all the world of Tolkien’s descriptions of the revelry of elves. It was like being in the House of Elrond, "The Last Homely House
east of the Sea… A perfect house, whether you like food or sleep or
storytelling or singing, or just sitting and thinking best, or a pleasant
mixture of them all. Merely to be there was a cure for weariness, fear, and
sadness.".

This was a group drawn together not so much by ideas, but by an idea… The
Idea that was in the mind of God in the beginning. We were all just
feeling around the edges of it together, and even that was – I believe
– better than any of us thought we deserved. We had had the great
privilege, for three days, of learning more about this Idea, the foundational idea of creation, from  G.K. Chesterton, a
clear-eyed observer and merry servant of the Idea… the Word, the
Logos. He, I believe, had a somewhat less obstructed view of the Idea
than most. I think it’s clear he was a saint. In fact, I’m now
following the example of one of the speakers (Geir Hasnes, a towering
Norwegian) by asking Mr. Chesterton to pray for me.

I’ll try to give my impressions on some of the featured speakers in
subsequent posts. I never was much for note taking, but I hope I soaked
in enough of their brilliance to give at least a rough sketch of the
conference highlights.

Pomp and Circumstance

SDG here.

Yesterday I gave a commencement address for my parish school’s eighth-grade graduation.

I don’t remember the commencement address from my own eighth-grade graduation, but I remember my high-school commencement address. It was lame. The speaker got up there and basically admitted that she had no idea what to say, but then luckily she saw Dead Poet’s Society, so she wanted to tell us carpe diem, “Seize the day.” Good thing for that movie.

Anyway, I tried to come up with something I thought might be meaningful and relevant to students of that age, based on my experiences teaching CCD to seventh and eighth graders. I have no idea what they thought of it or whether they’ll remember it any better than I remember mine (darn, that would have been a good lead-in), but for what it’s worth, here’s what I said.

Class of 2008:

I’d like to tell you about a dream.

In this dream, you find yourself in a room with two adults. One is early 20s, a recent college graduate, living on his own (or her own), an apartment, a car. Maybe more or less where you might see yourself in ten years. Maybe your parents hope so too.

The other is older, a manager or director. It’s a job interview. And the older person is saying something to the younger one like, “This is a very responsible position. You need to be able to work on your own, without a lot of direction.”

And then a strange thing happens. The job applicant turns to you and says uncertainly, “How well do I work on my own?”

And you think, “Why ask me? I’m graduating 8th grade, going into high school. I’m not applying for the job.”

Or suppose the interviewer says, “This position requires excellent oral and written communication skills, or a good head for numbers,” or whatever it is. And then he turns to you and asks, “How well do you do in those subjects?” And again you wonder what’s going on.

Maybe you’ve played simulation computer games like Sim City or Theme Park where the lives of the characters depend on decisions you make. What if you were playing a game like that and you found out the decisions you were making were actually affecting real people, real families with children, even?

You might think, I’m not ready for that kind of responsibility. And yet the fact is that the decisions you make right now, that you will make tomorrow and next month and next year, really do have that kind of influence. Job interviews in the real world really do depend on your decisions. That twentysomething’s fate really is in your hands right now.

Some of you have probably figured out who it is. It’s you, ten years from now.

Continue reading “Pomp and Circumstance”