Month: February 2005

HOLLYWOOD YAHOOS: “Let My Illegal Nanny Drive My SUV!”

Here in California they have this proposal to let undocumented workersillegal immigrants get drivers licenses–documents that would allow them to tap into all kinds of social benefits . . . like . . . voting in U.S. elections.

A recent advertisement in Variety (of all places!) cast an unusual light on the matter.

In a responding editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle (of all places!), Debra Saunders was insightful:

THE AD THAT ran in Daily Variety last week — signed by the usual members of the "entertainment community," including Ed Asner, Danny Glover and Mike Farrell — asked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign Senate Bill 60, a bill to allow illegal immigrants to obtain California drivers’ licenses.

Not that the ad ever used the word "illegal." Instead, it used Hollywood award-speak to tell the story of Rosanna Perez, "Nominated: Best Nanny in a Supporting Role," who, because of California law, has to take the bus from her home in East Los Angeles to her job in the Westside.

They should have dubbed the ad: Let my illegal nanny drive my SUV.

"We give them access to our homes. We trust them with our children. It seems absurd to me to not grant them the respect they deserve," Farrell explained to Copley News Service.

What’s this "we" business? Most people don’t hire nannies. Only rich people can afford nannies; they can hire legal nannies.

Farrell was parroting the familiar argument — that everyone benefits from illegal immigration, through cheaper food prices at the grocery store or the fast-food joint — so the law shouldn’t penalize illegal immigrants. But the logic doesn’t work. It also is true that everyone pays for illegal immigration — for their children to attend public schools or for emergency- medical care — and so this notion of a free ride is false. Then there is the paycheck problem: Some of the people who are paying more are less-skilled Americans who have smaller paychecks because they must compete with cheap illegal labor.

So when the "entertainment community" asks for drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants, it plays the leading role of Hollywood diva expecting stagehands and walk-ons to chip in and pay for her illegal help.

READ THE WHOLE THING BEFORE HOLLYWOOD EXPORTS THIS NUTTINESS TO YOUR STATE.

Terrorists Threaten Toy!

Cody1‘Member how Thomas Sowell warned us a while back against thinking of the terrorists in Iraq as an enemy with unlimited resources?

Well, it seems this enemy is reaching its limits. Consider the following press roundup:

(CNN) — A photograph posted on an Islamist Web site appears to be that
of an action figure and not a U.S. soldier being held hostage [as CNN first reported].

Liam Cusack, the marketing coordinator for Dragon Models USA, said the
figure pictured on the Web site is believed to be "Special Ops Cody," a
military action figure the company manufactured in late 2003.

"It pretty much looks exactly like the same person," he said.

On the Islamist Web site, a group calling itself the Al Mujahedeen
Brigade, posted a photograph of a man it claimed was a captured U.S.
soldier named John Adam, and it threatened to behead him if Iraqi
prisoners are not released by U.S. forces.

Staff Sgt. Nick
Minecci of the U.S. military’s press office in Baghdad told The
Associated Press that "no units have reported anyone missing."

The
photograph showed the figure against a black flag with white lettering
reading, "God is great, there is no god but Allah." A U.S. military
assault rifle was pointed at its head. It appears that "rifle" was part
of the plastic weaponry that came with the action figure.

The photograph immediately raised questions.

CNN military analyst James Marks, a retired Army general, questioned its authenticity.

He
told CNN in a phone interview that the flak jacket in the picture had a
kind of trim along the edges that he’d never seen before, and that the
open-legged pants, as opposed to gathered hems, struck him as odd.

He also questioned what appeared to be camouflage paint on the face.

"We have not used camo paint with conventional forces serving in Iraq," Marks said.

Cody2_1(Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
In the days immediately following Iraq’s historic election, two
videotapes from "insurgent" groups were distributed to the news media.
One purported to show an American soldier being held hostage. The
second purported to show that a British C-130 transport aircraft, which
crashed on election day, had been shot down by a surface-to-air missile.

The "American soldier" was Cody, a G.I. Joe action figure. This is
obvious from the picture, but The Associated Press and CNN bit hard.

The cause of the C-130 crash is still being investigated. But experts
at Jane’s Defence Weekly have doubts about the claim of "insurgents."

"The missile footage has just been grafted onto the front," said editor
Peter Felstead. "And it looks like a surface-to-surface missile to me."

The terrorists had to do something to revive their plummeting prestige.
That they resorted to clumsy frauds is not a sign of strength.

"The captured toy story could be pretty significant," said the Web
logger John Hinderaker (Power Line). "The terrorists need, more than
anything else, to be seen as awesome, terrible figures. If they stop
inspiring fear, they are finished. So the one thing they cannot stand
is ridicule. … Their pathetic effort to pass a doll off as a captured
American soldier will [make] them laughingstocks throughout the Arab
world."

It’s also interesting that the terrorists turned to the news media to
recover lost momentum. Journalists who fell for these hoaxes may merely
be idiots, and their silence about the implications of the hoaxes may
simply be the by product of embarrassment. But the Web logger Shannon
Love (Chicago Boyz) wonders:

"Why were the major media so quick to disseminate pictures of an action
figure as a genuine hostage photo?" More to the point, why are major
media so quick to disseminate anything that a terrorist group, or
purported terrorist group, releases? … For the terrorist, it is like
being given millions of dollars in free advertising."

The major media have from the beginning exaggerated the strength and
popularity of those they mislabel "insurgents," to the disgust of
American soldiers.

Peewee_1(DAILY PLANET) Metropolis pundit Buzz Loudly said, "This is great! The terrorists have made a fatal move! The more people mock them over kidnapping a toy, the more they lose reputation! It’s patriotic to give the terrorists a vicious mocking!"

While much of the world scoffed at the terrorists’ attempts to cow America into submission by threatening a toy, Toy Americans were outraged.

"I can’t believe how callous the rest of my fellow Americans are toward this event," said G.I. JOE First Seargent Conrad S. Hauser (a.k.a. "Duke"). "I mean, if an American of any other extraction was being held hostage and threatened–with his own weapons, no less!–the public would be incensed. Yet because he is a Toy American, it’s as if nobody cares! What, just because you’re made of polyethyline, you don’t count?"

"This will not stand," Duke declared defiantly. "G.I. JOE is a team, and we operate with a strict no-toy-left-behind policy." He indicated that he would be leading the Wave 1 Valor vs. Venom 2-Pack Assortment on a special ops rescue mission to save Cody "at a time of our choosing."

Also rumored to be in on the mission was Johnny Longtorso (a.k.a. "The Man Who Comes In Pieces"), a Deep 13 action figure capable of being disassembled into his component parts and reassembled again without injury. "That ability could be crucial on a mission like this," said Chad Slabbody of Janes Defense Weekly. "It could enable Special Operative Longtorso to get into all kinds of places a regular action figure couldn’t go. The success of the mission might hinge on such abilities just as much as it might hinge on the famous G.I. JOE Kung Fu Grip."

After seeing their success in sowing division in American society by turning Toy Americans against regular Americans, the terrorists broadened the scope of thei toynapping operating, seizing a civilian Pee Wee Herman toy and HOLDING HIM FOR RANSOM ON E-BAY.

No rescue mission for the toy Pee Wee Herman is planned at this time.

Demographics and the Culture War

The current lowering of birthrates world-wide cannot continue indefinitely.

At some point, the painful effects of underpopulation (economically, demographically, governmentally) will become too great and the rate will stop shrinking.

Likely, it will start growing again.

This means that there will have to be a change in certain societal values (e.g., belief in the myth of overpopulation).

It likely means a change in other values (e.g., acceptance of abortion and even contraception).

But the road to that change is likely to be very bumpy–including unfortunate things like widespread euthanasia, even more oppressive taxation, a world-wide economic depression, a renewed and even more vicious generation gap than what we had last time around (only with the young being materialistic and the old being idealistic), massive human suffering, and the destruction (due to massive immigration or conquest) of cultures that don’t adapt swiftly enough.

What will emerge on the other side of such maladies–and are they a certainty?

Many (including myself) hope that they are not a certainty, that society will come to its senses due to far gentler pressures and mend its course before such eventualities are forced upon us by shrinking birthrates and aging populations.

But I’m not counting on that.

Whether the calamities just named come or not, I hope that on the other side of the societal transition we will have a more pro-family, faith-friendly society than we have now (though the world will still be far from perfect). I think that is the most likely thing to happen–at least here in America.

But I’m not counting on that, either.

HERE’S A (LONG) LOOK  BY STANLEY KURTZ AT THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE CULTURE WAR.

It’s worth reading.

Among other things, he points out why some quick fixes to the underpopulation problem (like massive immigration and extending the retirement age) aren’t likely to work.

He also points to nightmare scenarios where we don’t end up with a more pro-faith, pro-family society, but a society that is even less friendly to both.

Scary stuff!

11, 12, 13, 14 . . . More?

Down yonder, a reader writes:

Speaking of Matthias, I caught a sermon by a fundamentalist preacher
on the radio somewhat in the middle of it, but it seemed to me that he
was arguing that the election of Matthias was invalid, presumably
because it was done by casting lots, and that God over-ruled the early
Christians by making Paul an apostle. The moral, he said, was that we
shouldn’t force God to choose between two man-made choices, but rather,
we should give him the maximum freedom in revealing his will. (He used
Matthias as an example of this, although the principle seems valid).

My question is: how common is this line of thought? And, if Paul was
an apostle and so was Matthias, then weren’t there 13 apostles?

The line of thought is somewhat common in Protestant circles. When I was Protestant, for a time I was a member of a church where the pastor held this idea, though he didn’t phrase it so strongly (e.g., he didn’t diss the drawing of lots, perhaps because he knew high priests often did this in the Old Testament to discern God’s will).

Still, the idea is not all-pervasive in Protestant circles, and my impression is that most reject it. There is good reason for doing so as Acts portrays the selection of Matthias as a divine act and never challenges his status as an apostle. The fact Paul (who wouldn’t be converted for some time yet) went on to be a more effective apostle proves nothing. Paul also was more effective, so far as we can tell, than–say–Jude Thaddeus or Simon the Zealot, but they were clearly apostles.

There’s also another reason why the argument doesn’t work: The basic motive for booting Matthias in favor of Paul (other than an anti-hierarchial bias) is to get the total number of apostles to come out to twelve. But this won’t work as soon as one realizes that Barnabas, along with Paul, is directly called an apostle in Acts 14:14, which would boot the number back up to thirteen.

One could, of course, count the martyrdom of James son of Zebedee (Acts 12) as bringing the number down to twelve even allowing Barnabas and Paul, but at this is so long after the Crucifixion that it would be hard to explain except on the Mormon-like idea that the Twelve constituted a group that needed to be continually replenished, which the early Church did not share. It also would not explain the other (though more debatable) passages that appear to refer to additional apostles (e.g., the Andronicus and Junias mentioned in Romans 16:7).

It is simpler, I suggest to look at the matter this way:

1) In the wake of Judas Iscariot’s suicide, Peter declares (Acts 1:20-22) that his slot in the Twelve needs to be filled and he lays out a specific condition for the kind of person that needs to fill it: someone who was with them the whole time of Jesus’ ministry, from the Baptism by John to the Ascension. This suggests that the function of the Twelve is to serve as witnesses of Christ’s earthly ministry.

2) Matthias was validly elected as a member of the Twelve, as Acts 1 suggests. The other apostles or early Church Fathers never challenged this.

3) The Twelve, as witnesses of Christ’s ministry, were a group that could not continue indefinitely since only a certain number of people witnessed it. It thus was not a continuing body, as Mormons maintain.

4) Despite the function of the Twelve as witnesses of Christ’s ministry, God did call other apostles, including Paul, Barnabas, and possibly others. Some of these, such as Paul, could not be members of the Twelve because they had not been around during the period of Jesus’ ministry, but they could be afterward commissioned as apostles, either in a vision of Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1) or perhaps by revelation from the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:2).

January 5, 2004 Show

This was our sixth anniversary show, with Karl, Ros, and me doing the honors.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW.

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • A two-and-a-half minute snippet of the very first Catholic Answers Live.
  • Which Church history books would you recommend?
  • Is there any room in the liturgy for "charismatic praise"?
  • Are the sacraments of the Society of St. Pius V and of the Society
    of St. Pius X valid?  Do you see these groups becoming denominations
    like the Old Catholic Church?
  • How Jimmy and Karl Keating so cooly handle odd or aggressive
    questions on the show.
  • Can attending frequent daily Mass replace one’s Sunday obligation?
  • Must a child have a saint’s name to be baptized?  Any web resources
    to find saint’s names?
  • What are the "Seven Sister" churches?
  • When young Jesus was teaching in the temple (Luke 2), were the
    teachers really amazed or was this just hyperbole?

Blue Tongue!!!

Some time ago I began noticing a problem with the make-up on sci-fi shows.

It’s only skin deep.

Sure, the alien may have funny colored skin (blue, green, whatever), but his mouth is always human-red.

Bad idea.

If an alien really has funny body chemistry, blood, and pigmentation, his mouth shouldn’t be the same color on the inside as ours.

I decided that if I were ever in a position to make a sci-fi series, I would have the alien actors rinse their mouths out with food coloring (or something) to change the color of them on the inside.

Well, someone who actually does make a sci-fi series finally got the same idea!

If you look closely on Star Trek Enterprise, you’ll notice that the Andorians have blue not only on their outer skin but also on the insides of their mouths.

Yee-haw!

Improved alien make-up realism!

I noticed this a piece back, and have been meaning to blog about it, but my memory was jogged when last night on Enterprise Shran the Andorian (played by the immortal Jeffrey Coombs–a.k.a. Weyoun, Brunt) was being choked by someone and we got a really good shot of his face with his bright blue tongue protruding out.

Kewl!

Incidentally, in fairness to the make-up artists, it may be that we have only recently developed something that you can put in your mouth to change it’s color without having it last an unduly long time (or it may be only recently they have worked up the gumption to ask actors to dye their mouths for long periods).

Either way, I’m a happy camper.

It’s the simple things in life (like a food coloring mouthwash) that really matter.

Guest List For The Last Supper

A reader writes:

My husband and I have a question about "The Lord’s Supper" and the apostles in attendance.  Our confusion arises from a very old print of "The Lord’s Supper" that we found many years ago at an antique shop in Florida.  It is in an old gray-colored frame under "bubble" glass, and I was drawn to it because it is exactly like one that my grandparents always had in their home.  On this print are the names of the apostles at the bottom edge of the tablecloth (altar cloth).

The names listed (in Hebrew? Latin?)  are as follows (from left to right):

Bartholomaeus Bartholomew
Jacobus II James II (meaning: James son of Alphaeus)
Andreas Andrew
Judas Judas (meaning Judas Iscariot)
Petrus Peter
Joannes John
Jesus Christus Jesus Christ
Thomas Thomas
Jacobus I James I (meaning: James son of Zebedee)
Philipus Philip
Matthaeus Matthew
Thaddaeus Thaddeus (a.k.a., Judas not Iscariot or Judas the son of James)
Simon Simon (a.k.a., Simon the Zealot, the Zealots being a political movement)

Therein lies our confusion.  After Judas betrayed Jesus and committed suicide, the apostles continued the Apostolic Succession by "voting" for Matthew to join the fold.  On our print, "Matthaeus" is listed as one of the apostles at the Passover.  Was there another Matthew who was already part of the original Twelve?  Or are the names incorrect or simply added as "artistic license?"  (We also know the English translations as most are obvious and that Jacobus is the Hebrew/Latin? name for James.)

I think I can clear up the confusion. Matthew was a disciple who was named an apostle during Jesus’ ministry (see Matthew 10:2-4). The guy who was elected an apostle after the suicide of Judas Iscariot was a different guy but had a similar name: Matthias. You can read about him in Acts 1:12-26 (you’ll note that Matthew is listed among the apostles before the election of Matthias in Acts 1:13).

Incidentally, the names above are Latinized forms of Aramaic names. The "bar-" in Bartholomew is a dead giveaway. "Bar" is Aramaic for "son of." If the name were Hebrew, that would be "ben." ("Bartholomew" = "son of Ptolemy," though Ptolemy isn’t an Aramaic name; it was popular around this time due to being the name of one of Alexander the Great’s generals who later ruled Egypt). What happened is the folks of olden times took the Aramaic names of Jesus and the apostles, passed them through Greek (where they got modified a little) and then made them sound Latin by adding Latin endings and such to them.

I’ve put the English equivalents along with some explanatory notes alongside the names above in red. Hope it’s useful.

We want to share this information with our church family at our Cathedral in Charleston, SC.  We have a fabulous stained glass window of the Lord’s Supper and were discussing the names of the Apostles with the head of the tour guides.  Many had never seen the names of the Apostles listed, so we wanted to share accurate information.  Any assistance that you may offer would be appreciated, or if you could direct us to another resource.  We were unable to find the exact names and the seating order in the Bible.  Our print is certainly not a "DaVinci," but it is quite beautiful and a prayerful part of our dining area.

Cool! Hope the above helps.

Incidentally, the seating order is something made up by the artist, so you should examine the stained glass version to see if it seems to have the apostles in the same places. Generally there are little visual signs to indicate which are which. For example, Peter is depicted as an old man, while John is depicted as a young man (and is always seated next to Christ in pictures of the Last Supper, typically with Peter next to him).
 

Double Crime Recap!!!

Excellent television last night on Monk!

Very creative!

I love it when a show breaks out of the TV box and does something really neat.

Y’know how on detective shows they tend to have a moment at the end where the detective figures out how the crime was done and describes it for everyone, often with us seeing a flashback of what happened during the crime?

Well, on last night’s episode of Monk ("Mr. Monk Gets Cabin Fever"), we got a double-dose of this–simultaneously!

During the middle of a gun battle at the episode’s climax, Monk and Lt. Discher each figured out how a different crime was committed.

In union, they said "I’ve got it!"

Then, rather than either deferring to the other, they both began to blurt out how the respective crimes were committed, and we were treated to flashbacks of them done in split-screen fashion a la 24, watching the different criminals walk through their misdeeds while Monk and Discher talked over each other.

As the gun battle raged, a confused local sheriff asked Capt. Stottlemeyer, "Which one are you listening to?"

"Neither," Stottlemeyer replied, trying to focus on the gun battle.

Great stuff!!!

Haven’t seen that on TV before!

One more reason to watch Monk!

Heads Up, Canonists! Incoming!

New norms on adjudicating marriage cases coming down the pike Tuesday!

4-February-2005  — Vatican Information Service   

PRESENTATION OF INSTRUCTION ABOUT NORMS IN MARRIAGE CASES

VATICAN CITY, FEB 4, 2005 (VIS) – In the Holy See Press Office at 11.30 a.m. on Tuesday February 8, there will be the presentation of the Instruction "Dignitas connubii" ("Dignity of Marriage"), on the norms to be observed in ecclesiastical tribunals hearing marriage cases. The document has been prepared by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, with the collaboration of other dicasteries.

Participants include: Cardinal Julian Herranz, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Archbishop Angelo Amato S.D.B., secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Domenico Sorrentino, secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments, Bishop Velasio De Paolis C.S., secretary of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura and Msgr. Antoni Stankiewicz, dean of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota.