Category: Current Affairs

I’m starting to think that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may be dead.

(For those not following this part of the news, he’s been the head al-Qa’eda villain in Iraq.)

I mean, at first I was skeptical.

Some Arab TV station was reporting that he and seven others blew themselves up in Mosul to avoid getting caught.

Yeah, right. What some Arab TV station says plus ten dollars will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Then several more Arab TV stations reported the same thing.

Okay, put ’em all together plus ten bucks and you can still get that steamysweet cup of frappuchinomochococoalatte.

But y’know what?

There really WAS an incident in Mosul where a bunch of terrorists in a house blew themselves up to avoid capture.

And it appears that the group included people from Zarqawi’s immediate leadership team, so maybe he was there, too.

And now the U.S. military has announced that they’re doing DNA tests on the bodies from Mosul to see if any of them are Zarqawi.

And then there’s all this Zarqawi not being all over the news personally the last few days.

I mean, if you’re a terrorist mastermind waging an insurgency campaign and a rumor gets out that you’re dead then the first thing you’d better do is blow something up and then issue a statement to prove that you’re still alive, y’know?

I mean, you just can’t let those "Zarqawi is dead" rumors get very far. Not if you want to retain command and control of your organization and keep . . . well . . . inspiring terror in people.

People stop being afraid of someone who they think is dead.  (I mean, unless he’s Dracula or something.)

So where’s Zarqawi?

I’m thinking that he may have shuffled himself off this mortal coil, joined the infernal choir invisible, and become an ex-terrorist.

GET THE STORY.

Also, even if he’s not dead,

HE JUST HAD A TERRIBLE, HORRIBLE, NO-GOOD, VERY BAD WEEK.

Due to my work on liturgy I have regularly been put in a position in which I was asked about problematic liturgical practices in connection with LifeTeen, and I have tried to answer those as accurately and charitably as I could. The truth is that there were significant violations of liturgical law in connection with the typical "LifeTeen Mass," though fortunately those have recently been addressed following the intervention of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

It gives me absolutely NO pleasure, however, to note the following news item:

Msgr. Dale Fushek, the founder of LifeTeen, has been arrested on charges in connection with the sexual abuse of minors.

According to ABC News:

Fushek was charged with three counts of assault, five of contributing
to the delinquency of a minor and two of indecent exposure.

The former vicar general of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix was
arrested Monday on charges he fondled boys and young men and asked them
prying questions about their sex lives that he pretended were part of
confession.

Allegations emerged against Msgr. Fushek a number of months ago, at which point he resigned from his position as pastor of a parish in Mesa, Arizona. (Which he would have needed to do even if the charges were false.)

I must say that I am skittish about some of the allegations made against Msgr. Fushek:

Fushek resigned as pastor of St. Timothy’s in April after someone
claimed to have recovered a repressed memory involving sexual
improprieties by Fushek in 1985. He has denied the allegations.

Maricopa Attorney Andrew Thomas said the priest conducted "sham
confessions" in which he extracted details about people’s sex lives for
his own gratification.

I am EXTREMELY suspicious of recovered "repressed memories." That was the basis of the witchhunt that was conducted against daycare workers a number of years ago that led to numerous innocent individuals having their reputations and careers ruined.

I am also skittish about the allegations made in connection with the sacrament of confession. There is too much potential for a Rashomon situation here, with the same question being interpreted differently or misremembered.
If innocent of the charges in connection with confession, Msgr. Fushek also would be in the unenviable position of being bound by the seal (EVEN IF THE PENITENT CLAIMS TO RELEASE HIM FROM IT) and thus unable to effectively defend himself against the allegations.

That being said, some of the evidence against Msgr. Fushek could turn out to be solid. We’ll have to wait and see.

While we wait, may we pray that justice be done in this case, whatever that may be.

Let’s also pray that the impact of this on the young people to whom LifeTeen ministers will be minimized.

GET THE (SAD) STORY.

I was interested to see an article by liberal screech owl Eleanor Clift arguing that Democrats should NOT attempt to use the filibuster in an attempt to block Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

And she’s right–from the perspective of Evil.

If they use the filibuster to block what seems to be a clearly qualified and non-extremist nominee (no matter how Teddyboy and his associates try to paint him) then the Gang of 14 will allow the constitutional option to be exercised and the Democrats will lost the ability to filibuster judges altogether.

Personally, I hope they DO filibuster Alito so that they DO lose the ability to filibuster future judges–and lose it NOW.

Why now?

Because even if Roberts and Alito turn out to be willing to overturn The Evil Decision, that’s still only four votes to overturn it (counting Thomas and Scalia). There still needs to be one more vote.

That vote is most likely to be gained following the retirement of John Paul Stevens or Ruther Bader Ginsburg sometime in the next three years.

I’d LOVE for the advocates of abortion NOT to have a filibuster in their hip pocket when it comes time to replace one of those two pro-Roe justices.

Eleanor, of course, would like to see them still have it, and so she argues that Alito should not be filibustered.

She seems grimly resigned, though, to the fact that the Supreme Court will be dramatically reshaped as a result of the second Bush term and that the kind of democracy-thwarting jurisprudence that she loves so dearly will be severely curtailed.

I’d just like to see it get curtailed even more by knocking out the filibuster for judicial nominees right now.

C’mon, abortion advocates, MAKE MY DAY!

In the meantime,

LISTEN TO THE CRY OF THE LIBERAL SCREECH OWL.

Like many folks, I’ve been disturbed by some of the things I’ve been hearing about SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito, including previous abortion decisions he’s been involved in.

I recognize, tough, that these opinions may not tell us very much about how he would rule on abortion if placed on the Supreme Court. Lower court judges have to follow Supreme Court precedent, and that means that what they write often doesn’t tell you what they would do if they were elevated to the highest court.

For example, a circuit court judge could not declare abortion unconstitutional or even overturn The Evil Decision. He’s bound by the authority of the Supreme Court. This means that if you hear about him voting to uphold abortion law in a particular case, it may be because he knows that ruling otherwise would clash with what the Supreme Court has established as legal doctrine.

Once he has the change to make that doctrine himself, all bets are off, which is why looking at his overall judicial philosophy is so important.

The same thing plays the other way, though.

Pro-abort forces are up in arms about the fact that Alito once voted to uphold a Pennsylvania statue that had a (watery weak) requirement of spousal notification for a married woman to get an abortion. They’ll use this to try to paint him as a pro-life zealot.

But that doesn’t follow either.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER EXPLAINS WHY.

As we all know, Jimmy Carter is history’s greatest monster.

Back when he was running for president in 1976, just after The Evil Decision was handed down and before abortion culture was deeply rooted in America, he said:

"I think abortion is wrong and that the government ought never do
anything to encourage abortion," he said during that campaign. "But I
do not favor a constitutional amendment which would prohibit all
abortions, nor one that would give states [a] local option to ban
abortions."

His support of legalized babykilling at that moment in history was part of what allowed abortion to become so widespread in American society. Had he acted differently and supported a constitutional amendment to reverse The Evil Decision it might have been possible to shorten the Abortion Holocaust and save millions of lives.

But he didn’t, and he’ll have to explain why to his Creator.

Fortunately, there are signs that he may be improving on this topic. Recently he made some startling statements regarding abortion:

Former President Jimmy Carter yesterday [November 3rd] condemned all abortions and
chastised his party for its intolerance of candidates and nominees who
oppose abortion.

    "I never have felt that any abortion should be committed — I
think each abortion is the result of a series of errors," he told
reporters over breakfast at the Ritz-CarltonHotel, while across town
Senate Democrats deliberated whether to filibuster the nomination of
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. because he may share President Bush and Mr.
Carter’s abhorrence of abortion.

    "These things impact other issues on which [Mr. Bush] and I
basically agree," the Georgia Democrat said. "I’ve never been
convinced, if you let me inject my Christianity into it, that Jesus
Christ would approve abortion."

    Mr. Carter said his party’s congressional leadership only
hurts Democrats by making a rigid pro-abortion rights stand the
criterion for assessing judicial nominees.

    "I have always thought it was not in the mainstream of the
American public to be extremely liberal on many issues," Mr. Carter
said. "I think our party’s leaders — some of them — are
overemphasizing the abortion issue."

Now, Carter still isn’t where he needs to be on this issue (i.e., calling for that constitutional amendment he refused to call for back in ’76), but his words are still welcome as a wake-up to those who treat abortion as a sacrament.

GET THE STORY.

GET THE STORY.

SDG here.

MSNBC runs a story about St. Luke’s Catholic school in Brookfield, Wisconsin, where they decided to drop a fashion show/fund raiser with an American Girl™ theme.

For those of you who haven’t heard of them already, the popular American Girl™ dolls are costumed to represent girls of all walks of life from various periods in American history. The fashion show would have featured girls carrying the dolls and wearing matching outfits.

My wife and daughter have happily collected American Girl™ dolls, along with the books and other items marketed with the dolls, though we are now boycotting the company (owned by Mattel, Inc.).

It’s a shame, because I thought the dolls’ designers tapped in to a neglected market, allowing doll collecting to become a lesson in American history. I actually picked up one of their books and found it surprisingly well-written. I had expected pure drek, but it was not too far off from Laura Ingalls Wilder’s Little House™ books.

You might figure that the American Girl™ folks would know a good thing when they had it, and would give anything that might bring unnecessary controversy to their enterprise a wide berth. This is especially true considering that collectors of a doll line called American Girl™ might tend to run to the conservative side.
But American Girl™ recently decided to endorse a charity called Girls, Inc., and there the controversy began. They actually offered in their catalog some of those rubber bracelets you see so much nowadays, with proceeds going to Girls, Inc.

The charity itself is actually not mentioned until the very last paragraph of the MSNBC piece, and is described in glowing terms that sound as if they might have been lifted from the group’s promotional material:

“Girls Inc. offers a wide range of programs and resources to help
educate and encourage girls in everything from science to health. That
includes information about abortion and contraception along with sexual
abstinence. The organization also affirms lesbian sexual orientation.”.

The folks at American Girl™ just don’t see what all the stink is about, and are befuddled that anyone might be upset at their innocent support of a charity that, after all, is just trying to help girls.

St. Lukes’ pastor, Fr. Frank Malloy, summed up the reason for dropping the fashion show:

“It’s a bargain we’ll just have to pass up. The cost is too high. Our integrity isn’t for sale.”

I voted in the online poll, but support for the school predictably lagged behind on the site. You can read the story and vote in the poll HERE.

I’m not much of a baseball or football fan, although hometown pride — and I am one of that rare breed known as the Native San Diegan — occasionally (usually when a rare championship series comes a’callin’) will transform me into a fair-weather fan of the Padres and Chargers. Even so, the past couple of years I’ve thought it nice that the BoSox and ChiSox have finally been rewarded with World Series victories. I wouldn’t have blogged on the White Sox win, though, until I ran across an article on fan reaction that tickled me.

"Loud music blared over the city’s South Side on Wednesday night, and one needed only to look up at the balcony of Nativity of Our Lord Catholic Church to find its source.

"The White Sox had won the World Series, and for the Rev. Dan Brandt, it was time to party down.

"Father Brandt jumped with glee from his office in the heart of the South Side, then ran from the room to ring the church bells and play ‘Let’s Go Go Go White Sox!’ — the theme song for Chicago’s 1959 World Series appearance — when the game ended.

"But his main focus was to keep those bells clanging.

"’They’re going to keep ringing for at least several hours, maybe longer,’ said Brandt, as parishioners around him, who had gathered to watch the game together, hugged and smiled."

GET THE STORY.

One of the great things about being Catholic is the ability of Catholics to express joy in the world around us through distinctly Catholic means. Some Christians might be scandalized at the idea of ringing church bells for a baseball victory. For Catholics, celebrating such victories is just one of the reasons why God invented church bells.

Samuel Alito is the new nominee for the Supreme Court.

GET THE STORY.

In fact, they want to SCARE CHILDREN AWAY FROM HALLOWEEN.

Jack Chick, for example.

Joe over at Evangelical Outpost has

THIS DECONSTRUCTION OF ONE OF CHICK’S ANTI-HALLOWEEN TRACTS.