Sowell On Judicial Tyranny

Supergenius Thomas Sowell points out a prominent national irony.

EXCERPTS:

It is painfully ironic that we should be promoting the spread of democracy abroad when democracy is shrinking at home. Over the years, the outcomes of our elections have meant less and less, as judges have taken more and more decisions out of the hands of elected officials.

Judges have imposed their own notions on everything from school administration to gay marriage, and have ordered both state and federal agencies to spend billions of dollars to carry out policies favored by the judges or have even ordered a state legislature to raise taxes.

While people in various countries in the Middle East are beginning to stir as they see democracy start to take root in Iraq, our own political system is moving steadily in the opposite direction, toward rule by unelected judicial ayatollahs, acting like the ayatollahs in Iran.

One way to stop the continuing erosion of the American people’s right to govern themselves would be to appoint judges who follow the great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ doctrine that his job was to see that the game is played by the rules, "whether I like them or not."

An aging Supreme Court means that there is now a perhaps once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to stop the erosion of democratic self-government by putting advocates of judicial restraint, rather than judicial activism, on the federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

Senate Democrats understand how high the stakes are. But do the Republicans?

GET THE REST.

Classics Of Internet Humor 3

Cowboy hat tip to the reader who sent in this funny (which is posted to multiple sites and is thus a classic):

THE TALE OF ERIC AND THE DREADED GAZEBO

In the early seventies, Ed ran "his game," and one of the
participants was Eric. Eric plays something like a computer.
When he games he methodically considers each possibility before
choosing his preferred option. If given time, he will invariably pick
the optimal solution. It has been known to take weeks. He is otherwise,
in all respects, a superior gamer.

Eric was playing a Neutral Paladin in Ed’s game. He was on some lord’s
lands when the following exchange occurred:

ED: You see a well groomed garden. In the middle, on a small hill, you
see a gazebo.
ERIC: A gazebo? What color is it?
ED: (Pause) It’s white, Eric.
ERIC: How far away is it?
ED: About 50 yards.
ERIC: How big is it?
ED: (Pause) It’s about 30 ft across, 15 ft high, with a pointed top.
ERIC: I use my sword to detect good on it.
ED: It’s not good, Eric. It’s a gazebo.
ERIC: (Pause) I call out to it.
ED: It won’t answer. It’s a gazebo.
ERIC: (Pause) I sheathe my sword and draw my bow and arrows. Does it
respond in any way?
ED: No, Eric, it’s a gazebo!
ERIC: I shoot it with my bow (roll to hit). What happened?
ED: There is now a gazebo with an arrow sticking out of it.
ERIC: (Pause) Wasn’t it wounded?
ED: OF COURSE NOT, ERIC! IT’S A GAZEBO!
ERIC: (Whimper) But that was a +3 arrow!
ED: It’s a gazebo, Eric, a GAZEBO! If you really want to try to
destroy it, you could try to chop it with an axe, I suppose, or you
could try to burn it, but I don’t know why anybody would even try.
It’s a @#$%!! gazebo!
ERIC: (Long pause. He has no axe or fire spells.) I run away.
ED: (Thoroughly frustrated) It’s too late. You’ve awakened the gazebo.
It catches you and eats you.
ERIC: (Reaching for his dice) Maybe I’ll roll up a fire-using mage so
I can avenge my Paladin.

At this point, the increasingly amused fellow party members restored a
modicum of order by explaining to Eric what a gazebo is. Thus ends the
tale of Eric and the Dread Gazebo. It could have been worse; at least
the gazebo wasn’t on a grassy gnoll.

ARCHITECTURAL NOTE: What’s on the Grassy knoll in Dallas is actually a pergola, not a gazebo.

Terri Speaks!

Terri_2The Family Research Council has released audio (.mp3) of Terri Shiavo responding to her father immediately after the removal of her food tube.

In the recording she appears to be distressed and responds to questions by making moaning sounds and attempting at one point to say "Hi."

Her father asks her if someone has hurt her and she responds strongly. He then asks her if specific parts of her body hurts and she fails to respond, suggesting that the hurt is not an immediate physical hurt but something more general that someone has done to her.

LISTEN TO TERRI.

Terri Update

Terri_1First the good news: The Senate has passed a bill conforming to the "Palm Sunday Comromise" that would get Terri’s food tube reinserted.

More good news: President Bush has rushed back to Washington to sign the bill into law if it passes.

The bad news: House DemoEvilcrats (that is to say, members of the Democratic Party who are personally evil) have stalled passage of the bill by the House:


In a special session Sunday afternoon, Democrats refused to allow the bill to be passed without a roll call vote.


Under House rules, such a vote could not occur before 12:01 a.m. Monday
when at least 218 of the 435-member House must appear to establish a
quorum. Also, because it was an expedited vote, the measure needed
votes from two-thirds of those present for passage.

"Time is not on Terri Schiavo’s side," DeLay said. "The few remaining objecting House Democrats have so far cost Mrs. Schiavo two meals already today."

There is still hope, though

GET THE STORY.

Now the frustrating news: The "Palm Sunday Compromise" involves tailoring the bill such that it is directed specifically to Terri’s case and would have no implications for other cases. That’s bad

a) Because it won’t protect anyone else, and

b) Because on its face it violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws since it’s relief directed specifically to Terri’s parents, meaning that other parents of people in similar situations don’t get this relief, thus denying them equal protection, and so

c) It could be struck down by a  evil judgeSith  Lord on those grounds.

Now, I’m just a simple country lawyerapologist so relief of this narrowly-tailored nature may go on all the time and precedent may have already established that it’s "okay" to do this. I’d love for a real lawyer to tell me that for Terri’s sake, though it violates the way the law ought to work for Constitutional reasons.

I suggest, in view of these facts, that we all

KEEP THIS ISSUE IN PRAYER.

UPDATE: In an extraordinary session, the House passed the bill shortly after midnight East Coast time and President Bush signed. Her parents have subsequently filed a motion in federal court.

GET THE STORY.

PRAYER IS STILL NEEDED THAT THE COURT WILL RE-INSERT TERRI’S FOOD TUBE AND NOT STRIKE THE LAW DOWN OUT OF HAND.

BETTY FRIEDAN TO NUNS: "Wear your habits!"

Author Helen LaKelly Hunt’s interview about her book Faith and Feminism: A Holy Alliance has some nuttiness in it — such as scolding the Pope for "narrowness" in his approach to feminism — but it is also interesting to see secular feminists grappling with religion.  This anecdote was particularly amusing:

"With Betty [Friedan], she was never against religion. She was always frustrated that feminists projected that. In fact, of the seven people who founded NOW [National Organization for Women], two of them were nuns. And when they had their first press conference, Betty said, ‘Wear your habits.’ And the nuns said, ‘We don’t want to wear our habits because we are here to start a social movement—it’s not about a religious thing.’ And Betty said, ‘No, I want you to wear your habits for this.’ And they said, no, they wouldn’t. And finally Betty said, ‘Dammit, wear your habits!’"

GET THE STORY.

BETTY FRIEDAN TO NUNS: “Wear your habits!”

Author Helen LaKelly Hunt’s interview about her book Faith and Feminism: A Holy Alliance has some nuttiness in it — such as scolding the Pope for "narrowness" in his approach to feminism — but it is also interesting to see secular feminists grappling with religion.  This anecdote was particularly amusing:

"With Betty [Friedan], she was never against religion. She was always frustrated that feminists projected that. In fact, of the seven people who founded NOW [National Organization for Women], two of them were nuns. And when they had their first press conference, Betty said, ‘Wear your habits.’ And the nuns said, ‘We don’t want to wear our habits because we are here to start a social movement—it’s not about a religious thing.’ And Betty said, ‘No, I want you to wear your habits for this.’ And they said, no, they wouldn’t. And finally Betty said, ‘Dammit, wear your habits!’"

GET THE STORY.

The Reformation Will Be Blogged?

Y’know why (sane, theologically-balanced) Christians aren’t willing to use violence in the name of their religion any more?

The Reformation was part of the reason.

Specifically: The Wars of Religion that followed the Reformation were so horrible that they forced Christians on both sides of the confessional divide to re-think the degree to which those Old Testament texts dealing with the religious use of violence were really applicable to our society today.

In the end, folks concluded that they weren’t.

Problem is: Muslims have never had a Reformation and have never been forced to conclude that those texts in the Qur’an that talk about the religious use of violence need to be declared inapplicable to today. As a result, many (though by no means all!) Muslims are willing to use violence to advance their religious goals.

It is therefore an urgent priority for the future of world affairs that Islam go down the path that Christianity went down and learn not to use violence in the service of religion.

How that might happen is unclear, but

ACCORDING TO ONE GUY, THE ISLAMIC REFORMATION IS HERE.

Classics Of Internet Humor 2

This e-mail virus warning had me staggering around the room clutching pieces of furniture to keep from sinking to the ground with laughter when I first read it. It’s still funny (though not that funny).

Beware Of The Friday 13th Virus

It will recalibrate your refrigerator’s coolness setting so all your ice cream goes melty.

It will demagnetize the strips on all your credit cards, screw up the tracking on your television and use subspace field harmonics to scratch any CDs you try to play.

It will give your ex-girlfriend your new phone number.

It will mix Kool-aid into your fishtank.

It will drink all your beer and leave dirty socks on the coffee table when company comes over.

It will put a dead aardvark in the back pocket of your good suit pants and hide your car keys when you are late for work.

Friday 13th Virus will make you fall in love with a penguin.

It will give you nightmares about circus midgets.

It will pour sugar in your gas tank and shave off both your eyebrows while dating your girlfriend behind your back and billing the dinner and hotel room to your Discover card.

It moves your car randomly around parking lots so you can’t find it.

It will leave libidinous messages on your boss’s voice mail in your voice!

It is insidious and subtle. It is dangerous and terrifying to behold. It is also a rather interesting shade of mauve.

Friday 13th Virus will give you Dutch Elm disease.

It will leave the toilet seat up.

It will leave bacon cooking on the stove while it goes out to chase gradeschoolers with your new snowblower.

Friday 13th Virus will cause your cakes to fall and your blood pressure to rise.

It will increase the ability of your radio to pick up reactionary talk stations at the expense of others.

It prevents scurvy, but it gives you mega garlic breath as it does so, which makes the net results negative.

It cheats at Scrabble.

It can forge your signature.

It plays the bagpipes in your basement.

It shaves over your bathroom sink and then leaves the hair to clog your drain.

It does bad celebrity impersonations in front of your friends.

Confession Validity

A reader writes:

I just went to confession, and then to Mass.  I did not receive communion at
Mass, however, because I am uncertain of the validity of my confession.
Here’s why. 

It was getting close to the time Mass would start, and the
priest seemed to be in a hurry.  First, he interrupted me while I was
confessing, and gave me some spiritual guidance, and seeming to have
forgotten that I was not done confessing, concluded and gave me a penance.  I
questioned him about the fact that I was not done.  He apologized, and I
continued. 

When I was done, he said some concluding remarks, gave me my
penance, but did not absolve me, so I asked if he would, and he told me he
already did, presumably when he had interrupted me, and he ended up saying
something somewhat resembling the proper form, but very hurriedly.  I don’t
think that he said the whole "I absolve you in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."  He did, however say, "I absolve you."  I
heard that much clearly, and I left it at that.  I didn’t say an act of
contrition, but I was contrite. 

Was my confession valid?  Can the fact that
I’m seriously doubting the validity of it render it invalid, even if it
otherwise would have been valid?  I’m really confused here.  I just want to
know what to do.

Your doubt of the confession’s validity has no bearing on whether or not it was valid. It either was or it wasn’t. Your doubts now do not affect that.

Neither does the absence of a specific act of contrition since you were already contrite. The purpose of the act of contrition is to elicit contrition if it is not already there. The contrition itself–not a specific statement of it–is what is essential.

That being said, the aboslution was probably valid.

You know that he did say "I absolve you" but (a) he was speaking in a way difficult for you to hear or follow and (b) priests tend not to make up formulas from scratch when they’re speaking hurriedly; they’re on autopilot, and (c) you were rattled by the situation. He probably used the correct formula and you just didn’t hear it all.

Based on what you have told me, you would be able to proceed in good conscience on the premise that you were validly absolved. If you weren’t then your next absolution will take care of the problem since you aren’t deliberately holding anything back but are proceeding according to the best of your knowledge.

While you would be able to proceed in good conscience on the premise that you have been validly absolved, if you want to erase all doubt, just repeat the confession.

Here are some tips for how to avoid this kind of thing in the future:

  • Take note of this priest and if the phenomenon repeats with him in the future, go to someone else (if you can).
  • If you need to make a lengthy confession, don’t do it right before Mass. Either show up way early or make a special appointment.
  • To the extent possible, avoid lengthy confessions. There are three ways of doing this, all of which should be pursued simultaneously:

Sin less often. This, of course, is what you should do. In fact, we are obliged before Christ to cooperate with the Holy Spirit so that, even if we presently have besetting sins, we grow out of them.

Go to confession more frequently. It’s obvious that if you just went recently that you’ll have had less time in which to commit sins and thus are likely to have fewer sins to confess. Further, going to confession frequently is important when you are growing out of a besetting sin. After you’ve committed it, go to confession as quickly as possible to help gain strength to resist the temptation in the future. If you delay going to confession, you may be tempted to commit the sin again on the grounds that your next confession will absolve both instances of the sin.

Confess in a businesslike manner and omit irrelevant detail. People have a tendency to give way more detail and background than is needed.

While (not being a priest) I don’t hear confessions, I am well acquainted with this phenomenon as it happens every time I’m on the radio show. People don’t just ask their questions, they tell stories about how the questions arose and what their tentative answers are and they include way more detail than I need to help them out. That’s human nature. The same thing, I am sure, happens in confession. Penitents give way more background and detail than is needed.

To avoid this, don’t tell stories or try to explain or justify what happened. Just say "I have to confess one incident of this. I have to confess two incidents of that. I have to confess some thoughts of this nature." If applicable, add any exacerbating or mitigating circumstances that apply (e.g., "I knew full well what I was doing and did it anyway," "I was really tired and angry when I did it"). Proceed through your list in a businesslike manner, without pausing in a way that invites the priest to comment (people feel psychological pressure to speak up when there is an awkward pause). Get the list out and trust that he’ll ask any questions he needs. Save any question syou have for him until after you’ve said the list.

Also, while confessing venial sins is a good thing (if not done to the point of scrupulosity), it is not necessary to confess them and thus don’t do it if you’re confessing right before Mass. It puts more time pressure on the priest and is more likely to rattle him as he worries about Mass and the congregation and how many more people may be behind you in line.

Finally, don’t use confessions immediately before Mass for purposes of seeking spiritual direction, The time pressure on the priest may be too great. Make an appointment or grab a priest after Mass.

20

 

Mommy Guilt

Mommy Guilt — guilt for being a mother with a career — is not something I currently experience because I’m not married or a mother (although I do hold out hope).  But since I do one day hope to be a wife, mother, and writer, this post by a romance novelist on a romance novel blog was of some interest to me.

"Sometimes, I even have to shut the door and say, ‘Mommy’s working’ in the . . . EVENINGS. Or, worse, WEEKENDS. Can we say slimy, guilt-ridden mother???

"So here’s the deal. I’m going to try to feel less guilty. Because I still believe it’s really cool to teach my kids that Moms can have wonderfully fulfilling jobs, too. I’ll even let the emotion inform my writing. And I’ll stock up on supplies for the next galaxy I have to help build at midnight."

Is it just me or does it sound to anyone else that this is simply saying, "I know something’s wrong here; I’ve even got my finger to the pulse of what’s not working.  But rather than fix it, I prefer to revel in the guilt"?

Like I said, I’m not a working mom, so I don’t have suggestions for this working mom.  But I don’t think the solution is to use Mommy Guilt to "inform writing."  Kids are kids but a short time.  On your deathbed, are you going to be glad you used your Mommy Guilt to pen a bestseller, or are you going to wish you set aside the copyedits to help build a miniature galaxy with your child? 

I read this post and I started hearing Harry Chapin singing "Cat’s In the Cradle."