The Beltway Sniper is a... Sniper

I mention this only because some folks don't seem to know that.

Susanna Cornett mentioned that The Ville complains of calling the Beltway Sniper... um... the Beltway Sniper. I see:

I think it's time to stop calling this homicidal maniac punk a sniper. Snipers are highly trained honorable members of our armed forces. We correct the media when they use the term Suicide Bombers by labeling them Homicide Bombers. We correct the media when they refer to terrorists as Militants by labeling them Terrorists. IMO - It's time to refer to this so-called sniper as a Serial Killer, Terrorist, Murderer, Maniac, or Asshole.

Sorry, the Beltway Sniper is a... you guessed it!... a sniper:

1. A skilled military shooter detailed to spot and pick off enemy soldiers from a concealed place. 2. One who shoots at other people from a concealed place.

AFAIK, these definitions have been commonly accepted for a long time. Whether one is "sniping" for a good purpose, or for a bad purpose, or for an indifferent purpose — and whether one displays a certain amount of training or skill — is irrelevant to whether one is a sniper.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 10/23/02 10:02:46 PM
Categorized as Media.

Steve Ray's Catholic Convert Message Board

Reviewed, sort of, at Ut Unum Sint.

I noticed Bill Cork posting lately at Steve Ray's Catholic Convert Message Board; he blogged about the board yesterday:

.... Steve seems to be a nice guy, and a good Catholic -- but he's busy, and doesn't have time to police his message board. And the person who is there as monitor, "Della" (pseudonym), just doesn't do an effective job. Result? The place is a bowl of granola -- fruits, nuts and flakes -- with the regular posters tending to be those who like to dish out criticism of the Catholic Church and its bishops, and who come very close to supporting schismatic Traditionalists. Do they get zapped for this? No. But Mark Shea is told to apologize for expressing his frustration with it....

As I have mentioned before, I used to post there (using a pseudonym) regulary and frequently. No more. And for pretty much the reasons Bill has sketched — though way back when, the main problem was blockheaded and/or vitriolic anti-Catholic Protestants; at about the time I got out, the RadTrads were just starting to make their way in. Unfortunately, and for some reason I can't quite fathom, the moderator does not really moderate — though I suspect it is simply because she is not allowed to do so by the owner.

Having said that, the board is usually worth a visit, if only to read SecretAgentMan and Edwin (Tait).

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 10/23/02 12:23:12 PM
Categorized as Religious.

"A 6-0 shutout"

Or, why we need to turn the lights on in the basement every once in a while, to help us to find the rats, cockroaches, etc.

Aaron Nagano blogged this morning about a "discussion" of "War with Iraq" at NYU:

The NYU Middle Eastern Studies department organized a panel discussion called “War with Iraq?” Since there were six speakers opposed to war with Iraq and none supporting it, “panel” was the proper description since it could not properly be called a debate. I presume that academics believe that a united front is the best way to convince others of the superiority of their opinions. Criticism would merely weaken their case and, more importantly, would undoubtedly be an assault on academic freedom....

Despite being highly informative, The Last Best Hope is also, I think, remarkably well written.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 10/23/02 12:01:44 PM
Categorized as Political.

"Repay to Caesar What is Caesar's, and Repay to God What is God's"

A homily from the author of Thrown Back.

Rev. Robert Johansen
St. Joseph Catholic Church
St. Joseph, Michigan

In his Letter to the Ephesians, St. Paul thanked God that the Thessalonians had “shown their faith in action, worked for love and persevered through hope, in Our Lord Jesus Christ.” And in the year or so that I have been here in our parish, I have seen many of you show your faith in action: in your generous commitment of your gifts and talents, your time, and your financial support of the work of Christ in St. Joseph parish.

Your willingness to respond to God’s call in your lives, to make a return to God for the generosity and love He has first shown you, gives honor and glory to God. And so I, like St. Paul, am thankful for the generosity and faith which you have shown.

In our gospel today, we hear Our Lord tell us that we are to repay to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to god what is God’s. Certainly our efforts at exercising good stewardship are part of following Christ’s command to “repay to God what is God’s.”

But the other side of Our Lord’s command is to repay to Caesar what is his, and clearly he means that we must repay to Caesar only what is Caesar’s, no less, and no more. We must never give to Caesar that which properly belongs to God. The history of the last century is filled with death, horror, and unspeakable evil all because men gave in to the temptation to make Caesar, to make the state, the government, supreme and all encompassing in its demands. The systems that did this, communism and fascism, unleashed all manner of evil upon the world because they made the state into a sort of God.

But these failed ideologies are but the worst examples of this temptation to give the state what belongs to God. In our own country, in our own society, we too have succumbed to that temptation, and have allowed our governing bodies to usurp power and authority that do not belong to them. That power was illegitimately taken, but make no mistake: we are not without responsibility, because in all too many cases, we have allowed it to happen.

Our Declaration of Independence states that “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,” and that chief among these rights are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The Declaration recognizes that God is the source of these rights. They do not come to us because of any decree of a king, a president, or government. They belong to us because we are created by God, in His image and likeness. We posses these rights simply by virtue of being human. The most basic human rights come to us from God.

Just as no government can confer these rights, none can take those rights away. No king, no president, no congress, no governor, and no supreme court has the authority to revoke or take away our most basic rights.

But in our country, the most basic right all is not protected for the most innocent and vulnerable of all — the unborn. At any time from conception to the moment of birth the life of the unborn child can be snuffed out by an abortionist. A life created by God ended by a cruel instrument. This is stark, harsh language, but the reality is stark, and harsh, and ugly. And our government, led by our courts, says that this cruel and ugly reality is a “right”.

But no decision of a court, no act of congress, can turn a crime against innocent human life into a right. To say this is to compound murder with a lie. And the language used by those who support and defend this so-called “right”, the language used to justify this evil, is a tissue of lies.

For they dress up the evil of abortion in language of “Choice”. And “choice” has a nice ring to it: we’re Americans, after all; we believe in freedom, we believe in the right to make our own choices. But, curiously enough, we don’t see people trying to disguise the reality of other crimes with language of “choice.” Let me give you an example: What would we think of someone who said, “I recognize that some people think that child abuse is wrong, but I think it should be left up to parents to decide whether or not they should abuse their children. The government has no business trying to interfere with a parent’s decision to abuse his or her children”? What would we say to someone who asserted his “freedom” to “choose” whether or not he should abuse his children? What would we think of a politician who defended and protected the freedom of choice of child abusers?

Such a position is monstrous, and it is absurd. And the absurdity of that kind of talk, the monstrosity of such a position, should illustrate for us the monstrosity and absurdity of the “pro-choice” position. The pro-choice position would be laughable if the consequences weren’t so dire and tragic. But, many people, and unfortunately many women, have been misled and duped by the advocates of “choice”, with tragic results.

Also tragic is the fact that some politicians, who are running for either for national or statewide office, and some of whom even call themselves Catholic, advocate this “pro-choice” position and language. At worst, such politicians are liars, with the blood of innocents on their hands. The best one could say about such a politician is that he, or she, is tragically, desperately confused.

Those who represent us and exercise the power of governance have a special responsibility to guard and protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us. A Catholic politician who adopts the so-called “pro-choice” position egregiously fails his, or her, responsibility, because presumably he or she should know better.

Adam Cardinal Maida, the Archbishop of Detroit, recently said:

Catholic public officials have a special moral obligation to understand and accept wholeheartedly the Church’s teaching on the dignity of innocent human life; they may never advocate for, or actively support, legislation which would allow direct attacks on innocent human life. When it is impossible to overturn or prevent passage of a law which allows or promotes abortion, an elected official should always seek to limit the harm done by such laws. Nor can Catholic political leaders justify inaction with regard to the dignity of human life simply on the grounds that abortion is the law of the land, because ultimately, there is a higher law, the law of God.

If politicians, especially Catholic politicians, have such a grave and weighty responsibility, then we, who vote for these leaders also have a grave responsibility, especially now as the election approaches in a few weeks. Cardinal Maida also said “These basic truths about right and wrong must shape our political judgments and our decisions about how we vote.” We have a duty to vote for candidates who support the dignity of human life by opposing abortion and by actively working to remove this great evil from our land.

The right to life is the most basic, the most fundamental right. Because of this, no issue outweighs or trumps that of protecting innocent human life. No political program, no proposed legislation, no economic consideration can justify a decision to support a “pro-choice” candidate. The right to life is the most fundamental: without it no other rights mean anything. And abortion is the pre-eminent threat to human dignity in our land today. Therefore opposing it and supporting leaders who oppose it is our foremost duty in making decisions about our votes.

God creates and gives the gift of life. God bestows on us the most basic human right to life. Let us reverence and protect that gift and right, by exercising our right and duty to support and vote for leaders who will also protect and reverence the right to life. Let us not permit any power, any government, any leader, to do violence to or take away the gift of life which God has given.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 10/23/02 09:11:06 AM
Categorized as Religious.

"Mater si, Magistra no"? Revisited

It seems that William F. Buckley, Jr., really did not write an editorial by that name, or with that theme.

Kevin Miller has directed me to this webpage, documenting (in brief) some commentary on Mater et magistra. Here are the quotations from National Review:

National Review (29 July 1961) 38. "Whatever its final effect, it must strike many as a venture in triviality coming at this particular time in history" since "there is scant mention" of the successes of the Communists and "insufficient notice is taken (of) the extraordinary material well-being" of countries like Japan, West Germany, and the United States.

National Review (12 August 1961) 77. "Going the rounds in conservative circles: 'Mater si, Magistra no.'"

William F. Buckley, Jr. National Review (26 August 1961) 114. "Actually, National Review has made no substantive criticism of Mater et Magistra. Simplistic interpretations in secular terms are notoriously unwise. It merely pointed out that 'coming at this particular time in history,' parts of it may be considered as trivial."

William F. Buckley, Jr. National Review (23 September 1961) 188. "The editorial in question spoke not one word of criticism of the intrinsic merit of Mater et Magistra. Our disappointment was confined to the matter of emphasis, and timing, and by implication, to the document's exploitability by the enemies of Christendom, a premonition rapidly confirmed by the Encyclical's obscene cooption by such declared enemies of the spiritual order as the New Statesman and the Manchester Guardian, which hailed the conversion of the Pope to Socialism!"

I asked on an e-mail list if anybody could verify the claim that Buckley had really written the editorial he is typically alleged to have written, with reference to the quotations above. Another subscriber verified the quotations, with a minor correction noted below. He also provided the following descriptions of the items:

The July 29 issue has one paragraph about the encyclical in the "The Week" column (p. 38). It appears that each item in the "The Week" column is only one paragraph, although the length of the paragraph varies. This paragraph is 26 and a half lines long. None of the items have individual titles or headlines, nor are they signed.

The Aug. 12 issue has on p. 77 a boxed column entitled "For the Record", which is brief notes on various current matters set down "for the record". It is unsigned. The last item at the botton of the page is "Going the rounds in Catholic conservative circles: 'Mater si, Magistra no.'" (Note that the web site has a slight misquotation, omitting the word "Catholic".

The September 23 issue has on p. 187-188 "An Open Letter to Father Thurston Davis, S.J., Editor, America," by William F. Buckley, Jr. in which he examimes the controvery about the previous two items. He included a cartoon from the Providence Joural showing Buckley very well-dressed with a vest (waistcoat) and chain across it and a crown on his head. He is holding a huge pen of the kind that was dipped in an inkwell that has a hammer tied to the other end. There is a drawing of the St. Peter's labelled "Wisdom of 2000 years" on which has been nailed a sheet of paper saying "Mater Si Magistra No The National Review." He is saying, "I did it with a few wild swings."

He provides some interesting historical context for the now-famous remark:

To set the Mater Si comment in context for those too young to remember, after Fidel Castro seized control of Cuba in 1959 and established his Communist dictatorship he held mass rallies at which he delivered hours-long orations, frequently interrupted by the crowds chanting "Cuba Si, Yanqui No" repeatedly. "Cuba Si, Yankee No" was picked up by American leftists and chanted at many rallies here. The "Mater Si, Magistra No" was just a play on that current phenomenon.

And he reminds me where the onus probandi lies:

As I'm sure you realize, someone who claims that William F. Buckley, Jr. did write an article with that title bears the burden of proving with at least a bibliographic citation that interested parties could check in a library.

(See "Mater si, Magistra no"?)

P.S. (Thu. 02/28/08 11:54:51 PM) In the wake of Buckley's death yesterday, it seems apropos to provide the following information concerning the source of the observation concerning Mater si, Magistra no, as provided by WFB himself in an interview, Oct. 6, 2005:

.... Lopez: Anything you wrote during your tenure that you regret?

Buckley: I had belated second thoughts about the wisdom of republishing a quip of Garry Wills's in my "For the Record" column. It was the phrase: "Mater si, Magistra no," in response to a papal encyclical that got us into lots and lots of trouble with the liberal Catholic press over lots and lots of years....

[Follow-up: William F. Buckley, Jr., and Mater Si, Magistra No.]

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 10/23/02 08:46:51 AM
Categorized as Religious.

little green footballs

My vote of support for Charles Johnson.

Best of the Web yesterday gave a report on the assault on the character and content of Charles Johnson's weblog little green footballs:

Charles Johnson's Little Green Footballs is a delightful Web log. Johnson, a Los Angeles-based Web designer, has one of the nicest-looking blogs around, and it's packed with interesting information, mostly on the war and the barbarity of radical Islam.

MSNBC.com has a feature called Weblog Central, apparently written by someone named Will Femia. On Friday Femia cited LGF in his "Best of Blogs" feature. But then on Sunday, Femia posted an update, saying he'd heard from LGF critics who object, in Femia's words, to "the fact that LGF has, over time, increased its focus on militant Islam and terrorism." Femia updated his original description of LGF to say the following:

"This site is the focus of considerable controversy for its focus (and particularly the focus of the constituents in its comments section) on Islamic culture and dogma as the source of Islamic terror. As a popular, active, and well presented site, it is worth checking out, but some may find its content hateful or even racist."

This is an outrageous smear. The accusation of "racism" doesn't even make sense; is anyone stupid enough to think Islam is a race? And while there's plenty of hate on LGF, Charles Johnson isn't the source of it. He is simply documenting the murderously hateful ideology of radical Islam. It makes no more sense to call Johnson "hateful" than it would make to call the Anti-Defamation League anti-Semitic....

Yes. Though it's not a weblog at which I spend much time, let alone much time reading the comments, the only hate and "racism" I have noticed at little green footballs has been that expressed towards Jews by Muslims writing in the comment boxes.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 10/23/02 08:13:19 AM
Categorized as Media.