"George W. In the Flight Suit"

I think the contrived Democratic brouhaha over the president's address from the USS Abraham Lincoln will be very short-lived because their own polling and focus groups are going to tell them to knock it off. But here's a very informative article by Gleaves Whitney at NRO today:

It's driving liberals nuts — the image of President George W. Bush in a flight suit on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. There he was, slapping officers on the back, posing for pictures, joking with sailors and aviators. You can bet your bottom dollar these images will be used during the 2004 campaign — they'll make Bush harder to beat. But those who are complaining loudest, who are fixated on the political use of the images, are apparently deaf to their historical resonance.

Historically, Americans tend to elect presidents with military experience, the more heroic the better. Consider:

• Of the 42 men who have been president, 27 served in the armed forces (64 percent).
• Of the 27 presidents who were in the armed forces, at least 12 served with distinction (Washington, Monroe, Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Taylor, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Theodore Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and George H. W. Bush).
• Of the 12 who served with distinction, at least 8 became heroes in their day. (Most lists would include Washington, Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Taylor, Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Kennedy.)
• The officer corps of the Union Army proved to be a veritable farm club for presidents: five generals (Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, and Benjamin Harrison) and one major (McKinley) ascended to the White House.

This trend of Americans electing commanders-in-chief who have been veterans has strengthened over time. Since World War II, there have been 11 presidents. Ten of them are veterans. The exception: William Jefferson Clinton....

(Thanks, Charles.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 05/08/03 09:21:53 PM
Categorized as Political.

"Thank You"

A moving testimonial from Iraqi poet Awad Nasir in today's OpinionJournal:

Let me confess something: I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw Saddam Hussein's statue toppled in Baghdad.

I am a poet and know that eyes can, and do, deceive.

For three decades, part of them spent in prison, part in hiding and part in exile, I had often dreamed of an end to the nightmare of the Baathist-fascist regime. But I had never dreamed that the end, that is to say Iraq's liberation, would come the way it did.

Again and again, I watched the footage showing the fall of the statue. It was as if I was afraid it might slip from the realm of my memory. But it was not until my sister, whom I had not seen for years, phoned me from Baghdad that I was convinced that "The Vampire" had fallen and that we were free.

"Hello Awad," my sister said, her voice trembling. "The nightmare is over. We are free. Do you realize? We are free!"

It was not the mullahs of Tehran and their Islamic Revolutionary Guards who liberated the Iraqi Shiites.

Nor was it Turkey's army that came to rescue the Iraqi Turkomans from Saddam's clutches.

Amr Moussa, the Arab League's secretary-general, and the corrupt regimes he speaks for, did not liberate Iraqi Arab nationalists.

Iraq's democrats, now setting up their parties and publishing their newspapers, were not liberated by Jacques Chirac. Nor did the European left liberate Iraq's communists, now free to resume their activities inside Iraq.

No, believe it or not, Iraqis of all faiths, ethnic backgrounds and political persuasions were liberated by young men and women who came from the other side of the world -- from California and Wyoming, from New York, Glasgow, London, Sydney and Gdansk to risk their lives, and for some to die, so that my people can live in dignity....

(Thanks, Charles.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 05/08/03 09:16:17 PM
Categorized as International.

Another Liberal Opens an Eye

For a few minutes, at the least.

That would be Matthew Miller, Tribune Media Services, yesterday:

Every so often you come across evidence that a political party is losing its mind. Something like that is happening to Democrats over President Bush's fabulous "top gun" photo-op aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. It's a case study in how Bush and Karl Rove have left so many Democrats undone....

Let's be clear. Yes, Bush manipulated the timing of the Iraqi showdown to suit his purposes in last year's midterm elections. And yes, he's now hoping to put America's military success to his political advantage. But for all that, Bush's decision to take out Saddam was the right thing to do. And as for the news that Bush is now trying to use the result to help himself - well, do we really have to trot out the old Casablanca line about being shocked to find there's gambling going on here?

For foes of Bush's domestic agenda, like myself, the worst part of these Democratic attacks is how ineffective and tone deaf they are. The party's most idiotic argument (it's hard to find a gentler word that's also accurate) is that in staging this event, Bush showed disrespect for the troops, because he delayed their return to their families by an extra day after a 10-month deployment.

Isn't it obvious even to Democrats that, if you took a vote of the sailors on board, they'd have unanimously hailed the idea of a visit from their commander in chief to deliver the thanks of a grateful nation? It's a moment they'll cherish for the rest of their lives and tell their grandchildren about. Democrats, inspired perhaps by the trial lawyers who bankroll the party, are acting as if these troops are good prospects for a class-action suit....

This is no time for Democrats to go bonkers over the small stuff. If this is what they consider smart politics, it'll be a long wait until 2008.

Bingo! Miller wins the jackpot.

P.S. I see that Sen. Byrd has called the presidential address on the USS Abraham Lincoln "flamboyant showmanship". Surely this is the first time anybody has used the word "flamboyant" with reference to George W. Bush.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 05/08/03 06:52:43 PM
Categorized as Political.

On Bennett and Gambling

I am now, I think, the last blogger in America to remark on Bill Bennett and gambling.

Gambling, as he seems to have done it, is neither a sin nor a crime: he didn't fail in his financial responsibilities, he didn't leave his family, he never lied about it, and he didn't break any laws. (I don't think gambling is necessarily a vice, either.)

He is not a hypocrite: as far as I know, he never said gambling is wrong and that people shouldn't gamble. And, as far as I know again, he has not held himself up personally as an exemplar of virtue untainted.

Whether it was prudent of him to have gambled as he did is quite another question. It's also a question that I think is his alone to answer. (Okay. His family and his spiritual director and/or confessor ought to have some say-so, too.) I think an awful lot of bloggers need to start minding their own darned business.

By the way, Bennett's "losses" have probably been exaggerated many times over by media and others uninterested in honesty accuracy.

P.S. Other than buying the occasional lottery ticket, I'm not a gambler myself. I'm also not a Puritan, apostate or otherwise.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 05/08/03 02:57:18 PM
Categorized as Most Notable & Religious.

"Jayson Blair, Media Ethics and Diversity Programs"

A revealing look at journalism by Matthew Hoy of Hoystory.com:

.... According to reports, Blair was part of a Times internship program for minority journalists -- that was how he got his foot in the door. After his internship ended, he was offered a job and the rest, as they say, is history. From all indications, Blair is a talented writer and reporter. Unfortunately, he has too much drive and ambition and not nearly enough common sense or ethical standards.

I'll probably get some hate mail for saying this, but it's true, Blair would never have even had the Times job if it wasn't for his skin color. For those non-journalists out there, let me explain how a journalism career typically works....

If Jayson Blair had come to the Times after working for ten years at a variety of newspapers then his race wouldn't even been raised by Kurtz -- or anyone else for that matter. He would have been just another cautionary tale of journalism gone wrong. But the fact is that the color of Blair's skin opened doors for him that would have been closed to white journalists....

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 05/08/03 02:40:44 PM
Categorized as Media.

Irrational & Incoherent or Subtle & Succint?

Perhaps you have already caught Bill Donohue's letter in defense of Rod Dreher (sixth item), in The Dallas Morning News yesterday:

Lucky to have Dreher

Re: "News won't give bishop ounce of credit," by Bronson Havard, yesterday's Viewpoints.

According to Bronson Havard, the "newly arrived" Dallas Morning News columnist Rod Dreher is guilty of "arrogance, stridency and viciousness." Now how could it be that Mr. Dreher changed so fast? When in New York, Catholics who knew him regarded him as serious, sober and reflective.

It is not hard to figure out why Mr. Havard is angered by Mr. Dreher. Mr. Havard was a staunch supporter of the failed ABC show Nothing Sacred. His hero was Father Ray, the pro-abortion hippie-dippie priest who exploited the poor and defied the church. Unfortunately, it was precisely those malcontents in the church (exemplified by Father Ray) who created the sex abuse scandal.

The Dallas Morning News is lucky to have Rod Dreher. It is clear that a new Catholic voice is needed in Dallas.

William A. Donohue, president, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, New York, N.Y.

It ain't really that hard to understand, is it? Donohue is saying that Havard "is angered" by Dreher because Dreher is a supporter of Catholic orthodoxy and Havard is a supporter of Catholic heterodoxy. And that the heterodox are reponsible for the recent scandals in the Church. Well, he's not saying that; he's implying it. Subtly and succinctly.

Perhaps it was a mistake to write a letter to the editor marked by subtlety. I recall a tough English professor of mine who once told me, after handing back an article to me, that it can be a two-edged sword: "subtlety is lost on the masses", he said. Surely, God help us all, it is not lost on Catholic bloggers?

Whether one agrees with Donohue's implications is another question. But I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one who understood, instantly and intuitively, what he meant.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 05/08/03 02:19:11 PM
Categorized as Religious.

"Some Prejudices Are More Equal Than Others"

The current issue of Catalyst has an excellent article by Philip Jenkins:

For readers of Catalyst, expressions of anti-Catholic bigotry scarcely come as a surprise. Over the years, we have come to expect that media treatments of the Church, its clergy and its faithful will be negative, if not highly offensive, and Catholic organizations try to confront the worst manifestations of prejudice. When such controversies erupt, the defenders of the various shows or productions commonly invoke a free speech defense. These productions are just legitimate commentary, we hear, so offended Catholics should just lighten up, and learn not to be hyper-sensitive. Sometimes, defenders just deny that the allegedly anti-Catholic works are anything like as hostile as they initially seem to be. All these arguments, though, miss one central point, namely that similarly controversial attacks would be tolerated against literally no other group, whether that group is religious, political or ethnic.

The issue should not be whether film X or art exhibit Y is deliberately intending to affront Catholics. We should rather ask whether comparable expressions would be allowed if they caused outrage or offense to any other group, whether or not that degree of offense seems reasonable or understandable to outsiders. If the answer is yes, that our society will indeed tolerate controversial or offensive presentations of other groups — of Muslims and Jews, African-Americans and Latinos, Asian-Americans and Native Americans, gays and lesbians — then Catholics should not protest that they are being singled out for unfair treatment. If, however, controversy is out of bounds for these other groups — as it assuredly is — then we certainly should not lighten up, and the Catholic League is going to be in business for a very long time to come....

Beyond the legal realm, time and again we see that media outlets exercise a powerful self-censorship that suppresses controversial or offensive images, whether or not that “offense” is intended: and again, this restraint applies to every group, except Catholics. Over the years, the film industry has learned to suppress images or themes that affect an ever-growing number of protected categories. The caution about African-Americans is understandable, given the racist horrors in films of bygone years, but the present degree of sensitivity is astounding. Recall last year’s film “Barbershop,” in which Black characters exchange disrespectful remarks about such heroic figures as Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, and more questionable characters like O. J. Simpson and Jesse Jackson. Though this was clearly not a racist attack, the outcry was ferocious: some things simply cannot be said in public. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton led an intense campaign to delete these touchy references.

And other social groups have learned these lessons about self-censorship. Asian-Americans and Latinos have both made it clear that the once-familiar stereotypes will no longer be tolerated, and Hollywood takes their complaints to heart. By the early 1990s, too, gay groups had achieved a similar immunity. When, in 1998, the film “The Siege” offered a (prescient) view of New York City under assault by Arab terrorists, the producers thought it politic to work closely with Arab-American and Muslim groups in order to minimize charges of stereotyping and negative portrayals. Activists thought that any film depicting how “Arab terrorists methodically lay waste to Manhattan” was not only clearly fantastic in its own right, but also “reinforces historically damaging stereotypes.” As everyone knew, Hollywood had a public responsibility not to encourage such labeling.

Yet no such qualms affect the making of films or television series that might offend America’s sixty million Catholics. Any suggestion that the makers of such films should consult with Catholic authorities or interest groups would be dismissed as promoting censorship, and a grossly inappropriate religious interference with artistic self-expression. The fuss over whether a film like “Dogma” or “Stigmata” is intentionally anti-Catholic misses the point. The question is not why American studios release films that will annoy and offend Catholics, but why they do not more regularly deal with subject matter that would be equally uncomfortable or objectionable to other traditions or interest groups. If they did so, American films might be much more interesting, in addition to demonstrating a new consistency....

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 05/08/03 01:44:54 PM
Categorized as Social/Cultural.

The Collapse of "Catholic" Higher Education in the USA

Several members of St. Blog's have recently called attention to this Spectator article by John R. Dunlap, Apr. 28:

.... Try this, for example, as a quick taste of the Augustinian worldview: The moral order is absolute, woven into the very fabric of creation. Personal sin, therefore, is never merely a private psychological event; owing to ignorance or stupidity or an idiotized upbringing, the sinner may be subjectively without blame, but the sin itself has objective consequences that claw at the well-being of the sinner and of others around him and of still others yet to be after him.

Imagine juggling such thoughts, day after day, with a class of bright 20-year-olds marinated all their lives in a culture of moral relativism. For most of them, the course seems to be their first encounter with the feebleness of their own culture. They don't necessarily buy into all of Augustine (predestination, anyone?), but they respect him, and they want to talk about these ideas they had never before heard of....

Dunlap proceeds to explain how this whole worldview was chucked in the late 1960s and early 1970s — chucked through deliberate inadvertence.

Read the documents of Vatican II. (There are numerous links in the right-hand column on the main weblog page where you can find these documents in any of numerous formats you may find to be pleasing to the eye.) You will find nothing in any of them that direct, implore, encourage, or even suggest that traditional Catholic theology and philosophy were to be chucked wholesale through deliberate inadvertence. In fact, you will find a plethora of references to the writings of previous popes, ecumenical councils, doctors and saints, and St. Thomas Aquinas in particular.

Wholesale abandonment of Catholic tradition did not happen because of the teachings of Vatican II, but in spite of them.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 05/08/03 12:55:35 PM
Categorized as Religious.

Liberal Eyes Continue to Open

A little bit, anyway.

Two columns in today's Washington Post reveal that some liberals are coming around to accept reality.

First, Richard Cohen writes about the Blame America First Crowd:

At the 1984 Republican National Convention, Jeane Kirkpatrick, then the Reagan administration's U.N. delegate, gave a speech on foreign policy that has stuck with me. She blasted the Democratic Party's approach to foreign affairs, repeating the phrase "the blame America first crowd." I hated the speech at the time, but have recently reread it. It has aged better than I have....

That same tendency to blame America for the moral shortcomings of others unfortunately permeates the left and the Democratic Party. I wish it were otherwise, but I got the first whiff of it after Sept. 11 when some people reacted to the terrorist attacks here by blaming U.S. policy -- in the Middle East specifically but around the world in general.

Had we not supported Israel, had we not backed the corrupt Saudi monarchy, had we not been buddies with Egypt, had we not been somehow complicit in Third World poverty, had we not developed blue jeans and T-shirts and rock music and premarital sex, the World Trade Center might still be standing and the Pentagon untouched.

But this was the mass murder of innocents -- pulled off, incidentally, by non-poor young men who had not spent their lives scavenging for food scraps. The attacks were not in self-defense, or even in revenge for something America had done, but a fanatical, insane and futile blow directed at modernity....

Second, Jonathan Chait writes about left-wing fanatical hatred of George W. Bush:

.... Perhaps the most disheartening development of the war -- at home, anyway -- is the number of liberals who have allowed Bush-hatred to take the place of thinking. Speaking with otherwise perceptive people, I have seen the same intellectual tics come up time and time again: If Bush is for it, I'm against it. If Bush says it, it must be a lie. Their opposition to Bush has made liberals embrace principles -- such as the notion that the United States must never fight without U.N. approval except in self-defense -- to which the Clinton administration never adhered (see Operation Desert Fox in 1998, or the Kosovo campaign in 1999). And it has made them forget that there are governments in the world even more odious and untrustworthy than the Bush administration.

(Thanks, Matthew.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 05/08/03 08:53:19 AM
Categorized as Political.