Connecting Dots

Two different, but yet connected articles I've read this weekend demonstrate why it is foolish for believing Catholics to put any faith in Democrat-favored policies. The first article was a link from National Review Online about questions Cardinal Dolan answered (will answer tomorrow) on Meet the Press.

The second article was in the Wall Street Journal. Kim Strassel reported on the FTC coming down hard on an organization of music teachers.

The only reason the media has any desire to have Cardinal Dolan on is so that they can make him say that he likes universal health care. Then they can use that "endorsement" to hammer at conservative believers that if they are faithful, they will get onboard with Obamacare. But as the Wall Street Journal article shows us, the expansive regulatory state, regardless of its "good intentions" will always work against the average citizen. For a Christian, there is no upside to state-sponsored charity.

A Historical Declaration of Independence

During a recent trip to Scotland, I read about the Declaration of Arbroath--a letter from Scottish nobles to Pope John XXII in 1320, which was intended to confirm Scotland's independence. A portion of the letter is often quoted:

As long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom--for that alone which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

I like this quote quite a bit because it reminds me of the timelessness of the desire for men to be free. I have previously defined freedom, and the Declaration of Arbroath fits nicely with that.

PC in PW

Publishers Weekly is the industry magazine for the publishing field. PW (as it is known) sends out a daily newsletter to subscribers in the world of book publishing by e-mail. Sometimes the e-mail tells of a story in the industry, and sometimes the e-mail focuses on promoting a book. Today's e-mail has text that should make any editor cringe. "Allies Will Return. Loyalties Will Be Betrayed. And One Will Meet Their End." Agreement in number isn't as critical when the author is trying to make an example, but when referring to a specific person, couldn't he or she write, "And One Will Meet His End"? It seems to me that politically correct editing, when it breaks a rule that is basic to your industry, is embarrassing.

2 Simple Rules for Muslims (and All Americans)

Recently, Nidal Hasan, the man who killed 13 people at Fort Hood, wrote a few letters that Fox News published. They are interesting reading, because Hasan explains that he was acting because he felt that the teachings of his religion compelled him to kill in the name of Islam.

I have been thinking about whether or not western nations will continue to allow Muslims who have no regard for the values of those countries into their own countries. It's not that Muslims have to quit being Muslims, it's that they have to accept two bedrock principles of free countries.

1. Your religious rules are for you, not for your neighbor. It may be against a Muslim's faith to draw a picture of Mohammed, but it is not for his non-Muslim neighbor. It may be against a Muslim's faith to drink alcohol. It is not for his neighbor. I am a Roman Catholic, but I would never force my neighbor to abstain from meat on Fridays during lent. Which is not to say, of course, that if I owned a restaurant, I would be fully within my rights to only serve fish on Fridays during lent. But the citizen who wants to eat beef has a thousand choices of places to eat meat, and I don't begrudge him that choice at all.

2. There is no coersion in religion. You cannot force your neighbor, your family, or your fellow citizens to be a Muslim. Again, I have nothing against evangelizing, arguing, pleading, and so forth. In fact, these are actions protected by the Constitution. But you cannot force someone to be your religion through physical violence.

It seems to me that if people could abide by these two basic ideas, Muslims would find that their fellow citizens would be happy to live and let live. If someone living in the U.S. cannot abide by these ideas, they should leave the country.

That Was a Short Honeymoon

For those who favor traditional marriage as the law of the land, we got a little glimpse of our futures. Adrian Peterson gave an interview to a radio show on Sirius XM, where for some reason the interviewer asked him about gay marriage. Here was Adrian's response:

Said the reigning league MVP: “To each his own. I’m not with it. But I have relatives that are gay. I’m not biased towards them. I still treat them the same. I love them. But again, I’m not with that. That’s not something I believe in. But to each his own.

“I’m sure the Vikings organization did not release him based on that. They know Kluwe. They’ve been knowing him for a long time. And they know he’s outspoken. But it hurt me to see him leave. He was a good friend of mine and a really cool guy, man. Probably one of the smartest guys I’ve ever been around, man. Different.”

Seems innocuous enough. But not for the PC enforcers at the Star Tribune. Dan Wiederer, a sports columnist, thought it was worth a column questioning Peterson's thoughts on gay marriage. Just a couple of weeks after "Gay marriage doesn't threaten my marriage" and "all we want is to be treated equally" and other such expressions, we find out that thinking marriage is between a man and a woman is a thought-crime worthy of being reported on. This weekend, "Adrian Peterson gay marriage" has been trending in the top 10 on Yahoo.

For those Minnesotans who went along with gay marriage because they thought it would bring an end to an uncomfortable topic of conversation, I think they need only look at the recent Adrian Peterson kerfuffle to know that for the true leftists, gay marriage is not an end to a political hot potato, but the beginning of a most unAmerican effort to hassle traditionalists.

Traditionalists will see their institutions, churches, and places of business hassled by leftists who seek to narrow people's freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association.

They Can't Help Themselves

I have a desk calendar at work that is published by the History channel. Each day has a paragraph describing a historical event that took place on that day. For April 22, the year is 1889, and the event is the Oklahoma land rush. On that date, settlers lined up at Fort Reno, and at noon were allowed to rush out and stake claims to land. For the most part, it is an interesting item about an event that I've heard of, but not read much about. But the last sentence of the paragraph had me shaking my head:

It was an extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land.

Where did those last six words come from? Most Americans do love this land, and they love the place that they call home. But in using the word lust, I think the writer tips his hand. This "lust for land" is a bad trait of Americans. I have two guesses why that phrase appears: my first guess is that ending the paragraph with "extraordinary display of the pioneer spirit" would be considered too "American-centric" for a liberal, so there was a need to temper the reader's admiration for our ancestors' pioneer spirit by shaking our collective heads at his greedy lust. My second guess is that the image of tens of thousands of Americans racing to plant stakes in the ground and claiming some of this country as their own is just too much for a lefty to let go without comment. Either way, it seems to me that this is another small (but constant) example of the little ways so many of our "educators" see themselves as indoctrinators.

Perfectly Expressed

I can't let the day pass without linking to one of the best dissents against environmental religion. In 2009, an economics professor was asked his thoughts on the importance of Earth Hour. His response is gold. The link is to the article posted at the Watts Up With That? website, which has a great photo of the country that wins the Earth Hour award year after year.

The Desire to Destroy Institutions That Are Not Perfect

With the Kermit Gosnell trial proceeding in Philadelphia, there has been more commentary about abortion recently. The main item being talked about is the press and their self-censoring of the evil that took place in Gosnell's clinic. Secondarily, there is commentary on the gruesomeness of late-term abortions. Because left-wing activists can never accept any commentaries about the awfulness of abortion without comment, it is not surprising to read a ode to abortion like this article from Jessica DelBalzo. Here is the opening paragraph:

I love abortion. I don’t accept it. I don’t view it as a necessary evil. I embrace it. I donate to abortion funds. I write about how important it is to make sure that every woman has access to safe, legal abortion services. I have bumper stickers and buttons and t-shirts proclaiming my support for reproductive freedom. I love abortion.

Another link led back to a older article by DelBalzo in which she argues "the case against adoption".

Here she lays out her reasoning for her activism:

When people discover that I am against adoption, they often assume that I am adopted. I am not, nor have I lost a child to adoption. In fact, I grew up believing that adoption was perfectly acceptable. When my parents were unable to conceive a second child, my young self even threatened to adopt one so that we could have a baby in the house. By the time I reached high school age, however, I had begun questioning more serious issues and forming deeper opinions. One of my elective classes involved frequent debates, and one particular discussion on the ethics of abortion and the "loving option" of adoption sparked my curiosity. Instinctually, adoption suddenly felt like a tragic loss for both the mother and the child, and I began researching the subject voraciously using the library to obtain relevant books and the internet to connect with people who had personal adoption experiences.

Everything that I learned further inspired my activism, and after graduation I founded Adoption: Legalized Lies, a grassroots organization supporting family preservation and the abolition of adoption. In the past nine years, we have participated in awareness-raising campaigns, art displays, rallies, and letter-writing. We have also assisted numerous families who were struggling to keep their children despite interference from the adoption industry.

Knowing that many people who are politically liberal are also very much for adoption, she makes sure to note that adoption is part of a "1.4 billion dollar industry" (dog-whistle for socialists) and she footnotes the article with references to other articles which back up her claims that adoption hurts the birthmother and child (dog-whistle for liberals who see citations as creating unassailable research).

My insight is that in arguing against the institution of adoption, DelBalzo is doing what the left does to many institutions that are valued by conservative--marriage, family, churches, Catholic education, traditional organizations like the Boy Scouts--they try to destroy the institutions by pointing out that they are not perfect. A conservative would say that marriage in most cases is good for the people in the marriage and good for society. The same for religion, nuclear families, and traditional organizations. Adoption is the same. Sure, there are thousands of people who may be dealing with issues related to being adopted or women who have felt pressured to give up their children to be adopted, but that does not outweigh the good that so many families have given to their adopted children.

I would also make the observation that DelBalzo is being fundamentally untruthful in her interest in fighting against adoption. She argued for abortion in school, people argued against her that adoption was the "loving option," so in order for abortion to be seen as the ultimate good, she needs to tear down adoption. Said differently, adoption threatens abortion; nothing can threaten the ultimate good of abortion; therefore, adoption must go away.

As we see in this example, for a true leftist, those institutions which are not perfect must be destroyed.

The Liberals' Unnuanced Position of Abortion on Demand

I cannot let pass without comment the entirely predictable editorial from the Star Tribune complaining about the bill passed by the North Dakota legislature restricting abortion. The editorial is a recycled complaint that barely warrants response in its tired cliches. I thought it was worthwhile noting that there is a murder trial proceeding in Philadelphia against Dr. Kermit Gosnell--an abortionist who ran a clinic straight out of a horror film with filth and body parts strewn around the clinic. The point Mark Steyn makes is right on target. This murderer operated with the full endorsement of the state. The idea that abortion on demand ridded America of "backstreet abortions" is false, except that the backstreet abortion is now done on Main Street.

Civilization Exhaustion

Arguing for traditional marriage is not a easy task these days. Even people who are in traditional marriages will reply that gay marriage "does not threaten my marriage, so why should I care if gay marriage is legal?" If one brings up the fact that if our society cannot limit marriage by gender, how can it limit it by number or relation or age or species? That reply is scoffed at as ridiculous.

Recently, I've seen a couple of items on the Internet that indicate to me that the idea of limiting marriage by number is already come and gone. Legal recognition of polygamy in the United States is going to happen. Look north when you want to see where we are headed. Here is a poster created for Toronto public schools.

Note the hearts at the top of the poster and bottom of the poster with three people in those hearts. It's funny how quickly the argument that "love has no gender" transforms into "love has no number".

Here is an article linked to by Glenn Reynolds that tells of a Florida judge who ruled that three people be added to the birth certificate of a recently born little girl--both of her moms and the sperm-supplier.

When there are so few people who are so motivated to change thousands of years of social norms, one wonders how they are so successful in their efforts. I think that they push it constantly so it is always a topic of conversation, then they marginalize those who oppose them and a huge number of people just want them to shut up and go away, so they win by default. The supporters of changing the definition of marriage are in it for the long haul, and everyone else is cowed into silence or grudging acceptance. When the majority of citizens can no longer win an argument for traditional marriage, one can only come to the conclusion that our civilization is exhausted. That which is tolerated is soon celebrated and finally written into law.

Top 10 Reasons "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" Is Better Than "The Lord of the Rings" Movies

1. By expanding the story and tying it closely together with The Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson has made a movie for fans of the book (of which, I am one), and I appreciate that.

2. The Hobbit is a shorter book than The Lord of the Rings, so the movie expands the tale rather than contracts it. For those who love the book, they are quite happy with 45 minutes at the beginning of the movie in Bag End.

3. Martin Freeman is a better lead as Bilbo than Elijah Wood was as Frodo (no disrespect to Elijah Wood; it's just true). (It would be interesting to see how Elijah would have played Frodo if the part had come to him when he was middle-aged like Frodo is in The Lord of the Rings.)

4. The characterization of Thorin (an imperfect character throughout the story) is better and more nuanced than LotR characters like Denethor and Faramir.

5. The flashbacks to the destruction of Dale and Erebor and the Battle of Azanulbizar are like little movies hidden within the larger movie. One of the cooler scenes in LotR was the prelude, when we see the Last Alliance and the battle with Sauron when he loses the one ring. Both of these flashbacks fill in history that cannot be recounted in a full-length movie.

6. The character of Bofur is why fans like the movie version. In the book he doesn't say anything, and he is mostly just a name to fill out the company of 13 dwarves. In the movie, Jackson and James Nesbitt have created a wonderful character who can be funny, friendly, and a great warrior.

7. The two dwarf songs are true to the letter of the book and the spirit of the book. I enjoyed them singing about breaking the plates, but even more, liked the way they used the song about finding the lost gold to end the party at Bag End, and prepare us for the coming quest. Very well done.

8. Elrond was kind of a grump in much of LotR. Here is gets to be a little more like Elrond of the book.

9. The movie is just a lot of fun. Some of the jokes miss the mark, but overall, there is a lot of fun in this movie. From the aforementioned Dwarf songs to the fleshing out of the dwarves' characters to the ridiculous Great Goblin, there is a lot of fun in the film.

10. The best parts of the story are still to come!