Eliot Spitzer: A true American hypocrite.

The word hypocrite is thrown about a lot these days. Usually it's applied improperly, and usually it's only applied to Christians and other fallen figures of the political right. Rare is the occasion when we the public have a singularly perfect example of a through-and-through hypocrite, but this day we do, and his name is Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer, in case you didn't know, spent a lot of money on prostitutes. He also spent a lot of money on the people who find and indenture these prostitutes. He also spent a lot money making sure everyone involved kept his identity secret. He lied about his name, he lied to his wife, he lied to the public, and he lied to his three teenage daughters.

To make the grade as a hypocrite, a person needs to be actively duplicitous. He must make sure people think he is against the very sin he is committing, by actively championing a position against the sin while happily and willfully committing it. This is a point that most people forget when they call out what they think is a real example of hypocrisy. The Enron and Worldcom CEO's were thus hypocrites, whereas Dr. Martin Luther King was not. Sure, this makes it very hard to actually call someone a hypocrite, but then again, there aren't really that many anyway.

Enter Eliot Spitzer, who as governor passed into law a bill that cracked down on sex trafficking, which is exactly what we know now the Emperor's Club specializes in. As an attorney, Spitzer crusaded against the very same financial corruption he was in fact concurrently engaging in. In Spitzer's resignation speech, there was preciously little repentance or contrition, but a lot of petulance. Listening to him pathetically speak of 'what could have been', I couldn't really escape the feeling that Spitzer just seemed bummed that he was caught. There was no emotion, just disappointment. The gig was up and it was time to go home.

::postscript:: I think the press picked up on Spitzer's attitude, and as such switched the focus to the prostitute, whose personal life story should make anyone who thinks prostitution should be normalized stop and think.

The Road by Cormac McCarthy

Cormac McCarthy's The Road is being made into a movie. Thankfully for those of us who enjoy McCarthy, the Coen brothers are now where near this one - yes, despite the awards, No Country for Old Men the movie was a pointless, violence driven exercise in the Hollywoodization of two former 'independent' filmmakers.

The wikipedia entry has a long quote from British environmentalist George Monbiot. Monbiot likes the book: "It could be the most important environmental book ever. It is a thought experiment that imagines a world without a biosphere, and shows that everything we value depends on the ecosystem." Hmm.

I believe that once an artist has released his work, he no longer has a hegemony on its interpretation; that's just one of the many beauties of good art. But I think Monbiot, and many others like him, are reading their own beliefs into the novel beyond what is even reasonable by artistic standards. A history lesson: the term 'the road' is a medieval term referring to the pilgrimage to Santiago de la Compostela. It was a penitary pilgrimage, and a very dangerous one (nowadays it doesn't offer pilgrims the same physical risks, but still gives those applicable a plenary indulgence).

I'm just saying.

Pro-choice mentality explained....

... in cartoon!

Why did you leave the Church

Kathy Shaidle has linked to a post on Deacon's Bench about people leaving the Catholic Church. The stimulus is the recent Pew Study that showed that the Catholic Church in America had the highest representation among those who had left the faith of their birth/youth. So what makes people leave? Deacon Greg Kandra, who blogs at Deacon's Bench, says it's other people:

"No, what drives people away is often something far simpler and, in a way, far more sinister.

It's other people.

It's the priest who condescendingly tells a grieving daughter, after her mother's funeral, "Now you can really grow up. You know, we never truly become adults until after our parents die."

It's the deacon who refuses to anoint a baby at a parish baptism because the family arrived late.

It's the pastor who won't take the time to listen to a teenage girl's problems because "it's just hormones."

These are real examples from people I know -- and the people who experienced them walked away from the local parish and, eventually, the Catholic Church. There are many other factors that contribute to religious alienation, I know. But, like the woman at the well in last Sunday's gospel, people are thirsty. What are we giving them to drink?"

I can agree to an extent, though I think the Greg Kandra and Kathy Shaidle are only partially correct. Certainly being offended by other parishioners, priests or other religious can play an influential role in where and how a person worships, but its far from the main cause. Of the people who've left, I imagine very few had what we could call 'serious religiosity', ie a developed relationship with Christ via an active prayer life, the Sacraments and Scripture. I recently had the misfortune to be told by a lay church steward that my confession wouldn't be heard because the priest had to leave early to prepare to say Mass with the bishop. That the fate of my soul could have been at risk never seemed to enter into the mind of this over eager baby-boomer Catholic, whose real interest was in keeping a schedule than helping other people live their faith. But despite this, and I was really pissed off, I didn't leave the Church. I didn't even leave the parish. I prayed about it, got over myself and moved on. According to Kandra however, most people would have:

"From my experience, most alienated Catholics have wandered away not because of dogma or doctrine, or even discipline. They're willing to live with the sometimes difficult teachings of the Church, even the ones with which they don't entirely agree. They're even willing to forgive (after a lot of prayer and teeth-gnashing and soul-searching) the financial and sexual scandals that seize the headlines."

Now there are a tiny minority of cases, such as those involving abuse, that undoubtedly move people away from the Church because of the heinousness of the act. Yet most of the complaints Deacon Greg Kandra lists are ones that we wouldn't quit our jobs over, or make us end friendships, or divorce spouses for. They are in fact a litany of petty gripes from people who were already only tenuously attached to their Catholic faith. I know that sounds harsh, but if you really believe the Catholic Church was founded by Christ and is the only way to know Him, you wouldn't leave even if your priest refused to have a funeral Mass for your Mexican mother because he didn't like ethnic minorities.

In my experience, which I admit is probably much more limited than both Shaidle's and Kandra's, is that people who have left the Church had mentally left long before their bodies did. All of my friends growing up, who were all baptised and confirmed Catholics, left the Church in their teen years because they didn't believe in Catholicism anymore. They left because they didn't agree with the Catholic position on sexual ethics, homosexuality, contraception, divorce and the rest of the usual suspects. For these folks, Catholicism had ceased to be normative, and thus had no personal relevance, so leaving had little to do with their respective interpersonal ecclesial experiences, and everything to do with how the faith was passed on to them.

Who was Tracy Latimer?

We all know who Robert Latimer is, the father who murdered his disabled daughter, but what about his daughter? Now that Latimer is being released from prison before completing his sentence, expect his crime to be discussed, glossed, and ultimately celebrated by our nation's media. Yet here's the telling thing - no one is discussing Tracy. Oh sure, there's a few paltry comments about her condition made whenever her murder is discussed, but we never ever learn anything about who she was. Why is that?

The problem with discussing Tracy, I think, is that by acknowledging her personhood we are forced to re-examine the traditional defence of Latimer. Latimer's defenders will say, and do frequently, that his crime was one of compassion, that his love for his daughter made him kill her. What this defence does is take the focus away from the victim and her inviolable human rights and move it to her father, the beleaguered farmer who just could not help but poison his own disabled daughter. When we look at Robert, we forget about Tracy, and we forget about the crime.

I shouldn't have to repeat this, but murder is murder all the time. Robert Latimer was not in 1993 an expert on cerebral palsy, nor is he now. He had no peculiar insight into the life of a person living with palsy anymore than I have insight into the life of a junky on the street. I wouldn't go suffocating herion-addicted junkies just because I thought they were suffering too much, and if I did I would end in jail for life. Latimer on the other hand decided he could suffocate his own daugther, and he's out of jail on parole. If Canadians think we can live in a peaceful and healthy society with such blatant contradictions, then they're going to be in for a very unpleasant surprise. Leben unwertes leben isn't just a 30's thing.

Vocations: 20 Best & Worst Dioceses in the USA

Catholic World Report has released its annual list of the 20 best and 20 worst dioceses in the United States for vocations. The grading is based upon the ratio between seminarians to lay Catholics in all 176 dioceses in the country.

The top 20: Lincoln, Juneau, Tulsa, Rapid City, Cheyenne, Duluth, Peoria, Denver, Wichita, Lexington, Tyler, Bismarck, Fargo, Nashville, Spokane, Pensacola-Tallahassee, Memphis, Mobile, Yakima, and Sioux City.

The bottom 20: San Diego, Honolulu, Metuchen, Las Vegas, Laredo, Los Angeles, New York, Hartford, El Paso, Rochester, Santa Rosa, San Antonio, Galveston-Houston, Rockville Centre, Boston, Syracuse, Detroit, San Bernardino, Reno, and Monterey.

There's a couple of things I've noticed about the study. One, it fails to take into account the massive number of Catholics in dioceses like New York, Boston and Los Angeles, three major immigration centres that will always have an extraordinarily high number of lay Catholics, but a lower number of vocationally religious Catholics. Two, the authors of the report admit that due to the volatility of seminarian life, ie being moved to different dioceses every six to twelve months, it is possible that the results could be wildly inaccurate. Take for example the two dioceses the report singles out: "The Diocese of Shreveport, for example, surged from 176th to 61st in the rankings between 2003 and 2006, while the Diocese of Lubbock declined from 9th to 121st." I haven't read through all of the report, and I'm no statistician, but I think there might be a problem with methodology as it doesn't appear that all factors, particularly those that would skew results, were taken into account.

That all said, it shouldn't be a surprise that certain cities are doing very well and others are, well, failing miserably. Even with its size, the diocese of Los Angeles, which is the largest diocese in the United States, should have a better ratio. But then most Catholics who are concerned with vocations probably already have a few ideas as to why Los Angeles isn't attracting many men to the cloth. Same with Boston, which may never recover from being the epicentre of the sexual-abuse crisis. New York probably will do better once Cardinal Egan is gone, who seems more interested in keeping his head down that following the path carved out by the great John Cardinal O'Connor. And it shouldn't surprise anyone that Spokane and Denver, with the ecclesial leadership those dioceses enjoy, are among the best in the country.

On the decriminalization of prostitution....

Lurking in the shadows since 2006, the prostitution debate is back. From what I've seen, the argument for decriminalization has yet to really change in the past two years: Legalize prostitution to protect women. Proponents generally argue that prostitution, when no longer a criminal act, can in fact benefit women financially, and that just as long as it is made safe and secure, the net result is positive for society as a whole.

There are several problems with this argument that I should first address. For starters, how to make prostitution 'safe and secure' is notoriously unclear, as there is no fool proof way to prevent the spread of STI's and guarantee the safety of the prostitute. Second, the number of 'successful' prostitutes is infinitesimal to the amount of 'unsuccessful' prostitutes, even in countries like Germany and the Netherlands that have decriminalization. Third, the creation of First World prostitution zones provides a legitimate outlet for human traffickers worldwide. There's a lot more to be said, but I'd like draw attention to the one person who isn't discussed: The john.

Pro-decriminalization folks virtually always speak of the woman, though rarely the john. It's assumed that via decriminalization john's will simply become 'better customers', more responsible, more clean, more discriminating. And that's the extent of it; the rest of the discussion is of the female 'sex worker'. So what of the john? It seems that proponents realize that discussing the john is to draw the debate away from its strengths and toward its fundamental weaknesses. The john represents the failure of an adult man. He pays for something he should, in a sense, earn through courtship, maturity, love and commitment. His 'yes' to paying for sex is simply another moral failure in that man's life. He will take his experience of paying for sex with him wherever he goes - to work, to school, and to home. Now imagine men having easy and quick access to prostitutes. Only the artlessly naive could ignore the clear societal implications of decriminalization.

On the passing of Uncle Fidel...

Leftists, Communists and other douchebags are together in mourning today. It was announced just 24 hours ago that long serving dictator, party leader, ruthless murderer, imprisoner of innocents, sterilizer of dissidents, president of Cuba Fidel Castro was formally handing over control to his younger brother, Raul.

The CBC and CTV have wasted no time eulogized Castro's legacy. In sort of man bites dog sentimentality, both stations waxed nostalgic on the halycon days of Fidel's early Cuba, his continued defiance of the USA and common sense. CTV even ran the lede 'Castro, the man who outlasted nine presidents' in one of their stories. Nevermind that the US is a democracy and no president can serve more than 2 terms, whereas Fidel Castro refused even the smallest iota of actual political and social freedom, no, Fidel really was something special.

I obviously don't feel the same compassion toward Castro that my elders in the media and academia seem to. They say, collectively of course, that he introduced a strong health care system and raised literacy to close to 98% of the population. So it may be, but Castro also systematically murdered his political opponents, persecuted journalists, blacks, dissidents and homosexuals, and almost plunged the world into nuclear war. 1961 was a long time ago, but not that long.

So what portends for Cuba and Raul Castro? Hopefully the introduction of common sense. Cuba's economic stagnancy has to do with Castro's many failed economic plans rather than the US embargo, but the easing of the embargo would undoubtedly help. Democracy would reconcile the many Cuban expats, thus stopping the brain drain that has seen so many of Cuba's best and brightest flee the country for the muggy climes of Miami. To do these things would make sense for Raul, but then again, communists are not famous for the successes of their political and economic decision making. We'll just have to wait and see how much of a 'Fidel' Raul really is.

No Steven Speilberg? Then get me his Mexican equivalent!

... so said Mr. Burns, and so say the organizers of the 2008 Olympic Summer Games. Spielberg, alas, did not drop out in protest of the many human rights violations committed by the PRC on a daily basis, rather because of the PRC's lack of action on the crisis in Darfur.

So it's noble, and should be applauded, but strangely removed the issue at hand: The People's Republic of China is the single most abusive state outside of Africa and the Middle East. It's obvious to anyone but a few idiots that the Olympics are an economic event, not a sporting one. Hence Moscow 1980 and Toronto 2008 that never was.

A few facts about China:

- In preparation for the Olympics, the Chinese government has been forcefully evicting people from their traditional homes, and displacing them into hastily constructed shanty-towns away from the international gaze.
- China is currently the world's leading producer of green house gasses, general air pollution, has 16 of the world's 20 most pollutant rivers, and promotes illegal deforestation in South East Russa.
- China enforces a one child per couple policy, enforces punitive measures against those who break this policy, such as jail and the removal of the excess children.
- The one child policy has lead to 25 million more Chinese males than females, since male Chinese workers make more than female Chinese workers.
- As a result of China's one child policy, the country faces a demographic crisis of such magnitude that it will likely erase all of China's ecomonic gains in the next half century.
- And finally, China is a Communist country.

If you can't resist the Olympics, then simply do your part by peeing on a PRC flag this October 1st.

Obama v. HRC

Obama is rolling and HRC is blowing steam. McCain has the nod from Romney, and it's only a matter of time before Huckabee negotiates the Veep for his social covservative shore up. This means the real story is no longer the lack of a decent Republican candidate (let's be honest, McCain is the candidate Republicans deserve, and he really isn't that bad) but the looming tete a tete between Obama and Clinton.

If Obama wins even one of the next major primaries, Wisconsin, Texas or Ohio, he will have an almost insurmountable lead. If Clinton wins all three, both her and Obama will be completely neck and neck. So what the DNC wants to make sure, no matter how the campaigns play out, is that a credentials debate does not occur. Credentials are arguably the Demcrats weakest link this election, with McCain having more political experience in sheer years than both Clinton and Obama combined. Even with Obama's ability to increase voter turnout, all his positives could be for naught if he can't explain to Democrats themselves why they should elect an unknown quantity over an established party leader.

Hello reality!

Remember to support Maclean's, Ezra Levant & Mark Steyn....

I haven't posted on the HR complaints against Maclean's, Levant and Steyn because I don't need to; read the sources yourself.

I will comment that I hope this is an issue Canadians of all political persuasions can agree is of the utmost importance. If we lose our freedom of speech, press and expression, we have effectively gifted the state a tyrannical amount of control. And we should remember that the reason why we have these freedoms enshrined in our society and in our constituions because we know that for a real, liberal democracy to exist, the state needs to be restrained.

Congratulations to Liberal MP Keith Martin, of Victoria no less, for recognizing the issue and acting on it. Keith, you're making the Conservatives look bad to their own party support - good politics!

Little Mosque on the Prairie...

... sucks.

Little House on the Praire was a good show if you liked mulleted pilgrims and sacchrine family moments. Little Mosque is a good show if you like living in a dream world where Muslim immigrants to Canada don't hate gays, women, Christians, Jews, and want to impose Sharia.

I admit that I've only watched a few episodes, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I have however in my short life watched many hours of sitcom television of varying degrees of quality, so I think I can tell when a show is funny and original, or just plain original. Little Mosque excels on the originality - Muslims living like secularized lefty Christians - but fails horribly at the comedy. Jokes about reactionary Anglican priests (they exist?), reactionary town conservatives (they exisit?) and uber-liberal Mohammedeans (they exist?) can be funny I'm sure, but Little Mosque instead borrows it's comedy from all the boring sitcoms you forgot existed, like The Golden Palace and Flying High. I don't really understand what makes a couple hundred thousand Canadians watch Little Mosque, other than the unrequited boredom that has apparently taken over their lives.

:post script: Can someone explain to me how the cast of a show that presents Muslims as fully sercularized Canadians can lead a panel on diversity?

February: A bad time to be a Liberal/Progressive Christian

Two reasons not to be a liberal Christian:

(1) Archbishop Rowan Williams, head of the Anglican Church, 'explores' the inevitability of Sharia law in Britain. Somehow, Williams missed the fact that Anglicans in Nigeria are currently being persecuted under Sharia law, or maybe Williams knew but just didn't care. One hopes it's the former, but I can't help but think, with the behaviour of certain Anglican leaders in mind, that it could just be the former.

(2) Catholics in the Netherlands have decided to start calling Lent, 'Christian Ramadan'. Yea, that makes as much sense, both practically and theologically, as Dutch Bishop Tiny Mueskens wanting to call God 'Allah', to foster better relations between Christians and Mohammedeans. I feel for the 400,000 Dutch Catholics who actually still attend Mass on a weekly basis, but who must becoming inured to the outright stupidity of their ecclesial leaders.

I guess the positive side of the decay of liberal Christianity is it that it will eventually lead to Christian reunification. On the negative side... well, there's just too much to mention.

Giving up nothing...

... and wanting everything. It's a very popular way of approaching life in 21st Century Canada, if the article found here is anything to go by.

Other bloggers have associated this trend with our laxidaisical approach to other serious questions of adulthood, like abortion, birth control and drug use. I think there is a connection. You cannot expect people to accept the responsibility of, say, a mortgaged home with no equity, if you are telling them at the same time they can opt out of pregnancy and marriage if they think it is too difficult. We've been telling our teenagers for years that some decisions, which they themselves know are serious, aren't serious and generally consequence free. Should anyone be surprised that these teens, now grown adults, apply this logic to foreclosure?

Cult of Obama?

Obamania is heating up, and the First Things' blog takes notice. Stephen Webb illustrates some startiling similarities between Obama's followers, and the usual characteristics of cultists.

I'm generally quite critical of Obama supporters, and as much as I don't want to admit, there is a fanatical quality that most smitten Barry O supporters exhibit. In conversations, I've mentioned his lack of political record only to be told that there 'isn't a resume for being president'. I've asked Obamites how he will overcome his lack of experience, to hear that it's the advisors that shape a presidency, not the president. And lastly, I've quizzed them about his murky notion of new politics, as compared to his announced policy objectives, all of which simply tow the Democratic Party line, rather than call for an innovative, bipartisan, consensus based approach - to be told that these are indeed the new way.

The reluctance, better yet, refusal to address a question in an honestic and objective way usually belies an irrational attachment. Sure, within politics there's always going to be a bit of obtuseness coming from politicians and their followers, but it's usually only ever a case of a tiny minority. With Obamaniacs (zing!) it's different - everyone displays this same fanatical and illogical attachment. To be fair, there are lots of folks who think Obama is a better Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton, and support his policies. But they're not the ones you run into on a day to day basis; you're much more likely to hear about his 'symbolic importance' and his 'new politics' and get a black eye for any unasked for inquiries.

Movies of 2007....

... that I saw and you shouldn't see. No matter what.

In first place is the 'film' 28 Months Later. It's a zombie flick, so it at least has the undead eating the living, but that's about all it has going for it. It tries for poignancy by tying in the zombie outbreak to the USA's foreign policy in the Middle East. Now that I think of it that's exactly what the movie was about - Americans making the simple and the violent crazy - and that alone is a pretty offensive statement about the folks who live there (MUSLIMS). In the end no one really cared though because the movie was crap. Don't see it.

In a close second is Factory Girl. I don't like post-modern art, the hedonistic lifestyle of artistic circles, or Guy Pearce, so my mind was pretty much made up before I saw it. Still, I'm rather impressionable and gave it a chance. Worst way to spend 2 hours. What did I learn? The 60's was full of people on drugs screwing other people on drugs, and a bunch of pervs watching said screwing go down. Apparently, the art world of then wasn't any different. Woohoo.


In a strong third is Balls of Fury. When a movie is named about a particularly horrid case of what the post-pubescent call 'blue balls', there is a limit as to how good it can actually be. All of my worst expectations were met and in some cases exceeded. Christopher Walken how you have fallen.

American races...

... are always more interesting than Canadian races. Political races!

Even though the 2008 presidential campaign has been going on for over a year now, it's hard not to be fascinated by it. Maybe it's my background in political science, or maybe it's just because this is one of the more complex campaigns we've seen in some time. Take for example the Republican side. There you have four plausible candidates battling it out for what is almost definitely a defensive action, with victory little more than a wishful thought. Then you have the Democrats. Oh, the Dems. You'd think with the backing of the media and the popular appeal of their anti-war, anti-Bush platforms, they would be doing more. But they aren't, and I have a few thoughts on why that is.

That this is a historical race is a understatement - it is the first race in which race and sex have become the primary selling points for two of the Democrat's major three candidates. Barack Obama, as nice and charismatic as he seems, is there because he's black. He has little political experience, no executive experience, but virtually all the media doting. Hilary has a bit more actual political experience - her claims of co-presidency are alarming, if not borderline insane. Imagine if a police officer's wife ran for chief because her husband had been chief before. Again, here Hilary's main selling point is her sex - make history by electing a woman.

Both of these candidates put impressionable voters into a precarious position because of their implicit emphasis on their being the firsts of their kind. Though it is painful to admit, many people will vote for Hilary or Barack because of their 'minority' appeal, rather than their credentials.

Declan Micah John...

... this is your very first blog post.

My wife and I have finally welcomed out little son into this world, Declan Micah John. We had originally thought of the name Augustine if it were to be a boy, but after we held and beheld him, we knew it wasn't the right fit. He actually didn't have a name until well into his first day, and it was my wife that came up with the name. The second names were chosen by our parents: Micah because of the Old Testament prophet, and John because it is the confirmation name my father and I share.

Coming out the hospital is a real shock. They tell you this in pre-natal class quite a bit, but it doesn't really sink in until it's 3am, you and your baby haven't slept for ages and you just can't get him to latch properly. Nevertheless, even with all the concern and frustration we've felt as new parents, our son is easily the most wondrous thing I have ever seen. The immediate love we felt for him was, well, completely out of this world. I think we both began to understand the love God has for us, fractionally of course, when little Declan came into our lives.

Merry Christmas!

Adeste Fideles!

Thank You God for the blessing of Declan!

A short update:

I haven't been able to post for over a month... but for a good reason. My wife and I are mentally, spiritually, emotionally and physically preparing for the arrival of our first baby, and for that reason(s) alone, I just haven't found the time to motivate myself for an extended period of blogging. Ah well, I'm sure it will pick up soon.

Nevertheless, I thought anyone who passes by this blog should know that the ecumencial council that discusses the rehabilitation of the Latin and Orthodox Churches has agreed on the primacy of the papacy. That's pretty big news, since the primacy of the Petrine Office has always been the main source of dispute between the two Churches.

Sadly, there is still so much to do. The Eastern Orthodox Churches themselves are separated from one another, and then there is the whole matter of reincorporating theologically and canonically the entire group of Orthodox Churches. And not to be outdone, there is also the matter of the Orthodox laity accepting the reunion, which will take some time.

But still, it's a wonderful bit of news.