6 www.DecentFilms.com What films are appropriate for Catholics to watch? Find out here! A faith-filled perspective the is neither scrupulous nor laxist!
7 www.CanonLaw.info This is the blog of the best canon lawyer making his services available online. Not to be missed!
8 Third Millennium Perspectives Mark Brumley's personal blog. Find out what's on the mind of one of the best apologists today.
9 The Catholic Message Board Steve Ray's message board is a major forum for Catholics to exchange views, ask questions, and find out more about their faith.
A couple of years ago I read a book by the founder of Stratfor (Strategic Forecasting, Inc.--a private intelligence analysis firm) that analyzed the War on Terror and that was, in points, quite critical of the Bush administration and its handling of the war.
I was thus interested to read Tigerhawk (via Instapundit) quoting the following passage from a subscribers-only Stratfor piece. I wasn't so interested in the Bush stuff, but the part in blue would be really, really nice if Stratfor is right:
Many see Bush as constrained by his lame duck status, his unpopularity and a Democratic majority in Congress. Stratfor disagrees. We see these factors as empowering the White House.
Bush is not running for reelection, so he need not cater to the polls. He has no clear successor to support, so he need not spare the lash for fear of harming an ally. A Democratic Congress combined with a general election in November means that all of his initiatives are dead on arrival on the House and Senate floor, so he need not even spare a glance in the direction of domestic policy.
All the pieces are in place for a no-holds-barred executive with very few institutional restrictions on his ability to act. Foreign affairs require neither popular support nor Congressional approval.
The president’s primary goal in 2008 is simple: reaching an arrangement with Iran. Ideally, this would be a mutually agreed upon deal that splits influence in Iraq, but we have already moved past the point where that is critical. Al Qaeda, the reason for being involved in the region in the first place, is essentially dead. The various Sunni Arab powers that made al Qaeda possible have lined up behind Washington. Iran and the United States may still wish to quibble over details, but the strategic picture is clearing: a U.S.-led coalition is going to shape the Middle East, and it is up to Iran whether it wants to play the role of that coalition’s spear or its target. And the Bush administration has the full power of the United States — and one long year — to drive that point home.
"I doubt if anyone of any tenderness or
imagination can see the hand of a child and not be a little frightened of it.
It is awful to think of the essential human energy moving so tiny a thing; it
is like imagining that human nature could live in the wing of a butterfly or the
leaf of a tree. When we look upon lives so human and yet so small. . . we feel
the same kind of obligation to these creatures that [God] might feel. . ."
from Chesterton's essay In Defense of Baby Worship
from The Defendant 1903.
Guard, too, against seeing THIS very much as a defeat of the status quo
- we are still looking for differences between the several "men in
frock coats" (as Chesterton called them) with whom we have been
presented. There is still plenty of time, too, for these fresh faces to
be corrupted by the Will-to-Power brokers inside the beltway. That is a
gauntlet I wouldn't want to run. Pray for these people... they will be
tested and tempted in every way imaginable.
Interesting, to me, how the press are in a tizzy to put this all
behind as fast as possible and focus on New Hampshire. Interesting,
also, how the GOP is reported to be in confusion and disarray as a
result of the Iowa primary, but everything in Democrat land is - one
would think - just hunky-dorey.
I'm looking for stories of Hillary's amazing comeback starting as early as next week.
Before this next post, I just want to say - in reply to some inquiries - that I believe Jimmy is just fine. He has had some projects in the works and has found blog time harder to squeeze in, but he has not dropped into a wormhole, as far as I know. It isn't even like we talk every week, but I'm pretty sure that if he had been eaten by a rhinoceros in broad daylight, I would know by now. Everything's cool.
...just as one of the perks of casual sex is that it gives you the
chance to try some of these nifty new herpes treatments (they look so
cool on the commercials - yeah, we're livin' the herpes lifestyle).
In addition, one of the most exciting things about driving is the
possibility that you'll get to find out first-hand what an air-bag
deployment is really like, instead of watching it on Mythbusters. I
haven't experienced it yet, but every day brings new possibilities.
Really... you can't make this stuff up. The headline quote
is genuine, and reflects the extent to which the secular world is
willing to tie itself into pretzels to deny that natural law exists.
One thing I think you will see play out in gay divorce court is that
one partner (probably the biological parent, if there is one) will
argue that gay marriage is legally invalid.
Hello, again. Tim Jones, here, with this heartwarming Christmas story from my blog, Old World Swine -
I actually began to tear-up a little at THIS STORY, sent by my sweet wifey.
According to the article, religious leaders of all different stripes
in the U.K. are coming to the defense of Christmas and the right to
celebrate it publicly without, ya know, being accused of Gross
Religious Bigotry and Insensitivity, or something;
Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims joined
Britain's equality watchdog Monday in urging Britons to enjoy
Christmas without worrying about offending non-Christians.
"It's time to stop being daft about Christmas. It's fine to
celebrate and it's fine for Christ to be star of the show,"
said Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights
Commission.
More eye-moistening excerpts;
"Hindus celebrate Christmas too. It's a great holiday for
everyone living in Britain," said Anil Bhanot, general
secretary of the UK Hindu Council.
Sikh spokesman Indarjit Singh said: "Every year I am asked
'Do I object to the celebration of Christmas?' It's an absurd
question. As ever, my family and I will send out our Christmas
cards to our Christian friends and others."
Muslim Council of Britain spokesman Shayk Ibrahim Mogra
said "To suggest celebrating Christmas and having decorations
offends Muslims is absurd. Why can't we have more nativity
scenes in Britain?"
See,
the careful planning of the social engineers will always be undermined
by such common sense from common people. They are saying to the
hyper-sensitive PC enforcers what Jed Clampett once said to Jethro -
"Stop helpin' me, boy.".
Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and everyone else of genuine good will will
not be offended at my public displays of faith for the same reason that
I won't be offended by theirs... because we are not jerks. People who
are offended at the mere sight of perfectly ordinary
religious symbols or behaviors are the ones who have a problem with
intolerance and bigotry. They are jerks, they are rude and they
are the ones trying hardest to shove their beliefs down the throats of
others. This is just becoming more and more evident as these bitter,
carping, politically correct foot soldiers endeavor to push any display
of religious faith further and further out of public view. The
intention and unavoidable result of this kind of thinking is to
eventually confine all religious behavior strictly to the private
thoughts of the individual. Ironically, it can only end in forced
education (or "de-programming"), book-burning and the like. Tyranny in
the name of "tolerance".
A hearty "Thank you!" and Merry Christmas to all those U.K.
religious leaders who had the spine to stand up and tell the
anti-religion busybodies to take a flying leap.
I heard about this new stem cell research yesterday on NPR, which broadcast a brief debate on the subject between Sean Tipton, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical
Research, and Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of Pro-Life
Activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Basically, Dr. Doerflinger takes this advance as Great News in that soon there may be no scientific (let alone moral) justification to continue controversial research on human embryonic stem cells, whereas Dr. Tipton thinks such research should continue - just in case. He sees stem cell research as a race to the finish line (his analogy) and whatever it takes to get there is fine, even though "some people" have moral problems with it.
It wasn't so much his point of view that puzzled me (after all, you can't expect someone who doesn't believe in moral absolutes to behave as if they do*) but the way he defended it; So, why should we continue with controversial research, even in the face of grave moral misgivings? Because "we live in a pluralistic society".
H'okay...
Now, I'm sure Dr. Tipton could give a better, more well-rounded defense than that, if pressed, but tho whole idea (very popular, of late) that a "pluralistic society" must allow scientists to pursue "whatever works" is just freaky. Never mind advanced ethical philosophy, has Dr. Tipton never seen Frankenstein or Them or even The Hideous Sun Demon? Hollywood had this all sussed many decades ago... there are Some Things that Man was Not Meant to Tamper With.
And, the question must be asked; if Moral Pluralism is the standard, the foundational dogma of our modern society, then what is NOT to be allowed, and why? Aren't all ethical frameworks equally - that is subjectively - valid? Why NOT eugenics? Why NOT a genetically modified warrior race? Why NOT chemical and biological weapons?
The natural law would proscribe all these things on the basis that they are offenses against human dignity. Pluralism might find them all wrong now (because most people find them morally repugnant, even if they can't say why), but there can be no guarantee about the future. If most people - or even if enough of the right people - become okay with it at some point, well, we can expect these kinds of examples of the New, Improved Dynamic Morality.
"How beautious mankind is! O brave new world: That has such people in't!".
*This touches on a recentmammothcomboxdebate on morality and ethics. There is this idea that one may arrive at a workable moral framework in a number of ways and that there will be little practical difference in the end. But that is not true. Toss out moral absolutes and the divergences in ethical philosophy and practice are profound and immediate.
The heroic efforts of the firemen in San Diego county are much appreciated by local residents. They have done an extraordinary job--and continue to do it--operating in dangerous, windy conditions with little sleep and often only the food and water they can carry on them.
Yet not everyone in history has held such a high opinion of fire departments. I was put in mind of the instructions that the second century emperor Trajan gave to Pliny the Younger about having fire departments.
From the correspondence of Pliny and Trajan:
Pliny to Trajan:
A desolating fire broke out in Nicomedia, and destroyed a number of private houses, and two public buildings -- the almshouse and the temple of Isis -- although a road ran between them. The fire was allowed to spread farther than it need, first owing to the violent wind; second, to the laziness of the citizens, it being generally agreed they stood idly by without moving, and simply watched the conflagration. Besides there was not a single public fire engine or bucket in the place, and not one solitary appliance for mastering a fire. However, these will be provided upon orders I have already given. But, Sire, I would have you consider whether you think a fire company of about 150 men ought not to be formed? I will take care that no one not a genuine fireman shall be admitted, and that the guild should not misapply the charter granted it. Again there would be no trouble in keeping an eye on so small a body.
Trajan to Pliny:
You have formed the idea of a possible fire company at Nicomedia on the model of various others already existing; but remember that the province of Bithynia, and especially city-states like Nicomedia, are the prey of factions. Give them the name we may, and however good be the reasons for organization, such associations will soon degenerate into dangerous secret societies. It is better policy to provide fire apparatus, and to encourage property holders to make use of them, and if need comes, press the crowd which collects into the same service.
I was finally able to get into the San Diego County emergency web site again. (They really do need more bandwidth or server capacity--and they need to give maps as nice, simple gifs instead of 1.7 meg PDFs).
This edition of the map has a grid with numbers on it--which, I believe, are the page numbers for the Thomas Brothers maps, which are ubiquitous in SoCal (or were, before GPS, anyway).
The mystery evacuation spot near Catholic Answers seems to have been a precautionary measure, as there were no fires there. My theory has been that it's an area with poor roadways and they wanted to get it evacuated in advance in case the Harris Fire goes there. Now it's been linked up with the other evacuation zones for the Harris Fire, so that seems to be its purpose.
One of the big problems is the Santa Ana winds that are blowing and spreading the fires.
The winds were expected to let up last night, but they didn't as much as expected.
It's hoped that they will let up later today.
When I woke up this morning I saw there was an evacuation zone near Catholic Answers. I'm not sure what that is at this point, as the map is not showing fire in that area, and they haven't mentioned it on TV.
BTW, I did a brief phone interview with Vatican Radio about the fires yesterday. MP3 here.
The 2003 fires in the San Diego area left much of the county looking like Mordor.
Now, they're saying that this year's fires may be even worse by the time they're done.
To the left is a map of the fire borders as of today (click to enlarge). The red zones are where the fire boundaries are. The purple areas are evacuation zones. The green dot is the approximate location of Catholic Answers.
Some staffers at Catholic Answers have either been evacuated from their homes or are unable to get to work due to road closures (or warnings that they may need to evacuate).
At Catholic Answers the sky is largely gray from smoke, and there is a burnt smell everywhere outside. Parked cars are covered with little bits of ash.
San Diego also needs to up the server capacity of a lot of their emergency web sites that serve up maps like this. Lots of them are slow as snailes or simply time out.
Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has once again given pro-lifers reasons to doubt his commitment to his (relatively) recently-adopted pro-life stance.
In an interview Tuesday he stated that, although he is personally pro-life, he favors letting the states have the right to decide whether to allow abortion, rather than having protection for the unborn established at a federal level.
His campaign workers soon stated that he meant this only as an interim situation and that, consistent with previous statements he has made, he does wish federal protection for the unborn--he just doesn't feel that it's possible soon and so, as an interim measure, he would like to see Roe v. Wade repealed so that states could at least begin to prohibit abortion. Then, when the opinion of the nation has shifted further in the pro-life direction, federal protection for the unborn should be sought.
This is a perfectly sensible position. The logical path for the American pro-life movement is to get rid of Roe v. Wade first, then have a period in which states decide and a national pro-life ethic evolves, followed by federal protection for the unborn.
The problem is that Romney didn't articulate that position in his Tuesday interview. He made it sound like he supported state decisions on this question absolutely.
So was this just a case of pro-life foot-in-mouth disease or was it a case of an individual whose commitment to the pro-life cause is actually shaky and incoherent from one interview to the next?
There's an episode of I, Claudius titled "Some Justice," in which a trial is held in the Senate to bring to justice those responsible for the death of Claudius's brother, Germanicus.
The machinations of Roman politics being what they are . . . er, were . . . in the end only "some justice" is done.
Mr. Freedman said Mr. Nifong, 56, a prosecutor for nearly 29 years, would have never risked his law license and career on hiding DNA evidence that he knew the defense would find.
F. Lane Williamson, chairman of the ethics panel, responded that “there is no rational explanation sometimes” for unethical or illegal behavior. “I don’t know if we’ll ever know,” he said.
Actually, Thomas Sowell doesn't think that Nifong's actions were at all inexplicable. He thinks there is a perfectly clear and logical, if evil, reason for them.
A newly released inspector general report backs eyewitness accounts of suspicious behavior by 13 Middle Eastern men on a Northwest Airlines flight in 2004 and reveals several missteps by government officials, including failure to file an incident report until a month after the matter became public.
An air marshal who told The Times that he has been involved personally in terror probes that were ignored by federal security managers, called such behavior typical.
"Agency management was not only covering up numerous probes and dry-run encounters from Congress and other federal law-enforcement agencies, it was also hiding these incidents from their own flying air marshals," said P. Jeffrey Black, an air marshal stationed in Las Vegas.
"Prior to boarding, one of the air marshals noticed what he later characterized as 'unusual behavior' by about six Middle Eastern males, who arrived at the gate together, then separated, and acted as if they did not know each other," the report said.
According to the report, Flight 327 was "delayed for five minutes because one of the 13 suspicious passengers, who appeared not to understand English and walked with a limp, was seated in the emergency exit row. The flight attendant determined he was unable to operate the emergency procedures and delayed the flight while having him exchange seats."
"On the flight, 13 Middle Eastern men behaved in a suspicious manner that aroused the attention and concern of the flight attendants, passengers, air marshals and pilots," the report said. The men "walked in the aisle, appearing to count passengers," and "several men spent excessive time in the lavatories."
"One man rushed to the front of the plane appearing to head for the cockpit. At the last moment, he veered into the first-class lavatory, remaining in it for about 20 minutes," according to the report. One man carried a McDonald's bag into the lavatory, and "another man, upon returning from the lavatory, reeked strongly of what smelled like toilet bowl chemicals."
"Some men hand signaled each other. The passenger who entered the lavatory with the McDonald's bag made a thumbs-up signal to another man upon returning from the lavatory. Another man made a slashing motion across his throat, appearing to say 'No.' "
As the flight descended into Los Angeles, the report said, "four of the suspicious individuals stood up and made their way to the back of the plane," where "the individuals used the rear lavatory, and one of the men was doing stretching exercises/knee bends by the exit door."
A background check conducted weeks later in the FBI's Automated Case Support (ACS) system revealed that the promoter was involved in a similar probe on Jan. 28, 2004.
The unnamed promoter "was one of eight passengers acting suspiciously aboard Frontier Airlines Flight 577 from Houston through Denver, to San Francisco," the report said.
"Flight attendants reported all eight passengers kept trying to switch seats while boarding and during the flight, made repeated service requests in what the attendants described as an effort to keep the flight crew occupied. One took a cell phone into the front lavatory, remained in the lavatory for over 15 minutes, but did not appear to have the phone when leaving the lavatory," the report said.
The incident followed a series of breaches of airline security in December and January, when the FBI issued a memo warning that suicide terrorists were plotting to hijack trans-Atlantic planes by smuggling "ready-to-build" bomb kits past airport security to be assembled in aircraft bathrooms.
For someone like me, who was interested in both the spiritual and intellectual grounding of the Christian faith, I didn’t need the “folk Mass” with cute nuns and hip priests playing “Kumbaya” with guitars, tambourines and harmonicas. And it was all badly done.
After all, we listened to the Byrds, Neil Young and Bob Dylan, and we knew the Church just couldn’t compete with them.
But that’s what the Church offered to the young people of my day: lousy pop music and a gutted Mass. If they were trying to make Catholicism unattractive to young and inquisitive Catholics, they were succeeding.
What I needed, and what many of us desired, were intelligent and winsome ambassadors for Christ who knew the intellectual basis for the Catholic faith, respected and understood the solemnity and theological truths behind the liturgy, and could explain the renewal movements in light of these.
* * *
You spent 32 years in the evangelical world. What could Catholics learn from evangelicals?
In terms of expository preaching, as well as teaching the laity, Protestant evangelicals are without peers in the Christian world.
For instance, it is not unusual for evangelical churches to host major conferences on theological issues in which leading scholars address lay audiences in order to equip them to share their faith with their neighbors, friends, etc. Works by evangelical philosophers and theologians such as [J.P.] Moreland, [Paul] Copan, and William Lane Craig, should be in the library of any serious Catholic who wants to be equipped to respond to contemporary challenges to the Christian faith.
* * *
Then I read the Council of Trent, which some Protestant friends had suggested I do. What I found was shocking. I found a document that had been nearly universally misrepresented by many Protestants, including some friends.
I do not believe, however, that the misrepresentation is the result of purposeful deception. But rather, it is the result of reading Trent with Protestant assumptions and without a charitable disposition.
For example, Trent talks about the four causes of justification, which correspond somewhat to Aristotle’s four causes. None of these causes is the work of the individual Christian. For, according to Trent, God’s grace does all the work. However, Trent does condemn “faith alone,” but what it means is mere intellectual assent without allowing God’s grace to be manifested in one’s actions and communion with the Church. This is why Trent also condemns justification by works.
I am convinced that the typical “Council of Trent” rant found on anti-Catholic websites is the Protestant equivalent of the secular urban legend that everyone prior to Columbus believed in a flat earth.
Yes, I know Daniel Pipes is a reliable apologist for Israeli policy, and likely biased in his assessments, but I have been surprised myself at the extent of the connections - not just ideological, but historical, political and structural - between the Islamofascists (for want of a better term) of the last half-century and Hitler's Third Reich.
Guys like Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein could trace their political lineage directly to card-carrying Nazis. Fellas like Grand Mufti Mohammad Amin al-Husayniwere their heroes and mentors.
Makes you wonder if Arab countries labeling Israel as the aggressor in the Middle East isn't more brazenly twisted than O.J. Simpson and his search for the "real killers".
It's not uncommon to hear people refer to the Democratic Party as the "Mommy" party and the Republican Party as the "Daddy" party, but Michael Medved has a different way of characterizing the two.
In this column, he contrasts the "Senator" party with the "Governor" party, assigning the former role to the Democrats and the latter to the Republicans.
He bases this on a look at both where their recent presidential nominees have come from (legislative or executive backgrounds) and where their current crops of presidential hopefuls come from.
He also suggest that the tendency of Democrats to nominate senators for president and Republicans to nominate governors has to do with their (or at least their parties' nominating core's) view of government and the proper role of the presidency.
It's an interesting hypothesis.
It's also interesting to contemplate how it matches up with conventional political wisdom that it's easier to get elected president if you're a governor than if you're a senator. One theory proposed to explain this is that governors have less of a paper trail than long-time senators do, meaning it's harder to paint them as politically undesirable based on their past voting record.
But that's just one theory, and there are several other possible ones here.
Whether any of them will help either party in '08 (should either nominate a governor for president) is a whole different matter.
Well, if THIS is any indication of what we are up against in terms of domestic terrorist sleeper cells, I say "keep 'em coming".
Props to the FBI, but these guys can't be the sharpest khanjars in the drawer. They brought a videotape of themselves at Terror Summer Camp (Lake "Wanabommalot") to a local video shop to have it dubbed onto DVD. The manager tipped off the Feds.
The first write-up of the story I saw this morning indicated only that it was six "Yugoslav Nationals". The linked article gets more specific. HINT: They are not disgruntled Christian Homeschoolers.
When was the last time you did something you knew would make you world famous?
The Virginia Tech shooter knew. He understood the importance of a multi-media approach. He sent a package off to NBC with the absolute assurance that within a couple of days his image, his name, his rambling thoughts would be inescapable... a pervasive, 24-7, continuous loop of streaming video. He knew from that day on his exploits would be "up there" with Columbine, Oklahoma City, the Unabomber. There would be books. The pundits would be miked-up and the klieg lights turned on. There would be documentaries about his life... about him... not some rich kid, not a politician or entertainer... but him.
Where's Imus now? Where's Anna Nicole?
When notoriety and stuff are the highest values in a culture, there are those who don't respond well if they happen to feel they have been left out of that picture. If they are mentally unbalanced to begin with, there might be the makings for a perfect storm of vanity, resentment and rage, and no internal mechanism to stop it.
And there will inevitably follow people who feel the need to figure the whole thing out. How did this happen? Why? Who's fault is it? Can't we pass a law, fund a program to prevent this in the future? Let's get started on that.
I saw Dennis Miller last night, talking to Bill O'Reilly, and he had a point of view so similar to my own that the simplest thing is just to link to the video. In short, he is not interested in fixing blame, or in promoting a particular view of the tragedy. He is just - as best he can - trying to "mourn with those who mourn". O'Reilly attempts to pull him into a gun control debate ala Rosie O'Donnell, but Miller gives it a pass. He gives Rosie a pass, and points out, I think with a kind of weary wisdom, that in times like this, people will generally seek shelter in familiar templates. They will cling to whatever grid they happen to see through. They will think aloud and give knee-jerk responses.
In short, Miller was graceful. He was human, and he let everyone else be human, too. He said that, rather than trying to analyze the event for the cameras, about the only thing he felt like doing was shooting hoops with his kids.
The last few days the nation has been shocked by the tragic campus shootings in Virginia, and I thought I would do a post so that people could talk about them--their feelings, their questions, their prayers--whatever it is that they have on their hearts concerning the horror that unfolded earlier this week.
I don't really have a lot to say at this point, myself. The guy who committed the shootings was obviously completely nuts--as his multimedia rant to NBC illustrates--and it's hard to know what to say when someone goes murderously off the deep end. It's just so irrational. The guy was filled with hate and rage--so much so that his ranting to NBC doesn't even give a clear sense of who he was mad at. Maybe he wasn't mad at anyone in particular. Maybe he just had a globalized rage that didn't have a specific focus.
I will have more to say--perhaps tomorrow--but for now it's just appalling that anything like this can happen. I can't understand how someone can get so twisted around that they would want to do something like this. I can only conclude that something went desperately wrong inside him, and I can only pray for his victims and for his own soul.
Just got word that, following a meeting with AMU faculty members who expressed concern about the future of the institution, Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ, was offered a position at AMU.
The new position is not provost but a triple position of theologian-in-residence, being a member of the theology faculty, and also head of the university's abroad program.
Fr. Fessio has accepted.
Interestingly, he is also scheduled to be inducted into the Catholic education hall of fame.
Being that the political and ethical problems with this are smell-able from a couple of furlongs, the only question in my mind is how an idea this grisly and morally tone-deaf could get this far along. Who the heck thought this is a good idea? I'm speaking as someone who's niece underwent a heart transplant yesterday!
"Mary Jo Cagle, chief medical officer of Bon Secours St. Francis Health
System in Greenville, urged senators to find an allowable incentive.
"We have a huge need for organs and bone marrow," Cagle said."
Oh. I see. Well, that makes it okay, then. It's a market-driven thing, I guess. To be fair, the legislative committee that has worked on the proposal is not sold on the idea of an incentive program to encourage inmates to cut their incarceration by donating organs or tissue. They are not even sure it's legal (obviously some outdated legal aberration, like in Hartford, Connecticut, where it's illegal to kiss your wife on Sunday).
In an advanced society such as ours, we understand that it is WRONG to ask an inmate to trade his/her very flesh for a reduced prison sentence (this could give a whole new dimension to the Plea Bargain), or to be so crass as to just write a check for someone's internal organs. We prefer to steal valuable tissue from anonymous, microscopic people. Far fewer entanglements.
A lot of regular JA.O readers may be already aware of this story, as it is all over the blogosphere and has been discussed on Catholic radio. It poses a number of conundrums and ethical snares concerning the proper medical care of disabled people, elective surgery, and other issues.
According to THIS MSNBC ARTICLE, a young girl named Ashley has undergone surgery, hormone treatment and other medical procedures in order to retard her growth - keep her at her present size and weight - so that caring for her will be easier.
In a case fraught with ethical questions, the parents of a severely mentally and physically disabled child have stunted her growth to keep their little “pillow angel” a manageable and more portable size.
The bedridden 9-year-old girl had her uterus and breast tissue removed at a Seattle hospital and received large doses of hormones to halt her growth. She is now 4-foot-5; her parents say she would otherwise probably reach a normal 5-foot-6.
Now, I'm not an expert in anything, so I don't feel the need to do a whole boatload of commentary on this. I think the ethical concerns are obvious enough to anyone. I would like to see some thoughtful combox rumination on this (hopefully with the input of some medical professionals, students and ethicists), while avoiding the immediate consigning of the parents to an especially toasty corner of Hell in a knee-jerk fashion. Keep in mind that there are many parents who struggle with the issues of caring for their disabled children , even as these children become disabled adults. Keep your dog on a leash, is what I'm sayin', and talk about the issues, rather than making personal attacks.
My first response to this story was to think about how many times my wife and I, as we watched our little ones sleeping or doing something especially endearing, wished out loud (mostly kidding) that we could "put a brick on their head" and keep them that age forever. Just stop time and keep our babies forever. It's an impulse I'm sure we share with a lot of parents.
But that is not what kids are made for. Certainly MY OWN kids would be easier to care for if we had somehow halted their growth. Alzheimer's patients would be less worrisome if we surgically made them all paraplegics. They could not wander off and become a danger to themselves and others, that way.
Another thought (and this is complete speculation) that occurred to me was the possibility that the parents, subconsciously, may fear that caring for their child will be more challenging as she grows, not because she will no longer be small and light, but because she will no longer be cute, cuddly and sympathetic. There can be a certain tenderness, sweetness and even playfulness in changing a baby's diaper. The experience of changing the diaper of a fully-grown adult is rather short on rewards, unless one possesses a particularly mature and compassionate spirituality. I am not saying this is the case with Ashley's parents, but the thought does occur that perhaps the greatest issues may be emotional and mental, rather than physical.
I've blogged previously about how--not matter how good a guy he may be personally--Mitt Romney is not electable to the presidency because--even if he is faced with someone like Hillary Clinton--a large enough percentage of the Christian vote (and specifically the Evangelical vote) will simply stay home rather than vote for a Mormon--the efforst of EvangelicalsForMitt notwithstanding.
There were a number of Evangelical supporters of Romney at GodBlogCon, and the topic of his electability came up in panel discussion moderated by Hugh Hewitt. Panelist John Mark Reynolds (who is a really nice guy, BTW, and who spoke admiringly of "John Paul the Great" and "Benedict" and the leadership they have shown in building the culture of life) spoke in favor of Romney, and a blogger in the audience asked how many present would refuse to vote for Romney simply because he is a Mormon--expecting a very small number of hands to go up.
More went up than he seemed to be expecting.
It wasn't a majority of those in the audience, but (a) it doesn't have to be a majority, just enough to lose a crucial fraction of the vote in a nation that has been having closely-divided presidential elections of late and (b) these were the people who (1) knew enough about what Mormons believe and (2) had thought through the issue enough to have an opinion already and (3) were willing to announce their opposition in public and potentially be labeled bigots and (4) were willing to defy prominent bloggers who had just been speaking in favor of Mitt and why Christians should be willing to vote for him.
Among those who raised their hands was another panelist: La Shawn Barber.
Which brings up the fact that, should Mitt get nominated, some opinion leaders in the Evangelical world will be refusing to support him, and some will be speaking out against him.
Like it or not, there is enough opposition to Mormonism in the Christian community to cost him the fraction of the vote needed to win.
But he's not the only much-talked-about candidate in that condition.
There's also Rudy Guiliani.
Joe Carter--another GodBlogCon speaker--recently wrote an ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATING indictment of Guiliani's potential candidacy and why he also is simply unelectable.
He concludes the idictment by saying:
The real question is not whether Rudy can win Republican nomination but rather why anyone takes his candidacy seriously. It’s understandable when Democrats swoon over some completely unqualified candidate (once again, see: Barack Obama). Republicans, though, are expected to be a bit more coolly rational than the emotion-based community. Yes, its true that Rudy was a star on 9/11 and he deserves the highest praise for his leadership in a time of crisis. Yet keep in mind that George Bush was also considered to have done a stellar job during that particularly trying time in our nation’s history. When a sense of normalcy returned, though, the shine wore off the President. The same will happen with Giuliani long before he wins the GOP nomination.
Fox plans to broadcast an interview with O.J. Simpson in which the former football star discusses "how he would have committed" the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend, for which he was acquitted, the network said.
"O.J. Simpson, in his own words, tells for the first time how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible for the crimes," the network said in a statement. "In the two-part event, Simpson describes how he would have carried out the murders he has vehemently denied committing for over a decade."
The interview will air days before Simpson's new book, "If I Did It," goes on sale Nov. 30. The book, published by Regan, "hypothetically describes how the murders would have been committed."
So O.J. Simpson has a book coming out in which he talks about how he would have killed his wife and her friend "If I did it." Note the tense: "If I did it," suggesting that he might have, not "If I had done it," suggesting that he didn't.
This is simply unimaginable.
What kind of man whose wife was brutally murdered and who didn't kill her writes a book to cash-in on her death by describing how he would have killed her--if he was the one who committed the crime?
No faithful husband who wants to honor the memory of his late wife does anything remotely like that. You couldn't pay a husband who loved his wife enough money to do that kind of monstrous thing. A genuinely bereaved husband--no matter how much time had passed--would throw a publisher's money back in his face and then denounce the publisher in public for even making the offer.
Even someone who was not a loving husband wouldn't do that. Only a monster would do that kind of thing.
This is sick and disgusting.
A fair-minded observe would look at this and say that it smells like O.J. Simpson is taunting the public with how he got away with murder.
Which makes my mind wonder if there is a legal way he could be criminally prosecuted again, double-jeopardy laws notwithstanding. GET THE STORY.
That's Mr. Ahmadinejad on the right. The question is: Is it also him on the left?
The man on the left is reported to be one of the Iranian hostage takers from 1979-1981, and it has long been rumored that Mr. Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage takers.
He has denied this. Understandably. It would severely inflame the U.S. public against him if it were confirmed that we were dealing with one of the people who took our diplomats hostage twenty-eight years ago. It would significantly strengthen the national will to go knock over his regime.
Now the Russian press has unearthed the photo on the left, which bears a striking resemblance to Ahmadinejad.
As curious as I am to know whether Ahmadinejad is one of the hostage takers, I have questions about the picture. Specifically:
1) What is its provenance? How did the press get it? Was it published at the time it was taken? Can we look at hardcopies of it that date from that era? How do we know it's not a fake? Apropos of that . . .
2) What can Photoshoppers determine about this? Has Ahmadinejad's face been pasted onto the body of a hostage-taker? Does the angle of his face match up with the angle of his head? Ahmadinejad would have been 23 in 1979. Does the gun-toter on the left look 23? If he did have bags around his eyes like that back then, why doesn't he look a whole lot worse today?
3) If the picture isn't fake, what can be determined by biometrics about whether he's the same guy as Ahmadinejad?
4) If the picture is fake, who faked it, and what game are they playing?
Over at TruthLaidBear, N.Z. Bear has developed an election tracker that nicely consolidates the info that most folks will be concerned with nationally in the election results: Which parties will control which houses.
I'd much rather check this thing periodically than wait for the behemoth MSM networks to get the chattering nabobs of nothingism to shut up long enough to give us actual data. USE THE TOOL. (CHT: Instapundit.)
Turns out it wasn't over a Dem/Repub thing, though. The guy didn't want to fill in his ballot on the judicial races since he didn't know enough about the judges and the poll worker told him he had to or he couldn't vote. Things got worse from there.
It raises a question, though, that I wondered about myself: Do you actually have to fill in those things? You shouldn't have to, but . . .
I voted early by absentee ballot, and I found myself not wanting to leave those blank since I had no idea what the judicial philosophy was of the judges. On the other hand, I thought California might have a crazy rule that would disqualify my ballot if I didn't vote one way or the other, so--figuring California judges will be a bunch of kooks as a rule--I voted against all of them.
I'd still like to know about the mandatoriness of whether you have to vote in each race, though.
Catholic Answers produces the Voters Guide for Serious Catholics (and the Voters Guide for Serious Christians), both of which focus on the moral principles that need to be brought to bear in voting.
There is another kind of voters guide, though: One that documents the positions or voting records of candidates.
I've had some requests for where folks can find guides of that kind, but I haven't had good resources to point them to.
This morning, though, I got an e-mailing from Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, and I thought folks might be interested in what he had to say, so here goes:
I have communicated with you and many others regarding tomorrow’s elections. You may also be among those who have been working hard to mobilize voters. Now, the moment has come for the voters to do their job.
If your state has early voting, and allows you to vote today, please do so. For information, please visit www.priestsforlife.org/states/early-voting.htm. Take advantage of the opportunity to cast your vote today rather than tomorrow, so that unforeseen obstacles don’t prevent you.
The big question, of course, is “How do I find information about the candidates?” We have set up a web page, www.priestsforlife.org/candidates, to assist you.
You can find candidate information in several places, such as newspapers, television news, voter guides, and on the internet. You may also run into people on the street handing out candidate literature. Don’t refuse them, but take and read what is being offered to you.
If these sources fail, you can always contact the candidate's campaign to make an inquiry about his or her position.
Frequently politicians make statements like, "I have always been personally pro-life," or, "I would never encourage a woman to have an abortion." Rather than offering comfort to pro-life voters, statements like these should raise red flags, as they are typically followed by, "but I would never impose my personal beliefs on anybody else," or some similar statement.
Even in cases in which these words do not follow, they are often implied. In such cases, be sure to look for a clearer statement of the candidate's position, again, in writing if possible. Moreover, don’t only ask what the candidate believes. Ask what he or she intends to do to protect the unborn.
You should also look at a candidate's voting record. This is extremely easy with members of Congress as you can simply contact any one of a number of national organizations, like National Right to Life, that track votes as part of their regular activity. They will be able to inform you how your Congressman and Senator voted on the bills that have come before them. You can often obtain similar information about state candidates from pro-life organizations within your state.
Finally, remember that elections not only put candidates into power, but they put parties into power, too. In voting for a candidate, you should know the positions of the candidate and also the positions of the party to which he/she belongs.
Some organizations have provided specific voter guides, and we have placed links to many of those at www.priestsforlife.org/candidates.
If you have further questions about how you should evaluate candidates, please contact our office at (888) 735-3448.
Along with candidates, there are also important measures on the ballots in various states.
I know that you reach a huge number of people through your blog. Could you remind your readers to do all that they can for the cause of life in Tuesday's election by remembering to:
1) Pray (a lot!)
2) Fast (from something, anything, as much as possible)
3) Remind family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers to vote pro-life
4) Vote (as difficult as it may be in this world of negative campaigning)!
I believe that this is the most crucial election ever for pro-life issues; let's keep the pendulum swinging in the correct direction.
Michael J. Fox, who really rocked as Marty McFly of the Back to the Future films (as creepy as some elements of them were--particularly the first) has recently issued an advertisement supporting chopping up embryonic humans to harvest their stem-cells so that a cure might possibly be found for debilitating diseases such as Parkinson's Disease, from which Mr. Fox suffers (as the stalwart defender-of-life John Paul II did).
Yes, despite current talk of the Global War on Terror being a breeding ground for new bin Ladens, the organization's leadership sees it as weak and beset by problems. A document recently released by CENTCOM explores some of the problems. The document was discovered in a safe house in Iraq used by ex-terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Like the letter to him from Ayman al-Zawahiri that was discovered a while back (you know, the one begging Zarqawi to send a donation since the senior leadership of the organization was short on cash), the newly-released document passes on advice from senior management to Zarqawi in the form of politely phrased criticism.
Now that he's been shuffled off this mortal coil with extreme prejudice, Zarqawi is no longer able to heed that advice, of course, but what makes the letter fascinating is what it reveals about the weakened, damanged state of al-Qa'eda.
It also seems to indicate that the senior leadership of the organization is, or at least was, in Waziristan, just as many have suspected.
The document reveals a view of American and coalition forces that is quite heartening: "the enemy isn’t easy, for he is great and numerous and he can take quite a bit of punishment as well." And it indicates that the boys in Waziristan are themselves " occupied with vicious enemies" and that "all the mujahidin are still weak" and that they "have not yet reached a level of stability" after our attacks.
YEE-HAW!
Hit 'em again! Harder! Harder!
GET THE STORY. A special thanks to all our men and women in uniform, without whom this would not have been possible.
One of them is me. Another is Rudy Giuliani. A third is Mitt Romney.
The reasons for this vary.
In my case, I (a) have no interest in being president and (b) I don't have the background for it and (c) I'm simply unelectable to that office.
(N.B., though I have no interest in being president, I would like to be king of all Londinium and wear a shiny hat.)
Being unelectable is something I share with Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, although the reasons we are unelectable are also varied.
I would be perceived by too large a number of voters as a hardcore Catholic theocrat who is dangerously unqualified for the position. And all of that except the theocrat part would be true.
In Rudy's and Mitt's cases, though, the reasons for unelectability are different.
Rudy is pro-abort and pro-homosexual and anti-gun, so he's got this whole tripple whammy thing going. He got points for his performance on 9/11, but that's not a pass with social conservatives in this country on the issues they care about. With the nation as evenly divided as it is today, all it takes are a few of them to be not motivated enough to go to the polls and Rudy loses. With the Giuliani triple whammy, more than enough social conservatives would stay home.
Same thing applies to Mitt. First, there is his Mormonism. Like it or not, too large a slice of Christian voters--both Evangelicals and Catholics--will simply not be motivated to show up at the polls to vote for a Mormon, no matter how much they'd otherwise like him. That may not be fair, but that's the way it is.
But how much cause do Christians have to like Romney? Although in the last few years he's taken to calling himself a pro-life politician, there are lingering questions about the extent to which he can be trusted.
Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see all pro-aborts switch sides and become opposed to babykilling. Such moral conversion should be welcomed.
But there also have to be adequate signs that a person is sincere in his conversion, and a iffy/maybe switch to the pro-life side that is articulated in mild, cautious, carefully-parsed terms won't cut it, especially after years of supporting legalized abortion in which one supported "a woman's right to choose" while still resisting the "pro-choice" label. That history of playing word games means that any current claim to be pro-life will receive strict scrutiny.
The presidency and its ability to influence the abortion issue through Supreme Court nominations and executive policy decisions is simply too great to entrust to a recent convert who does not forcefully articulate the case for making it illegal to kill babies.
Someone with a history of being pro-life could be allowed to phrase himself on this subject in a mild way that will not frighten uncommitted voters, but a person who has historically been on the other side and played word games about it and then says "I'm pro-life now; vote for me" doesn't have that luxury.
SECOND UPDATE: Here is the text of the Communique issued by the Holy See's press office (NOTE: Since the press office does not have the authority to declare excommunications, I suspect there will be further documentation following from a competent dicastery):
"With great concern, the Holy See has followed the recent activities of
Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo, emeritus of Lusaka, Zambia, with his new
association of married priests, spreading division and confusion among the
faithful.
"Church representatives of various levels have tried in vain to contact
Archbishop Milingo in order to dissuade him from persisting in actions that
provoke scandal, especially among the faithful who followed his pastoral
ministry in favor of the poor and the sick.
"Bearing in mind the understanding shown, also recently, by Peter's
Successor towards this aged pastor of the Church, the Holy See has awaited
with vigilant patience the evolution of events which, unfortunately, have led
Archbishop Milingo to a position of irregularity and of progressively open
rupture of communion with the Church, first with his attempted marriage and
then with the ordination of four bishops on Sunday, September 24, in
Washington D.C., U.S.A.
"For this public act both Archbishop Milingo and the four ordinands have
incurred excommunication 'latae sententiae,' as laid down in Canon 1382 of the
Code of Canon Law. Moreover, the Church does not recognize, nor does she
intend to recognize in the future, these ordinations and all ordinations
deriving from them; and she considers the canonical status of the four
supposed-bishops as being that they held prior to this ordination.
The Apostolic See, attentive to the unity and peace of the flock of Christ,
had hoped that the fraternal influence of people close to Archbishop Milingo
would cause him to rethink and return to full communion with the Pope.
Unfortunately the latest developments have made these hopes more unlikely.
"At times of ecclesial suffering such as these, may prayers intensify among
all the community of the faithful."
SNIP: Tuesday night, Hale showed another photo taken by Atlantis' crew of a second mystery object floating near the shuttle.
"While we have not definitively put this interesting little picture to bed, there is considerable thought that it is just a plastic bag that came from somewhere and got loose," Hale said.
I don't get it.
Every space pirate worth his space salt knows that the shuttle always jettisons its trash just before going into hyperspace.
Archbishop emeritus of Lusaka Emmanuel Milingo is out of control. (Actually, that was pretty delicate compared to what I'm tempted to write.)
Worse, he's out of control and rampaging through the United States, campaigning for married priests with his own civil law wife (I have to be in the qualifier becaue he's not really married to her; he is impeded from being able to validly contract a marriage due to his holy orders, so his union with her is automatically null--same thing goes for all the non-laicized priests who "left the priesthood" to get "married"; see Canon 1087), who was personally picked for him by the long-time lunatic and antichrist, Sun Myung Moon.
Last weekend I started reading The
Last and First Men by Olaf Stapleton. The book is a future history written from the perspective of one of the last men in a far distant future age. The book doesn't have a conventional plot but is written like a history book, telling you what happened in different ages.
The opening section--the only part I've gotten through just yet--makes for particularly interesting reading, because it covers the period between when the book was written (1930) and the present, so we get to see Olaf Stapleton's imaginary history of our own period.
Of course, actualy history didn't unfold the way that Stapleton envisioned--and he knew it wouldn't before he started writing--but it's fascinating to see how much he got right. Even if the elements didn't come together in precisely the way he envisioned, he was at least playing with the right elements that actually did--and continue to--shape our history. For example, he predicted a period of wars in Europe, leading to its decline, followed by a period in which Russia, China, and the United States were the dominant global players, with Russia dropping by the wayside, leading to tension between China and America and and eventually America as a global hyperpower and an Americanized world culture, with America being intensely resented internationally. That's pretty close to what did happen, only the Chinese conflict has yet to be fully engaged (expect that to happen in coming decades).
Reading Stapleton's analysis of the various forces shaping this history was quite interesting, and it made me want to read a similar analysis of what really did happen in world history.
Lo and behold, yesterday I ran across THIS ESSAY that does just that--or does a lot of it at least. It's not an analysis so much of recent history as a whole, but it analyzes the major wars of the 20th century and what led to them.
The author--a Harvard history professor--seeks to look past the conventional explanations that are given for why large scale conflicts happen and identify the factors which really did lead to them.
For example, the author sets aside the canard that the 20th century was so bloody because we had bigger and better weapons, pointing out that many of the bloodies conflicts were fought not with WMDs but with individual and even primitive weapons.
(He also doesn't do much more than touch on this, but at some point soon I plan on blogging about the fact that your chance of dying in a war has actually gone DOWN in the developed world--way down compared to what it is in primitive societies. The development of more powerful weapons does not--or at least has not yet--led to an increase in the percentage of people who are killed in war. Just the opposite. Thus far it's correlated with a dramatic decrease in the likelihood that you'll get killed in one.)
By questioning why the wars of the 20th century occurred when and where they did--as opposed to other places or the same places in other decades--the author identifies three factors that at least in recent history seem to have led to large scale wars:
1) Ethnic disintegration (that is, the falling apart of multi-ethnic societies such that the different ethnic groups become alienated from one another),
2) Economic volatility (not the same thing as poverty; he's talking about dramatic fluctuations in the local economy, both down and up), and
3) Empires in decline (since the empire that previously kept peace in the area loses the interest or the ability to keep peace there)
Then, like Stapleton, he dusts off his own crystal ball and looks at where the next series of major conflicts are likely to errupt.
I'm writing this Monday night so I won't have to blog on Tuesday's holy day, so this all may be moot now, but here goes . . .
What happens when tyrants die?
Well, being tyrants, they aren't well liked by their people (however much their people have been forced to act otherwise) and so as soon as the guy who's ruled the land with FEAR for so many years kicks the bucket there can be a . . . y'know . . . popular uprising. People go out and celebrate, drink too much, shoot guns up in the air (if they have them), kill all the former dictator's family and friends. That kind of thing.
So what do you do if you're one of the family and friends?
In fact, what if you're the tyrant's baby brother and heir apparent?
If there's a popular uprising, you're going to be Target #1 to bump off.
So what do you do?
Do you . . . y'know . . . try to keep the people from finding out that the tyrant is dead? At least until you can consolidate your control on power? Do you try to make it sound like your brother--who is actually dead--is really sick so that you kind of ease the populace into the idea of him not being here any more, while you visibly rule the country, smoothing the transition into your own reign so that they get used to being afraid of you the way they were afraid of your brother?
Of course, word will leak out that your brother is not just dead but really most sincerely dead, and so you'll need to fabricate evidence that he's alive, like photoshopped pictures of him recuperating in the hospital and notes written in his name talking about the fact that he's not dead. But those are small things.
Which brings us to the picture above.
What's up with those shadows coming off of Castro's brotherHugo Chavez? Y'know . . . the shadows that ain't coming off Castro himself.
Certain quarters in the blogosphere LIKE HERE and HERE have been speculating that the recent recuperative photos of Castro have been faked in some kind of photoshoppy Caribbean version of Weekend At Bernie's.
I haven't really been following that beat (in fact, I haven't read the two sites I just linked with any thoroughness, so there may be bad words or something on them, so caveat lector), and I haven't seen anything that's knocked me out as proof that the recent Castro photos are fake, but . . . DUDE! Where's your shadow!
We've got two strong light sources causing Chavez to throw some crisply defined shadows. . . . Why ain't Castro doing the same thing?
Of course, even if evidence emerges of Photoshop fakery (BTW, let's try to use the word "Photoshop" as a generic term as many times as possible just to annoy the Adobe corporation; it'd be good revenge for their evil file format, .pdf) it wouldn't mean that Castro's dead. It might just mean that he looks like hades and they're trying to keep the populace from realizing what horrible shape he's in.
But until we've got video of Castro that is of unambiguously recent vintage, I'm going to have a question in my mind about whether Fidel is really still among us.
PRE-PUBLICATION UPDATE: Late Monday night Drudge reported that Cuban TV has aired video of Castro that at least seems to be of recent vintage. (Conclusive proof of that didn't seem to be mentioned, though.) Best guess is that Castro is still alive as of Monday night. Thought I'd let this post go up, though, since (a) the new video doesn't prove that the Castro photos aren't Photoshopped (take that, Adobe!), (b) it shows that even tyrant kid brother wannabes are waking up to the fact that photos aren't enough anymore (though single-source video won't be for long; soon you'll need multiple free-world-accredited cameras rolling due to the possibility of a Lucasfilm fake; take that, Lucasfilm!), and (c) it provides a run-through for what this dictatorship (or any other) might do when the time fore Fearless Leader's passing finally comes.
The creators of The Muppets and Sesame Street are staging a puppet show that is strictly for adults only.
Miss Piggy would blush over the antics in "Jim Henson's Puppet Improv" which spearheads a renaissance of puppet shows for grown-ups at this year's Edinburgh Fringe arts festival.
Every afternoon at the Fringe, an anarchic troupe of puppeteers led by the late Jim Henson's son Brian do an improvisational show for kids.
Every evening the air turns blue as the show takes off into surreal flights of fancy dictated by the audience.
But would Brian's father have approved?
"I think he would have loved it because of how outrageous I get. My Dad really believed in community and sweetness but the other side of him was incredibly naughty."
Based on my (limited) knowledge, I also suspect that Brian is correct.
I have to question this, though:
So does Henson, director of the Muppet Christmas Carol and Treasure Island movies, feel puppeteers around the world are trying to redress the balance so adults get a look in?
"Yes, absolutely," he said.
"The Americans are more action-oriented. They want to see the puppets beating each other up.
"British audiences are more intellectual. They like to see it sick and twisted, but in an intellectual way."
A lot of British humor doesn't strike me as all that intellectual (some is, sure, but then so is some American humor). I find this particular juxtaposition ironic given the prominence in British culture of
Eleven Egyptian students who were supposed to travel to a Montana university after flying to JFK airport late last month disappeared in New York, spurring federal authorities to issue a nationwide alert, officials said yesterday.
Montana State University Provost David Dooley said 17 Mansoura University students signed up for a 32-day cultural-exchange program to intensively study English, learn about Montana history and go on several field
