The Problem With Materialism

It's ironic, in a way, that the bulk of the “tea party” protesters seem to be Christians -- even Christians of the Evangelical stripe. In other words, these are people for whom – supposedly -- ultimate values lie in the spiritual realm, vs. the material one. In theory, if they were truly radical followers of the Gospel, they would “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's” and care not a whit about the Fed, the bailouts, the economic stimulus plan, the stock market, the real estate market, the trade deficit, inflation, taxation... and so on. Because these are all artifacts of the money system, i.e. the system that substitutes “currency” -- which is only paper with certain things printed on it – for that which has real value. The money system is, in fact, a trap – it's a sucker's game, designed to tempt everyone into accepting it as the sole standard of value, but also into converting all of their assets – material and labor – into currency-denominated abstractions, i.e. into even more paper. So I trade that which has actual value into “notes”. But those notes are not mine; they belong to the “money power” and their value and disposition are determined by that same power. Even if I own – i.e. have title to – something of tangible value, like a house, it is only worth what the “real estate market” says it is, and that market is, in turn, manipulated down to the nth degree by the financial powers that be. How can it be a matter of pure supply and demand – an allegedly free-market characteristic – when its value can rise or fall sharply on the whims of the “market”? Does supply and demand really fluctuate that wildly from one month/week/day to the next? Of course not. What fluctuates is the intensity of speculation in the market – something actual homeowners have absolutely no voice in. And for things less tangible than real estate – securities, for example – those values are determined exclusively by forces that the average person is totally unaware of. And yet these are the indicators of “wealth” that we all rely on; this is what constitutes our “portfolio” -- a bunch of paper whose value is entirely determined by people we've never met, don't know, and never will.

And yet I daresay that the majority of “tea partiers” are also homeowners and have money in the bank, and that a substantial number own stocks, or at least have a share in a mutual fund of some sort. So they have, perhaps unknowingly or naively, bought off on the basic structure underpinning the money power – that same power that they are now marching and protesting against in a fit of futile rage. But if they took the Gospel seriously, they would “render unto Caesar” by ridding themselves of the trappings of materialism – or, should I say, the traps thereof. Trade your labor for tangible goods if you like... try to engage in barter rather than currency exchange as much as possible... join co-ops... become a tiny bit more self-sufficient (even a city apartment dweller can manage this to some degree). Don't sink your money into things you don't understand and have no control over (like the stock market). And when it comes to “home ownership”, how about _real_ home ownership, i.e. no mortgage? How many can manage to pull that off? That way, even if the market value of your home declines, at least there's no way you can ever be “under water” -- unless, of course, you borrow against equity, but I'm assuming that you wouldn't do that unless your life literally depended on it.

In other words, if the tea partiers wanted to “live out the Gospel”, they would spend more time figuring out how to separate themselves from the money power and less time attending rallies. Because, frankly, folks, things have gone way too far for your protests to do any good. It would be like demonstrating for nuclear disarmament once the bomb has been dropped and is halfway to the ground. The economic fate of this country has been sealed – with the help of its “leaders”. The only question now is, exactly what is this intended fate? Bankruptcy? Well... that ship has already sailed; not only is the the federal budget in a state of chronic deficit, but it only accounts for interest on the national debt. The principal, i.e. the national debt itself, is not on track to be repaid, ever. Add these two facts together and you have a good operational definition of bankruptcy. Ah, but! -- you might say – how about productivity? How about the GNP? Well, yes... but even the massive portion of the GNP that now goes directly into government accounts is insufficient to remedy the situation... and if you recall the Laffer curve, you'll realize that no amount of increased taxation – right up to 100% -- is going to help; in fact, it would only make things worse. So the paradox, in the face of the argument (re: the national debt) that “we owe it to ourselves” (and the Chinese), is that even to the extent that's true, it still can never be paid back; the taxes required to substantially reduce the national debt would more than counterbalance the positive effects of putting those funds back into the economy. So – bottom line – the situation is as hopeless as it can be, save the obvious trick of drastically inflating the currency... or repudiating the debt, the first of which measures would render the U.S. economy (temporarily, at least) nonexistent, and the second of which would make us a pariah in the world economy for many generations to come. (And, truth be told, there are arguments out there – on the libertarian-anarchist side, to be sure – that one or both of these possibilities might actually be beneficial in the long run. But the selling that idea to the American public would be about as easy as selling the idea of amputation without anesthetic.)

The real question in all of this, of course, is what does the money power, AKA the Regime, want – and how does it seek to best achieve this? Clearly, severe economic distress in the U.S., or anywhere else in the world, is of no concern, since it does, after all, have a cause, and that cause entails some people accumulating all the wealth that everyone else has lost. This is not to deny that there have been substantial world-wide losses over the past couple of years, but one must remember that those have been almost exclusively paper losses; the amount of actual wealth (material and human capital) has not diminished at all – only its “value” according to the “market”, and as measured by its value in various denominations of “currency” -- all bogus to one degree or another (except maybe for the perennial Swiss franc – which, you'll notice, is the real “currency of choice” for the international smart set, who avoid the dollar like the plague). (And how do the Swiss do it, by the way? Simple. They stay out of wars.) (And, oh yes, their citizens are willing to work for a living.) (And do they ever know how to control illegal immigration!)

But if severe economic distress in the U.S., or anywhere else, is of little or no concern to the Regime, I can't imagine that total economic collapse (here or anywhere else that counts – Iceland being a good example of “not counting”) is something they desire. After all, productivity has to be maintained at a certain level, combined with a certain level of “law and order”, for wealth to keep percolating upward from the ordinary workers (blue collar, white collar, whatever) to the controlling class. It does no good to have slaves if your slaves are all sick or crippled... or so demoralized that they simply refuse to work. (The perpetuation of the non-working underclass is a different matter, and I don't want to get into that now... but even in that case there has to be an optimum level of total dependence on government – neither too much nor too little. And we see that so-called “social legislation” is designed to keep refining things in order to maintain that optimum level.)

I think that it would be safe to say that a chronically-sick, chronically-distressed economy – in the U.S. and elsewhere – serves the purposes of the Regime best. So while we are unlikely to see any total “meltdowns”, we will also never see a full recovery; the way things are now is just about right, I suspect. It's the right balance of dependency and productivity -- of initiative and passivity -- of fear and resignation -- of delusion and everyday semi-sanity. It is, in other words, a wartime economy designed for perpetual war without and perpetual strife and class war within. And this is not to say that there won't still be “cycles” of various kinds – in the stock market, trade, currency, and what not. These “cycles” are a vital part of the engine that keeps wealth percolating up into the right hands. With each turn of the wheel, the “surplus earnings” of the working class (the ones who actually work, I mean) and the middle class are siphoned off and sent on their way. We're talking about taxes and inflation here – the usual suspects – but also about the cost of government regulation and law enforcement, as well as the cost of having an ever-increasing portion of the populace engaged in non-productive “work”, e.g. government “jobs”. What I'm saying is that the percentage of real producers continues to fall... and this is enabled at least partly by technology and the economies of scale (e.g. agribusiness), as well as the fact that, over time, people become willing to accept less, both in terms of quantity and quality. (And, in a sense, the government “produces” as well – and its “products” (goods and services) drive out the better, market-based stuff. This is another thing that people tend to get used to over time and come to take for granted, forgetting that there was ever anything better.)

You could think of the system as a gigantic machine, designed to absorb human effort, keep the vast majority on a subsistence diet, and enrich the power elite beyond the wildest dreams of any ordinary person. We're basically all cows lined up in milking stalls; our basic needs are met, we're fed, housed, and we're about to be cared for when sick by no less a personage than the president himself! (The First Lady will mop our fevered brows while her offspring sing lively pop tunes to aid our recuperation.) And we don't even know how much of the value of our labor is being siphoned off, because we've never known a time when it wasn't. All we know is that a few people at the top are getting very rich (albeit with dollar-denominated riches -- at least until they can convert it into something better), but we don't draw a line between our state of life and theirs. But the truth is, the cause-and-effect relationship is like unto a rod of iron; it could hardly be more tangible or easier to demonstrate. But, again, wedded as we are to the currency hoax and the “money economy”, we either can not or will not see the connection. And of course it was designed to be at least opaque, if not actually invisible in many cases – so one can hardly blame people for being ignorant.

But, again, I say that the “tea partiers” and those of like mind are much too wedded to the Regime – to the establishment just as it is – to have any real impact. They are too easily bought off, bribed, and mainly frightened to death. When it comes down to it, all of their professed ideals wouldn't stand a chance against a threat to their homes, cars, appliances, motor boats, barbecue grills, pathetic bank accounts, and so on – all those things so dear to the bourgeois heart. The riots of the 1960s and 1970s ended when the lumpen proletariat – who had nothing to lose -- were either bought off by “equal opportunity” and “affirmative action” or rendered impotent by sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll. (Throw in partial genocide through abortion if you like.) The “riots” (which hardly deserve the name, even if the media pretend to be shaking in their boots) of today – i.e. the “tea parties” -- will be suppressed by fear, i.e. the fear of losing what they have. “Even what little they have will be taken away.” (This was a statement against poor stewardship – but it can also be applied to foolish political activity.)

Now, on the other side of this very large coin are the people who, you would think, would have the most to fear – i.e. the most to be upset about, and to protest – namely the materialists (those of the atheist stripe, that is – not just the Protestants who subscribe to the “prosperity gospel”). For if they lose their “stuff”, there is nothing to back them up – no consolation. And I suppose that some libertarians could fit this description, since libertarians do tend, as a group, to be non-religious and pro-property rights. So when they get out there with protest signs, at least they're being honest, and not “schitzy” about the whole issue. But a materialist who is also a socialist, or a communist, and therefore in favor of the government confiscating all private property? I never could figure that type out. Maybe they think that if all they have left is their “ideals”, that will be enough. The funny thing is that, every time this has been tried, it has turned out that it isn't enough – they really do miss their “stuff”, and try every hypocritical ruse and con game in the world to get at least some of it back. So we can place them firmly in the category of hard-core hypocrites. Those rare people in the world who really are satisfied with poverty – who seek it out, in fact – tend to be fervently-believing Christians (or, to be fair, true believers in other faiths – but it has to be a faith, not just politics). And this too makes perfect sense. And, of course, the materialists at the top – the successful ones – aren't hypocrites either; they are unabashed in their limitless greed, and see no reason to fear, since they hold all of the strings in their hands. Of course, they are still all mortal (as far as we know), so they cannot be fully at ease. But do they fear judgment? I imagine not, since if they did, they would not have ventured even a small fraction as far as they've managed to go. So they have their particular species of contentment, and those vowed to poverty have theirs. It's only those in between – those of two (or more) minds – who are chronically infected with unease and anxiety. But it's that very unease and anxiety that renders their protests and their efforts ineffective. They have neither material power nor purified (as much as is possible on this plane) spiritual power. Instead, they are full of half-baked ideas, most of which are newly-born out of desperation, but at the same time they are ruled by fear, lest they lose their “stuff”. So, as a result, they are easily dealt with by the ruling power, or by their surrogates in the media. And this is the point at which their defenses break down. They fill the National Mall with protest signs, but as evening approaches they retire to their beds at the Red Roof Inn out in Annandale, leaving the homeless sleeping on park benches amidst discarded protest signs. Who has the real power here?

Mister Dithers

I don't know about you, but one-plus years after Obama's inauguration, I'm already suffering from “Eric Holder fatigue”. Every time I see this guy's name at the top of a news item, I'm like, “Oh man, what's this clown up to now?” And I suppose that every administration has to have its court jester – you know, that unofficial office that James Watt held under Reagan, or that Joycelyn Elders held under Clinton. These are people who manage to walk around with one foot in their mouth and their head firmly wedged up their butt – a feat that would defy the talents of even the most highly-trained Chinese contortionist.

The problem comes when the court jester – unlike the vice president, for example, who has no authority or power, and who really is the official fool in most administrations – holds an office that actually carries some clout. And in the law-obsessed society of today, no office is more threatening, or more dangerous, than that of attorney general. That's why this post is normally given to only the most upstanding, righteous, honest, intelligent, and rational people available – people like John Mitchell, Ed Meese, Janet Reno, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, and... oy, pardon me while I barf. So yeah, maybe the office is a sheltered workshop after all. But that shouldn't keep us from protesting when it's abused. In the current situation, it's not so much a matter of danger to the citizenry as the endless dithering about where to try the 9/11 conspirators, chief among them (but not the only one, contrary to most news reports) being the dude known only as KSM. Will it be a military trial, or a civilian one? Will it be held at the scene of the crime, or as far from there as possible? Is it a breath mint, or a candy mint? No one seems to know – least of all the attorney general, who is supposedly in charge of this whole thing. So he continues to play games with the tender feelings of the likes of Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani. Obviously, there's going to be a “security problem” no matter where the trial is held – unless, of course, they hold it in Guantanamo, which is pretty much what should have been decided eons ago.

Of course, another thing impacting on this decision is the question, what, exactly, did these guys do that was so wrong? Crazy, you say? Well, think about it. The Obama administration represents the triumph of liberalism, which, among other things, entails a completely relativistic world view, in which there is no such thing as evil, "bad" and "good" are just "social constructs" and matters of opinion, and wrongdoers are typically considered to be suffering from no more than a “social disease” (as the song from “West Side Story” says). And part of this mind set – a key part, I would say – is the by-now-familiar process of blaming the victim and coddling the “perp”. The instant a suspect is apprehended the legal figure-ground relationship reverses itself, and we find out that the criminal has all the rights, and the victims have next to none. And this is the way things ought to be, according to liberals – it's a sort of affirmative action, “leveling the playing field”, giving everyone “a piece of the pie”, and so on. Criminals become celebrities, as in the days of Prohibition... and victims become... well, just losers, basically. They should have known better than to get in the way of that bullet (which the gun fired all by itself, of course). So now, all of a sudden, we expect people brought up on a steady diet of moral relativism to get “absolute” and develop a strange new respect for law and order, and universal standards of behavior. (Let's not go so far as to talk about Natural Law – you know, that thing that scuttled Robert Bork's Supreme Court nomination, courtesy of Ted Kennedy.) Among the “extenuating circumstances” for KSM & Co. might be that they had a “deprived childhood” (even though most of the terrorists were solidly middle-class) – or that they suffered “childhood abuse” -- which would certainly gain traction considering they were all brought up in a “theocracy”. There could be any number of perfectly good reasons why they did what they did – except for the one Ron Paul cited, namely “They're over here because we're over there” -- the only reason that makes any sense. But hey, what if they took him seriously? Then they would have to blame every past administration all the way back to when oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia (predating the founding of the State of Israel by a mile, I might add). But even that's not too far-fetched, since we're still apologizing for slavery and for mistreatment of the Indians, women, gays, the handicapped, and so on. (Hell, we spent all of 1992 apologizing for Columbus' discovery of America!) What it ultimately boils down to is, “stuff happens”, and I would expect KSM's defense team to consider that a key element in their pleading. They know, after all, to whom they are speaking, since they are part of the system. And yet Holder, on other occasions, has assured us that the defendants will, without a doubt, be found guilty, because... well, just because, that's all. I wonder how much money he bet that O.J. would be acquitted? Clearly the whole idea of a trial is nothing more than an annoyance – and yet one must keep up appearances. It surely wouldn't do to be like China, where “a prompt and speedy trial” is still very much a reality – as is the execution that follows soon after. No, in our system of justice dithering is Job One. After all, isn't Michael Skakel, the black sheep of the extended Kennedy clan (assuming that's not a redundancy) still filing appeals, a good 35 years after his alleged crime? In our enlightened system, it's not over until its over – which means, until the accused dies a natural death. And even then it's not over, as witness the string of posthumous pardons that are constantly being sought after. I guess ultimately, in the longest of long runs, everyone will be pardoned and set free – except for Confederates, “racists”, and “fascists”. And this ought to be some comfort to KSM... except, wait, he actually _wants_ to be tried, convicted, and executed, thereby qualifying as a martyr in the jihad pantheon. I guess Holder can't win after all -- he's trapped in a world he helped make.

Brownie, You're Doing a Heck of a Job

Under the heading of “subtle indicators”, I offer this recent news item: Newly-elected Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown did not attend Wednesday's “tea party” rally on Boston Commons to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Sarah Palin – preferring instead to get a haircut, or get his shoes shined, or something. One comment was, “He must be wary of appearing too closely affiliated with groups that could damage his 2012 re-election bid.” Yeah. That's putting it mildly. Now, there's no doubt that he's a hero for having wrested the “Kennedy Senate seat” out of the sweaty, fevered, booze-laden hands of the Kennedy clan; he deserves full credit for that. But to immediately jump across the Republican political spectrum (and yes, that party is not monolithic any more than the Democrats are) and join what is basically a populist movement... well, that would be asking a bit much. The chances are that Brown has already figured out one thing – populism is, in the long run, a non-starter in America, and the “tea party” movement is no exception. To begin with, as I've commented before, it's always a case of “too little, too late”. Where were these tea partiers when Bush was invading Iraq and Afghanistan, and initiating the bailout and economic stimulus programs? Where were they when the Patriot Act was passed? And so on. These are the perennial frogs in the boiling water – by the time they realize they're being cooked, they _are_ cooked. So they let out a few plaintive bleats, stage a few rallies with their chosen demagogue du jour, and then fade into the woodwork. They are, ultimately, the powerless... and they have no way to change that sad fact. They think they can do it by means of the ballot box, but any candidate they ever get a chance to vote for has already been thoroughly vetted by the regime – and that includes Sarah Palin, the Wonder Woman of the tea partiers. If she ever got into office, she would either be sold out or rendered impotent – or some combination thereof. “Hope and change” are really not on the agenda – and haven't been for quite some time. Now, you might say, “But aren't things a whole lot different with Obama in office than they would have been with McCain in office?” And the answer is no – obviously not. They would be no more different than Obama is from George W. Bush. In anything that counts, the Regime gets its way – no matter who the figurehead is. (And the answer to your next question is, I don't think they care one way or the other about “health care” -- for one thing, it's a domestic issue, and for another, it won't make the country bankrupt any faster than the sum total of all the other programs that are already in place.)

Maybe I'm making Scott Brown out to be smarter than he is. Maybe he really did have pressing business elsewhere. But even the most superficial look at the political landscape will tell you that the tea partiers, besides being powerless, are the perpetual outsiders... the “done to”, rather than the “doers to”... the people who are on the losing end of every government program and every social change movement. They are the people who are losing their country – although it can be argued that the country was never actually theirs to lose. But the point is, no one – especially not a politician – wants to be seen with losers, to associate with them, or to depend on them for his advancement. The only reason the tea partiers are even in the news at all is that they represent, by and large, a group of people that is normally mute, like sheep before their shearers. It's like the old joke about the kid who never says a word until he's five years old, and when he finally does and is asked why, he says “Up to now, everything's been OK.” Of course, in the case of the tea partiers, everything has _not_ been OK up to now... in fact things haven't been “OK” since at least as far back as the New Deal. So something must have happened to finally get their attention, and actually get them to spend money to get to rallies, and hold up signs, and be conspicuous (the bane of middle-class existence). Part of it, I suppose, was the apparent differences between Bush and Obama, which were amplified with just as much vigor by the liberal press as by conservative commentators and talking heads. And, yeah, I suppose there is an element of... not racism exactly, but race anxiety. Even though Obama didn't rise up out of the ghetto, he has adopted that mind set – for political purposes at least, but maybe he actually believes in it as well. And then you have the economic crisis, which no one really understands – at least no one who is willing to go on the public record with their theories. But this notion, overall, that government has suddenly gotten too big – overnight! -- that has more to do with demagoguery than with the actual facts. Government was too big 70 years ago. The Regime, as it is currently constituted, has been in charge at least since the end of World War II. The “wartime economy” has become just “the economy”. And the American equivalent of games and circuses has been to live far beyond our means for decades – on the theory that “in the long run we're all dead” (that's from John Maynard Keynes, every liberal's hero) and, in the short run, to keep political incumbents in office until they decide to either die or retire. As I've said before, short-sightedness and lack of a sense of history (real history, that is, as opposed to myth and fairy tales) are among the many besetting sins of Americans. So the result is that we do, in fact, get the government we deserve – or let's say, so as not to indulge too much in collective blame, we all get the government that most of us deserve. And this includes the tea partiers! They are, by and large, no less culpable than the most abject collectivist liberal – you know, the kind that thinks tax rates are still not high enough (even if his own are). So to start crying at this point is like a girl who went through 13 years of “sex ed” and wound up pregnant anyway – where was she while everyone else was in class? These people have obviously not been paying attention – and this is why their bleatings at this late date seem so pathetic and loser-ish. This is why they're mocked and derided by the likes of Keith Olbermann -- not because they're a threat but because they're such an obvious non-threat. And this is why their “movement” will go the way of all populist movements – not only because they are powerless, but because their emphasis is ever on all the things they're “agin”. It's sad to say, because in these times it actually makes sense to be “agin” nearly everything the government is, and does – but that never creates change, to say nothing of revolution. It barely garners any votes, as we can see by looking at the history of populist movements. One has to give the liberals, “reformers”, and “progressives” credit – they're always “for” something. In fact they're “for” a whole lot of things -- most of which are dead wrong, if not actually evil. The liberals play on people's dissatisfaction every bit as much as the tea partiers -- the difference being that they have firm answers -- programs! And they radiate the kind of energy that tends to attract support and votes, whereas populists really don't, especially when they make heroes out of accidental public figures, mediocrities, and hypocrites. I mean, look at the sorts of characters from the “conservative” side who are currently playing footsie with the tea partiers – some of the most hard-core insiders, cynics, hacks, and opportunists out there. The tea partiers are, basically, being slickered by a bunch of three-card monte artists. But if their support should actually lead to one of these shysters being elected, well... they'll find out how betrayal feels about as fast as the anti-war left is now finding it out. The pity is, the powerless are easily conned and misled – and as dense as politicians can be at times, they're all smarter than the tea partiers (except maybe for Sarah Palin). But the Regime is smarter than any politician, and since what they say goes... well, none of it really matters anyway. But as spectacle, it is amusing to watch.

The Ministry of Absurdity

A number of years ago, National Lampoon – one of the best humor magazines ever, IMHO – put out what they called a “humor issue”. The joke, of course, was -- “But aren't they _all_ humor issues?” Well, in the same spirit, I'm going to style this post the “Absurdity Post”, knowing full well that, with my emphasis on politics and current events, the vast bulk of my posts could be placed in the “absurd” category. But for some reason, the news of the past week or two has provided an unusually rich helping of the bizarre, grotesque, and unusual – maybe it's the post-Obama, post-nationalized health care malaise already setting in, I don't know. It seems like we're long overdue an era corresponding to the Weimar Republic in Germany, with all of its decadence, its live-for-today (even if totally debilitated by sex, drugs, and alcohol) attitude, its refusal to think about... well, just about anything (a state of mind which Adolf Hitler took full advantage of, note). And yes, I supposed it would be picturesque, in a way; at least Weimar Germany had good poster art and interesting films. And Bertolt Brecht.

In any case, I present, for your edification, a carefully-selected assortment of current insanity – i.e., what passes for sanity in our time -- what is reported on with a straight face and without a hint of sarcasm or irony. It's an auslese of the absurd... a banquet of the banal... a deep draught of the daft... and guess what, it's the world we actually live in. Welcome to the national nightmare, from which there will be no awakening for many years to come...

O For starters, I note the juxtaposition by only a day or two of two survey findings: (1) Nearly half – 47% -- of American citizens will pay no income taxes for 2009; and (2) 66% of Americans think we're overtaxed. Now – unless you're young enough to have been exposed to “the new math”, you should be able to figure out that 53% will pay income taxes... which means that, at minimum, 13% of Americans think we're overtaxed even though they don't pay income taxes. Now, wouldn't you love to know who these people are? To meet them, talk to them? It could be a grassroots movement among those who are favored by the system – AKA “tax receivers” -- but whose sympathies nonetheless lie with the poor schmucks who are actual tax payers. Call them the “conservative poor”? But this is impossible – liberal theory forbids it. And yet, they must be out there – survey data don't lie.

O There are plenty of valid arguments against No Child Left Behind. But, on the other hand, take a look at the alternative. Teachers in Miami/Dade County went out on strike (“were absent from classes” is how it's put) to protest “a proposed law that would establish a merit pay system and do away with tenure for new teachers”. This is the educational grass roots speaking... and this is what any attempt at education reform is up against. Imagine -- instant tenture, and generous pay without regard for performance. That's even better than most other government jobs -- but the teachers' unions have a chokehold on the government, the media, and the education system... and until that is broken, all the idealistic "programs" Washington can come up with are just so much delusion and waste.

O And speaking of schools – in Wisconsin, teachers of “sex education” are being warned that teaching minors about contraceptive use could be interpreted as “contributing to the delinquency of minors”, and even “sexual assault”. Well... people have been arguing for at least two generations now that “sex ed” is a form of assault on children by adults, so maybe its just as well that the rubber has finally hit the road (so to speak...).

O And speaking of sex – sometimes you just can't avoid your karma. About a year and a half ago, a young Army soldier murdered an elderly rich man, right here in Southwestern Pennsylvania, supposedly in response to having been sexually propositioned or some form of sexual aggression. Apparently the two had a “prior relationship” of some sort, although there is never any indication of precisely what that may have entailed. But now this same soldier wants to take a paternity test to determine whether he is the father of an infant boy, in response to the mother's putting the child out for adoption by... a gay couple. And, oh yes, the two (the soldier and the mother, also a soldier) were stationed together at Fort Hood, Texas – a known karmic hotbed! Man... I'll bet this guy wishes life came with a “restart” button...

O And before we move on from the gay issue, it should be noted that California, of all places, still has, on its books, a law that classifies homosexuals as “sexual deviants” and requires the state government to conduct research “to find causes of and cures for homosexuality” -- because, among other things, it is a “deviation conducive to sex crimes against children”. And! “The research would be used to help identify potential sex offenders.” So much for objective, detached science. Please fill out this survey form – you may be hotlined depending on your answers. Well... didn't I just go over this in my discussion of “pedophile priests”? And didn't I just say, in an earlier post, that the law – federal, state, and local – is basically a landfill of the outdated, irrelevant, and ignored... but that it's far easier to pass new laws than to rescind old ones? And haven't I claimed that the goal of the Regime is to, one way or the other, turn everyone into a lawbreaker? QED on all counts.

O Which segues directly into the next item, which is – one more time – the “don't ask, don't tell” policy, which virtually everyone in Washington and the military – except a few bullet-headed Marine generals and a few closet cases in Congress – wants to change. But we can't just change it with the stroke of a pen, oh no (even though that was the way it was put in place). First there has to be a survey. And the survey, to be at all relevant, has to include questions as to the service member's sexual orientation. But guess what – if they admit to being gay, they aren't off the hook; it's not like a guarantee of immunity. They can still be thrown out. But be honest now! Don't hold back! (And do I have to mention that this Gordian knot can be cut, indeed with the stoke of a pen, by Obama, using an executive order – but this will, of course, simply not occur to him, or to anyone else in the administration.)

O OK, this really is the last “don't ask, don't tell” item. A lesbian Air Force sergeant was playing strictly by the rules and everything was fine. But when the police showed up to arrest her partner on a theft charge, “they spotted (a) marriage certificate on the kitchen table through a window”-- and the jig was up! The cops hotlined her to the Air Force base where she was stationed. Now – aside from the fact that the police were, to put it mildly, overfunctioning... and, note, this happened in South Dakota, and the lady is black... think that has anything to do with it?... you kind of have to wonder what she was thinking leaving a marriage certificate, especially one of that persuasion, on the kitchen table. Is this where you keep valuable documents of this sort? Seems like it should at least have been framed and hung in the rec room next to the Keene painting. Or better still, kept in a lock box. But no, here it is on the kitchen table, right next to the Sweet 'n' Low, and some cop with itchy eyes has to come along, just looking for trouble – well, you see what happened. So who is to blame? Can I nominate... everybody?

O Well, guess what – Cuba, the envy of liberals the world over, and especially of Hillary Clinton, has actually come out and admitted that it has over one million excess workers on the government payroll – which means “the payroll”, since there is only one. And who admits this? Some disgruntled low-level bureaucrat, who is already on his way to prison? Nay – it is none other than Raul Castro himself. And these excess workers are actually being called “unproductive” -- which, in a communist country, is really saying something. It reminds me of the old line about the driver who was so slow you had to back up to pass him. In any case, one of the few remaining people's paradises seems to have rediscovered the value of actual work, as opposed to “employment” or “jobs” -- which puts it ahead of anyone in the liberal and/or government sector in this country. What is to be done is, of course, another question – since if you fire all the freeloaders, you immediately inflate the unemployment rolls... and unemployment is at least as costly as non-productivity (at least it is for us; I can't vouch for the system in Cuba). So one might assume that, eventually, harsher measures would be in order – like the dictum, “he who does not work, neither shall he eat”, which Lenin stole from the Bible. Hmmm... well, according to liberals (and, let's assume, Castro) anything Lenin says is holy writ... but anything actually contained in holy writ is “myth and superstition”. It'll be interesting to see how this gets worked out...

O But wait, there's more! Cuba's nearby neighbor, namely Puerto Rico, which is part of the U.S., kind of, but not really, and... oh hell, who can figure it out? But at any rate, they have just decided to reduce seats in their legislature by 30%. Talk about non-productivity! State governments virtually invented the concept – and Pennsylvania, as always, leads the way. But lots of luck trying to get Pennsylvania to follow Puerto Rico's fine example. I mean, if you throw 30% of Pennsylvania state legislators out of Harrisburg, they might become homeless. They might freeze! After all, it gets cold here in the winter. That wouldn't happen in Puerto Rico. I guess we could ship them down there... for a modest fee.

O On the lighter side, a jury in Virginia has found that being naked in one's own home is not a violation of the law – at least not yet. This has to be a welcome relief for the bathroom plumbing industry, I imagine – as well as the clothing and laundry industries. Imagine if we were never allowed to expose ourselves – even to the cat – in the process of tending to personal needs or changing clothes. It's good to see that the courts have, at least on this occasion, resisted the temptation to, once and for all, declare all American citizens to be lawbreakers by definition.

O And we think we have problems with political correctness! Not only is Spain – in a kind of revisionist fury – erasing all memory of Franco from its history and its public displays, but a judge who has been investigating atrocities committed by the Republicans – you know, the “good guys”, according to liberals everywhere and Ernest Hemingway – has been indicted. This, in the face of recent Russian frankness concerning the Katyn Forest massacres. Obviously, someone in Spain is feeling awfully threatened by any threat to the popular myth surrounding the Spanish Civil War. Well, we all know that myth because we were all taught it in school, and it has been drummed into our heads ever since by the media, second only in overkill to the Holocaust narrative. (Well, OK, third. I forgot about the Inquisition.) For a curative, I recommend “The Last Crusade” by Warren Carroll; it does a good job of setting the record straight (although I wouldn't take it along as reading material on a trip to Spain, since it's probably banned over there).

O And speaking of Nazis – now it's Ukraine's turn to experience a bout of political correctness. It seems that, during World War II, there was a military organization – one of many “legions” in various countries occupied by Germany – that fought on the German side. Funny how anyone in Ukraine would have thought siding with Germany was a good idea; after all, Stalin had only managed to starve half the Ukrainians to death just a few years before. In any case, one of the leaders of this Ukrainian nationalist movement was recently awarded (posthumously, as you might expect) a Hero of Ukraine award. “Oops!” Someone obviously forgot that his brother-in-law's second cousin once served a glass of slivovitz to an SS officer. See, it's not enough to have been a nationalist – or to have been opposed to the Soviets, arguably Ukraine's biggest enemies of all time. You also had to be as far from the Germans as the east is from the west, or the long arm of the Holocaust industry will reach out, over the decades, and with willful ignorance of the realities at the time, and smack you down, even (or especially) postmortem. It must be nice to live in a mythical, fantasy world where most of your declared enemies are dead and can't fight (or talk) back, and where you can ignore and demean everyone's history but your own.

O And in another triumph for political correctness, the governor of Virginia has been roundly condemned for having attempted to revive an observance called Confederate History Month – clearly the equivalent of an “SS Recognition Month” in Germany, or “Franco's Birthday” in Spain. He apparently not only forgot that slavery was part and parcel of the Confederate system, but even that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves. Well, wasn't it? That's what we were all taught in school. So... the governor has to don sackcloth and ashes and go crawling on his hands and knees to... oh, I don't know, probably the NAACP and ACLU, and the ADL and SPLC for good measure. And of course, the guy has to be a Republican – hey, the hits just keep coming for these folks. But at least there's one person we can already count out for the 2012 presidential race. Only a few thousand to go...

O I've talked before about “locus of control”, and that it's a psychological issue that is key to defining the mind set of the underclass. In brief, it's the notion that “everything happens to me”, and that “it's not my fault”. It's not fatalism in the classic sense, just a total abrogation of responsibility. And I can think of no better illustration than this quote, from a woman who shot and killed a female relative when the latter showed up for Easter dinner in what the shooter considered improper attire: “I didn't mean to do it... we was arguing, I tried to get my gun to prove a point, they got the rifle with me and it went off.” Now, aside from the partial incoherence of this statement, note the play on the popular bumper sticker, “Guns don't kill people; people do”. But this woman begs to differ. In her book, people don't kill people; guns do. And who will argue? Certainly not the gun-control lobby or any other enemies of the Second Amendment. Clearly, this woman, and her attitude, are part of the wave of the future.

O And by the way, there seems to be no basis for the rumor that some rogue tea partiers have volunteered to donate a Tupolev 154 to the government, as a replacement for Air Force One. Just wanted to clear that up...

So there you have it. And this is only, mind you, a few days' worth. We are caught up in a perfect storm of ignorance, back-stabbing, and hostility; in the behavioral literature it's called "elicited aggression", and I sincerely believe that it's a symptom of the growing helplessness we are all feeling – the lack of control over our lives – the feeling that everything that counts is in the hands of a few unseeing, uncaring individuals. I'll bet if you looked into the everyday life of people under any mindless authoritarian/totalitarian society you'd find the same thing. The human psyche was simply not wired to tolerate this level of helplessness and meaninglessness. Better to venture out, take chances, make your own mistakes, and maybe die trying, than to live in this gray, faceless mass – because if human nature is not allowed to express itself in positive ways, it will go negative... and the violent and absurd will take over, and become a way of life. We already find this in certain pockets of society – the “inner cities”, prisons, and so on... but it's leaking out and becoming much more the common lot. If it gets to the point where people can't tell the difference between being in jail and not being in jail, is it any surprise when everyone starts acting like a prisoner?

Politics: A Meditation

There's a kind of hush all over the country tonight, as political factions think up new ways to demonize each other with various forms of libel, slander, and name calling. And this is a process we take for granted, as the natural way things are done. After all, when it comes to politics, “opinion”, which sounds harmless enough, soon turns into some sort of tyranny once you add power. So even the mere voicing of an opinion can – and should! -- be seen as a potentially aggressive and rights-threatening act... and the person holding that opinion should be seen as a potential tyrant – as evil! I mean, how many people felt threatened by Karl Marx when he was browsing in the British Library... or Lenin when he was living in a garret in Zurich? So eternal vigilance is demanded! And generous use must be made, at all times, of emotionally-laden words like “fascist”, “Islamofascist”, “Nazi”, and so on... because, as we all know, reasoned argument and public debate on the real issues are things of the past. From now on, only emotional appeals will do – you know, the kind having to do with things like patriotism, money, war, coercion, and what not.

Yes, it is interesting how a society that prides itself on being founded on “ideas”, or “ideals”, has so thoroughly turned against reason and objectivity when it comes to discussing political questions. And it's not as if data were unavailable; this is not 1776. Every conceivable (and some inconceivable) political system has been tried somewhere in the world, many within living memory. The results are in, and in many cases are in plain sight for everyone to see. And yet there are still debates – not because people don't accept the data as much as disagreement as to interpretation. What, for example, caused the Great Depression, and what prolonged it (assuming it was, in fact, prolonged)? Fights break out to this day in economics and political science departments on this question. And there is not much more agreement as to what caused the current Great Recession... and none at all as to what should be done about it. Every side is, of course, concerned that the solutions proposed by all the others are agenda-laden and designed primarily to add to someone else's wealth and power, and not to alleviate the suffering of the ordinary citizen (or their own). This is on the strictly material side... but then we have the issue that every proposed solution is predicated on a given political point of view or set of values, and, if enacted, it will tend to promote and solidify that point of view and those values. So, if you don't like socialism, then don't support socialistic solutions, no matter how benign, well-intentioned, or "temporary" they may be; this seems simple enough. The bottom line is that no one is neutral, everyone has an agenda, and no one's agenda is to simply aid the average person and promote the general welfare and prosperity. And this, in turn, I suppose, is a symptom of the overall degeneration of our political life – that suddenly everything is “partisan” and no one can claim to have a coherent philosophy of government or a consistent and valid moral base for their positions. Everything is situational, and we have lost the concept of “short-sightedness” because all of the answers and “solutions” have that trait in common.

Another thing missing in all the debate is a vision – what sort of country do we want? Maybe the answer is, one like we had 50 or 100 or 200 years ago – well then, how would one propose that we get to that point, starting right now, today? See, no one who objects to “turning back the clock” ever offers any reasons why that's a bad idea; it's simply assumed to be bad, by definition. I suppose that the Nazis in Germany in the late 1930s accused the Jews of wanting to “turn back the clock” too; this term is not always wielded by “progressives” (although, lets admit, the Nazis were progressives of a sort as well). Or – perhaps what we want is a Utopian vision, one that is realistic and “works” this time, as opposed to the many hundred that have been tried and failed. In any case, the one thing that no one seems to want – something we can all agree on, in fact – is for things to stay exactly as they are. And this, at least, is an improvement over the impacted, petrified Soviet mentality that took over Russia after the Bolsheviks consolidated their power. America is, and has always been, the land of dissatisfaction; true conservatism – i.e., no change – is nigh unto nonexistent. People who call themselves conservatives don't want things to stay as they are now – they want to go back to some idealized past time, except this time make it better... the way someone who grows up in a dysfunctional family keeps seeking out situations that resemble that family in hopes that, this time, they can work through the problems and emerge victorious, because now they “know better” -- or have more power, or are less willing to play the victim, or something. And this, in its own way, represents as delusional a world view as that of the liberal humanist, who is forever trying to remake man – in his own image, or some chosen image... in any case, to not accept mankind and human nature as it is and work within those constraints. Conservatives are better, as has been pointed out by a number of commentators, at accepting “fallen man”; their notions of what is possible are not as grandiose at those of the liberals. But they tend to see the past with rose-colored glasses in the same manner as the liberals see the future, confusing nostalgia with reality.

So is this a counsel of despair? I would rather characterize it as realism... but then, everybody with a political viewpoint considers themselves “realistic” -- no one sets out, consciously, to impose delusional and fantastic thinking on their fellows. Whatever has to be overthrown as part of the revolution... well, that was just standing in the way. And whatever has to be destroyed wasn't really important. This is the mind set. They all have a concept of the nature of man, and are all trying to facilitate the full flowering thereof... well, except the ones who just want raw power, or money, and use political ideas as a cover. But they are easily detected and exposed, right? Not so fast! How many people out there still think, for instance, that Bill Clinton has “beliefs” and “values” that go beyond his own gratification? And surely Hillary Clinton believes in “America” first and foremost, with her own aggrandizement of power ranking far down the list. Right. So we also have the problem that people are easily fooled by the ambitious and talented among the political class. We have traded the ancient concept of meritocracy -- leadership based on merit -- for a form of authoritarianism: A person is a leader, therefore he (or she) must have merit.

Take any given political, social or economic issue... take the sum total of all the current discussion about it from all sides... and subtract that component which can be characterized as “emotional”. What's left? The chances are, nothing at all. But wait – aren't discussions of this sort naturally emotional? Shouldn't we care, fervently, about seeing our values realized in the public, social, and economic sectors... and shouldn't we care when those values are threatened? Well, yes – except that emotionality and attachment never won a debate... not really. I mean, they may have appeared to, but that debate will only come back and be repeated on another day, ad infinitum, because it will never be settled. Does anyone really “know” how much government involvement in the economy is the “right” amount, for instance? No, because all anyone cares about is that the level of involvement at present is too much... or too little. And is anyone interested in gathering actual facts relevant to the issue? No, because facts are far less important than theory. “The way things ought to be” is always based on ideals, never on an estimate of objective results. Things that don't seem to work – that are, objectively, a disaster – are deemed to “work” because they are supposed to work – in theory. And things that shouldn't work, but do – well, they aren't really “working”; there's something wrong with the data, or people are simply mistaken, misled, deceived, etc. This is the way things are in the world of politics – and the more our society and its resources are taken over, and dominated, by politics, the greater a proportion of our time and energy will be taken up with this sort of thinking... until eventually it will all be politics, the way the black market tends to take over a significant part of the economy in a totalitarian system (except for the exact opposite reason). And yet it seems as if people want it this way; they don't want to be philosophical, or moral, or objective – only emotional. We make fun of denizens of the Islamic world because they are such “hotheads” -- so irrational, so impulsive, so easily misled. But we cannot claim superiority to them in any way – at least not in terms of the current scene. We have had principles of sound governance in our past, as part of our traditions... but that era (assuming it ever existed, and is not just another case of societal “false memory”) is long gone. As I've said before, if an impartial observer gazed upon the American political scene today, they would not imagine, in a million years, that we fancied ourselves in a direct line of descent from the Founding Fathers. It would be like considering the barbarian kingdoms occupying Rome in the Dark Ages direct descendants of the Roman Republic. And we are not alone in this. After all, China claims direct descent from Chairman Mao and the Cultural Revolution for what is, today, possibly the most aggressive and thriving capitalist economy on the planet. (I guess even crazy thinking is OK if it's crazy in the right direction.) But no – we no longer have any claim on founding principles, and very little residual claim on even the most basic structural elements of the Constitution – since those have been distorted way beyond recognition. Does anyone still think we enjoy a “balance of powers”, for instance? With an imperial presidency and a chief executive who can (unofficially) declare war on any other country, or non-country, at any time, and be answerable to no one... and who can also, as the spirit moves him, defy the Supreme Court and get away with it? No – we have descended into soft tyranny... but it's getting harder with each passing day. Every law that is passed is made up mostly of sanctions – i.e. of the “or else” part – what happens if you don't comply. And we wonder why our prisons are overcrowded! We have become a nation of lawbreakers – not because the citizenry have turned into scofflaws as much as the law itself morphing from an aid to peace and civil order to a noose around everyone's neck. And yet, again, this is what people seem to want, because it relieves them from responsibility – from having to make choices. We send our representatives to Washington and to state capitals with the express intention that they should spend every waking hour “making laws” -- and then wonder why the law has become oppressive! If you want fewer laws, what you need is fewer lawmakers – or much less time on their hands. So the bottom line is that when people vote for their “representatives”, what they are saying is, yes, we need more laws – more than we already have. What each of them is really saying is, I want more laws that favor me and fewer that favor other people. So one's vote becomes a slot-machine bet – you pull the lever and hope for the best. Maybe a wave of hard currency will appear out of nowhere and wash you out of the voting booth... but it's unlikely. Even the most “informed” voter – the most dangerous kind, perhaps – is only hoping for a level playing field; no one dares hope that the playing field itself will be plowed under and turned into something productive.

And we vote in order to secure our “rights” -- as if they were things that could be turned on and off by a given president, or session of Congress. But when it comes to “rights” -- we either have them or we don't, and the government has nothing to do with it. Now, when it comes to freely exercising those rights, that's a different matter... but you do see the distinction, I hope. Of course, no one can agree on what “human rights” are in the first place – do they even exist? And if so, what is their origin? And what are they, exactly? How many are there? Are they all contained within the Bill of Rights? And so on. Again, it's all emotion, all politics. “Rights” are those things I claim when I feel I've been treated unfairly. It seems so much more noble to talk about “rights” than just about “wants”. How many protest signs start with the words, “I want”? But that's what they all mean, isn't it? Are we, in principle, any better than a bunch of two-year-olds? Not really. In fact, we're worse, because at least two-year-olds don't throw tantrums about their “rights”.

So how, after all, do we manage to climb up out of this mile-deep pit of politics – this stew of dissatisfaction? Are we like those poor wretches in the Dore engravings of the deluge, each trying to stay above water by climbing on the person next to them? Who will rescue us, since our “leaders” are all caught up in the same whirlpool? There do seem to be some people who are standing placidly on the sidelines, smugly viewing the spectacle – but we can expect no help from them. They may not have entirely created the situation, but as long as they are profiting from it they will allow it to persist and won't lift a finger to change it. And perhaps we are, in fact, caught up in a great cleansing – a deluge for our time (in which case, where's Noah, and where can I buy a ticket for his ark?). Where, indeed, can we stand – there being no island, no rock, and not even a lighthouse to guide the way. The irony is that, while we may not be in a cultural Dark Ages (though some would argue with that as well), and we are certainly in a golden age (or sorts) of technology, we have become as philosophically and morally benighted as any past civilization of which we have knowledge... and social and economic collapse is following right behind. This is, of course, no coincidence, since interconnectivity almost to the point of gridlock is one of the prime characteristics of our world – and yes, we have technology to thank for much of this. The downside of the “global village” is that it is, indeed, a village – with all of the dysfunctions and annoyances that villages have always been prone to. The village gossip has morphed into the media and the social work industry... the village bully has morphed into things like “spreading democracy” through military force... the village idiot has morphed into George W. Bush and Sarah Palin. And so on. Just because things are “writ large” doesn't make them better, or more acceptable – if anything, it adds to the danger and the oppression, not to mention the coarseness of existence. Again, when we decide, as a people, that politics is not the main thing, it's the only thing – we can't very well be surprised or upset at the result. If politics is merely an expression of human nature, it at least seems to express all of its worse aspects. So when we forego reason and objectivity in favor of emotion on a mass, or group, level, we have, in effect, thrown out all that is potentially noble, inspirational, and constructive and retained the mean, the carnal, and the impulsive – and the destructive. We have become, in effect, philosophical and moral vandals – not even understanding the significance of that which we willingly deface and destroy. The few who see it and urge restraint are overridden and marginalized... persecuted... even killed. One is tempted to simply turn and walk away, and leave it to the forces of darkness... but there is also the compulsion to keep that one candle burning. Who knows who might see it through the smoke, and across a sea of ignorance?

When Puppets Go Bad

I don't know what we expected. But the spectacle of Hamid Karzai melting down in public has to have some people wondering about all of the alleged blessings of empire. Clearly the problem of local leadership has to be a weak link, because what sort of person volunteers for lapdog duty? They have to know that it will forever label them as Quislings... traitors... collaborators. Of course, that's not the way we see it; any national leader who cooperates with our program must, by definition, be devoted to democracy, both in idea and practice... they must have the best interests of their people at heart... and they must be pure as the driven snow, free of corrupting influences of all sorts, even if corruption is a profoundly embedded part of the government of that country, its people, and its culture. They must, in other words, be Americans dressed up as locals – but even better, because they have to be “unifiers” and “persuaders” who can unite their people (and its military, of course) in a common cause – namely to support whatever agenda we brought with us when we invaded and occupied their country, and for as long as we deem it necessary. In theory, someday we'll go home and leave them to their own devices – but for the foreseeable future, they have to practice “democracy” our way – or at least pretend to. Or claim that they would, if only it weren't for certain “reactionary elements”. And so on.

But as I said, what kind of person would volunteer for this, apparently, winless-in-the-long-run duty? Why, the kind of person Karzai apparently is – namely a corrupt, venal, power-crazed nut case. And if only we could get him out of the way... er, persuade him to step down... we could replace him with someone else who would be... most likely, cut from the same cloth. As I've said before, we just don't do empire right. The Brits would have put up with no such highjinks; they would have appointed a governor from their own ranks and allowed only very limited and local powers to the natives. But they were under no constraint to preserve the illusion of democracy, whereas we are, and that is our real Achilles heel. If you're going to have an empire, be unabashed... take over, make it plain who's in charge, and kick major butt if anyone objects. But the way we do it is, we take over but then appoint a local war lord or some such whose job it then is to pretend he's “the people's choice” -- when, in fact, he couldn't care less, and neither could the people. We tend to forget that our notions of democracy are widely seen as a kind of weakness elsewhere in the world – you know, those places where the strong man still rules. They know full well that you can't just vote someone into office and then declare them the strong man; they have to earn the right,mostly through violence and intimidation – but note also, they are expected to be patriotic and defend the country, something our puppets are seldom if ever capable of.

So here's Karzai blaming the U.S. for his many troubles and woes – a not unreasonable position. I mean, we could have left him out in the sticks tending goats, or whatever he did before we invaded; clearly we elevated him far beyond his level of competence. And as far as graft, corruption, and cronyism are concerned – well, as I said, this is just another word for “the way things are done in most of the world” -- South Asia being no exception. And this is another instance of American hypocrisy, since we suffer from all of the same woes, but are more skilled at covering them up and calling them by different names.

It has been said that "absolute power corrupts absolutely". But this is actually not true. Absolute power renders the concept of corruption meaningless. Tyrants and dictators are expected to run things for their own benefit and that of family and friends. And no one questions this, unless they've had a taste of something else -- and even then, that taste may be illusory. So the least that can be said about Karzai is that he's running things (to the extent he's running anything) in a completely traditional way for that part of the world... which is what has us so upset, because we always insist on that extra layer of hypocrisy.

And then, to add insult to injury, Karzai threatens to join the other side – i.e. the Taliban. Our mortal enemies! The very reason we invaded in the first place! Well – let's face it, if you're Karzai, and believe that the U.S. cannot possibly win in Afghanistan, and know that your life expectancy is precisely five minutes after we leave... you'd better start hedging your bets right now. And the Taliban aren't such bad sorts, are they? He'd better hope they're more forgiving than the people who executed Quisling. But actually, they owe us a debt, and I expect they'll come back stronger than ever because of the way we've boosted their recruiting figures.

And here's the best line of all, from Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs: “On behalf of the American people, we're frustrated with (Karzai's) remarks.” Hey Robert! The “American people” don't give a damn – not about Karzai and not about Afghanistan. When are you and your boss going figure that out? But of course he had to put it that way, because what if he'd said, “On his own behalf, President Obama is frustrated with the remarks.” It wouldn't have had quite the cachet – not that it would have been any less acceptable to the Afghans.

What makes the whole thing completely farcical, of course, is that we wind up begging this Karzai character to clean up his act so that we can continue to credibly occupy his country and pursue a military campaign that his own people oppose. Ask the average Afghan if he cared one way or the other about 9/11... or about “terrorism”. Ask him if he's better off now than he was under the Taliban – and if he has more pride, more nationalistic feeling now than he did then. Ask him if he's in favor of democracy (after you tell him what that means, that is). Ask him how he feels about Karzai – our “ally”. And while you're at it, ask him how he feels about bombings and drone missile attacks... and the other war that we're waging on Afghanistan's only significant cash crop (heroin poppies). Ask him how he likes the invasion, the occupation, and the wretch we've installed as his “leader”. Then go ask yourself, for the thousandth time, why are we over there? Why? Why? Why?

The Church and the World

During the just-concluded Lenten season, we were spared most of the usual avalanche of “debunking” of the Gospels by the mainstream media – not because they finally decided to leave off, but because they had – or so they thought – a real “story” to promote, namely that of the current troubles within the Church, and in particular the notion that the waters of scandal and disrepute have finally risen to engulf the Holy Father himself. His membership in the Hitler Youth has become a dead horse which only the most hard-core anti-Catholics are still determined to beat -- and the very fact that his membership in that organization was followed, decades later, by his elevation to the papacy has to count as something of a miracle; this aspect has, in my opinion, been neglected even by his defenders. His traditionalism and actions taken to restore tradition have offended “liberated” Catholics in the U.S., as well as militant secular Jews – but that is old news as well, because we now know that these are people who can never be satisfied, by anything. But – aha! -- now we have a chance to draw a straight line between Pope Benedict and abuses over the years in the church in Germany – but to what end? To defend those who have accused people within the Church of sexual abuse? I think a better measure of the true agenda can be found in a recent Newsweek article, which, in essence, is saying: “Abuses occurred on Benedict's watch as bishop of Munich, so there goes the Latin Mass .” And, hip hip hooray, three cheers, etc.

The article can be found at http://www.newsweek.com/id/235665?GT1=43002. And according to the collective wisdom of Newsweek – as “establishment” a periodical as one can imagine – Benedict's troubles have knocked the wheels off everything he has been trying to accomplish since his elevation to the papacy – like, for instance, the revival of the Latin Mass, defending Catholic exceptionalism, traditional morality, and rolling back Vatican II “reforms”. And when it comes to enticing disenchanted Anglicans to come over to Rome – well! You can say sayonara to that idea. (The Archbishop of Canterbury – AKA “Gabby Hayes in a mitre” -- must feel like these latest scandals came along just in time to prevent a mass exodus.)

Ah yes, what a cause for celebration! It recalls nothing so much as the sack of Rome by the barbarians – what did they have to offer? Well, nothing much, just “not Rome”. And that was sufficient cause for celebration. And you can bet that there are conga lines snaking through the offices of outfits like Newsweek – and probably “liberal” dioceses and parishes as well. “L'infame” has suffered a fatal blow and freedom is at hand. If only they knew that their “freedom” is the death of the spirit. But that is what they actually seem to want. Well, after all, the things of this world do not survive death – but neither will I; this seems to be their attitude. “Eat, drink, and be merry” -- and a curse on anyone who says there's a better way.

And what, pray tell, is the connection between these scandals and Pope Benedict's “conservative agenda”? Well, it's obvious, isn't it? If he can be accused, and found guilty of, criminal negligence when it comes to events in his former diocese in Germany, it not only calls into question, but effectively pulls the rug out from under, all of the reforms he has instituted in the Church – as if there is some sort of direct connection, and as if they even care one way or the other about those reforms. Except that they do, because the Church, as always, remains a thorn in the side of secularists, humanists, and revolutionaries of every stripe – and this is because any assertion by the Church, or its leader, of its true identity and its moral authority is seen, quite clearly, as a threat to their agenda. When they can persuade the Church, or elements thereof, to compromise, relinquish authority, and voluntarily sink into the warm, fetid bath of accommodation and “ecumenism”, then they have no problem with the Church – it can live on as an antique... as an island of superstition in a sea of enlightenment... as a place for little old Rosary-muttering ladies; that's OK. That way it's contained, and rendered impotent and non-threatening. But the minute it tries to assert itself in traditional or “conservative” ways, that spells trouble, and that's what has to be snuffed out by any means possible.

But think about the things that are overlooked in all of this hullabaloo. One is that, far from being a series of isolated cases of which each one constitutes “breaking news”, and a “death knell for the Catholic Church (and this time we really mean it)”, these scandals are really all of a piece with a sad trend over the past few decades, in which many people wound up in the priesthood or in other positions within the Church who should never have even gotten in the door... and this has been a world-wide phenomenon – although, curiously, much more intense in Europe and North America, the most secular parts of (formerly) Christendom. But why? Which is to say, why does the Church now discover that, within its ranks, there are so many misfits who have pursued their own agenda for years, or even decades? And of course part of the weirdness in all of this is that the secular press has, over the same period of time, decided that homosexuality is not only not a pathological condition but is, in fact, no more than an “alternative life style” which deserves honor and respect, and even preference, as a way of making reparation for past acts of intolerance and misunderstanding. So the party line becomes, in essence, “Homosexuality is a perfectly fine thing, but not when it's acted out by priests upon under-aged and powerless victims.” And to bolster the somewhat “schitzy” nature of this argument, the terminology “pedophile priests” has been universally adopted. Now, I've commented on this matter before, but, in brief, it's no more than a way to distance the misguided acts of a few from the now-universal acclaim for homosexuality in general. In other words, no one wants to admit that these offenders are, by and large, garden-variety homosexuals who happen to have preyed on people legally deemed “under-age”, even if sexually mature or verging on sexual maturity.

At least a few analysts have attempted to clarify things a bit by coming up with the terms “hebephilia” and “ephebophilia”, which are defined thusly:

“Hebephilia refers to the sexual preference for pubescent individuals. It differs from ephebophilia, which refers to the sexual preference for individuals in later adolescence.”

And both are contrasted with pedophilia, which refers to the sexual preference for prepubescent children. Now, I'm not aware of any statistics on the matter, but I would be willing to bet that, in the vast majority of cases – including those in the news at present – what was going on was instances of acted-out hebephilia or ephebophilia – and those impulses are quite common, if not universal, within the homosexual or “gay” community, especially when one takes into consideration the obsession so many “gays” seem to have with youth – with being, and staying, and pretending to be, young.

But we can't just say that those offending priests are “gay”, because we've already decided that “gay” is OK. Got it? So something else has to be ginned up in order to distance these people, and their behavior, from the approved “gay” mainstream. And note also that each of these terms only refers to sexual preference – or one might say attraction. There are no acts implied by the terms themselves, and yet, once again, the term “pedophilia” has been elevated from a clinical definition of a preference, or mental state, into an act (and inaccurately at that). But in that case, how would one describe the mere attraction in the absence of the act? This is apparently of little or no concern to the media, since they always prefer sensationalism to scientific or clinical objectivity.

Now, this is all by way of (hopefully) clarification. It does not excuse any acts, of any sort, perpetrated against young, vulnerable, powerless individuals of any age or level of sexual development. I'm only trying to show that the media are pursuing their own agenda by manipulating the meaning of words.

But back to the matter at hand. How did all these characters manage to worm their way into the Church, which is supposed to be a stronghold of morality? How did so many of them manage to make vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, and then blatantly violate at least two of those three? Has the Church suddenly failed, after all of these centuries, to weed out candidates with serious character flaws – and if so, why? Or – another possibility – there have always been homosexuals within the body of the Church, but they have been “closeted”, if you will, and the vow of chastity has been sufficient to keep them from acting out. But in that case, why are they acting out now? I'm afraid I can't, at this point, come up with a comprehensive model to explain all this, but I feel that it's all of a piece with the general secularization of society and – yes, even though it's an overworked term – its moral decay. The Church is after all, populated with human beings, and even taking religious vows does not shield a person from the influences of the world – from its explicit or implied statements as to which behaviors are acceptable and which ones are not. And then you have the question of Church authority, and if you take the entire legacy of faith and morals which has come down through the ages, the Church as an institution has remained steadfast and unchanged – but the larger society has changed drastically, and secularism is now the baseline, with morality being relegated to a museum piece and “ethics” being so conditional and relativistic that it, too, might as well be a museum piece. All we have left, in effect, is the law – which is wildly arbitrary much of the time – and politics, custom, and “public opinion”, which is, in turn, controlled by the media, which are, in turn, controlled by, and which exist only to serve, the powers that be – which are, again, concerned only with wealth and power. So, scandals or not, the Church is on the defensive on all fronts – not that it hasn't been under siege for centuries, but the floodwaters are definitely rising. Perhaps one of the few saving graces is that the Church, in these times, has little in the way of real wealth and virtually nothing in the way of secular – i.e. political – power. So the corrupting influences of those factors has, at long last, receded – which should have been a golden opportunity for the Church to focus on what it does best, i.e. preach morality and salvation to the masses, and leave the “princes of this world” to their own devices.

But it is precisely these functions – those that the Church inherited from Christ – that Benedict is trying to focus on and promote. He travels the world not as a secular ruler but almost as a mendicant, trying to persuade people, and world leaders, to do the right thing – for others, and to their own betterment. But he has no power to coerce – and his power to persuade is limited by the willingness and ability of other people to be persuaded. And yet this is precisely the reason he is so hated by the secular powers and their propagandists – because he, and the Church, represent the only significant alternative, in terms of world view – metaphysics and epistemology, if you will – to earth-bound secularism, materialism, and humanism... which, in the long run, invariably eventuate in tyranny and totalitarianism. The world is going one way, and the Church remains steadfast, even in the face of serious flaws in some of its members. The Church is always, and inevitably, a sign of contradiction to the “values” of the world – and the better it performs this function the more it is hated, and the more it is persecuted... and the more energy its enemies have when it comes to detecting and amplifying the flaws and misdeeds of some of those within its ranks. And the script behind every news story is quite clear: Because the Church “ignored”, or allowed certain things to happen, therefore the truth is not in it, and we can ignore all of its 2000-plus years of teaching and go on about our business as if it had never existed – as if we were just picking up where the Roman Empire left off (just before Constantine, lets say). Weren't the pagans, after all, much happier than we are – before the Church placed this yoke of “guilt” on all of our shoulders? And hasn't "science" proven that man is no more than an animal, with a baseline of sexual urges and a group existence that is strictly economic? And isn't the objective, observable world really all we have to worry about – everything else being “superstition” and fairy tales? This is the basic narrative that lies behind every media presentation having to do with the Church and its current troubles. And of course, the current “crisis” will surely be the last straw – even though anyone with a sense of history will realize that the Church has been operating more or less in crisis mode since the beginning – although most of the crises originated externally, unlike the present case. Anyone can pile up scandal stories – the same way anyone can pile up stories of the Church's many good works over the centuries, not to mention its primary mission, which is the saving of souls. All it proves is that the Church is an institution established by God, but populated by all-too-human men. But one wonders how else it could have been – an institution of angels? Or a mere social club – which is, of course, what everyone wants it to be, and nothing more. The question for its critics should always be – well then, what should the Church do, or be? The answer, more often than not these days, will be – just go away, disappear, and stop bothering us.

A letter to the editor of my local paper put it very well: "... all of these priests were guilty of not practicing what they preached, but none of them ever preached what they practiced. Catholic standards are not represented by these actions since they were all authorized and contrary to the mission, charter, and historical teachings of the church."

So what am I saying? That because the enemies of the Church are evil, their accusations can be ignored? No – only that those accusations have to be seen in the light of the broader context of our time. So, for example, is any amount of apology, or reparation, or reform, on the part of the Church ever going to be enough to satisfy its critics? No. So this notion of, “if only” the Church could root out and purge itself of bad elements, all would be forgiven, and peace would again reign... this is a false hope. The Church will remain under siege, not because of what it is, but because of the way the world is.

So what, then, is to be done? Clearly, a housecleaning is in order – and not just on a one-time basis, but continually. The Church must become militant again – militant about its beliefs, about faith and doctrine, about morals, and about its expectations of its members – clergy, religious, and lay people. The alternatives – compromises with the world – have been tried too often, and have failed. When the door is opened, the world rushes in, and very little can get out. This is the problem with “ecumenism” -- which, basically, is the notion that we'll all get along fine if the Church does all the compromising. But wherever this is tried, the Church tends to disappear – which certainly makes its enemies happy, but what does it do to the mission? It renders it irrelevant and impotent. Try defending the idea of a living wage – a family-centered wage – based on Catholic social teaching; the capitalists, politicians, and economists just laugh. Supply and demand, that's the thing! Leave charity to the Red Cross. Try defending the idea of “just war” to the State Department. Try, in fact, defending ideas like that of fallen man, and salvation... to just about anybody. Try talking about the Last Things. The world simply is not interested. All the Church has to offer is the truth – but that is a concept that has become alien to our way of life. And, sadly, whenever the Church starts discussing these troubling matters, it will meet with armies of people all pointing fingers at “pedophile priests” -- as if those unfortunates were enough to neutralize 2000 years of faith and teaching. I could ask, for example, if the worst person in the Democratic Party represented the entire party and all of its works; would that be fair? Would the most evil Frenchman of all time be a fair representative of the entire country of France and its cultural legacy? And yet, this is precisely the logic they want everyone to subscribe to when it comes to the Church.

I think the problem in the past, with enforcing Church rules against sexual offenders, has not been one of laxity as often as the realization that, with the world as hostile as it is, and governments following suit, exposing offenders to public scrutiny can be an invitation to witch hunts, persecutions, and “home invasions” of the Church, which would seriously compromise its need to maintain a distance and a degree of removal from the secular world and its concerns – especially politics. And there are, in fact, mechanisms within the Church with which to effectively deal with offenses of this sort – but they must be applied in a thorough and unambiguous manner, and this requires will power. But to simply take the easy way out and throw a priest to the dogs every time suspicion arises – this is equally unjust. The Church has a mission to defend itself – and to defend its members, up to a point. It could be argued that turning a priest over to the secular arm should only be done as a last resort; I think this depends on the nature of the secular arm at that time and in that place. In any case, caution is in order.

Now, on the other side of the coin, when it comes to dealing with the victims, this is an area where considerable improvement has to be made – not only in retrospect but in terms of current policy and procedures. But again, it can't be a matter of running to the police or “hotlining” someone every time something appears to have gone wrong – because, again, a calm, objective approach is the best defense against unjust accusations, people with an agenda, and just plain hysterics and psychos. It should not be forgotten that mental illness tends, not surprisingly, to focus on those things that are most important in life – to people in general and to the individual. So the fact that crazy people tend to have crazy thoughts about religion – while it provides plenty of “talking points” for the secularists – should not surprise anyone. How many people get obsessive-compulsive about canned peas? Canned peas aren't all that important compared to things like religion, sex, family, health – you know, those things that “crazy” people worry about almost as much as “sane” people do. So what this means is that many people with serious mental problems tend to focus on religion, even if religion had nothing whatsoever to do with their problems. But religion is prominent; it looms large (or at least it used to). I doubt if a person who was (successfully) brought up as an atheist spends much time thinking about religious matters, even if he becomes mentally ill.

And while we're on the subject of victims, let's talk about another sociological/economic phenomenon, namely fake victimization, which has turned into a singularly cynical, venal, and lucrative industry that has severely compromised law enforcement (not to mention the media, who always eager to be compromised) and made big money for a corrupt few, who are clever manipulators but moral imbeciles. It begins with an accusation, or with suspicion... and have you ever heard of parents putting ideas into the heads of their children – ideas about having been molested, e.g. by day care workers? Yes, this was a common occurrence during the “child sexual abuse witch hunts” of the 1980s – but I don't think it has died out (any more than human nature has undergone a sea change since then). And have you ever heard of social workers, prosecutors, lawyers, and psychologists pouncing on accusations and suspicions of this sort for reasons of their own? And how about “false memories”, that are ruthlessly exploited by all the same people? This has been well documented. And doesn't this exploit the victim just as much as the alleged offense might have?

I'm not saying that the current crop of cases tormenting the Church is based on false victimization -- in fact, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that all of the accusations are justified. But this phenomenon is so pervasive that it should at leat be kept in mind as a possibility. And in cases where it's a factor, the Church's relationship (if I can use that term) with the victims will inevitably be corrupted by "outside" influences, and may for that reason be especially unsalvageable. But whose fault would that be? The Church's? The victim's? No – in many cases it would be the end result of a concerted campaign to bring down the Church, or some part thereof, at all costs.

In any case, even without malicious intentions on anyone's part, the Church simply cannot be stampeded by everyone who makes an accusation – any more than the secular courts can. And why is it, by the way, that priests accused of “pedophilia” are assumed guilty unless proven innocent – and even then, they are still assumed guilty (and that the justice system “failed”)? Can this be said of any other combination of demographic and crime in this country? The answer is no – only Catholic priests are subject to this Napoleonic prejudice. This is another factor that creates a cautious – one might even say paranoid – attitude within Church organizations, and rightly so.

But, happily, the Vatican is fighting back against some of the most obvious, agenda-laden slanders. And, in particular, it's saying that it doesn't always have to play the secularists' game in the secularists' home park -- always a losing proposition. Perhaps, at long last, it figures it has nothing to lose by acting in its own self-defense, since every form of apology and breast-beating has been tried and found wanting (by the media and other anti-Catholic organizations). This is not to say that apologies – and more – are not in order, but “outing” the agenda of their enemies is in order as well. People have to understand that the goal of the internationalists and their media facilitators when it comes to the Church is “end it, don't mend it”. Now, of course, what they overlook is the promise given to the Church by Christ Himself – namely:

“And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)

But admittedly one has to have faith to believe that (1) this promise was ever made; (2) it is valid; and (3) it refers to the Catholic Church of today. (But if not, to whom, or what, does it refer? This is also never discussed.) The Catholic Church can, in fact, be described as “exceptionalist” -- even when it makes the relatively mild statement that it contains “the fullness of the faith”. And this, as we know – any form of exceptionalism, especially in the spiritual realm – is anathema to the powers of this world. “Nothing outside the state” -- so if there is any acceptable exceptionalism floating around it is the notion that the state is the only valid human institution, and that all others must be subservient, and place their resources (human and otherwise) at its service. So already the Church stands as a sign of contradiction – even before it starts talking about faith, doctrine, and morality. (And you'll notice that hapless priests who are forced to jump through ecumenical or humanist hoops get about as much appreciation from secular society for their efforts as a Judas goat does. They are given about as much respect as "stool pigeons" or "snitches" in the criminal underclass.)

Now, another sad consequence of all of this controversy is the scandal it causes, and its manifestation in people leaving the Church. In Germany, for instance, people are allegedly crowding into registry offices in order to declare themselves no longer Catholic, and one wonders how they can so readily give up 2000 years of faith. But that's not what they're giving up; at least that's not how they see it. I was thinking about this during the magnificent Easter service at my Latin Mass parish – this is what they're giving up! But no – what they are, by and large, giving up would be the same thing that most American Catholics are subjected to week after week – a bland, insipid, bloodless, watered-down liturgy, “hymns” that would shame the average kindergarten class, and homilies that sound like pep talks from a clinically-depressed high school baseball coach. They are not, in other words, giving up red blood and red meat (except literally, in the case of the Sacrament) – it's more like they have been on a starvation diet ever since Vatican II and have finally decided to seek elsewhere for nourishment (not to mention aesthetic stimulation and self-respect). The question is asked frequently among my Latin Mass acquaintances, if you knew someone who might be interested in joining, or coming back to, the Catholic Church, where would you take them? To one of the insipid, anemic, slouching “novus ordo” Masses? Absolutely not! That would only convince him that he was right – that the Church had nothing to offer. People who “return” to the Latin Mass – often after many decades – are frequently amazed at what they have missing all this time; their attitude is almost one of “Wow, this is a real church – a real religion – a real faith!” It is, in fact, real food for the spirit as well as the senses, after years in a spiritual and cultural concentration camp. And who set up this camp? Not Vatican II, but the people who promoted the “spirit of Vatican II” -- i.e. the liberals, “reformers”, relativists, conformers-to-the-world.

Plus, the question for anyone who is leaving the Church – for any reason – should be, what is the alternative? What have you found that is equally (or more) nourishing or satisfying? For as Simon Peter said:

"Lord, to whom shall we go?You have the words of everlasting life" (John 6:68)

Of course, the world offers a vast array of apparent alternatives – all the way from totally cynical materialism, Gordon Gekko style, to a galaxy of philosophies and New Age “systems” -- not to mention causes and obsessions of all sorts (like "global warming", veganism, and so on). There is certainly no lack of choice if one is a “seeker”, but I would offer that the Catholic Church has an excellent “track record” of long standing... its faith is coherent and worthy of belief (and historically based, i.e. not totally mystical or mythical)... and it has made a huge difference in history. Or – adopt the “via negativa” and contemplate what the world would have been like by this time without the Church. Of course, New Agers would say, well, we'd all be happy pagans dancing around Stonehenge at the summer solstice. Well, maybe. Or the whole world might look like North Korea. Who can say? I just can't imagine things having turned out any better if secularists, pagans, or even Christian heretics had been in charge all this time. But again, it all boils down to faith... and all the explanations by the faithful of why they have it aren't going to impress those who don't want it and aren't interested.

But to go back, for a moment, to the issue of “liberalization”. It might originally have been based on a genuine desire for “outreach”, and bringing lost sheep back into the fold. But before the ink was dry, as they say, the “spirit of Vatican II” took over and altar rails (and altars) were being torn down and trucked off to landfills. "Groves and high places" were being plowed under as in the days of Cromwell. Centuries of inspired music were replaced by bland ditties that any moron with a guitar could sing, and accompany, to perfection... and homilies, as I said, were reduced to uninspiring pep talks. And even once the agenda of the “reformers” was exposed – “reform” turning to “deform” and then to deconstruction – people were too apathetic or intimidated to protest. I can't recall one priest who was tarred and feathered for turning his parish into a social club and political action group. But the ones who loved the Latin Mass were driven underground, and many wound up joining breakaway groups.

But guess what! I would be willing to bet – and there is evidence for this – that the majority of these “pedophile priests” who are being tracked down at long last come from the ranks of these “reformers” and “renewal types” whose idea of “renewal” was to destroy physical churches, destroy the liturgy, and compromise the Church's moral authority. So what they wound up doing, as the saying goes, was making a desert and calling it peace – namely peace with the world, which they seem to value so highly. So they were put in positions of authority and proceeded to starve their flocks, the way an African dictator would starve his people and render them helpless. And make no mistake – when Catholics wake up to this fact and attempt to do something about it, they are – still, to this day – often shunned, slandered, sanctioned, and sidelined. So all we can do is wait patiently until this generation passes away – which it is doing. The younger generation of priests is nowhere near as wedded to the false notions of “reform” and “renewal” -- and, in fact, the more traditional an order, or diocese, or seminary is, the more likely it is to be producing new priests who will eventually take over from the tired, gray, failed relics of Vatican II (the “spirit” thereof, I mean).

And when you think about it, it makes perfect sense that there should be a nexus between liberals within the Church and the “pedophilia” problem. This was an entire generation, or cohort, that joined the Church for, in many cases, the wrong reasons (e.g., avoiding the draft); they were not psychologically or morally prepared to take on the solemn duties of the priesthood... and, sure enough, when temptation presented itself, which it always will, many of them fell. But at the same time -- and again, owing to the secularization of the culture and the devaluing of the priesthood and priestly vows -- there was a steep decline in vocations, i.e. interest in the religious life, which undoubtedly led to a decline in standards in many places. In other words, the bar was lowered, and some unworthy individuals managed to jump over.

And to what do we owe this underestimation – almost trivialization – of the concept of the priesthood? Again, to the baseline of moral laxity as well as to the Church's loss of moral authority – again, not because it truly loses it but because people stop listening. It was the compromises “demanded” by the “spirit of Vatican II” that constituted the real loss of moral authority – but those compromises were more in people's imagination and wishful thinking than in reality – i.e. they never appeared in doctrine or in pronouncements from the Magisterium or the Vatican or any pope... any more than the Latin Mass was ever “prohibited”. These are all myths promoted by the media over the years in order to aid and abet what they felt was, really, Job One – to get the Church out of the way of their agenda (and that of their secular masters).

And who, again, were these priests who, years later, wound up implicated in the “pedophilia” scandals? Many of them were those darlings of the media of that time, the “hip, groovy, liberal” priests who could relate to youth (I'll say!) -- who wouldn't be caught dead in a clerical collar – and whose vestments were something they picked up in a market in Ouagadougu when they were in the Peace Corps. At last, the Catholic Church had some priests who could relate to real people – who could feel their pain – unlike those stuffy old dried-up guys with the Irish accents. And, by the way, the Church at the same time acquired a bunch of “swingin' sisters” who doffed the habit in favor of jeans and sweatshirts. Some of them lasted about as long as it took to find another swingin' sister that they could go “ex” with and set up housekeeping in Northampton, Massachusetts. Others were seduced out of their orders by New Age gurus... and some stuck around and wound up taking over parishes after having wielded castration knives over hapless priests (but not, obviously, in time to keep them from committing sexual offenses).

But there's a point to be made here. Much of this madness has passed – the tsunami of “renewal” washed over the American Church and left much destruction in its wake... but it did, in fact, survive, and there is a remnant that is more militant than ever as to the value of the Latin Mass and of keeping faith with the Magisterium and the Holy Father – values that are perfectly compatible with those of Pope Benedict. So one might say that the “renewal” has had an ironic or unanticipated consequence – a real renewal! But like a tropical disease, the effects of the “renewal” are still with us – as are so many of the misfits that, in many cases, rode in on its coattails. So the operation is not unlike that of the “Nazi hunters” -- the Church has to track down offenders, even if the offenses were way in the past (and do Nazi hunters ever let anyone off the hook because they are “old and sick”? Hell no!), and bring certain people to justice in order to re-establish credibility and cool the bright lights of scandal. Not that, as I said before, the media will ever be satisfied, because they want nothing less than to see the Catholic Church wiped off the map (Christianity too, for that matter – but they seem willing to put up with the harmless, non-threatening kind – like Episcopalianism, for instance). So the Church will always be under attack. Wave a magic wand, and make all the “pedophiles” and their offenses disappear, and all their victims healed, and the attacks will go on nonetheless. This is simply the way it is, and anyone who is following these stories needs to keep this perspective in mind.

Stung

I subscribe to a fairly large number of conservative, libertarian, and traditional Catholic periodicals, mostly monthlies – not that I can possibly read them all cover to cover, but at least I get to pick and choose articles of interest and support the “cause” (or “causes”) as well. The problem is that right now I feel like I'm caught in some sort of time warp, because the issues that have been coming in over the past week or so – mostly dated April – all convey the same picture of ObamaCare, namely that it's doomed to failure, and what the impact is going to be on Obama, his administration, his legacy, the Democrats, the Republicans, conservatives, etc. All very interesting, of course – except that the premise was totally wrong, because ObamaCare has not only passed, but with flying colors. So what were all of these people thinking? We know how risky it is to count votes before the actual voting occurs – and liberals in Washington are unmatched at making last-minute “deals” (AKA “bribes”) to get collectivist legislation passed. And the “on the fence” legislators may not respect themselves in the morning, but by then it will be too late; they'll be “on the record” as having supported yet another liberal incursion into the lives and liberties of Americans.

Maybe all of these opinionators were thinking of the “conservative Democrats” (assuming such an animal can even exist anywhere on the planet)... or the “anti-abortion Democrats”. But they were pacified by Obama's solemn promise that ObamaCare would not open the floodgates for more taxpayer-funded abortions; he would see to it. Which he seems to have done – except that he can take that promise back with an additional stroke of the pen any time he likes. I compare it to the used car salesman who tells you to go ahead and sign on the dotted line, and he'll fill in the numbers later. Abortion being the holy grail of liberals/Democrats, they are not about to give it up for any reason, least of all some vague promise made in the heat of political battle.

Another point they invariably make – or try to – is that ObamaCare is directly contrary to “the will of the American people”, or the voters, or whoever. But how can that be, when a majority – or at least a plurality – voted for Obama, knowing full well that nationalizing health care was at the top of his list of priorities? And how can it be when the Democrats acquired majorities in both houses, again courtesy of the voters? Unless we suspect that every election that a Democrat won in 2008 was stolen – not theoretically impossible, but unlikely, in my opinion. And besides, the voters don't have to be avidly “for” something, just as long as they're not against it. Will the legislators who voted for ObamaCare really be “punished” this fall (for those up for re-election) – or will the parade have moved on to different issues by then? And of course ObamaCare is not truly “the law of the land” (a favorite phrase among liberals these days, for some reason) until all of the lawsuits already being prepared have tried, and failed, to get all or part of it rescinded. Plenty of other massive programs down through the years, going back at least as far as the New Deal, have been passed and implemented with great fanfare and celebration, only to be broken up on the shoals of the legal system, which is not yet a total captive of the executive branch. And – not to forget – Congress can always change its mind. ObamaCare could come up for another vote next week and be defeated – unlikely, but at least possible; that's just the way the system is set up.

So in any case, the conservative print media are experiencing a bit of a “Dewey Beats Truman” moment right now – and one could say it was foolish of them to count these Easter chicks before they were hatched. True enough, and it shows how wishful thinking can corrupt even the most “fair and balanced” journalism. But they will regroup, dust themselves off, and charge back into the fray – on health care or some other issue. And we do need their labors. Now if they could just stop confusing their enthusiasm with reality they might be able to contribute even more.