The Anchoress

In his column Truth, Justice, Abortion and the Times Magazine the Times’ “public editor” (used to be known as an “ombudsman” a fine word sadly underused) has written a rather strong indictment against a controversial cover story in the Magazine, the story’s writer and editors, and the “top editors” (he wrote that phrase twice) who rather pooh-poohed those who wrote with concerns as to the story’s veracity.

Ombudsman Byron Calame (of whom I wrote disparagingly, here) takes some strong lines, this time.

THE cover story on abortion in El Salvador in The New York Times Magazine on April 9 contained prominent references to an attention-grabbing fact. “A few” women, the first paragraph indicated, were serving 30-year jail terms for having had abortions. That reference included a young woman named Carmen Climaco. The article concluded with a dramatic account of how Ms. Climaco received the sentence after her pregnancy had been aborted after 18 weeks.

It turns out, however, that trial testimony convinced a court in 2002 that Ms. Climaco’s pregnancy had resulted in a full-term live birth, and that she had strangled the “recently born.” A three-judge panel found her guilty of “aggravated homicide,” a fact the article noted. But without bothering to check the court document containing the panel’s findings and ruling, the article’s author, Jack Hitt, a freelancer, suggested that the “truth” was different.

You’ll want to read all of it. Calame examines how the freelance reporter made assumptions that indicate either laziness or staggering naviete (or simply believing what he wanted to believe), and the editor seemed careless as to the legwork (possibly because the story was “too good to check” - rather like Rathergate, as Thomas Lifson notes). Calame also observes that the court documentation telling the whole story was easy to come by.

Calame saves his strongest disapproval for the response by Times’ editors to public queries as to the story’s accuracy: The magazine’s failure to check the court ruling was then compounded for me by the handling of reader complaints about the issue. The initial complaints triggered a public defense of the article by two assistant managing editors before the court ruling had even been translated into English or Mr. Hitt had finished checking various sources in El Salvador. After being queried by the office of the publisher about a possible error, Craig Whitney, who is also the paper’s standards editor, drafted a response that was approved by Gerald Marzorati, who is also the editor of the magazine. It was forwarded on Dec. 1 to the office of the publisher, which began sending it to complaining readers.

One thing is clear to me, at this point, about the key example of Carmen Climaco. Accuracy and fairness were not pursued with the vigor Times readers have a right to expect.

Good for Calame for doing his job and taking his publication to task. The Times’ “stood by” the story and seemingly is determined to continue to do so, even in the face of contrary evidence. Kind of reminds me of the AP standing by” the story of four torched mosques and 6 human beings “burned alive” even in the face of dubious evidence and ummm…an often used and “known source” that no one can seem to verify.

Will the AP ever correct itself? One hopes so. As demonstrated by Calame, media outlets (or individual press people) can correct themselves - admitting that maybe the readers who dare question them might be right, once in a while - without much fallout beyond what appears to be a mild sense of humiliation.

DO read Lifson’s piece, which is a good analysis, with lots of background information on the “freelance reporter” and the rest of the players in the NY Times Magazine apparently fake story. And Powerline has more.

Sometimes I observe how audaciously some in the media press their perspectives, even if it requires some distortion, and I get angry because the disrespect for public intelligence is so insulting. I feel a little like Hamlet facing his betraying friend, Guildenstern:

Hamlet: Will you play upon this pipe?
Guildenstern: My lord, I cannot.
Hamlet: I pray you.
Guildenstern: Believe me, I cannot.
Hamlet: I do beseech you.
Guildenstern: I know no touch of it my lord.
Hamlet: It is as easy as lying. […]
Guildenstern:[…] I have not the skill.
Hamlet Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of
me! You would play upon me […]’Sblood, do you think I am
easier to be played on than a pipe? […]
- Hamlet, Act III

Ahem…there is some evidence that yes, the press thinks we are more easily played than a pipe.

UPDATE: Andrew McCarthy says The Times Lies About Enemy Combatant Law. He explains how and why. Disingenuous. Disrespectful of readership, too. Here comes the new year, just like the old year. And Newsbusters is starting the new year off with one obnoxious media moment after another. Don’t miss this one. It blew my mind.

UPDATE II: No! Journalists are lockstepping hacks? It can’t be! I’m shocked, shocked! Meanwhile, Gateway Pundit has an answer to them.

UPDATE III: Curt at Flopping Aces is writing on the AP and its methods.

UPDATE IV: Seems the NY Times does not like its ombudsman to do his job, and they may not replace Calame when his contract expires. All that truth-telling makes them feel ooghy. La Malkin also talks about this in her column

In 2005 Buster made his predictions, and they were so-so.

in 2006, I made mine. They were stinkers. Clearly I am no sage or prophet! Although I did get numbers 7,8, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19 and 21 mostly right. Of course…pretty much everyone would have predicted the same, so I’m no good at this game!

2007…no predictions. The world is too crazed. Anything can happen.

Ambivablog notes we still don’t know what to call this decade, although her suggestion at the end has merit.

Hang on tight, don’t overdo, say your prayers, check out Fausta’s year end thoughts and videos and the curmudgeon’s thoughtful year-end essay and we’ll see you next year!

And God bless us, everyone!

UPDATE:
I’m not the only one not daring to predict 2007. Only a few here!
Sigmund Carl and Alfred
American Digest
Ace of Spades
National Review
The Random Yak
Mark Steyn
Dean Barnett

Other interesting posts and year-end stuff:
Brandywine Books
Blue Crab Boulevard
Jules Crittenden
Decision ‘08
Dappled Things
Happy Catholic
Okie on the Lam
Scribal Terror
Oh How I Love Jesus
Englishman in New York
Central Sanity
Cartago Delenda Est
Classical Values
Ankle Biting Pundits
Doug Ross
Closed Cafeteria
Musing Minds
Michelle Malkin
Irish Pennants
Wide Awake Cafe
Thoughts of a Regular Guy

Ed Morrissey has the tape and the right response.

We’ve known for a while that journalists have lost the ability to make fine distinctions. Now, some of them can’t make broad one’s either?

Someone wrote to me last night that Anderson Cooper had done a really good job - that he was forceful in reminding viewers that without coalition troops Saddam would still be in power. The writer gave props to Cooper saying (I’m paraphrasing, from memory) “this execution and what it means for Iraq is bigger than hating Bush…” Cooper, he said, understood that.

Some others, apparently do not.

Some commenters at CQ wonder if this was a cold reading on the anchor’s part, or if he wrote the copy himself. Good question. Seems to me though, that if you can think fast on your feet, even if you see the word “assassination” coming at you, and you know it should be “execution” or even “death” you should be able to catch it.

But I could be wrong. Some J-school grad can hopefully clue me in. But Ed basically gives thumbs down to much of the coverage of Saddam’s death…and his life, too. He writes here:

It wasn’t just the execution coverage that was a joke; it was the entire coverage of Saddam Hussein, going back to Eason Jordan’s deal with the devil that kept their Baghdad bureau open. The last 24 hours just confirms their soullessness. (via Memeorandum).

Me? I think when you can’t get on the same page about whether whether an execution is an assassination, then partisans have moved way beyond talking past each other and have decided to simply embrace “alternate realities”…which is what the dictatorship of relativism brings you to, eventually.

What was it Chesterton said…something about…”if you believe in nothing, you can make yourself believe anything.”

UPDATE: Meanwhile - while I wouldn’t go so far as to say the left is “mourning” Hussein’s death, Gateway Pundit has a round up that suggests that their Bush hate does play into their feelings. I’ve wondered several times over the past few days, what they’d be writing if only a President Clinton, Gore or Kerry had presided over the capture, trial and execution of Saddam Hussein and all that has come since/during. I imagine their posts would be quite different. Perhaps they’re not “mourning” Saddam…they’re just sulking because the president behind it all has an R after his name, instead of a D. That’s sad.

Also, I think the Newsbusters folks are not understanding Dennis Miller’s excellent snark, here. He said:

Let’s see, maybe it’s time for a Democratic president. Stay with me. Because the next step in the inevitable escalation in this war with radical Islam is going to involve us being appreciably more brutal and ruthless than we have been to date. And I think the left’s cronyism with the mainstream media will provide cover for someone on that side of things to up the ante.

He makes a valid point: A Democrat president could get away with all the stuff President Bush has done, is doing and wants to do to fight Islamofascism, because the (89% Registered Democrat) press will work for that president, instead of against him…or her. Come on, now…do you really think the NY Times would have done the Plame dance, or leaked the NSA and SWIFTBANKS stories if a Democrat had been leading the charge? Quite the contrary…if a President Clinton, Gore or Kerry had taken on this fight, appreciably weakened AlQ, gotten Libya to give up their WMD, nailed Hussein and helped Iraq become sovereign, AND kept the economy running at full steam, the press would be urging the purchase of TNT for an additional head on Mt. Rushmore. They’d be toasting the “humanitarian president” who freed women from oppression and helped shape the middle east into a democracy, etc, etc, etc…hell…they’d be endorsing oil drilling in ANWR.

So maybe Miller is right…but now…how do we find a Democrat we can really, really trust to sincerely want to fight Islamofascism. You know, someone who MEANS it. And who the press hasn’t turned on, like Joe Lieberman…

I would have illustrated this with a photo of it, but I can’t find any. Apparently the Iraqi-American community is dancing in Dearborn. UPDATE: Clarity and Resolve has found a picture. CNN links to video here.

Dave Alwatan wore an Iraqi flag around his shoulders and flashed a peace sign to everyone he passed at the Karbalaa Islamic Educational Center in this suburb of Detroit, a city that has one of the nation’s largest concentrations of people with roots in the Middle East.

Alwatan, 32, said Saddam’s forces tortured and killed relatives that were left behind when Alwatan left
Iraq in 1991.

Quote from President Bush: “It is a testament to the Iraqi people’s resolve to move forward after decades of oppression that, despite his terrible crimes against his own people, Saddam Hussein received a fair trial. It is an important milestone on Iraq’s course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain, and defend itself.”

I’d say that’s probably correct. This something Iraq has done on its own, before the world, and it emphasizes their fledgling sovereignty. It might - might - help them.

Sensible Mom notes that CBS, which did not cut into programming to mark the death of Gerald Ford, did manage to do so for Saddam’s death. One wonders if Harry Reid, also disinterested in the death of a former GOP president, will comment on Saddam’s death.

Radio Equalizer has the reaction from the Bush-obsessed on the left. They’re thinking a sovereign nation like Iraq (or the US) has no business charting its own course and should have remanded Hussein to the International Criminal Court. Right. The Bush-obsessed - who cannot process any information at all except through the prism of their BDS, are foaming over all this. There line - essentially - goes like this: “Well, yeah, okay, Hussein was bad but he should have been tried by the International Court - not his own countrymen - and Bush, who is AT LEAST AS BAD IF NOT WORSE than poor old Saddam, should be hanging with him.”

Alrighty, then. As I said earlier, one wonders what their reaction would be if only a president Clinton or Gore or Kerry were the president behind Saddam’s capture, trial and sentencing. I think there’s a good bet they’d be talking about a nation’s right to its own laws…and how just it all is. If this does not demonstrate how utterly owned they are by their own hate, I wonder what will.

Just think, if only President Clinton had gone after Saddam back when he tried to assassinate Bush 41 - had he responded decisively to that clear act of war - the world might be an incredibly different place right now. Ah, well.

Gay Patriot notes that some on the left are - predictably - calling for the execution of George W. Bush.

Ed Driscoll has a terrific round-up of not-seen everywhere links.

Confederate Yankee has more from the Bush-obsessed and also notes that he’s been more accurate than the MSM regarding the timing of when it went down. Scroll down.

Jules Crittenden has reactions from left and right.

Hot Air has a fine round-up, the “quote of the year,” and collection of stories. As does The Moderate Voice.

Tammy Bruce links to a scathing obit for Saddam from The Times of London. They still manage to bash Bush, but they’re not crying for Saddam.

Gateway Pundit has updates and a stirring visual recap with lots of pics, remembrances and recaps. Less graphic than Flopping Aces’ live thread, which is not for everyone. Curt finishes off with some interesting video from CNN.

PJM’s Editor in Seattle notes that for a lameduck President Bush dominated the 2006 news in one way or another - even into its last days. They’ve also got a running roundup on all this.

And now the blogs, left and right, watch each other respond.

An emailer wrote to say that Anderson Cooper has been impressive - repeatedly stating that Saddam was a tyrant and that the Iraqi people would not be free of him were it not for coalition troops. “He seems to understand how big this is, that’s it’s bigger than hating Bush.” Well, that’s something, I guess.

More Blogs:
Michelle Malkin.
Wizbang
Hang Right Politics
Patterico
Gina Cobb
Rhymes with Right
All Things Beautiful
The Wide Awake Cafe
Ace of Spades
e-claire
Dr. Sanity
Mudville Gazette
In From the Cold
Cathouse Chat
Ace

Press links:
It’s About Time Justice Came Down”
Iraqi-Americans Celebrate Saddam’s Death
Saddam’s Record of Infamy Ends
The Defiant Despot who Oppressed Iraq for over Thirty Years
A Thug who used Terror and War to stay in power
Dictator who ruled Iraq with Violence is Hanged for Crimes Against Humanity
Iraqis gather to witness execution
“Now there is peace; Saddam is dead”
Saddam’s daughter wants him buried in Yemen
President Bush’s statement

I’ve never been able to rest easy on the question of the death penalty in the US - or the matter of state-sanctioned execution. As a pro-life Catholic, I have issues with it…but on the other hand, I know that there are times it can be considered the better choice. I basically subscribe to JPII’s idea, that one misses a chance for conversion when one’s life is taken unnaturally…but on the other hand, if you know you’re going to die, you do have a chance to convert your heart and mind and ask forgiveness, too.

I don’t like execution…then again, as long as Saddam lives, there is risk of escape, a renewed effort to regroup…that matters, too.

Yeah, I swing back and forth on this issue, and no, that’s not meant to be a grotesque pun.

Stephen Bainbridge does a good job of mulling over Saddam’s execution from a Catholic perspective. While I can see his conclusions - the rationality behind them…I am not happy that this is taking place in the Octave of Christmas. I know for the secular world “Christmas is over,” but for us it is not. I wish the timing were different.

There are things visible and invisible and if a murderous leader of Islamofascists is to be executed during a Christian holy time…just before an Islamic holiday (of which I do not pretend to know much about)…I wonder how it all reverberates in the invisible part. Saddam may be largely a secularist…but many who share his goals are not. Battles rage all about. There is always more going on than we realize.

Saddam is clearly an evil man. But evil men have - throughout history - been turned, “converted” by the Holy Spirit. I know John Paul II preferred we err on the side of mercy and assume God’s not done working on anyone of us.

I cannot say I am sad that Saddam will die. I only wonder what it means in the higher realms of heaven, and here on earth, for us.

My wonderings on all of this are not conclusive - there are merely wonderings. These are big questions.

UPDATE I: I’m getting lots of interesting and thoughtful or thought-provoking emails on this, and also some people asking me whether I am “sad” that Saddam will die. (Assuming his last legal maneuver fails.) No, I am not sad that he will die. But I think we should never enter these things without wondering what it does to us, too, and to our souls. If we stop thinking about that, if we lose sight of the spiritual aspect of everything we do…well, then it will be easy to lose sight of ourselves. In a sense, I am sad for our human condition.

Someone wrote to me that they think the greatest sin is for an evil man to be allowed to live.

But the question then is - who gets to decide what is evil? Can we trust “our” interpretation of evil to be honored by others? I can say Saddam is evil and should be put to death. Someone like oh, Jacques Chirac - or Sean Penn - can say George W. Bush is “evil” and therefore feel justified in working for and celebrating his assassination. Then what? When we start making these broad declarations, and they become acceptable modes of reason, then who do we go to when someone comes into power who thinks that you are “evil,” or I am “evil” (in truth, there are plenty who think that, already - they write me about it often) and that we must be put down?

Like I said…I think Saddam probably should die - for what are apparently hundreds of thousands of reasons. But that doesn’t mean we don’t recognise the gravity of what we endorse.

And that’s all the public ruminating I will do about it. At Evening Prayer, I’ll pray for all of us - left and right, good and bad, monster and victims, savage and sweet - mostly I’ll pray for Iraq, (will it ever be Eden, again?) and for the Iraqis and for our soldiers there. And for America and the American President.

And this is why I should never be in any sort of leadership position. I’m the ruminator in the back of the room. Maybe my next blog will be called “Back Room Ruminator.” In the end the world moves forward, for better or worse, because of the decisive people. I’m clearly not one of them. But as my dear Li’l Bro Thom would tell you…I’m also a Libra! Heh.

UPDATE II: Predictably and pathetically, the Bush-obsessed are wondering if Saddam’s execution might help him. Unreal. Some people really can’t function unless everything is wrought through their political wringer.

Related: Saddam, Bush and Eden, Again

Curt at Flopping Aces is running a live thread and showing graphic reminders - you’re warned.

Confederate Yankee has a source who says execution is within hours.

Ed Morrissey has little patience for those (like the NY Times) who decry this action as a “rush” to execute. One DOES have to wonder - if a President Clinton (or Gore, or Kerry) had captured Saddam, seen him tried, etc, would the NY Times be of the same mind? Or would they be carrying on about the justness of this particular execution? Yes, one DOES have to wonder.

Kim at Wizbang has been following with frequent updates. So is Michelle Malkin.

Jules Crittenden talks about what it means for some.

Rick at Brutally Honest is praying for justice.

Blue Crab is blogging updates.

Gateway finds some Saddam “save”iors

Rick Moran calls it surveys the various reactions from left and right and includes a link to my dithering, here!

Iraq the Model is following closely.

Carol Platt Liebau wonders why Europe cries more for Saddam than for his rape rooms.

Pajamas Media has the running round up.

Also:
Mary Katharine Ham
Sweetness and Light
My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

“We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are all these competing values … Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?” she said.

MRS. CLINTON: Bill, I don’t know what — that’s why I said I don’t know what I’m in favor of. And I don’t know enough to know what to be in favor of, because I think it’s one of those new issues we’ve got to address. We’ve got to see whether our existing laws protect people’s right of privacy, protect them against defamation. And if they can, how do you do that when you can press a button and you can’t take it back. So I think we have to tread carefully.

So, after 6 years of listening to people on the left tell us how the terrible, nazi-ish Bush administration was “crushing dissent” (where?) and “silencing opposition” (where?) and blowing a “chill wind” which would cost us our right to free speech, etc (I believe Tim Robbins, wagging his finger, wrote a play and a speech on this issue, all of which were spouted off in public and widely disseminated belying his very claims), we did not have to wait long to feel the real “chill wind.” And it’s blowing from the left via Mrs. Pelosi, although I’m quite sure Mrs. Clinton will happily ride on it, if it helps her ambitions.

There IS a chill wind blowing…we felt it stirring this year, when the Democrats tried to shut down a film it didn’t like, but went silent on another. Pay attention. The right didn’t like the “kill Bush” movie…but it never tried to shut it down. It objected. It did not try to “silence.” That’s pretty telling.

Some might think that quieting down the right side of the blogosphere will be a good thing.

But if the right side gets silenced, the left will soon be shut down, as well.

As I wrote here, bloggers adore the first amendment.

Ed Morrissey says be calm, but beware the grey areas. He quotes Tapscott who says: “…mere registration is never the only thing the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington want. After registration will come regulation of content, followed by prohibition of some kinds of content officeholders find threatening.”

Morrissey adds: I’m not sure I buy into the doomsday scenarios painted by Smith; after all, anyone making any political contributions already has to “register” with their legal name and full address, so anonymity has mostly gone by the wayside. Let’s focus on getting the politicians to fully and immediately disclose their contributions and their earmarks first, and then see where else we need to work to reduce or eliminate corruption. The Senate would be a good place to start.

But yeah, watch out for those grey areas. There be monsters. And um…mediating intelligences who know what you ought to be allowed to know much better than you do.

And I have no idea where I found this, but it’s a sort of primer on notions of “tolerance”, and it’s interesting.

Also, Scott Ott writes a real - not satirical - letter to an editor.

Looking around the ’sphere -

The author of Sigmund, Carl and Alfred has written the sort of valentine to his daughter that describe the beauty of a healthy father/daughter relationship. It’s gorgeous - something for his daughter to treasure, and for daughters all over to read. If you were lucky enough to be part of such a relationship, this will warm you. If you were not so lucky…you may find it reassuring and hopeful. I know I did. It’s a must-read.

A good piece by Jonah Goldberg on the irony of the certainty of uncertainess.

We’re not rid of nazis and neo-neocon gives a good analysis of what nazism meant and means in this multi-parter.

The question of whether blogs can offset MSM narratives is examined in this thoughtful piece by Wretchard.

Global Warming is Unstoppable…every 1500 years?

This athlete puts military service before a career in football. Very admirable.

I haven’t been reading much about the death of Gerald Ford, but other bloggers are looking at his pardon of Nixon and what it meant for presidents who followed. Harry Reid, in a classless move that doesn’t portend much good for his leadership position, is too busy to go to the former president’s funeral.

I wrote earlier that Sen. Barack Obama may offer some Democrat voters a way out of HillaryLand, but he’s got to get better known and vet his staff.

Meanwhile, here’s a reminder of what HillaryLand sounds like. Man, she’s tough on the ears. If George H. W. Bush reminded too many women “of their first husbands” I wonder if Hillary will remind too many men of their first wives.

Remind me again, how many times Arafat visited the Clinton White House? I know he didn’t get into the Bush 43 WH. And Rudy didn’t let him into NYC, either.

Speaking of Bush 43, Ed Koch says he is a hero.

Nancy French on Blue State Blunders. I usually wouldn’t link to something like this, but we’re about to embark on two years or more of incessant praise of the blues, in the press, so I figured, a last bit of snark.

Kind of Fun: 50 things we didn’t know this time last year.

Just an astonishing live performance by the astonishing Jennifer Holliday. With everyone talking about Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls…we could use this reminder of what Holliday brought to the same role - and she did it live, 8 times a week.

I’m going to be blogging very little for the next few days, as I work on finishing up a project - I’m aiming for it to be done-diddley-done by January 2. In the meantime, here are links to some little-seen Anchoress posts from 2006 you might have missed.

Reacting to the death of one great leftist woman while another goes off the rails: Oriana and Rosie two women of the left.

My optimism has lessened somewhat. Helen Reddy is partly to blame. But demographics may doom us all, anyway.

On the mania for the murder of a pope or a president.

If you’re kidnapped and you “convert” what does it mean? Faith and Reason and Forced Conversions.

And what does it mean when you willingly die for another, while insanity and duplicity swirl all around?

A reminder to Elizabeth Edwards and Hillary Clinton: There is an art to good politics

What happens when we pull out of Iraq and other questions no one ever asks the press, and why the effectiveness of alternative media is still modest, in the end.

What is American Culture, anyway?

The Timestanic and one of its crewmembers; a sorry, soggy tale.

Will things get better if we just feed the Jews to Iran and its friends? Some seem to think so. And they’re not big on tolerating dissent.

Sometimes we hate our lives, but mostly things are good My Li’l Bro Thom’s Psalm of the Common Man.

Wherein I submit to a journalistic grilling, decide to mother someone, and later relate something personal.

Okay, so I lied and that wasn’t my last book recommendation for 2006. These are!

For Doubleday, acquiring the publication rights for the first book by Joseph Ratzinger since his ascension to the papacy is a very big “get”, especially since the prolific and very readable Benedict XVI’s books routinely make the bestseller’s lists.

In anticipation of Benedict’s book, Jesus of Nazareth, it’s not a bad idea to take a look at two recent Doubleday/Image releases by the also “prolific and very readable” John L. Allen, Jr, a terrific writer and the foremost American journalist covering the Vatican and all things Catholic. John Allen is a top-notch analyst, and a balanced reporter who gives you the goods without forcing you to endure the whrrrrr of grinding axes in the background. His understanding of the faith in its spiritual and human aspects is comprehensive and informative, and Allen’s “insider” stuff is fascinating, even if you are not a devotee of all things “Roman.”

For instance, there is a common misconception, made by Catholics and non-Catholics alike, that anytime the press mentions “the Vatican” one may take it to mean “the Pope.” In fact, when one hears that “the Vatican” has made a comment on some issue it is very likely the pope had nothing to do with that statement, unless specified. That’s where a book like Allen’s All the Pope’s Men; The Inside Story of How the Vatican Really Works can be extraordinarily helpful and clarifying. He we have an exposition of just how the Vatican itself works, and the pope’s role within it. Allen explores the Italian influence of the Vatican’s world-perspective and how that influence breeds misunderstanding and distrust between, for example, Rome and the United States. The first chapter gives an overview of the whole structure of the Curia while the second - a most entertaining chapter - debunks the “Top Five Myths About the Vatican,” beginning with “The Vatican.” Allen writes: A surprising number of otherwise intelligent people, including many Catholics, regard the Vatican as an unltrasecretive, Stepford wives-type environment with a maniacle focus on wealth and power. […] The first bit of news, which will be surprising to many readers, is that there is no such thing as “the Vatican.” Myth two is - “who’s in charge?” Like I said, it’s fun!

Much of the book gives background on how things happen within the church, but one cannot read his description of the bureaucracy that is Rome without seeing in it, something like the bureaucracy that is the US Government, or any government. This particular government just happens to run a church, and rarely perfectly. Allen takes an unflinching look at Rome’s perceptions of the sexual abuse scandals in the US - not a happy read, but an instructive and ultimately helpful one. Overall, All the Pope’s Men is readable and instructive, and timely, too.

I am only slightly less fond of The Rise of Benedict XVI; The Inside Story of how the Pope was Elected and Where he will take the Catholic Church. Once again, Allen brings great “insider” knowledge to the story, but this is less an “in depth” look at Benedict than the whirlwind around him which brought about his papacy. Allen provides some thoughtful - often amusing - anecdotes, and his “deep background” interviews with Cardinal electors and others are very enlightening. I especially liked his take on “Why Ratzinger Won,” - a riveting multi-part electoral analysis:

Part Four - The Funeral Effect
Ratzinger benefited from the “funeral effect.” While it might have been thinkable before John Paul’s death to elect a quiet, pastoral Italian to allow the Church to catch its breath, the reminder the funeral issues of the international stature gained for the Church under John Paul, and the momentum of his pontificate, meant that the cardinals knew they had to elect another serious, world-class leader. Based on everything they knew of Ratzinger, as well as his performance over the interregnum, he was ideally suited for the part. He is a man to whom the world will listen.

Allen looks at Benedict’s concerns re the “Dictatorship of Relativism” and how those concerns are already beginning to shape his papacy, and what his taking of the name “Benedict” means for both him and the world, particularly Europe. Fascinating stuff, and a very fast read that leaves you feeling acquainted with the pope and eager to learn more about him and to hear his thoughts. Just in time for the pope’s own book.

Yes, it’s great marketing on Doubleday’s part, but these are also two really splendid, informative and enjoyable books.

It always happens near Christmas. All that kissing and shaking hands…somebody brings in a stomach flu and it makes the rounds.

Blogging light.

So, I’m driving today with the windows half open. I’d gotten tired of Buster’s mixes and found the Under the Stars album - a collection of Broadway tunes done by Renee Fleming and Bryn Terfel.

Track number 6 - Stars, from Les Miz. Freaking magnificent.

At a long stoplight I’ve got it blasting pretty good, and the woman in the next car beeps me. I lower the music, assuming it’s rudely intruding on her, but she’s hollering something, so finally I shut it down completely and give give her the raised eyebrows.

“That music! That’s from Les Miz, right? That’s Stars, right?”

“Yeah,” I yell back, lowering my window a bit more.

“Who is that singing, I never heard that guy before - that’s not the cast album.”

“No,” I smile, relishing this. “It’s Bryn Terfel!”

“Whaaa?”

“Bryn Terfel!”

“Never heard of him!”

“He’s an opera guy!”

“The bastard can sing, can’t he?”

I cracked up and as the light turned I yelled out the name of the album. I don’t know if she heard me.

Yes. He can sing. Indeed.

Related: A musical occasion of sin.