The Anchoress

Deacon Greg has posted a humdinger of a homily over at his place. From his wife offering lamb (lamb!) to a homeless person to the good Deacon’s own awareness of all the times he has stepped over a sleeping Jesus, to Archbishop Chaput’s rousing talk to a men’s group, this is a homily you want to read. God gives.

Go read it, I promise you’ll like it.

I’m convinced of it. But losing a beloved pet is never easy. Jeanette has lost her good friend Silky. If you understand what it’s like, please drop by and commiserate.

There is nothing new about the political world being populated with phonies. There is nothing new about sound bites and photo ops so blatantly artificial they make us cringe. We’re getting use to fake issues and phony legislation has become more common, too. (A good and useful program stops being good or helpful when it begins to define “children” as 25 year olds. If Grad Students need health insurance why not create a low-cost co-operative for it rather than palm it off on the taxpayers? - but I digress.)

CBS’s Dick Meyer wrote almost a year ago that he was craving authenticity:

I find that after covering politics for 25 years what I really yearn for is not great leaders, smart reforms nor policies that I agree with. What I crave is authenticity.
[…]
Put another way, what I miss is the simple honesty, the genuine moment, the unscripted moment, the gaffe — anything that has not been run through the Cuisinart of marketing, focus groups and linguistic analysis. “The enemy isn’t liberalism,” the late columnist, Lars-Erik Nelson, said. “The enemy isn’t conservatism. The enemy is bullshit.” I’ll proudly swipe that as a motto.
[…]
…people at the left and right edges of the spectrum are more extreme and angrier than they used to be. And the political elite is absolutely more rabid and recalcitrant. Politically engaged individuals are more likely to be very attached to a single issue or to an ideology. There is a decline in tolerance of other views. And an increase in people feeling that their values and lifestyles are genuinely threatened by those they disagree with, their political enemies. It’s not polarization, but balkanization.

In other words, many of us are over-attached to our politics, to our own positions and perspectives. We cling to them. We’re brittle in arguments. Why? Well, it’s partly because the politics we see on television is so thin.

Linking to the piece here, I appreciated that Meyer’s search for the authentic was broadening to include our whole society, not merely our politics, but noted:

Some, of course, will blame the Clintons. Everyone else will blame Bush, who, standing atop a pile of rubble or holding the shield of a fallen cop before a joint session of congress - may have (along with Rudy Giuliani) managed the last authentic moments in our political memory.

Yes, much in life is illusory…what makes some so willing to believe that President Bush “lied” about WMD, while they accept that Clinton - who said all the same things - told the truth?

Even more troubling, in America, this very week, the president made a statement that - even hearing out-of-context - most immediately understood as metaphor, and some Americans still willfully misunderstood it to mean that Bush had declared Mandela dead at the hands of Saddam Hussein. I mean…are we talking about a willful suspension of disbelief, here, or a hate so strong some are willing to suspend their own intelligence? (”I want to believe he’s that stupid - they want me to believe he’s that stupid, so I will!”)

We’re surrounded by inauthenticity, it’s true, but what is staggering and frightening is that so many of us are so eagerly taking the fake and wrapping it around ourselves like a protective blanket, admitting phoniness into our reason and making it welcome. While it is happening on both sides, the “Bush said Hussein killed Nelson Mandela” truthiness idiocy is the most egregious example.

Peggy Noonan touched a little on this topic, today - in a way:

Domestically, the Democratic presidential candidates appear only before supportive groups. They don’t speak to antitax groups and talk about their own assumptions regarding tax policy. They don’t go to traditional values groups.

…it’s unworthy of a great nation. When people say the campaign feels artificial, that’s what they mean. It’s not John Edwards’s hairspray or Hillary Clinton’s makeup. It’s that they give every sign of being afraid to speak and listen to those who haven’t been patted down by thought-cops for unacceptable views.

The Republicans are the same. An invitation to debate on Univision, the Spanish-language network? They have scheduling conflicts. What about the Log Cabin Republicans? No time right now. How unserious.

Our politicians are pandering and over-careful-to-a-fault partly because what Meyer noticed about the extremists in each party, who have intimidated their candidates, monetarily and otherwise, into a droning elusiveness. No one wants to be pinned down as standing for much of anything. Candidates bob and weave their way through debates and interviews hoping nothing sticks. And they talk before vetted, friendly audiences because they don’t want the boos to end up on YouTube; most candidates will not have Viacom editing out the boos for them.

Candidates are doing a poor job of thinking on their feet because they’re not authentic enough to trust themselves, yet they want us to trust them. If you are genuine, and you trust yourself, if you are secure in what you believe, then you don’t hitch your breath or break into nervous laughter if the script deviates or if a moderator throws you a curveball - you can hit it straight on rather than deflect, dissemble or change the subject, which is pretty much all the current crop of candidates manage.

I think Dave Justus is on to something when he suggests there is a fear of speech occurring which is connected to the increasingly tribal mindsets we’re adopting. When we see something really real - unquestionably real - it stops us dead in our tracks and it moves us - possibly because it’s so damned rare. When we find an old profile of Hillary it fascinates and intrigues as she no longer can, because she seems incapable, any longer, of being that forthright and undisguised.

It occurs to me that - for now -there are only a few places wherein we are fully safe enough to be fully ourselves and let go of the fakery - one place is in the confessional, if we dare to be humble. The other is in the voting booth, if we dare to put aside hate, if we dare to - just for a moment - allow a willing suspension of knee-jerk hate so that reason might pull the lever.

Courtesy of my Li’l Bro Thom who sends me this stuff, a terrific and fun video from U2:

Deacon Greg has someone calling “God’s House Band.” I don’t know about that, but it’s a great and inventive video, beautiful children, too. And it’s remarkable to think of how many of these performers, old and new, Bono either knew or worked with.

I think Fausta would agree, though, that this video needs a little Bryn in it, too. And if didn’t see two of my other favorite artists, Queen Latifah and k.d. lang, but some of the clips go by so quickly perhaps I need to see it again. Nice to see Marvin Gaye, Smokey Robinson and others. Of course, Miss Ella is there! And yes, I’m linking you to some great videos there, don’t miss lang singing “Hallelujah.”

A few days ago I noted that Ron Hansen, the author of the book The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford upon which the new Brad Pitt film is based, is a Catholic Deacon.

So it is not too surprising to read some of Barbara Nicolosi’s thoughts in her rave review of the film:

The subtextual title of the film could be: “Living in Sin.” The film illustrates the destruction wreaked in human lives from habitually living in a state of spiritual rebellion….in a really funny way sometimes. My friend and I were laughing very loud at times at the absurdity that becomes the life of the person who, as St. Bernadette says, “loves their sin.” But way beyond just showing the banality of living in a committed relationship to evil, Assassination does a cool thing in making the point - particularly through the style of dialogue - that human beings trying to live out the Genesis lie “you shall be like God,” end up as transparent and ridiculous phonies.

Hmmm…that sounds promising. I wonder how long it will be before left and right political junkies start calling this a “cautionary tale” against Bush or Hillary, depending on their sides. Please don’t. Just stop that, please. It’s getting old.

Dirty Harry also gives this an absolute rave review:

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford isn’t only the best film I’ve seen all year, but in many years. It was more than a film, it’s what all great films are: an experience. One I look forward to reliving again many times.

My husband and I saw 3:10 to Yuma a few weeks ago, and it was very good but I had expected it to be even better - because it was based on an Elmore Leonard story, I expected much better dialogue. I’m looking forward to this film, too, but I might want to read the book first.

A while back I wrote a piece entitled Clinton Global Initiative’s Thuggish Member, about a FOB/FOH who had - to my way of thinking - crossed a line from advocacy, to thuggish zealotry:

“It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar,” Mr. Eckhart wrote. “If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.”

I thought then, and still want to believe, that such thuggery is a rare sort of thing. Today Glenn Reynolds links to Mickey Kaus who has other FOB/FOH “thuggish” behavior on his mind, and who also links to a story citing a generous FOB/FOH who seems more “Corporate America” than Mother Teresa, if you know what I mean. Aren’t the Dems always telling us how much they hate “Corporate America,” and how much they’re for “the little guy?”

Interesting sideline to that story: Chelsea Clinton works for Avenue Capital and makes an estimated 6 figure salary. Not bad for a woman in her mid-twenties and I certainly don’t begrudge her; Chelsea seems to be a private and perfectly nice person, and if either of my kids could make that kind of sugar not long after college, I’d say “buy Mama a condo near the water when she is old” and be happy for them.

But one cannot help noting that all we ever hear about President Bush is that he is “rich,” from “old money” and he represents “greedy capitalism” etc, etc…yet, his daughter Jenna is a public elementary school teacher in Washington DC, by no means a glamour gig. The Dems continually say they’re all about taking on the big greedy capitalists and terrible corporations that hurt the middle class and the environment, yadda, yadda, yet the Clintons friends are all incredibly wealthy - mostly “new” money - they’re all very “Corporate” and their daughter works in the “corporate” world (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Seems like there are stereotype templates at work here (GOP evil, greedy, uncaring, rich - Democrats Middle Class, compassionate, unmaterialistic, good) that don’t quite jibe with the reality, no?

It’s of a piece with Hillary having every right to (quite understandably) send Chelsea to private school when the family was in the White House, but to steadfastly maintain that poor parents should not have vouchers to help them make a similar good choice. Her solution - to continue to throw money at failing public schools - has not worked in 30 years. Why not try something new?

In any case, I don’t think it’s good for any presidential campaign to find people attaching the word “thug” to it, and coming to that word individually, on their own, without prompting.

Oh, and I’ve long been on record as not begrudging the rich their riches:

I…do not begrudge the hyper-rich their riches.

What we do begrudge them is their “superior” disdain for our values, and their hectoring that we are somehow less compassionate, less well-meaning, gosh darn it just LESSER people because we believe in giving a hand, rather than a hand-out.

I mind gazillionaires like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, Jon Corzine and Hillary “we’re going to have to take some things away from you for the common good” Clinton pretending that our yearly income, our solidly middle-class income (and very modest emergency fund) is too, too much for us, unfair to others, undertaxed, greedy, ignoble and selfish. I mind people who are bouncing on fluffy pillows of honest-to-goodness wealth shaking a rhetorical finger at us for daring to try to get comfortable on our foam rubber mats of hard-earned wages.

I absolutely don’t mind others having wealth…I mind when they define it as one thing for themselves and another thing for us ordinary folks.

WELCOME: readers, and thanks, Glenn, for the link. While you’re here, please look around. Today we’re also talking about the staggering inauthenticity of this Election season, whether there is a difference between Madmen and Catholics, (I’ll be adding to that when I have time), we’re reminding a forgetful Katie Couric why we went into Iraq and what everyone believed at the time, thinking about seeing The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (and ordering the book!), we’re watching a fun video and btw, the the Steel Cut Oatmeal is fantastic and addictive!

I recall reading an article once, by I-forget-now, but the fellow who wrote it told of meeting Mother Teresa and finding himself giving her the lowdown on all his life difficulties. He said she just gave him a smile and said, “if you prayed, it would all be easier for you,” or something like that. Must look it up. She wasn’t being dismissive, just telling what she knew.

I have no idea how much of this story and this exchange between Christopher Hitchens and Fr. George Rutler is accurate, and I want to say that upfront. It happened over four months ago, and I tend to think that if it were real it would have generated a great deal of print…but on the other hand, if neither man was at his best, perhaps they preferred the downplay.

I tend to doubt that Hitchens was intoxicated. While the man makes no secret that he enjoys a cocktail (nothing wrong with that, either, if you’re not doing it to excess, hurting others or making a spectacle of yourself) I don’t think he’s going to go about promoting his book and debating religion and atheism while in his cups. I could be wrong but he doesn’t strike me as that sort. And of course, I like Hitchens, so I’m inclined to believe the best about him. Oh, I know, I know, he’s a bigot about religion and he has issues. We’re all bigots about something and we all have issues. I just think there is greatness within him and he fascinates me. His potential fascinates me.

What intrigues me about this strange story - which sounds very dramatic - is this part:

FATHER RUTLER: I have met saints. You cannot explain the existence of saints without God. I was nine years chaplain with Mother Teresa [inaudible]. You have called her a whore, a demagogue. She’s in heaven that you don’t believe in, but she’s praying for you. If you do not believe in heaven, that’s why you drink.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Excuse me?

FATHER RUTLER: That’s why you drink. God has offered us happiness, all of us. And you will either die a Catholic or a madman, and I’ll tell you the difference. [Emphasis mine - admin]

Whoa! Imagine saying that to someone! By today’s standards, the first part of Rutler’s remarks are presumptuous and judgmental, but once upon a time they wouldn’t seem so. Once upon a time they would have seemed like “tough love” coming from a priest who means to be a shepherd - can’t you just hear Spencer Tracy saying it to Mickey Rooney?

But the second part -imagine saying that to someone, “you will either die a Catholic or a madman…”

Think about that for a second. A Catholic priest gets up and says that…it is impossible not to be tempted into saying “and good Father, is there a difference? Are they one and the same? Are you, in fact both?”

I can’t tell you how much I want to know what Fr. Rutler was going to say, how he was going to illustrate the difference. I absolutely yearn to know, because I think he probably had a profound distinction to make…but he never did.

“You will die a Catholic or a madman.” The world has often called Catholics mad. I wrote about some of the “mad Catholic women” here:

…there has been no other institution in history which has given women such free reign to create, explore, discover, serve, manage, build, expand…usually with very little help from the coffers of the diocese in which they worked, and often with little to no intrusion on the part of the male hierarchy.

And these have not been mealy mouthed “sheeplike” women, but educated, accomplished women who have chosen their lives because they could do nothing greater with their gifts. Rose Hawthorne, daughter of Nathanial Hawthorne, founded the Hawthorne Dominicans, an order of nuns who take care of cancer patients - free of charge - and who subsist entirely on donations. The Grand Duchess, Elizabeth left her royal privilege behind to serve the poorest of the poor in Russia and suffered a 20th century martyrdom. The daughter of General Patton joined forces with a nun, Mother Benedict, in France after WWII to come to America and form the Abbey of Regina Laudis, an abbey that is still attracting educated women, sculptors, writers, linguists, musicians - creative women - to use their gifts in the praise of God and for the good of us all. Did I mention that Mother Benedict, before she became a nun, was a medical doctor who helped to hide and treat Jews who were being hunted by the Nazis?

I can go on…Mother Theresa built an international order of women which thrives, doing work no one wants to do, wouldn’t do in a million years. For that matter, she might seem quite mad - she probably is - but there is in Alabama an extraordinary and strange woman named Mother Angelica, who founded a Franciscan monastery and church in (of all places) the hottest bible belt in the deep South, and then - with two hundred dollars ($200.00!) and no help from her bishop - was inspired to build a television station (and a radio station), which has become EWTN, a global Catholic network - also founding an order of friars - while hobbling around on crutches, yet. She even formed Knights!.

Extraordinary, mad women…all of them…and I cannot think of a single institution on the face of the earth other than the Catholic Church which would have allowed them to run with their madness, BE who they were and accomplish great things.

I love the saints - many of them are my good friends (perhaps I am a madwoman, myself, but I know I need classier company than my own vulgarity!) - and I know that more than a few heroic Catholics were at some point considered madmen or mental deficients: St. Francis of Assisi gave up his inheritance and place in society to wear rags, beg, preach and “rebuild” a church both physically and metaphorically. St. Teresa of Avila would, when her nuns were restless, break out the finger cymbals and set them to dancing. Dorothy Day turned away from the elitist pals pundit table at the Algonquin Hotel Hotel like Eugene O’Neill and founded The Catholic Worker, living in near-squalor, carrying with her only her breviary and her jar of instant coffee. (Ugh…a love of instant coffee might well be madness!). Actually - were Hitchens ever to become a Catholic, I’d guess he’d be a lot like Dorothy Day. Pierre Toussaint was a former slave who some considered mad due to his kindness to his former owners.

What is the difference between a madman and a Catholic? I dearly want to know…I have an inkling that it has something to do with potential and intent. I hope someday Fr. Rutler spells it out.

Meanwhile, I’d love to see Mr. Hitchens and Cardinal (whoops, wishful thinking!) Archbishop Chaput onstage together. I’m not a fan of apologetics, but that would be a fun ticket.

Speaking at the National Press Club Tuesday evening, CBS “Evening News” anchor Katie Couric pulled back the curtain on her personal views of both the war in Iraq and former “Evening News” anchor Dan Rather.

“Everyone in this room would agree that people in this country were misled in terms of the rationale of this war,” said Couric, adding that it is “pretty much accepted” that the war in Iraq was a mistake.

“I’ve never understood why [invading Iraq] was so high on the administration’s agenda when terrorism was going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan and that [Iraq] had no true connection with al Qaeda.”

HOLY MOLY - this woman is the face of CBS news and here is her insulated, very incurious and weirdly uninformed take on the most important story of the day…”everyone in this room would agree that people were misled” and it’s “pretty much accepted,” that the war was a mistake. She “never understood” about Iraq?

Well, if it’s “pretty much accepted,” that the war was a mistake, that would be thanks in large part to the media machine that has done a great deal to help people forget why we went in there in the first place, a machine that has reported the things it has chosen to report, and left the rest to go unremarked upon. MUST we give a refresher to Ms. Couric? MUST we remind her that it was the policy of the United States ever since - under Bill Clinton - we established the Iraq Liberation Act in which we stated our intention to depose Saddam Hussein, not only because he’d tried to assassinate an American President (remember? - scroll down the link) but because we believed, the world believed, everyone believed - St. Bill Clinton, and his holy chorus believed - that Saddam had a huge stockpile of WMD, and in a post 9/11 world, Ms. Couric, any president - ANY president - would have been stupid, foolhardy, irresponsible and remiss NOT to go after Saddam Hussein.

Are people’s memories really that short? Does Katie not remember that President Bush went to the UN and talked about much more than WMD as a reason to liberate Iraq. He laid out NUMEROUS reasons, completely SPELLED THEM OUT for you, based on the intelligence he had - intelligence, btw, which Mrs. Clinton said in 2003 was “consistant with what we saw in the White House” back when she and Bill were co-presiding. Are you the least bit curious, Ms. Couric?

1. Iraq’s government openly praised the September 11th attacks on America
2. Iraq shelters and supports terrorist organizations
3. Saddam Hussein has an appetite for nuclear weapons
4. Saddam likely possesses biological and chemical weapons
5. Saddam’s repression of the Iraqi people
6. Saddam’s Abuse of Children
7. Violence against women
8. Iraq has not returned prisoners
9. Saddam possesses prohibited missiles
10. Weapons inspectors have been shut out of Iraq for four years

Invading Iraq took out Saddam, liberated a tyrannized people…we’ve had difficulty helping the Iraqi’s to their feet - after 35 years of tyranny, torture and subjugation it’s not easy to get people to trust themselves and each other. Mistakes have been made, for certain. But is Katie Couric really going to say that it was a “mistake” to do these things, especially based on the intel we had? It seems to me that if anyone but President Bush had led this invasion, the press’ take on it would be very different. If a President Clinton had done it, we’d be hearing stories about whether or not he (or she) should be added to Mt. Rushmore. No, I’m not exaggerating.

So, recap: from 1998 to 2003, the liberation of Iraq was the stated policy of the United States Government. Everyone believed Saddam had WMD. After 9/11, such a one - so armed - could not be permitted to remain in power.

Ms. Couric, instead of opining on this with nothing but your comfortable social clique narrative behind you, why not get a little curious and find out who gave Bill Clinton all that bad intel, to start with? Where did it come from and why? That’s a question I never see anyone in the press wonder about.

Jonah Goldberg has more thoughts on Couric’s remarks.

Update on good news in Iraq.

Meanwhile, Powerline has a good piece linking to the story of what Congressman Kline - who knows a thing or two about the military - found when he went to Iraq.

“The security situation there is just truly amazing. Just amazing,” he said in a telephone interview. Kline said the Marine battalion commander there told the lawmakers that violence is way down.

“One of the great advantages of going is you can look and get a sense of what the atmosphere is,” Kline said. “People are going about their business, the shops are open, they’re walking around the street.”

You may as well go read it there; you won’t read it on any page one. I doubt it will lead any news programs.

Others weighing in: Pajamas Media has a good round up
amused cynic

The Burmese monks are being fired upon, at least four Buddhist monks are dead, many wounded, and there are reports that many monks and nuns are being arrested.

People of peace being answered with violence. Can they overthrow a military government?

The Moderate Voice writes:

This violence against peaceful innocents is all the more egregious because the Buddhist concepts many of the Burmese live by are antithetical to doing harm to others… The bootjack Burmese government seems it is counting on the Buddhist’s commitment to non-violence, to keep the people in line.

However the government is ignorant, for it doesn’t realize or has forgotten that Buddhism is a warrior religion, one not of ***bombs but of the sharp swords of fully developed character and focused minds. Thus, the government which batters and arrests the sane and clear-minded, is attempting not only to silence individuals, but more so, to silence the archetypal principles of character and ‘being’ which Buddhists are committed to. In essence, the government is trying to murder the soul.. for these are some of the core commitments of the Burmese people who are striving for justice, parity and democracy:

***The holding of each life as sacred; No killing life, rather cultivating and encouraging life

*** The remaining faithful to a higher good and relationships, no illusory words, no hypocrisy

*** Communicating truth; no selling of the wine of delusion

*** The not dwelling on past error; rather drawing wisdom from ignorance

*** No self-praise, rather extolling the good in others

*** No theft of form, idea, object, person from another: rather honoring the gifts of others

*** Living to relieve the suffering of all sentient beings.

One can see immediately why a totalitarian government would be threatened; any of these traits of character being suddenly present would cause a dictatorship or military junta to have to put ‘the people’ first, which is antithetical to the narcissism of a junta.

Bangkok Pundit is following closely, as is Jules Crittenden.

UPDATE::: Picked up the Oatmeal at Trader Joes yesterday, had it for supper last night and lunch today - really superb stuff!:::END

A reader recently ordered two interesting products, the Roomba Robotic Vacuum and a Panasonic HyrdraClean Wet/Dry Shaving System, both of which I’m considering purchasing as Christmas gifts (yes, I begin shopping early for this large family). I wonder if the folks who made these purchases would be willing to let me know what they thought of them, either by email or in the comments section? I have gotten some of the best gift ideas from my readers and seeing the things they purchase. The flannel sheets a reader turned me on to last winter got the big thumbs up in this house!

In fact I’m showing links to a few things readers have ordered over the past few months that have been interesting to me - if any of you have any opinions on them, please chime in! I’m particularly curious about the steel-cut Oatmeal! Thanks!

If you’re shopping early, too, Glenn Reynolds linked to these toys. And there is always this idea.