The Anchoress

Pope Benedict XVI has released his latest encyclical today; it’s entitled Spe Salvi - Saved in Hope.

I haven’t read it yet - am printing it out for the weekend, but Deacon Greg Kandra has a nice link to John Allen’s excellent report on it, and the good deacon also wonders, why would the pope release this on the feastday of St. Andrew? Noting that Allen suggests it is a hat-tip to the Eastern Church, Kandra thinks it’s more than that.

Andrew, you’ll remember, was the brother of Simon Peter. And it was Andrew who first encountered Christ, and who then introduced him to his brother. Perhaps Benedict is saying, likewise, it is hope that leads us to Christ; we can’t meet Him without it. It is the beginning of our relationship with Him, the central force for our encounter with Him.

I love Deacon Greg. Go read his thoughts, and his other post on Hope, the thing with feathers.

When Republicans complain to me about how George W. Bush has “betrayed” them or “let them down,” I try to re-iterate things he has done, positions he has taken, that they tend to forget. Like his refusal to submit his nation to the International Criminal Court and his refusal to hog-tie us to the very unworkable Kyoto Treaty that the press likes to pretend enjoyed huge support in Congress (they rejected it unanimously). And I always remind them that in August of 2001, he drew a line in the sand on Embryonic Stem Cell Research and said, “no, we’re not publicly funding it.”

Bush’s stance that initially won him favorable responses from such advocates as diabetic Mary Tyler Moore. Bush’s well-thought out position was actually pretty well received - before the machines of distortion got to chew on things a bit.

MARY TYLER MOORE, ACTRESS: Well, I am so pleased with the thought and care that he put into making this decision. And I think it is a good one. I was not aware — or when I say “I” I should say the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation — was not aware that there are, in fact, 60 embryos waiting. But if there are, that is good. That is better than 6 or 7 or 8, which would have really posed a problem.

I welcome the forming of this council that he spoke about. And I hope that the JDFR will be able to work with him, with the council, on making sure that the guidelines are pure and straight.

LARRY KING: So you are giving this a thumbs up?

MOORE: I am.

KING: Christopher Reeve on the phone. I know you have shared with Mary And appeared with her on occasion discussing this. What is your thought?

CHRISTOPHER REEVE, ACTOR: A little bit more mixed, Larry. I feel that nobody really knew that there were 60 stem cells available. And I don’t know that these lines have been examined to know how well they would work or what condition they are in. And I think that that is something that should have been done.

However, I think it is a step in the right direction. I’m grateful for that to the president.

I remember the speech clearly - and I remember being really proud of the way the president walked a moral tightrope and kept his balance; you can link to the video here. Man, he’s aged. It is hard to consent to being the most hated man in the world for nearly a decade. As I’ve said elsewhere, when you make yourself an offering to God and others, you can expect to be used and used up.

It’s going to take a long time for all the good things Bush has done to be recognized - it may take generations. And those of you - and I’m talking to you folk on the hard right who have decided that because Bush is not “perfectly in line” with you, he cannot have been a good and effective president, those of you who have forgotten the “good” you have received and will thus be unlikely to receive another - will miss this guy when he’s out of office. That’s all I have to say about that.

On the Embryonic Stem Cell controversy, Charles Krauthammer sums it up:

“If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.”– James A. Thomson

A decade ago, Thomson was the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells. Last week, he (and Japan’s Shinya Yamanaka) announced one of the great scientific breakthroughs since the discovery of DNA: an embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells.

Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. The embryonic stem cell debate is over.

Which allows a bit of reflection on the storm that has raged ever since the August 2001 announcement of President Bush’s stem cell policy. The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president — so vilified for a moral stance — been so thoroughly vindicated.

Why? Precisely because he took a moral stance. Precisely because, as Thomson puts it, Bush was made “a little bit uncomfortable” by the implications of embryonic experimentation. Precisely because he therefore decided that some moral line had to be drawn.

In doing so, he invited unrelenting demagoguery by an unholy trinity of Democratic politicians, research scientists and patient advocates who insisted that anyone who would put any restriction on the destruction of human embryos could be acting only for reasons of cynical politics rooted in dogmatic religiosity — a “moral ayatollah,” as Sen. Tom Harkin so scornfully put it.
[…]
History will look at Bush’s 2001 speech and be surprised how balanced and measured it was, how much respect it gave to the other side. Read it. Here was a presidential policy pronouncement that so finely and fairly drew out the case for both sides that until the final few minutes of his speech, you had no idea where the policy would end up.

Bush finally ended up doing nothing to hamper private research into embryonic stem cells and pledging federal monies to support the study of existing stem cell lines — but refusing federal monies for research on stem cell lines produced by newly destroyed embryos.
[…]
That Holy Grail has now been achieved. Largely because of the genius of Thomson and Yamanaka. And also because of the astonishing good fortune that nature requires only four injected genes to turn an ordinary adult skin cell into a magical stem cell that can become bone or brain or heart or liver.

But for one more reason as well. Because the moral disquiet that James Thomson always felt — and that George Bush forced the country to confront — helped lead him and others to find some ethically neutral way to produce stem cells. Providence then saw to it that the technique be so elegant and beautiful that scientific reasons alone will now incline even the most willful researchers to leave the human embryo alone.

Please read all of Dr. Krauthammer’s piece, and then avail yourself of the 2001 speech which, in the wake of 9/11 a bare month later, pretty much everyone has forgotten. Hysteria, distortion, name-calling, paranoid (and false) “chill winds” aside, this president has gotten more right than wrong, and he deserves to be recognized for it.

Embryonic Stem Cells, it must be remembered produced nightmarish results in the lab, and never had a successful application.

A while back I linked to some monastic gift ideas, chocolates, beer, soaps and rosaries you can you purchase which help support a community and round out your gift list. Then I pointed to cookies and bracelets.

Now the Dominican Nuns at Moniales have - just in time for Christmas - added soaps to their Cloister Gift Shoppe. I am a sucker for homemade soaps and tonight will be ordering stocking stuffers: the Trade Winds Trio for my hubby’s travel kit, the gents scents for Buster, and a few other varieties.

Another great gift idea - particularly if you have a lover of fine art (and fine photography) on your list: Gerald at Closed Cafeteria, who has been traveling far and wide and taking some gorgeous photographs along the way, is now - for a very reasonable fee - making his photographs available for purchase in a DVD format. He promises prints will be available shortly, but I’m looking forward to the DVD’s, and being able to use them for changeable wallpaper for my computer, or quiet background imagery while I’m knitting. That’s one of his photos at top, there.

Also, Gerald has a Cafepress site where he sells his pictures as note cards and calendars, etc.

We’ve talked earlier about some gift ideas I’ve gleaned from readers ordering from Amazon. The Steel-Cut Oatmeal has become a big favorite in this house.

And we’re going to be donating to this very effective group this year.

Reader Pianogirl, who has a lot of great gift ideas (and is very generous to the troops) clued me in to this emergency radio/light/phone charger which I like a lot for my Elder Son.

Of course, if you have someone who is just impossible to buy for, there is always this idea.

If you’re looking for ideas, here are some other things that we and other friends will good ideas will be giving out this year. Not that we’ve purchased all of it from Amazon, but that’s the only place I know how to link to that gives good product info. As ever, though, if you do order Amazon products via this site, a percentage of each quarters earnings is donated to the hospice that helped our family:

The internets are abuzz with the story of CNN’s major bungle in allowing a “Hillary plant” into the audience of last nights GOP debate. Blue Crab Boulevard calls it Shillgate.

What are my thoughts about it? Tim Robbins may have had his “chill wind” but I feel instead a hot, dry breeze across a desert barren of ideas, ethics or the common courtesies and witty artfulness that used to make politics fun. The bad and the ugly seem overpower any small good. While you’re enjoying the music of the Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain, here’s what folks are saying:

At Wizbang, Kevin writes:

Anderson Cooper would have you believe that a network that could select this question, find that 13-year-old Romney quote, create the trap for Romney (which he fell face first into), and (presumably) fly Kerr to the debate, could not type “Keith Kerr, retired Colonel” into Google and find the link to the Hillary Clinton press release, which prior to the debate appeared in the first 10 results for that search? Yeah, right…

Newsbusters supplies a big chunk of transcript. They also have Joe Scarborough suggesting that it is total crap for CNN to say it did not know it had a Hillaryplant in the fold.

Glenn Reynolds opines:

JUST HEARD A LENGTHY NPR STORY ON THE YOUTUBE DEBATE, with a live followup from Mara Liasson — and it omitted any mention of the planted question issue. Hmm. If Fox hosted a Democratic debate and many of the most pointed questions turned out to come from Republican activists, but Fox didn’t disclose that, do you think it would pass unremarked?

Vodkapundit’s Steven Green points out that CNN’s own agenda colored the proceedings:

Another question came from a very self-important sounding YouTuber, who wanted to know which of the candidates believed “every word” of “this book,” with his camcorder floating ominously above a copy of the Bible. Now, I’m no Christian, but even I was offended. The question wasn’t an honest inquiry—it was a set-up to see which candidate would step up and make himself look the most like a fundamentalist Christian bigot….

He concludes:

For the future, I’d like to propose what I call the Algonquin Round Table Debate. No moderator, no stopwatches, no buzzers or red lights, no YouTube, and, please, no Anderson Cooper or Chris Matthews. Instead, put all the candidates around a big table, ply them with first-rate food and liquor, and just let them talk and argue with one another until—or beyond—last call. Now that, for Democrats or Republicans, would be an event worth watching.

Now THAT sounds like heaven. Does anyone remember Tim Russert’s MTP Christmas program from 2001, where he simply had Rudy Giuliani, Laura Bush and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick seated around a table, talking? It was some of the best live television I had seen in a long time - an old-fashioned, thoughtful exchanges of ideas. I’d love to get my hands on a copy of that.

Rick Moran says:

Well, at least the candidates were probably all Republicans. As for the questioners, that’s a different story…We were told that there were 5,000 videos submitted for this debate. Are we supposed to believe that CNN couldn’t find actual, like, you know, REPUBLICANS TO ASK THEIR OWN GODDAMN CANDIDATES A QUESTION?

Patterico:

I’d caution folks not to overstate the case. Unless there is clear evidence that the campaigns themselves were involved, I’m reluctant to call these “plants” by the campaigns. The clear truth is bad enough: many of these folks had clear ties to Democrat campaigns that CNN should have discovered and disclosed, but didn’t. It’s now happened, not once, but twice. It should be a terrific embarrassment to CNN.

Ed Morrissey, quite predictably, has the most reasoned and reasonable take on all of this, and points out that questioners need not have been Republicans:

Bad journalistic practices? Definitely yes. But does that negate the questions themselves? I don’t think so. The CNN/YouTube format closely parallels that of the traditional town-hall forum. For the most part, attendees do not get vetted at these events either, nor should they. After all, while a primary usually involves voters of one party, the entire nation has a stake in the selection of the nominees. If Hillary Clinton held a town hall in my community, I should have an opportunity to question her about her positions on issues without pledging a loyalty oath to do so.

The questions asked don’t seem particularly outrageous.

Just so, Cap’n, but CNN’s overt agenda-driving does cast a pall over all media. Bookworm writes:

If anyone wonders why the American people regularly rank the media below lawyers and used car salesmen when it comes to career respect, they should look no further than these types of shenanigans.

Don Surber says CNN had promised no gotchas.

Advertising Age:

I don’t know that it’s necessarily wrong to have opponents show up during these forums. But the problem for CNN is that it didn’t do the same for the Democratic YouTube debate…

Ace says this is CNN pulling out all the stops for Hillary

Betsy says journalists could take research lessons from bloggers.

Sue at J’s Cafenette So, what’s new?

AJ says it’s all staged, and badly.

Fausta has the best question.

Gateway Pundit is rounding up

Michelle Malkin has the definitive dig on all concerned.

Jay has a load of links you can wade into.

I don’t know if I’d call it that, but it’s pretty darned remarkable. New-agey, but remarkable.

Ummmm….I was moving too fast today and deleted my spam before actually looking through it for waylaid comments. So if you commented recently, and haven’t seen it released from moderation, well…it might be gone. Sorry. Sometimes the fingers fly and the mouse clicks even though the brain has wandered away to look at a pretty kitty.

Meanwhile, enjoy these musings on a priest’s first Latin Mass, and the direction of Catholic music.

Gerald at Closed Cafeteria links to a fascinating read in America Magazine, as a priest, Fr. Michael Kerper, relates his insights and feelings upon performing his first Traditional Latin Mass. Enormously interesting, and humbling stuff:

…As I studied the Latin texts and intricate rituals I had never noticed as a boy, I discovered that the old rite’s priestly spirituality and theology were exactly the opposite of what I had expected. Whereas I had looked for the “high priest/king of the parish” spirituality, I found instead a spirituality of “unworthy instrument for the sake of the people.”

…I actually felt liberated from a persistent need to perform, to engage, to be forever a friendly celebrant…

The act of praying the Roman Canon slowly and in low voice accented my own smallness and mere instrumentality more than anything else. Plodding through the first 50 or so words of the Canon, I felt intense loneliness. As I moved along, however, I also heard the absolute silence behind me, 450 people of all ages praying, all bound mysteriously to the words I uttered and to the ritual actions I haltingly and clumsily performed. Following the consecration, I fell into a paradoxical experience of intense solitude as I gazed at the Sacrament and an inexplicable feeling of solidarity with the multitude behind me.

Interestingly, he is not the first priest I have heard describe the act of praying the Latin Mass as “liberating.” I believe it, too, because the liturgy takes the focus off the priest, and puts it where it belongs - on the Holy Eucharist. This goes hand-in-hand with this very interesting post by Deacon Greg, who explains why it is that a priest holding aloft a Monstrance uses a Humeral Veil to cover his hands:

Most lay people, and even most priests, believe the minister uses it because he is unworthy to touch the monstrance or get that close to the Blessed Sacrament. Considering that the priest or deacon places the host in the monstrance, and later reposes it in the tabernacle, that’s not quite accurate. And neither is the notion that it’s just an additional sign of reverence.

So why does he use it?

It is to separate himself from the act of blessing.

The priest or deacon blesses the faithful with the Blessed Sacrament — but by wrapping his hands in the humeral veil, he signifies his own removal from the action.

He doesn’t bless the people. Christ does.

Catholic worship over the past 30-or-so years has been (in my humble opinion) a little too horizontal - a little too much about “the people” and not enough about the Almighty. Our modern hymnals reek of our self-obsession, with one “praise song” after another being all about “us, us, us,” and “we, we, we” with some vague reference to “You,” now and then…and heaven help us if a male pronoun is uttered.

We don’t have to get into heavy duty chant mode, but the pope wants to move us away from modern mediocrity and me-ism and that’s not a bad plan. Me-ism really has no place in worship.

There is a great bit in Rumer Godden’s In This House of Brede, where the newly elected Abbess, Catherine, by tradition of the house, sings to her community the Christmas Martyrology:

Standing under an arch of holly, evergreens and mistletoe lit by scores of candles, Abbess Catherine began the long chant; not long in words but in its intricacies of melody; it was the chant of Christmas, it’s mystery and history, from the creation and beginnings of the world, through the Old testament, the patriarchs, the foundations of Rome, to the opening of the New Testament, “all woven together into a marvelous whole,” said Cecily. Though out of respect for Abbess Hester, not one of the community would have uttered it aloud, there was a tonic effect for them all in Abbess Catherine’s strong, well-rounded voice, her clear enunciation…The Christmas martyrology, thought the nuns, hasn’t come through to us like this for years. “It was splendid,” said Dame Perpetua in the abbess’s room. “You made it splendid.”

“It wasn’t I,” said Abbess Catherine. “It is splendid. That is the blessing of the liturgy, it wipes out self.”

Amen. I’ve been a Catholic all my life and have never heard the Christmas Martyrology chanted. I would love to. If it is anything like the exceptionally gorgeous Easter Proclamation, then I have clearly missed something transcendent, instructive and wonderful. We need more of that…less of our puny selves, in our worship. Balance. It’s all about balance. Too much of anything, one way or the other, is what trips us up. Perhaps after swinging too far, the pendulum of deconstructionism is finally heading back a bit.

An interesting essay on music and worship here, thanks to reader Dick.

Via Instapundit, this fascinating story that to me simply emphasizes all we do not know, and what an illusion is life:

Dark energy, goes the thinking, is a result of the Big Bang and is accelerating the universe’s expansion.

If so, the universe is not in a nice, stable zero-vacuum state but simply another “false vacuum” state that may abruptly decay again - and with cataclysmic consequences.

The energy shift from the decay would destroy everything in the universe, “wiping the slate clean”, says Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.

The good news is: the longer the universe survives, the better the chance that it will mature into a stable state. We are just beyond the crucial switching point, Mr Krauss believed.

The bad news is: the quantum effect, a truly weird aspect of physics that says whenever we observe or measure something, we reset its clock.

It’s all much too smart for me, but I never tire of gleaning what I can from it, and marveling at all the mystery which surrounds us in our “know-it-all” age.

Independent journalist Michael J. Totten files a great read from Fallujah - the pictures tell a lot as well. Not being picked up by the “big time professional” journalists, of course. His September post from Anbar is here. I am always struck by the beauty of the Iraqi people.

We’re getting ready to pull out of Iraq. The Mainstream is not covering it; totally doesn’t suit their narrative. James Taranto says goalposts keep being moved and erected higher, and this by players who have lost their own footing. Don Surber says we’ve won. I say, let’s triple check before declaring that, but things are looking good. Then someone should ask Hillary if she thinks she owes Gen. Petraeus a wee apology for declaring his testimony before her as requiring a “willing suspension of disbelief.”

More funny money situations for Hillary, but of course, they don’t matter. The press is incurious and disinterested in these matters. they do not seem to care that the Clintons seemingly have a really interesting relationship with CNN, and Hillary, afterall, has a D after her name, which means only good news rules.

Can you imagine how different her life would be if she had an R after her name, Like Condi Rice? No magazine covers and glory, then, babe, sorry. And no money bundling problems tolerated, and hushed up, I’m sure. Yes, it is pretty tiresome. And staggeringly scandalous, if you think about it, which no one seems to want to. There is a willing suspension of disbelief, or something.

Meanwhile my favorite read of the day:

Mistakes were tolerated, but Clinton led intense post-mortems to keep her people focused. A well-aimed glare or a roll of the eyes told them all they needed to know. “She’d stare at us and say, ‘Who was the cause of this?’ And all of us would raise our hands,” press assistant Neel Lattimore recalled.

Can you imagine how that would be written if it were about BushBots instead of HillaryBots? That damned, troubling double-standard again: Bushian loyalty is “fascistic.” Hillarian loyalty is cute. Or something. By the way, this piece mentions that Bill Clinton now takes the blame for the failied HillaryCare initiative. How come no one in the press has asked him why he let her take the rap for it, for all these years? I know, I know, it’s tiresome…then they’d have to listen to him spin some more.

Dr. Sowell says stop hating the top 1%. I’d frankly be happy if the government would stop hating people who make $97,000 a year. Here in New York, that’s not much for a family of four. That’s getting by with a minimal savings, if you’re careful.

“How Hollywood saved God”. Will God return the favor?

He feeds everyone; he’s an angel. I believe it.

Comparing Catholics to the KKK?

Curious about Annulments in the Catholic Church? Counseling Kevin writes about it, and more:

My wife teetered between feelings of contentment and completion, both of which I understood. Yet, I thought that for me, this wasn’t closure, not by a long shot. In fact, I thought of Churchill’s line about the British victory at El Alameinin in 1942 (I’m such a romantic, eh?). “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

Shakespeare said, “the first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Some sportswriter, a lesser talent than Will’s, obviously, says - in essence - “first, kill all the bloggers”. Ace takes issue.

The silence and the monk.

Lastly, does anyone know anything about this Karaoke system? I’m thinking about getting it for my nieces, but can’t find a review. This is how Auntie scores the sympathetic interviews with them. Sheer bribery. I guess that’s how it’s done, after all.

And unsurprisingly - H/T Dr. Helen:

A few months ago, the Crisis Magazine abandoned dead trees and began publishing exclusively online. When they did that, they also put together a blog forum called InsideCatholic, along the lines of NRO’s The Corner, and they seem to be chugging merrily along.

Now, America Magazine, the Catholic weekly published by American Jesuits has today launched their MagBlog, called “In All Things”. Editor Fr. James Martin, SJ, whose outstanding book My Life With the Saints was often extolled on this blog, and to whose pearls I have occasionally linked, writes:

Our bloggers will include not only the Jesuit and lay editors of the magazine, but also distinguished American Catholics like Sister Helen Prejean, Robert Ellsberg, Tom Beaudoin, Francis X. Clooney, S.J., and Dolores Leckey. The name of the blog is a play on the Jesuit ideal of “finding God in all things” and a nod to our popular weekly column, “Of Many Things.”

That’s a pretty impressive roster. I’ve mentioned Ellsberg’s excellent All Saints here. That’s a book I would leave out on the coffee table in hopes that the kids would pick it up, read a bit and come back to, which they did, to good effect.

These two blogs, “Inside Catholic” and “In All Things” give a fair representation of modern Catholic thinking across the whole philosophical/political spectrum, from Conservative, to Libertarian to rather classically Liberal. Right now they’re both discussing the His Dark Materials series of books, the first film from that series, The Golden Compass, and author Philip Pullman’s assertions that Catholics who object to the overtly atheistic books (and the reportedly watered-down film) are “nitwits.” I’ll tempt you with a few quotes from both blogs, and then urge you to visit them for yourselves:

The crucial point is that Sartre isn’t meant to appeal to children; your average seven-year-old isn’t picking up Being and Nothingness at the local bookstore. Pullman, however, is marketed almost exclusively to children, and that’s where it becomes more insidious. — Margaret Cabaniss, Inside Catholic

In this case, I agree with [Bill] Donohue [of the Catholic League]: [Hanna] Rosin’s article seems to warn that when parents buy their kids something they expect to mirror “The Chronicles of Narnia,” they might be surprised (or appalled) when they learn that it’s less like C.S. Lewis than Christopher Hitchens. Readers who have actually read the book (and seen the movie) are welcome to weigh in.–Fr. James Martin, In All Things

(Above links and brackets mine, for clarity - Anchoress)

Do check out the blogs and the magazines, and do read more about The Golden Compass and His Dark Materials, where you can, in order to make up your own mind. Regular readers know I’m not much of a girl for sounding alarms every time an attention whore hoists herself onto a cross, and I don’t mind Chocolate Jesuses all that much (I actually thought that chocolate sculpture was a stirring bit of art), but I do have my limits. Julie at Happy Catholic (my all-time favorite, much-underappreciated Catholic blog) has some very enlightening and thought provoking posts on the subject. I’d say, start there! And don’t miss this delightful nugget from her invaluable and ever-growing quotebook. She ought to publish that thing. I’d buy it!

Also writing on Golden Compass:
Church of the Masses
Family Life Culture Watch
I’ll add more as I read them.

UPDATE: On the His Dark Materials series, reader Diane M. writes:

I have been a public school librarian for nearly 12 years. The school library I work at now has one of each of the books in the His Dark Materials series. I am a huge fantasy reader and loved The Golden Compass. I thought the 2nd book, The Subtle Knife, was ok. I was thrilled when the third and concluding book, The Amber Spyglass, was published until I started reading it. I was just stunned by the anti-Catholic writing, about the evil nature of the Church and the glorifying of anarchy. I wound up mostly skimming parts of the book so I could know what happened to my favorite characters, but was offended the entire time. It’s not like I am an overly pious person. I’m not a churchgoer. I’m not steeped in theology. This book still hit me over the head with its ugly sentiments.

I was really angry because this book/series is marketed toward children and young adults. The attacks on the church and the portrayal of the ministers must be confusing to younger children who have a very innocent view of religion. On the other hand, I am an adult reading this book and I bring with me my adult experiences and sensibilities. It is likely that the analogy(?) goes over the head of most children and that they do not make the connection between the plot of the book and the real life Vatican. Perhaps high school students “get it?” i don’t know…I don’t go much for banning, but it is important to be informed. Here is
here is a Washington Post article from 2001…in this article [author] Pullman is quoted as saying, “I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief,” says Pullman. “Mr. Lewis would think I was doing the Devil’s work.” when asked about the Chronicles of Narnia. It is a long article. There is even longer interview with him here from 2004 in the Telegraph where he and the archbishop of Canterbury discuss one of his works being made into a play, religion and children. I didn’t have time to read it now, but it seems to have a critical literature/philosophy focus.

I haven’t had time to read them, either, but offer them for your consumption and review. Thanks, Diane!

I’m no fan of Maddy Albright’s, but I think she’s got every right to wonder how Hillary Clinton has the bald audacity - some might call it the unmitigated gall - to suggest that during her husband’s presidency - she, Mrs. Clinton - was “face of the Administration on foreign affairs,”

Mrs. Clinton didn’t actually say that, not at first; one of her operatives, former Governor Tom Vilsack introduced the notion, apparently as a means to shore up Mrs. Clinton’s assertion that being married to a president automatically confers presidential experience and acumen upon a spouse. Hillary must have liked Vilsack’s thinking, though, because she agreed with it, saying (incomprehensibly):

“There are lots of ways in which what I did that was the face of America when I was there when I was representing not just my husband but the country.”

No, I didn’t get that wrong. According to ABC, that really is what she said. Speaks like a 14 year old when she’s off script, doesn’t she?

Anyhow, Bill Richardson takes some exception to the notion of Mrs. Clinton being the overseas face of the administration. His spokesperson says:

“Considering Bill Richardson served as the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy, as well as a Special Foreign Envoy during the Clinton Administration on numerous occasions, we take some exception to that view.”

As well Richardson should. No word, yet, on how Albright has received the news that she - the first female Sec of State, the chaser of Yassir Arafat and dancing partner of Kim Jong Il - was not, in fact, “the face of the Administration on foreign affairs.”

Since Ms. Albright’s past loyalty to the Clintons has rivaled only Sid Blumenthal’s, it’s doubtful that she will raise an objection to Mrs. Clinton’s breathtaking assertions. Albright may have felt pride in being the first female Secretary of State, but if that fact gets in the way of Mrs. Clinton’s ambition, then so much for sisterhood, or for celebrating women. Albright becomes a footnote, and Hillary looms ever larger as the face, breast, heart, soul, feet, voice, brains and brawn of the Clinton Administration, an administration which talked a good game but, near as I can tell, never actually did much about education, social security, illegal immigration, infrastructure, or, for that matter, terrorist attacks on American holdings, interests or naval vessels, and which remains curiously mum about one of its indisputable success stories.

Ah, well…if Albright just smiles and goes along, maybe someday she’ll be let back into the White House, to dance a jig with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or a polka with Putin. Likely she’ll dance to whatever tune the Clinton’s call.

Althouse has more. And Vanderleun says, if Hillary can be president, why can’t Laura?

Gateway Pundit looks at the many views of Bill Clinton.