Responding to Eve

Eve writes a revelatory post (on a day of vast posts!) about why she is not voting this year.

I sympathize with her reasons for not registering to vote; after all, in the State where I live there is zero doubt about the fate of my electors, even if I were to vote for John Kerry. However, as I used to tell my trainees (when I was a corporate trainer for a few years), it goes like this.

If you see that something is wrong, and you complain, but nothing happens, it's no longer your fault if things stay the same. However, if you see that something is wrong, and you do nothing, and things stay the same, it is partly your fault.

Why? Because we have a responsibility to try to change things that are wrong, fix what is broken, repair the breach, etc. etc. In Jewish culture it is referred to as Tikkun Olam, or healing the world, and it is a driving force behind Jewish social activism.

Certainly I can't take my blogmother to task, except to say that it's easy to become cynical, especially if you are given to fits (or decades, in my case) of depression. In fact, I think that depressed people sometimes see the world more clearly, more realistically, than "normal" people do. If normal people saw that the odds against them were as hopeless as they frequently are, well, let's just say that little ol' ant wouldn't think he could move that rubber tree plant. Maybe normalcy is really God's gift to keep us from seeing the daylit world in all its bleakness.

But anyway! I'm voting. I wouldn't refrain from voting, even though I have served Jury Duty five times since 1984 (including three weeks on a very scary Federal case a few years back). Considering the price that my dad paid, and that many other people braver and fitter than I have paid for my freedom, I would feel even more guilty than usual if I didn't vote.

For what it's worth, I agree that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were despicable; however, I am not certain that direct responsibility for them goes very far up the chain of command. After all, you can read about the Stanford Prison Experiment and it sounds eerily like what happened in Iraq; and the kids involved in the Experiment were relatively normal, affluent college kids who had not been subjected to thirty years of progressive p*rnification of the culture (heck, there wasn't even an HBO in those days). It's just symptomatic of our fallen world and the fallen men (and women) who populate it.

As for the jus ad bello, I have to agree with Eve (and with Bill Buckley) on this one. Given the publicly stated reasons (opinions shared by the Anglosphere and many other nations), we were right to go in. However, it now looks, in retrospect, like a huge mistake. But we all have 20/20 hindsight, and it's very easy to Monday-Morning-Quarterback both the reasons for going and the means used to prosecute the war. I think the truth of the matter won't be known for some time (like when we find Saddam's chemistry set in Syria, for instance); and frankly, wars are almost always unpopular. But that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do; and it certainly doesn't mean we should abandon ship.

All that said, and in light of some of the misgivings I have about President Bush, I feel I have no choice but to vote for him. No one (except possibly President Reagan) has done more to advance the pro-life cause. And the fact that he is willing to take the enormous risk of going to war shows that he has a lot of guts; and that's something I think we're going to need in the next four years.

And about that dog . . .

What you really need is a DOG scan.

First, see this story (again, hat tip to the HMS Blog). It tells the tale of a young woman whose dog kept licking and biting at a mole on the woman's leg; the mole turned out to be malignant melanoma.

A news story about the Bladder Cancer study referenced in that article can be found here. A more detailed article, from the Discovery channel, is here.

This isn't the first time such behavior has been observed, either. Take a look at this story from a couple of years ago, in which scientists sought to teach dogs to detect prostate cancer from urine samples. And this story adds a new wrinkle: a "control" sample used in the study, supposedly from a healthy person, was consistently "misidentified" as a cancer sample. As it turned out, the patient in question had a malignant, life-threatening tumor of the kidney!

The dogs knew more than the doctors in this case.

Okay, I suppose that's a bit of an exaggeration, because the dogs certainly couldn't have performed the operation. But it points up something very interesting: as much as medical science has learned over the last fifty years, they still don't know everything; and God has created this world and all its creatures with their varying skills and talents; and man doesn't fully appreciate them. We tend to get locked into thinking that the visible world, filled with things that we can see and touch, is all there is. Mankind could work night and day for the next century, or the next five centuries, and still not figure it all out.

Why? Because a) we're not meant to, and b)we already know enough to understand the Universe based on God's instruction.

This all just confirms my life-long suspicion that there's more going on behind a dog's eyes than you might think. That's why I count myself blessed for the time I have had with my beloved (and departed) pets. They are a mysterious and wonderful gift, and rare good company to the lonely and distressed.

Thank you, Lord, for my dog, and for all the other animals who have blessed my life! They reflect in their way the Genio Creatore of the Creator, and impart a share of his love to the world.

Shaggy Dog Story

So there was this guy who had a dog. And one day he comes home and finds his poor dog lying in the street, hit by a car. Despondent, he lifts up the body of his beloved pet and carries it off to the vet's.

The vet looks, listens, probes. "I'm sorry," he says. "Your dog is dead."

"Isn't there anything you can do?"

"I'm afraid not. He's beyond help now."

"Well, I don't believe you! I demand a second opinion!"

Seeing the man's grief, the vet nods and leaves the room. A few minutes later, his assistant reappears with a tabby on a thin blue lead. She places the creature on the table, where it begins to prod and sniff the lifeless body of the dog. Finally the tabby looks up and meows mournfully at the assistant, who hangs her head and leaves the room.

Shortly the vet returns.

"I'm sorry, but there's really nothing we can do. It's too late. Your dog is gone."

Having had some time to accept the inevitable, the man assents.

"I'm sorry I lost my temper," he says. "What do I owe?"

"Two thousand and thirty-nine dollars," replies the vet.

"WHAT?" screams the owner. "For WHAT?"

"Well," says the vet, "Thirty-nine dollars for my examination, and two thousand for the Cat Scan."

Ba-dum-BUM!

Music hath charms . . .

. . . to soothe the savage breast. Via Heart, Mind and Strength.

This story puts me in mind of the Creation-myth section of The Silmarilion.

Who really understands music or all its salutary effects, or all the beneficial uses to which it may be put?

I don't (being just a Yurodivi and all). But I'm happy to have the gift, and to put it to use in the service of God's Church.

Bisexuality and Emotional Stresses (via Eve)

Eve mentions a post she has written for Marriage Debate about bisexuality and emotional stresses. It doesn't really fall into my declared area of interest for this blog (so far, few posts have), but I can't let it pass without comment.

I agree with a great deal of what Eve writes (even her bizarre short stories), especially the substance of her writing on SSM. Her discussion of the issue is all the more fascinating given her Catholic perspective.

So, as a man who has been on the other end of the needle in a relationship with a bisexual woman (not once, but twice!), her post is even more fascinating. I have been married (to a straight woman, thanks, before anyone starts asking) for nearly 13 years, and I can also attest to much of what Eve posits about the heterosexual relationship. For instance, as my wife often points out, men definitely are annoying.

Neither of my ex-girlfriends was capable of the kind of critical thought displayed by Eve, but, consciously or not, I think they were subject to the same pressures. And both wound up in long-term relationships with other women. In fact, neither one had a boyfriend after me.

I used to say that there were two ways to look at that:

A) They knew no other man could make them happy after they left me, or

B) I had put them off men entirely.

Now that Eve has spoken, there is a third way (apologies to Tony Blair):

C) They realized they couldn't cope with marriage and family, etc. etc., and all the pressures that come with that.

As Eve put it,

The pressures on heterosexual relationships are very different from those on homosexual ones; and I conclude, from that, that heterosexual relationships need specific and greater societal support than gay ones.

I sincerely hope Eve becomes more formally published (like, you know, for more money and all), because I would hate to see her intellect and dusha expended at no charge over the Internet, even though we all benefit from it! A mind is a terrible thing to waste, n'est-ce pas?

Thanks!

Thanks, Amy, Eve and Cacciaguida for the recognition! It's nice to hear from the blogparents!

And Cacciaguida, perhaps another good name for the Catholic Opera Webring would be, Der Ring der Katholiken; or for those who don't allow commenting, Nie sollst du mich befragen!

Seriously, I'm going to start writing about stuff other than politics. Any minute now . . . maybe a recipe would be good!

Volya Naroda!

If it's not close, they can't CHEAT.

Honestly, I don't know why anyone would bother trying to cheat this way in South Carolina, which is just about as red as a red state can get. Maybe this fellow is just D-U-M-M Dumb.

I notice in this other story that the man is an employee of our local Rabble-Rousers. Curiously this fact is omitted from the television coverage.

According to the arrest affidavit provided by SLED, Hines was employed by the South Carolina Progressive Network.

The Progressive Network's Web site describes the organization as a broad-based coalition of advocacy groups and individual activists from across the state who have joined forces to promote social and economic change in South Carolina.

Hines, who was gathering the forms as part of a nationwide voter registration drive, was referred to the Progressive Network by the national Civic Engagement Project that was not working in South Carolina, said Brett Bursey, director of the network.

Mr. Bursey was recently convicted in Federal court of violating a "presidential security zone." He's appealing his conviction, of course. But ask yourself: if the Secret Service, knowing the threats made daily against the President, asks you to move, wouldn't it be prudent to comply? He could have saved himself a lot of money and public ridicule. And he didn't make this kind of fuss when President Clinton was bombing the heck out of the Serbs in Kosovo, so maybe politics has a little something to do with it.

Hundreds of legitimate forms had been turned in, Bursey said, but on the day before registration ended more than 1,000 fraudulent registrations were submitted. The Progressive Network reported it to authorities on Oct. 4, he said.

Translation: "We're really sorry we got caught trying to rig the vote and thwart the will of the legitimate voters of South Carolina. If Mr. Hines hadn't been so dumb as to try the register the mayor of Florence, you wouldn't have to write this embarrassing story."

"We take voting very seriously," said Donna Dewitt, co-chair of the network. "We regret that Mr. Hines misrepresented himself to our organization, and we believe that our effort to include more South Carolinians in the voting process helps make our system more democratic and equitable."

Yes, they take voting very, very seriously: multiple votes for Kerry are their best power source. That's why I used to call the SC Election Commission the "Department of Dead Democrat Voters." Again, I have a hard time believing these folks are sorry about anything other than getting caught. Lying, cheating, stealing, fraud . . . what won't they stoop to do, in order to get their guy in office?

If they really cared what "the people" want, they wouldn't do this stuff. But they know they can't win an election in SC fair and square. In their heart of hearts, I think they probably think they're doing South Carolinians a favor by trying to procure "enlightened" leaders for them; but in the end they're no better than the Bolsheviki. After all, Volya Naroda is a pretty flexible concept.

All I can say . . .

. . . is Hear, hear!

As a recovered liberal, I am sorry to say I agree with pretty much the whole column. It especially sickens me to think that "good liberals" would have allowed the torture, rape and wholesale murder to go on unabated so they could salve their consciences and avoid having to be seen agreeing with W.

You know . . .

. . . when I started this thing a couple of weeks ago, I said my interests were Catholicism and whole litany of other seemingly incongruous stuff. And I look at my blog, and the thing I've written more about than those things is politics.

Why would that be? Because unfortunately, as dirty and low-down as it is, politics rules the lives of us all.

Annoyed aside: Why is it that "politics" is considered singular in English? Give me German "die Politik" (sing. fem.); at least then you know how many you're discussing.

Okay, back to the blog.

And so, while Catholicism remains my chief interest, the great thing about that is, it touches everything else I think about. So it is with politics: while I've got mixed feelings about what's going on in Iraq, I try to ask myself whether the Christian thing to do is to attack others in an attempt to prevent further attacks on our homeland, or to lie back and think peaceful thoughts and wait for the next terrorist attack here in America. And it's not so far from here, either: the list of schools referenced on Drudge included Gray, Georgia. That isn't so far from me!

It's easy to sit back and say what we would have done differently in regard to Iraq at this point, knowing (although no exhaustive search can really be undertaken in a country the size of California) that there aren't any WMD stockpiles and that Saddam was probably still a long way from a viable nuclear program. But the fact is, we are the ultimate Monday Morning Quarterbacks of what our leaders do. And more so than a MMQ, because we actually get a say in whether they get to keep their jobs.

So I have to pray for our elected leaders (although I found it hard to do that for Bill Clinton, I did it anyway). And I thank God that I am not in a position of such awesome and terrible responsibility that I could annihilate the Free World with the push of a Big Red Button.

NPR: Letting Ordinary Folks Sound Like Idiots

This morning as I was driving into the city for work, I heard a story on NPR's Morning Edition about tonight's debate. The conceit of the debate is that the audience will consist entirely of undecided voters (Unicorn hunt, anyone?). Now, don't get me wrong -- I can see lots of reasons why people have trouble making up their minds, but it's only three weeks or so until Election Day.

Anyway, as part of the story, the NPR reporter interviewed Average Citizens hanging around the Washington Monument (I think, or some other landmark on the Mall). What struck me besides the self-interest (the first person they interviewed had a surprisingly detailed view about health care policy, for instance) was the Candyland approach to the government that the questions showed.

One young man said he would ask the candidates if they were aware of the average American wage, and whether they thought that should be raised. That might be a suitable question if you framed it this way:

"Daddy, are you aware that my allowance only allows me three packs of gummi bears and a coke a week? Don't you feel it should be raised?"

I mean, does this guy really think that the President can raise the "average wage" by fiat? Even if it were legislated in some way, who would enforce it? What would the penalty be if your wage were "below average?" The mind boggles.

Later, a young woman said, "I would just ask the candidates questions about their character." A good start, I thought. But then she continued (and I paraphrase): "...and I wouldn't let them answer about any issues, but just sit down with them and find out who they are."

Well, considering Sen. Kerry still seems to be sorting that one out for himself, she might be there for a while! For goodness' sake, just don't invite Bill Clinton, or she'd definitely be there all night -- and no, I don't mean anything untoward, but Ole Bill is reported to be the King of Late-night dorm-room philosophizers.

Anyway. When I was ten, I thought my dad ruled the world and he could just make things happen. But then I turned eleven, you know, and the world was never the same.

The Debate rages on . . .

Watched most of the Veep debate on Tuesday night. I came away with the impression that Cheney had won decisively on the substance of his arguments, but thought that many people would likely consider Edwards the winner because of his telegenicity.

Well, as a fellow Southerner and, by God's grace, a former Babdist, let me tell you a little something about John Edwards. I have never met the man himself, but I've met many a man who seemed similar. In fact, I have even worked for a few!

This type of Southern gentleman tends to be fair of face and neat of coif. He tends to be well-manicured and wear expensive suits. You might even see him in a seersucker suit. When you talk with him, he is smiling and solicitous; he makes a great effort to keep eye contact with you when you speak.

If you disagree with him, he will tell you he is "grieved" or "disappointed" by your words and will continue to be solicitous as long as he thinks there is chance you will be appeased. However, if you persist in the heresy of thinking differently from The Hairdo, the fangs will come out once you've left his presence, and you won't even know what hit you until you hear about it from someone else.

Many of these men, in my experience, are harboring some dark secret; I can't speculate about Sen. Edwards, and he may indeed have no secrets at all. But some of the ones I have known have had problems with, shall we say (to avoid the Web crawlers), naughty pictures, or actual contact with the Utes of America (gotta beat the Web crawler, I tell ya!), or a proclivity to act out with adult members of their own sex in a way that would surprise the nice, blue-haired ladies at church. I've never understood them, really. It reminds me of Frodo's comment that "a servant of the Enemy would look fairer and feel fouler." And these guys, without exception, look fair and leave you feeling like you need a shower.

Look: everyone has things in his life he would prefer to keep hidden, or at least closely guarded among his inner circle. But it seems to me these men have made a bargain with the devil to enjoy worldly success and the comfort of being around the Faithful while on the inside they are whited sepulchres, filled with dead men's bones.

So who knows? I know Sen. Edwards has had some serious pain in his life, chiefly (I would think, not knowing him personally) the untimely death of his beloved son. And I can't and won't say that he is one of the men I have just described. But he sure puts me in mind of them, the way he purses his lips and makes those big doe-eyes at the moderator. If you were sitting at the table with him, he might even touch your hand as if you were kin.

So: I don't know what's going on behind the "pretty-boy" face. But I do know he gives me a serious case of the creeps.

And that, my friends and readers, is reason no. Umpty-leven for me to vote for Bush!

Kudos to a new Reader

Wie verheißt, major kudos to reader Michelle, who wrote:

"Well, a Yurodivi is a "holy fool," someone who can "speak truth to power" and get away with it owing to a mystical dread of harming one touched by God. The word's Russian, but the concept is old and almost universal. The medieval court jesters were rather like that. (And Solomon Volkov's much-haggled-over Shostakovich "memoir" applies the term to Mariya Yudina, who did indeed get away with speech at the time of the Great Purge that would've gotten pretty much anyone else killed, quickly.)

Since you're interested in Russian opera, I think you were thinking of Boris Godunov particularly. I had to resort to the dictionary to parse "Gottesnarr," which looks like a literal German translation of the same word."

Your bloghost would only add that, while the parts of the word are obvious enough, the only reason I know it is the right word for Yurodivi is that that's the term used in the Dramatis Personæ of my copy of Boris: the "definitive" piano-vocal score edited by Paul Lamm and published in the early days of the Soviet Union, ca. 1925. To parse it even a little further, it's "God's Fool."

While I don't know about the "Holy" part, I can certainly lay claim to foolishness! And also to an inclination to speak my mind against self-interest.

While you're out surfing, you might want to check out the classical music journal co-edited by Michelle: San Francisco Classical Voice. Welcome to the blog, and thanks for the E-mail!

Blogging the Debate

Yaaaawwwwwwn.

Why can't politicians just say what they really think? As "civilized" as this debate was, I was nodding off about twenty minutes in. There wasn't the smallest flash or spark from either of them, although the President looked pretty peeved on occasion.

They say a gaffe is what happens when someone accidentally tells the truth. What I wouldn't give for another Adam Clymer Moment! At least then, we were hearing what Bush and Cheney were actually thinking.

President Bush had several openings for a spike-the-ball, end-zone dancing body slam against Senator Kerry, but he failed to press his advantage. However, an incumbent needs to look dignified and will generally refrain from attack unless he is way behind in the polls. It puzzles me a bit when I read that W is acid-tongued in private, but in public he seems to have a major problem with the language.

Senator Kerry is very polished in debate, and he succeeded several times in obfuscation of the questions. For instance, when he said that he had only "made a mistake in the way [he] talked about the war, while [Bush] made a mistake by going to war," he was diverting attention from his vote against the $87 Bn supplemental. A vote in the Senate is a lot more than just talk. But that's the soundbite I heard this morning on the Today show.

I'll be curious to see what the VP debate is like. They don't call Dick Cheney "Big Time" for nothing, right?