The Passion

Wow! When I first heard about Gibson's planned film I had assumed it would be a complete bust at the box office. I think it was about a year or two ago. How wrong I was.

I haven't seen the film and don't intend to at the moment. I'm not that keen on violent movies. I tend to watch them on t.v. rather than see them in the cinema. Maybe I'll change my mind.

The debate about the movie is very interesting, however. Is it anti-semitic or is it not? Obviously, I can't answer, but a couple of things have struck me. First, in the US, those who are most likely to go see the movie are those who tend to be the most pro-Israel. Sure, there are conservative Catholics like Pat Buchanan who are not pro-Israel, but the so-called "religious right", particularly fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants, tends to be fairly pro-Israel.

According to yesterday's Irish Times Ireland's Chief Rabbi has called on the Catholic Church to denounce the film. Chief Rabbi Yaakov Pearlman said the The Passion of the Christ

portrayed Jews "as bloodthirsty, evil, barbaric and as having betrayed and informed on Jesus". It undermined "the Vatican II initiative and I am afraid it will open up old wounds and influence or ignite the anti-Semitism which is growing across Europe today".

British Jewish leaders are apparently of a similar mind.

There have been many similar reactions among Jews in America, but there have also been some contrary opinions. Rabbi Daniel Lapin, writing in the Washington Times recently, feels that many of the American Jews protesting about The Passion lack "moral legitimacy" due to their reticence when faced with anti-Catholic or anti-Christian movies and art shows in the past.

The Passion has received glowing praise from those writers at National Review who have seen it. National Review is rarely connected with claims of anti-semitism.

The Jerusalem Post says The Passion "has inspired some curiosity, but little outrage, among Israelis". Jews in Israel have more important things to worry about than a movie. The editorial also notes, correctly, that "ultimately, it will be up to Christians to take what lesson they will from the film and to read their scriptures in a philo- or anti-Semitic light. Vatican II, after all, was not an idea hatched in Tel Aviv".

French decline

Enlargement of the EU is leading to a decline in the importance of French in the EU. Only 13% of potential EU officials from the new member states chose French for their recruiting tests. That's below German 18% and completely dwarfed by the 69% who chose to do the tests in English.

English is also in something of a decline, from its current position as the world's number 2 language.

Bush and the "Gay Marriage ban"

I'm opposed to gay marriage and I see no reason to go through all that again. But, I'll just comment on it as an issue rather than as a topic in itself.

Jon says that President Bush "the self-proclaimed 'uniter' [is] employing the Constitution - the very foundation of American cohesion - as an instrument of division". Why is Bush the "divider" when more than 50% of the American people are opposed to gay marriage. Aren't the proponents, who have the support of only a minority of the American people the dividers? (Barely half of the American public believe that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal, never mind gay marriage.)

I never understand why it is that conservatives are always the "dividers" when they oppose a proposed change. This change is occurring despite the wishes of the voters. Is it any wonder that so many conservatives are annoyed? 4 of 7 judges in Massachussetts found a right in the Constitution that does not exist. Aren't they the ones using the Constitution as "an instrument of division"? The Mayor of San Francisco is breaking state law by issuing licenses to gay couples. Is he a uniter?

Still, I believe that the President is wrong to support this amendment, for now. I would have preferred if he had waited for courts higher than the Massachussetts Supreme Court to have ruled before he acted. Like most conservatives, I hate amending the Constitution. It's a huge deal. It still seems unreal to me that the Constitution has to be amended in order to define marriage. Conservatives' views on amending the Constitution are the reason support for this amendment is so light compared with the level of opposition to gay marriage.

The President has also blundered politically, I think. Rather than supporting the amendment, he should have used his opposition to judicial activism as a campaign issue. Overall, however, the economy and the war are the two key issues for this November. I doubt that the gay marriage issue will swing too many people.

Broadband in school

I know I'm swimming against the tide on this one, but I cannot see what benefit children derive from having the internet in school.

And, from what I've seen of my own children's education, computer classes are a complete waste of time. Learning how to type is about all that they learn. Classes in programming or other vocational uses (CAD, etc.) for 16-18 year-olds would probably not be a waste, but other than that, I can see no reason for having computers in school.

Population decline

Scotland's population decline "is posing a bigger threat to new business creation than the nation's traditional suspicion of success". Of course, they recommend encouraging migrants and immigrants to settle in Scotland, but that answer is insufficient when we are talking about a continent suffering from population decline.

"Tax is good for us"

I'm still not able to contribute as I'd like here, but I have to say something about Britain's Catholic Bishops' pronouncement on taxation. I don't have time to read their document myself (Taxation for the Common Good), but this article from the Times illustrates how desperate the Church is to be relevant.

The American Bishops published some ideas along these lines in the 1980s and that struck me as an equally desperate attempt to have something to say that might appeal to people other than the usual "Thou shall not" etc.

I can't help thinking that the Bishops have lost sight of how much the welfare state has drained away personal responsibility - something I would have thought they would want to reverse. By all means, let's help those who "need help", but let's define need first. Most of the money raised by taxes is spent helping those who don't "need" the help, but have become dependent on it.

Do middle class families "need" free college tuition for their children? Do middle class families "need" child benefit allowance? How many people living in subsidized government housing "need" the government's help?

I could go on. The Bishops "need" to focus on what they're supposed to be about. Encouraging a high tax, entrepreneurial-sapping society is not what we "need".

Hiatus

Have to take a few days off from blog due to family situation. See you soon.

Jews and the UN

Long article from Commentary magazine by Anne Bayefsky.

The nadir of the UN’s record in these matters was the conference on racism and xenophobia held under its auspices in Durban in 2001.

Two Irish sacred cows, the UN and Mary Robinson, and a less sacred cow, Brian Cowen, all brought low in one piece.

Anny Bayefsky is an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School, Mary Robinson's new employer.

{Thanks Michael about the tip to Daimnation.}

Hubble

Absolutely fantastic pictures from Hubble. I hope they don't let this thing die with all the Mars planning. Probably need a high speed connection to enjoy this properly.

Arabs backing Bush

The NY Times has an article this morning about wealthy Arab Americans who are contributing large sums to the Bush campaign. This is counter to Bush's loss of support among the Arab population in America generally, down from 83% in 2000 to 38% today.

Funny enough the first two donors mentioned in the article are Iranian. I had thought that Iranians were (mostly) non-Arab. I thought they spoke Farsi and not Arabic.

Feminized Church

Kieron Wood's article in yesterday's Sunday Business Post claims that the greater feminization of the Catholic Church may lead to its eventual end. Interesting statistics on fathers, mothers and children attending church.

I don't know what to make of Bishop Martin's comments about the role of women. I remember reading once that in "old Ireland" the Bishops never did anything that went against the grandmothers. The Bishops ran the Church, but they did the grandmothers' bidding. Were women powerless in that Church? No, but young people were.

The Irish Church is definitely in trouble and seems to have no idea where to go next. Pandering to feminists is, without doubt, a mistake. Whether you can avoid that without trying to reestablish the old failed Church is a conundrum.

A good place to start is with the priesthood. The Church needs priests - lots of them. I think the Church makes a very poor effort at selling the priesthood to young men. Is it for all men? Obviously not. But, there are young men out there for whom a "tough job" open to "tough young men" would appeal. An overtly masculine appeal would be the best way to sell the priesthood. There's way too much namby-pambyism about "doing good" (or whatever) inherent today's appeals.

I don't think there has to be any contradiction in a masculine priesthood. When I was growing up, the priests who gave me the feeling that they were real men were the ones I liked best.

One priest who worked in our parish was a Franciscan. He wore hooded vestments and sandals for God's sake. But, he was also an Air Force chaplain. He was tough as nails, fair, sometimes really funny. He believed altar boys should wear polished black shoes and keep their shoulders back. I really liked him and I thought he was a great ad for the priesthood, but by the time I was 17 or 18 most of the younger priests I met gave me the creeps (and, I don't think that's too strong a word). I considered it, but that was the biggest turn-off for me.

Baby shortage

As if on cue, an article in Today's Sunday Times (London — unfortunately, subscription required outside Britain & Ireland) about Europe's great baby shortage problem (America's problem is less acute).

Unless we in the West produce more children, we face a nightmarish scenario in which the elderly outnumber the young, placing an impossible burden on the workers who must support them. Productivity will plummet. Unemployment will soar. Education will become unaffordable. Optimism will leach from the national psyche and we will become constitutionally depressed. There will be no fresh ideas, save perhaps a new socioeconomic justification for euthanasia. To survive, the EU will have to suck in large numbers of predominantly Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa.

And, I think we can safely add, those parents who have children will be increasingly unwilling to see them die in war, etc. So, our defense is also at risk.

Many people have assumed that bin Laden & co. are losers and that there's no way they can win. Yet, when you look at this problem you can see that their strategy makes perfect sense. First, ensure that Muslims avoid the western depopulation "illness" and avoid western contamination generally. Second, maintain the pressure at a level that ensures that Muslims who live in the west are not fully accepted or, therefore, westernized. And, third, never discourage migration of Muslims to the west.

They're waging a long campaign, and I think they may be winning.

The best counter strategy that we can adopt is

1. address our population issues
2. make a full effort to integrate Muslims who live in the west
3. do all we can to westernize the Islamic world. Turkey and Iraq are the key battlegrounds in this strategy.

I see no reason to suspect that Muslims would not take to freedom as we have if they're given half a chance. But, we should not expect that the attempt to help liberalize the Islamic world will be met by universal acceptance. There are enemies of freedom and they're right now trying to prevent it from blossoming in Iraq.

Headline writers

This headline, "Most Americans now say Bush lied over weapons", from this morning's Irish Independent is actually wrong. The truth is that 21% of people who were polled believe that the Bush Administration lied. 21% is not quite the same as "most Americans".

The article itself says "a majority of Americans now believe that President George Bush lied or deliberately exaggerated evidence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in the run up to war", which is true. It's equally true for me to say that 73% of Americans believe that the administration honestly believed that Iraq possessed WMDs, although that 73% includes 31% who believe the evidence was "intentionally exaggerated".

Baseball's drugs problem

The other day, Barry Bonds's personal trainer was indicted for drugs trafficking. I doubt there's a fan of the game who doesn't think "there's something rotten in the state of Denmark" with regards to one of baseball's biggest stars. And, I sincerely doubt any fan thinks that Bonds is the only one about whom questions should be asked.

I've written before about baseball's pathetic attempt to tackle this problem. The owners and union are pussy-footing around with this issue. The Daily News says that Major League Baseball is "in denial".

I suspect it's worse than that. I think they figure the fans don't care or that the fans are basically stupid.

I've often envied the English soccer fans' organizations and their power and influence. Baseball fans have no influence other than through ticket sales and t.v. money. I don't live close enough to wage an effective boycott, but even still when I'm home in the US this summer I'll be desperate to go to a game. I also know that when the season starts, I'll watch the games now that I can.

It's not that I don't care, but I can't help myself. But, I really hate this drugs thing. I hope the casual fan is turned off. I hope the stadiums are emptier and the television audiences are down. It's the only hope for the game.

Locked up in Cuba

First they're rounded up and imprisoned in Cuba. Now many are seriously ill and "are being held under inhumane conditions", according to the Washington Post. One man was held in a cell that had "no windows or running water and the lights were kept on 24 hours a day. He has lost 40 pounds, is unable to eat and has a fungal infection covering his legs".

I know they're enemy combatants, but they should receive better treatment than that.

Oh, wait. Oh, my apologies.

This description isn't of an enemy combatant. He's a 63 year-old economist suffering from cirrhosis of the liver and is one of 75 Cuban dissident journalists, economists and librarians arrested a year ago by Castro's government. I'll bet you that these people wish they were being held at Guantanamo Bay.

Gay Marriage

For all of you who are sitting on the edge of your seats waiting for me to return to this topic, I've exhausted all I have to say on Frank's site.

Back in the USSR

"You don't know how lucky you were", so says Mr. Putin.

I guess. At least back in those "good ole days", you didn't have to worry about former Soviet leaders making appearances in Las Vegas for new businesses.

Kerry - intern stuff

I hate this kind of thing. Let it go away. I am essentially a Republican, but I was totally opposed to the hounding of President Clinton over the Lewinsky thing. And, that was at a time of (relative) peace.

We're at war today. This nonsense has no role in this election.

Marriage - why it needs support

Just to reassure Frank, it's not so much that I'm trying to "post-rationalise a gut feeling", but rather I'm trying to figure out how to say what I'm thinking in less than 30,000 words. Also, I need to try and put a coherent structure on it.

I was trying to be concise, but then I felt that I wasn't explaining myself properly, although Frank summarized a lot of what I was trying to say when he wrote that my "principal argument is that marriage as an institution is crucial for the continuity of the type of liberal, civil society we currently enjoy and that this has been weakened by recent developments".

Recent developments are the key and when I say "recent" I'm basically talking about 1945-today. Dick says that "to say that a childless marriage is an incomplete marriage does a disservice to those who opt not to have children and implies that their marriage is in some way incomplete". (What I actually said was, "Couples that permanently and purposefully exclude the possibility of children are not living up to their end of the marriage contract" [with society].)

When I described the relationship between a married couple and society as a "contract" that was not quite right. It was a bad choice of word. Marriage is an institution - a social institution. Thus, society has expectations of married couples. Until the post-war period, married couples weren't "obliged" to have children, as Jon noted, but society's expectations included children.

From that point on (1960 or so), society began to lessen its expectations with regards to children and, also, to reduce the incentives that it had afforded to married couples. Marriage was denigrated and other "options" were promoted to an equal status. "Who's to say that a single parent household isn't as good as a married couple household", etc.

In 1960, 60% of married-couple households in the US* had at least one child under 18. By 2000, 45% of married-couple households had at least one child. {Some of this can be accounted for by aging, but not much if you note the household by age statistics.} In 1960, 75% of households in the US were married couples. By, 2000, that number was just over 50%.

Those statistics represent a double whammy for society. Fewer married-couples and more married-couples with no children. Dick believes that these numbers can be explained by a reduction in the number of "bad" marriages. But, children generally do better when the parents remain married even if the marriage is "bad". Only when violence or abuse is involved is it better for children for their parents to separate. Therefore, society has a vested interest in supporting even "bad" marriages.

All of this is the foundation for my view that marriage – one man, one woman – is special. So special that society has to provide incentives (thanks for the word Jon) to foster and support marriages. Those incentives can be monetary, social (esteem, etc.), whatever. If you extend those incentives to those on whom no expectation of children can be held, then you lessen the incentive (less money available for married couples, all family structures enjoying equal "esteem", etc. ), and therefore, support for marriage.

And, you open up the possibility of further challenges to the definition of marriage. Brothers & sisters, three people, who knows. Once the traditional understanding of marriage has been undermined then there is no accepted understanding of the term at all.

This is too long already and yet, I could easily go on. Enough for now.

{* I couldn't find similar statistics for Europe, but I'd be willing to wager that the fall-off is even greater.}

It's an ill wind . . .

The Daily Telegraph is reporting this morning that Palestinian legislators are investigating claims that the family of the Palestinian PM is supplying the Israelis with the concrete for The Wall.