In her recent article, Mona Charen praises John Bolton for his work in defeating the “Zionism is Racism” United Nations resolution. But step back and think about this for a second. The Israelis are not just persecuting the Arab population in their borders. While from the media reports it often seems that all Palestinians are Muslim, a good many of them are Christian (most of the Christians are in fact Catholic, but that is a side point). And the Israelis are making life incredibly difficult for them also. Did you know that you cannot have a Catholic tour guide in Israel? Only a Jew may have the job title “Tour Guide”[1]. So the Palestinian Catholics who act as guides for the shrines, monasteries, and other holy sites in the care of the Franciscans go by the title “Pilgrimage animator”. And that only after the Franciscans closed their doors to everyone (thus preventing the Jewish “Tour Guides” from having anywhere to give tours) forced the Israeli government to come to that “compromise.” The Jewish government wants an all-Jewish state just as much as the Muslim population wants an all-Muslim Middle East. So which is better really? Good question, the only clear answer is that we created Israel, and in doing so put them in harm’s way, so we have some responsibility to help protect them from that harm.

Not to make light of the moral relativism pervading our society, but “Let Cookie Monster be Cookie Monster” has some good points. Why in the world is an accept or skin color part of identity but Cookie Monster having an insane craving for cookies not part of his? Conversely, why does Cookie Monster contribute to overweight kids, but the “Christian Right” (I would tend to debate that it is anywhere near that cohesive, but then I am a Catholic, and even though some people I know have seen far more of the abuse Protestants will dish out to Catholics, I am familiar enough with it to wonder at being lumped in with them) is making a big deal out of “nothing” when they worry about the over sexualization of television? Why is Sponge Bob not a big deal (regardless of the accuracy), but Cookie Monster is? Where in the world are our priorities here people‽

Just as this article talks about some environmental ideas, from an environmentalist’s view point, albeit a non-fanatical one, this one talks about it from a skeptic’s view. The juxtaposition is revealing. It is worth remembering that as few as 20 years ago, the big fear was global cooling, not global warming. It is worth remembering that the science is not unanimously behind human intervention being primarily responsible. And it is further worth remembering, that they do not say this is, with today’s technology, reversible. What is the point of cutting emissions if it cripples the economy (and thus slows down the development of technology) without preventing the disaster? We need that rapid technological growth if we are to ever be able to avert it. So yes, by all means, let us cut back where we can, as we can. Hybrid cars? Go for it. Better power plants? By all means. Nuclear power instead of burning coal? Sounds good — assuming we can settle the storage issues and such.

Another interesting point from the first article is that when global cooling was the concern, socialism was the cure, and capitalism the problem. Now that global warming is considered the problem, the solution and cure are the same. Excuse me, how can capitalism have caused both? In such a short time span?

From the first article, a good point about how environmentalists can work with us instead of universally against us. The development of hybrid cars is an inspiring example of such co-operation. That cannot stop there though, it needs to continue. We need human-friendly solutions to these problems. This earth is ours after all, we are the reason for it, not some accident.

Michelle Malkin noted the key fact in this NY Post article. Had this gone the other way, would police have hesitated even one second in classifying it as a hate crime? I do not think so! So why was this not treated as one right off the bat? Could it be that some groups are more equal than others? hhhmmm.

If there is anything that this article makes clear, it is that little Elian Gonzalez does not live a normal Cuban life. So if nothing else, forcing it through the courts did him that much good, he lives a better life than he would without that fight.

Those peace protesting liberals are just oh so peaceful, right?. It really says something about you when you decide to push around and punch a 50 year old 5 foot 2 woman.

Extending my previous post some, “World armed groups ‘abduct girls’” provides support for my position. For all the media preaches equality of the sexes, the BBC cannot help but acknowledge that these young women have no place in war.

In Seminary Halls, All Eyes Are on the Newest Pontiff gets on my nerves a little bit. Not that the media has things wrong, that it is trying to stir up controversy, or that it is highlighting the existing controversy, but that there are seminarians and priests out there they can use for quotes and source material. These priests are out there, these seminarians will be going out there, and teaching people that contraception is okay, abortion a personal choice, and that women in the priesthood is just the Church being slow to change. They will say this despite the clear teaching of the Church being just the opposite. Abortion is evil. Contraception has lead to the pervasiveness of the culture of death, as well as being fundamentally wrong itself. Female clergy is a theological impossibility. And it is not the case that the Church is denying women equal rights. This is not a question of “rights.” Just as the Church has not “chosen” to “deny” you the ability to remarry after a divorce, so also the Church has not “chosen” to “deny” women the “right” to be ordained. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of marriage or the priesthood to speak of either in those terms.

Men and women are not the same. They each deserve just compensation. They deserve equal access to work, according to their abilities (I am sorry ladies, if you cannot lift the heavy suit cases, you are not a fully functional replacement a guy who can, if you work as a baggage handler.). Whatever might have been the case before women had franchise, you could not justly deny them the vote today. Men and women are “equal” in that regard also. However the sexes also differ. As I noted above, most women cannot do the physical work of a man. Employers should be allowed to take that into account, though they should also allow exceptions. If you can’t lift (for example) 70 pounds, it is not sexism to deny you the job. If you are working as a police officer or firefighter, I sincerely doubt it is fully coincidence that the police shootings recently have had to do with male criminals taking the weapons away from female cops. Coming back on topic, the Church has taught, consistently, that men alone can be priests. Jesus broke cultural taboos left and right. He talked to Samaritans, Samaritan women, lepers, and sinners of every sort. If He had wanted female priests, you would see them in the Bible. And no, Dan Brown’s stories simply do not hold up.

Priests who ignore and/or deny this do us no favors. They confuse us, they make issues of things that otherwise would be fairly clear cut. The push for feminist theology would not be nearly as pervasive if it did not find support from the priests, who should know better. Communism and socialism would not be nearly as prevalent in Latin America if the liberation theology was condemned from the pulpit. In the last century, Archbishop Oscar Romero learned, as he was elevated in the Church, that you cannot compromise with evil governments. He was martyred for his stand for justice. But he did so without embarrassing the opposite evil. Our priests must learn from his example, from the example of our Holy Father John Paul II, who called communism evil, who did so despite an assassination attempt. They must learn to lead us according to the Truth again. That way, when we fail, we will at least know that we have done so, and will at least be able to find our way back to God.

UPDATE 20050426-0802: Vincas rightly points out that deacons are clergy, and that it was the priesthood alone I was refering to.

I was reading some of the NYTimes articles today, and this ad caught my eye. Not for its content, but for that “the new black” at the top. Likely intentional. What really caught my attention though was something that I sincerely doubt Cisco intended. Consider that one of the big problems in the Far East is sweat shops and other forms of mistreating workers. Puts a different spin on that ad, doesn’t it? Even though I would tend to bet that they were referring to the clothing style (who in the world would want to wear that?), it struck me as rather ironic that the use of Asian weavers (Milanese would refer to where? Milan? that would be Italy I think), would be accompanied with that slogan. Mr. Belloc predicted that unrestricted capitalism would lead to the re-emergence of slavery. I think we have mostly avoided this, though in some areas, the prices of housing and the pattern of debt makes that somewhat debatable, but there is surely little difference between slavery and existence for a person in a sweat shop.

“The end of analog TV” rather surprised me. Even though I have heard about HDTV on and off now for a while, this is the first I have heard that it would require the end of analog transmissions.