Michigan Joins the Union

Michigan entered the Union as the twenty-sixth state on January 26, 1837. Over 200 years earlier, when French explorer Étienne Brulé visited the region in 1622, some twelve to fifteen thousand Native Americans lived there. Sault Sainte Marie, the state's oldest town, was founded in 1668 at a site where French missionaries had held services for 2,000 Ojibwa in 1641. The Ojibwa, along with the Ottawa, helped the French establish a thriving fur trade in the Great Lakes region.
Great Britain acquired control of present-day Michigan in 1763 and administered it as a part of Canada until 1783, when it was ceded to the United States under the provisions of the Treaty of Paris. Part of the Northwest Territory from 1787 to 1803, Michigan became a separate territory in 1805. Bishop Frederic Baraga,Bishop of Marquette and Saulte Ste. Marie, Michigan,circa 1844-circa 1860.America's First Look into the Camera: Daguerreotypes, 1839-1862
Originally settled by French Catholics, Michigan maintained its strong Catholic identity in the early nineteenth century, attracting a large number of Catholic immigrants. Dioceses were established at Detroit (1833), Marquette, Grand Rapids, Lansing, Saginaw, Gaylord, and Kalamazoo.
The completion of the Erie Canal in 1825 prepared the way for a great influx of settlers between 1830 and 1850. Michigan made a significant contribution to the Union in the Civil War. Some 90,000 Michigan soldiers fought for the Union—14,000 gave their lives.
Mining, lumbering, and agriculture dominated the Michigan economy in the nineteenth century. After 1910, the automobile industry emerged as the predominant source of income in the state. Manufacturing jobs attracted new immigrants, many of whom left homes in the rural South and migrated to Michigan's urban areas. Today, nearly half of the state population resides in the Detroit metropolitan area.

The American Memory collections feature a wide variety of material highlighting the history of Michigan:
Penned by Irving Berlin in 1914, "I Want to Go Back to Michigan" was a hit that year. Later it was a success in vaudeville and eventually, in its most famous rendition, sung by Judy Garland in the film Easter Parade (MGM, 1948). Of all the "phonograph singers," none made or sold more records than Billy Murray whose version is featured here. He recorded for all the major record companies of the period—Victor, Columbia, and Edison. His renditions of the era's popular songs, recorded on cylinder and disc, numbered in the hundreds and sold in the millions.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/today.html

Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke

Michigan Firm Won't Allow Smoking,
Even On Employee's Own Time
UPDATED: 8:55 PM EST January 25, 2005
LANSING, Mich. -- Four employees of a health care company have been fired for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.
Weyco Inc., a health benefits administrator based in Okemos, Mich., adopted a policy Jan. 1 that allows employees to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking happens after business hours or at home.
http://www.wral.com/news/4126577/detail.html

This brings up all sort of interesting legal and ethical questions for the employee as well as the employer. (Fair) enforcability would be the obvious difficulty with any such policy. What about privacy? Does the employment contract give up such a "right"?

Where's The Other Wheel?

Unicyclists get this question as often as my large family gets asked if we know what causes that.
Here are some answers:
"It'll be along in a minute.
Where's your originality?
That's the nth time I've heard that one today.
Real men (women) don't need two wheels.
I'm paying for it in installments.
You're kidding, it was there last time I looked (and promptly fall off)
I didn't put enough locks on it.
I loaned the other wheel to a friend. Sit here and make sure he comes by.
I don't need it!
I got the bike on sale, half off...I didn't realize they meant the bike.
It's the economy; can't afford the other wheel.
This is the recession model.
I'm on a time payment plan.
It's this downsizing thing.
It's on the train to Glasgow. It's on an exchange program with another wheel.
Two wheels? That's twice as hard!
Don't be daft, where would I put a second wheel?
My other wheel? Why, I don't need a training wheel anymore!
It's having a rest, it'll be along on the next cycle. "

http://www.unicycling.org/
Yes I'm Bored-- The Unicycle Page

Ken's Coin Flipping page

In case you need to make it official.
http://shazam.econ.ubc.ca/flip/index.html

International Phonetic Charts--Interactive

Mirabilis, how do you find all this stuff?
http://www.paulmeier.com/ipa/charts.html
Check out the supersegmentals!

Super Pope

Stange. Strangely cool. I picked this up through so many links that I figured it would be best to just go with the original. http://www.phatmass.com/amusement/superpope/

Abortion and The Conscience of a Nation

January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court of our nation made law. And not a good one. This is a reflection from Ronald Reagan at the ten year anniversary. We now are past the thirtieth anniversary of this tragic decision. Pray and work for the end to abortion and for a changing of hearts to embrace and choose life.

http://www.humanlifereview.com/reagan/

http://www.roevwade.org/court.html

Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation
Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan, while sitting as the fortieth president of the United States, sent us this article shortly after the tenth anniversary of Roe v. Wade; we printed it with pride in our Spring, 1983 issue, and reprint it now, after Roe's twentieth anniversary, just as proudly.
The 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade is a good time for us to pause and reflect. Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people nor enacted by our legislators— not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. But the consequences of this judicial decision are now obvious: since 1973, more than 15 million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions. That is over ten times the number of Americans lost in all our nation's wars.
Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of Stanford Law School, wrote that the opinion "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born. Yet that is what the Court ruled.
As an act of "raw judicial power" . . .

Symphony of Sorrowful Songs

Seven Sorrows CD arrived today. Definitely for the kids. (Note to the band: glad you listened to your parents and included the acoustic versions.)

In contrast, Henryk Gorecki's Symphony No. 3, Op. 36 is music which can aid meditation on the sorrowful mysteries.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000013YW/qid=1106618072/sr=8-7/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i7_xgl15/103-6719680-0340623?v=glance&s=classical&n=507846
For classical music it is very accessible. The first movement is based on a 15th century Lamentation in which the Virgin Mary suffers in union with her Son. The mood is set by the deep sonorous sound of double basses and then each instrument builds the sound. The Lamentation is sung by the soprano Zofia Kilanowicz.

"My son, chosen and loved,

Let your mother share your wounds

And since, my dear son,

I have always kept you in my heart,

and loyally served you,

Speak to your mother,

make her happy,

though my dear hope,

you are leaving me."

The song unwinds with slow fading of those deep basses. The intensity of the strings and the bass plumb the depth of sadness. The second movement is based on a prayer to Mary Queen of Heaven. This prayer was scrawled on the wall of a Gestapo cell by an 18 year old student. The lyric's poignancy is heart-breaking as the student begs Mary not to cry.

Mother, no, do not cry,

Queen of Heaven most chaste

Help me always.

Hail Mary.

The third movement is based on a Polish folk song in which a mother mourns her missing soldier son. She grieves for her son. Slowly she hopes that though his body may not have been properly buried, she can trust him to God. She bids the "song-birds of God" sing for him and "God's little flowers" bloom for him.

Where has he gone,

My dearest son?

Killed by the harsh enemy, perhaps,

In the rebellion.

You bad people,

In the name of the Holy God,

Tell me why you killed

My dear son.

Never more

Will I have his protection,

Even if I weep

My old eyes away,

Or if my bitter tears

Were to make another Oder,

They would not bring back

My son to life.

He lies in the grave

I know not where

Though I ask people

Everywhere

Perhaps the poor boy

Lies in a rough trench

Instead of lying, as he might,

In a warm bed.

Sing for him,

Little song-birds of God,

for his mother

Cannot find him.

And God's little flowers,

May you bloom all around

So that my son

May sleep.

Therese - the movie review

My wife and I saw the movie Therese last week. We wanted to go see this movie because 1) we wanted to support the folks who made a Catholic movie and 2) we were curious to see it as we both have read Therese's autobiography and her parents story. We consider St. Therese one of our friends. The movie was showing at our local cineplex (rumor has it that the Knights of Columbus supported one weekend and the theater decided to run it for two weeks.) We called to get the time and the movie was announced as thhereese.

Six degrees of Kevin Bacon
At the show we basically knew everyone there. (except for the couple that later left.) I told my wife we should check the credits because we probably know someone in the cast.

Center of the Screen?
My first critique of the film is possibly due to the screening, but I think is related to the cinematography. Several times throughout the picture the main characters' faces were cut off. You could not see their eyes. Now I could see that at least part of the problem was that the screen in our theater was not getting te whole movie. But c'mon this shouldn't even be a question. The faces should be in the center of the screen. This is home video basic. Did anyone else seeing this movie experience this?

Now what follows in the next few paragraphs is a pretty tough critique vut will be followed by some positive comments at the conclusion. Overall I thought the movie didn't work as a piece of art or to try to evangelize. There were a few good moments and I want to point those out. I must say up front that I didnot go into this movie expecting TPOTC or anything close. I did see the one woman stage drama of Therese produced by Leonardo DeFilippis (thats one l and two p's). I liked the stage drama and so was expectantly awaiting the movie. But this movie is not as good as the stage drama, by a long shot. And it is not in the same league with half a dozen saint bio-pics let alone TPOTC. Let's look at the specifics.

The writing: No story arc. No main character development. Episodic vignettes with dialogue mixed with scenes of Therese gazing heavenward while she narrates. Jaw-droppingly-dumb first line of the movie. Therese's first line is to tell her mother that she wishes her dead, (because then she will be in heaven with God.) No kidding-- the next shot is of the mother's casket being carried away. Boy, that is really reaching the widest possible audience. Now someone is going to comment that St. Therese actually said this, to which my answer is, 'who cares?'. How many people were NOT evangelized because they tuned out in that first scene?(and even this could maybe be excused, if the film were anything approaching art.) Therese starts out pious and ends little changed. The only character that develops is a nun who treats her poorly at first and then later truly loves her. There is no connection (except the lapsing of time) between one event and the next. No character is introduced until the girls all go to the Carmel and Dad formally points to each girl and says, her name. This happens after we are let to wonder who's who for several scenes. There is more. But it is enough to say that the writing was weak.

Directing and acting. Some of these troubles while clearly evident are difficult to assess in laying blame. There is a scene in which Therese prays for a condemned criminal. She asks for a sign of his conversion. We see this man in a large open circular brick room with a pole in the center to which he is chained and he spits and growls like a dog. The bizarre spectacle took me out of the picture. The acting was bad or was the man told to act dog-like. There is another scene in which the young Therese is bed ridden with an illness. Is she truly ill or is she having some kind of emotional reaction to her sister's leaving to become a nun? It is difficult to tell. Her illness consists of her tossing and turning in bed, while her family sits around her worrying and praying. Again is this bad acting or poor direction? Her apparent miraculous recovery is very much diminshed by the lack of clarity in portraying her illness.

Lindsay Younce is a fresh face. She plays Therese dreamily. She seems to do well in scenes in close quarters. Her face tells the story pretty well. Her physical skills as an actor seem weak. For example, she can't pretend to drop something. (this is called for twice in the script.)

I noticed positively the actresses who play Sister Augustine and Therese's sister Pauline. I thought the scenes with Sister Augustine were among the best and the ending was also written and played better than everything else. There is some good here.

I really wanted to like this movie. I doubt anyone who is not a Catholic already familiar with Therese's story and/or rooting for this Catholic movie will find it worth viewing. I wish the people who made this film the best and hope they learned a lot.

Seven Sorrows

I'm so glad about the Catholic band, "Seven Sorrows." I just ordered their CD and a T-Shirt. I've heard good things.

If you are wondering how a "glad" guy can celebrate "seven sorrows," either consult your local theologian or look at my meager attempt to explain. here:
http://imsoglad.blogspot.com/2004_12_01_imsoglad_archive.html

Sorrowful Christians? or Joyful?
Is there a legitimate theology of sadness or sorrow among Christians?The word sorrow is used 69 times in the Old and New Testaments. Joy is used 165 times. Many of the references to "sorrow" are actually talking about how one's sorrow will be turned to joy. However it is important to remember that there are many reasons for people in the Old and New Testament to feel sorrow. Most notable of these is the Passion of Christ. Traditionally and scripturally Mary shares this with Jesus in a special way. Christians should also be considered realists. To look at the world and see much abject suffering and not to acknowledge this and incorporate it into Christian theology would be grossly negligent. So, clearly there is a legitimacy to Christian sorrow.Below several links here are images of the sorrowful Christ or sorrowful mother.http://www.mfa.org/artemis/fullrecord.asp?oid=32324&did=500
http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pinfo?Object=45910+0+none
http://puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/andre/sorrows.html
Also is some discussion of the theology of sorrow:
http://sycophants.info/good-friday.html
http://www.udayton.edu/mary/meditations/sorrowsmed.html
http://www.catholictradition.org/7sorrows.htm

And how does this correspond with the joy and gratitude Christians claim?http://www.stlukesrec.org/sermons99/11trin99.htmlSo there are two emotions in the heart of the praying believer. On the one hand, we sorrow, like the Publican, over our sin. On the other hand, we are exhilarated by God's grace and forgiveness in Christ. Which brings us to the challenge posed by Sartre at the introduction. Does the Christian constantly grovel in the dust before God like the actor in The Flies? Is the Christian life primarily sorrow or joy? Gloom or sunshine? A vale of tears, or a feast of jubilation?The answer is yes. Both of them. G. K. Chesterton called this one of the odd, yet delightful paradoxes of Christianity. In his book Orthodoxy he explains how orthodox theology has a mystical talent for combining vices which seem inconsistent with each other. That is why atheists like Sartre are constantly getting it wrong. They'll accuse Christians one day of being too glum, and the next day accuse them of being too jovial. They denounce Christendom as being too pacifistic, and at the same time too bellicose, too worldly and too unworldly.Here I quote Chesterton, "Christianity got over the difficulty of combining furious opposites, by keeping them both, and keeping them both furious. The Church was positive on both points. . . . It has kept them side by side like two strong colours, red and white, like the red and white upon the shield of St. George. It has always had a healthy hatred of pink."http://www.iconsexplained.com/iec/02087.htm

Empty Nests and Hearts.

That's the NYTimes Headline to this David Brooks piece. Quotable: About one fifth of women over forty have no children. 70 percent of these women regret this. (from Gallup poll) Hat tip to family scholars. Interesting thoughts within the piece which provoked thoughts in me of how we can convey this to the next generation in a real way. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/15/opinion/15brooks.html?ex=1263531600&en=9966dc2252cc9b1e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

Two are better than one

Two are better than one,
because they have a good return for their work:
If one falls down,
his friend can help him up.
But pity the man who falls
and has no one to help him up!
Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm.
But how can one keep warm alone?
Though one may be overpowered,
two can defend themselves.
A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.

This was read at our wedding. She is a big part of my joy. Friend. Constant companion. She challenges me. My first memory of her is watching her happy gait, (almost skip) as she walked away. This was at work. She loves to talk. I like to get to the point. I should listen more. Seven kids later, she keeps us all going. Every day in many ways I am grateful for her. She takes seriously that third strand. When we met, I told her I was a "good picker" and "lucky."
What I am is Blessed.

Joy

Gratitude is the seedbed of joy. — Peter Kreeft
http://cowpi.com/journal/

Friendship -- Just a Perfect Blendship

"A friend is dearer to us than the light of heaven, for it would be better for us that the sun were extinguished than that we should be without friends." (St John Chrysostom)
http://praiseofglory.com/family.htm/

"A faithful friend is a sturdy shelter; he who finds one finds a treasure. A faithful friend is beyond price....." (Sirach 6:14-15).


http://libretto.musicals.ru/text.php?textid=97&language=1
Du Barry Was a Lady
Music: Cole PorterLyrics: Cole Porter
Book: B. G. DeSylva + Herbert Fields
Premiere: Wednesday, December 6, 1939
----Friendship
Judy: If you're ever in a jam, here I am
Johnny: If you're ever in a mess, S.O.S.
Judy: If you ever feel so happy you land in jail, I'm your bail
Both: It's friendship, friendship
Just a perfect blendship
When other friendships have been forgot
Ours will still be hot
Judy: A-lottle-dottle-dottle-dig-dig-dig
Johnny: If you're ever down a well, ring my bell
Judy: And if you're ever up a tree just phone to me
Johnny: A-yes-sir-eeIf you ever lose your teeth and you're out to dine, borrow mine
Both: It's friendship, friendshipJust a perfect blendship
When other friendships have been forgate
Johnny: Gate?
Both: Ours will still be great
Johnny: A-lottle-dottle-dottle-chuck-chuck-chuck
Judy: If they ever black your eyes, put me wise
Johnny: If they ever cook your goose, turn me loose
Judy: And if they ever put a bullet through your brain, I'll complain
Both: It's friendship, friendshipJust a perfect blendship
When other friendships have been forgit
Ours will still be it
Judy: A-lottle-dottle-dottle-hep-hep-hep
Johnny: If you ever lose your mind, I'll be kind
Judy: And if you ever lose your shirt, I'll be hurt
Johnny: If you're ever in a mill and get sawed in half, I won't laugh
Both: It's friendship, friendshipJust a perfect blendship
When other friendships are up the crick
Ours will still be slick
A-lottle-dottle-dottle-woof-woof-woof
hep-hep-hepa-chuck-chuck-chucka-dig-dig-dig

Always end with Chesterton:
"Because our expression is imperfect we need friendship to fill up the imperfections." (Illustrated London News, June 6, 1931)

"A queer and almost mad notion seems to have got into the modern head that, if you mix up everybody and everything more or less anyhow, the mixture may be called unity, and the unity may be called peace. It is supposed that, if you break down all doors and walls so that there is no domesticity, there will then be nothing but friendship. Surely somebody must have noticed by this time that the men living in a hotel quarrel at least as often as the men living in a street." (ILN September 8, 1917)

"Only friendliness produces friendship. And we must look far deeper into the soul of man for the thing that produces friendliness." (What I Saw In America)

"The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people." - ILN, 7/16/10

"When giving treats to friends or children, give them what they like, emphatically not what is good for them." - Chesterton Review, February, 1984
http://www.chesterton.org/discover/quotations.
html#There%20are%20two%20kinds%20of

The Business of America is Business.

Often misattributed to Calvin Coolidge. He did say something remarkably close, "After all, the chief business of the American people is business." Tempered in the same speech with, "Of course the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified as the chief end of existence." The speech concludes: "We make no concealment of the fact that we want wealth, but there are many other things that we want very much more. We want peace and honor, and that charity which is so strong an element of all civilization. The chief ideal of the American people is idealism. I cannot repeat too often that America is a nation of idealists. That is the only motive to which they ever give any strong and lasting reaction." Thank goodness he qualified his remarks.

Still there seems to be some debate about Silent Cal's philosophy of business and higher ends.

"To quote Tom Silver (Coolidge and the Historians, 1982), "Coolidge's attitude toward money-making and wealth is the commonsensical one, namely, that wealth is justified only as a means to higher ends. Wealth does provide, in its turn, the leisure and the wherewithal to pursue, for instance, a liberal education, which is among the noblest ends of man."
However, Professor Arthur Schlesinger in Crisis of the Old Order wrote, "(Coolidge's) speeches offered his social philosophy in dry pellets of aphorism. "The chief business of the American people," he said, "is business." But, for Coolidge, business was more than business; it was a religion; and to it he committed all the passion of his arid nature. "The man who builds a factory," he wrote, "builds a temple. The man who works there worships there." He (Coolidge) felt these things with a fierce intensity.

Source:http://www.calvin-coolidge.org/pages/history/research/ccmf/bitt02.html

Church and Advertising

A link first and when I have time a discussion.
http://advertising.utexas.edu/research/law/catholic.html

Also inter mirifica
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/
ii_vatican_council/documents/
vat-ii_decree_19631204_inter-mirifica_en.html

Word of the Day

Cupidity cu·pid·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ky-pd-t)n.
Excessive desire, especially for wealth; covetousness or avarice.
[Middle English cupidite, from Old French, from Latin cupidits, from cupidus, desiring, from cupere, to desire.]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=10&q=cupidity

And reflection from St. Antoninus:
http://www.stantoninus.net/anto3.htm
"The object of gain is that by its means man may provide for himself and others according to their state. The object of providing for himself and others is that they may be able to live virtuously. The object of virtuous life is the attainment of everlasting glory."
St. Antoninus' Summa Theologica (I. 1,3,ii)

"If the object of trade is principally cupidity, which is the root of all evils, then certainly trade itself is evil. But that trade (as natural and necessary for the needs of human life) is, according to Aristotle, in itself praiseworthy, which serves some good purpose, i.e. supplying the needs of human life. If therefore the trader seeks a moderate profit for the purpose of providing for himself and family according to the becoming fortunes or their state of life, or to enable him to aid the poor more generously, or even goes into commerce for the sake of the common good (lest, for example, the State should be without what its life requires), and consequently seeks a profit not as an ultimate end but merely as a wage of labor, he cannot in this case be condemned."

The Happiness Without a Cause

The "Happiness" without a cause,
is the best Happiness,
for Glee intuitive and lasting
is the gift of God.

I fear we have all sorrow,
though of different forms
—but with Life so very sweet at the Crisp,
what must it be unfrozen!
Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)

Thanks to:
http://weblog.theviewfromthecore.com/

Warm words from Emily and especially heartwarming on this crisp icy morning.

Sloganeering

My recent visit to the fakest place on earth (my tagline for them, not theirs), made me sensitive to corporate messages. What is a company saying aobut itself and how should we respond when we perhaps like the product but not the slogan (or vice versa)? I will be looking into this interesting area some more over the next few days and hope to have some insight.

Go ahead make me dead

or "Feelin' Lucky?!?"
Steve Drake of Not Dead Yet reviews Clint Eastwood's pro-euthanasia hit and its critical acclaim here : http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/reviews/drakemillionbaby.html The money quote, "This movie is a corny, melodramatic assault on people with disabilities. It plays out killing as a romantic fantasy and gives emotional life to the "better dead than disabled" mindset lurking in the heart of the typical (read: nondisabled) audience member." But it is also worth the tack on why such films seem to universally receive critical praise, and not uniform praise to films in which disabled go about their daily lives. At least Clint Eastwood is not playing against type. His societal solutions as proposed in his Dirty Harry movies were of similar construct, 'we could clean up a lot of the world's problems by killing a few more people."

Hat tip to churchofthemasses http://www.churchofthemasses.blogspot.com/
via Amy Welborn http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1660299
for the reference to Steve Drake's review.

Consider the End

Consider the End
Avise La Fin or Respice Finem
The formal motto of many families, including my own. It dates back at least to Chilo of Sparta (~500 BC), one of the Seven Sages of Greece. What is the "end" here? The end of time? The end of our life? The goal or purpose? All may apply. When we think of our end, the end of our life, we should think of the purpose of our life, our goals. Consider the end, the meaning of life. Keep in mind our death and this will help us to persevere in our mission on earth.

"In everything one must consider the end."
Jean De la Fontaine French poet (1621 - 1695)
from http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/28787.html

"The end crowns all,
And that old common arbitrator,
Time,
Will one day end it."
Author: William Shakespeare Source: The History of Troilus and Cressida (Hector at IV, v)
from http://www.worldofquotes.com/topic/End/1/

All's well that ends well; still the fine's the crown. Whate'er the course, the end is the renown. Author: William Shakespeare Source: All's Well That Ends Well (Helena at IV, iv)

1 Cor 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

Matthew 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved

Romans 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

2 Corinthians 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

1 Timothy 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

Catechism on Torture

via HMS Blog: http://www.exceptionalmarriages.com/weblog/BlogDetail.asp?ID=20455

"Let's look at Catholic teaching one more time. The Catechism's treatment of the Fifth Commandment includes a section on "Respect for the Dignity of Persons," which includes a subsection on "Respect for bodily integrity." There, we find:
Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.
First of all, then, no torture.
And second, while I suppose there's some slight possibility that the category of "torture" is narrower than the category of that "which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions," etc. - in other words, while there's some slight possibility that some uses of such violence don't count as "torture" - I think that reading would be very strained and highly unlikely. I think it's overwhelmingly likely that the Catechism is saying that if it "uses physical or moral violence ...," then it's "torture," and hence it's out of the question.
One might compare the previous sentence: "Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity." Surely the Catechism doesn't mean to teach that there are some things that threaten, wound, and kill indiscriminately but that are not terrorism and hence are permissible?
Whether or not the "physical or moral violence" is severe, then - whether or not the physical or other pain that they inflict is severe - it's torture, and it's immoral, period.
This becomes still clearer in light of the other major Magisterial source on the subject: Vatican II's Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, part I, "The Church and Man's Calling," chap. II, "The Community of Mankind," no. 27 (quoted in John Paul II's encyclical on fundamental moral theology Veritatis Splendor, chap. II, "'Do not be conformed to this world,' [Rom. 12:2] - The Church and the discernment of certain tendencies in present-day moral theology," sect. IV, "The moral act," subsection on "'Intrinsic evil': it is not licit to do evil that good may come of it [cf. Rom. 3:8]," no. 80). The relevant passage:
Furthermore, ... whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as ... torments [or "torture"] inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; ... all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.
Here, the meaning of torture is not explained as it is in the Catechism. However, note the additional reference to "attempts to coerce the will." Such attempts are in general "infamies indeed," and out of the question, whether or not they take the form of "torture." Even, then, if the Catechism does not rule out all coercive "physical or moral violence," all infliction of pain, as "torture," all such methods of coercion are nonetheless immoral.
Is this teaching a challenge to our culture in more ways than one - as one of my readers observed? Absolutely. For one thing, for the purposes of our criminal justice system, we have now generally rejected physically or morally "violent" punishments in favor of deprivations of freedom as a response to the misuse of freedom. We take freedom away by imprisoning, or limit it by extension by depriving people of its fruits by inflicting fines, or, in what ought to be "very rare, if not practically non-existent" cases, we remove the fundamental condition for its exercise by inflicting the death penalty. We do not, by contrast, use whippings (physical violence) or humiliation in the town square (moral violence - though, sadly, a few judges in recent years have decided to be "creative" and reinvent such punishments). But on the other hand, our culture has not wholly rejected physically violent punishment - corporal punishment - in other settings, like the family. And it just won't do to say that spanking is okay, therefore the Catechism can't mean what it says. It ought to challenge our ideologies, including about child-rearing, rather than vice versa. (In fact, Greg is right that, while spanking might be better than letting kids go feral, it's not the best way to go.)
For another thing, "interrogations" in the context of our domestic criminal justice system are probably at least sometimes "coercive," and this, too, ought to stop. It's not "coercive" when people are convinced to feel guilty about their wrongdoing itself - including about their failure to reveal information that they, in justice, ought to reveal. Maybe it's not coercive to make what are genuinely privileges a reward for cooperation. But when, e.g., punishments that would not otherwise be due to a criminal are added because he won't cooperate - or when he's deprived of fairly basic human needs like sleep or the use of a toilet - then, I think, we have a problem, whether the practice takes place in a police station in Downtown USA or in the camp at Gitmo. But, again, the point is to let ourselves be challenged by true Catholicism, not vice versa.
. . .There are some issues on which there ought to be no compromise, even in a time of threats to our nation. Torture is one of them."

Tortured Specter?

Radio Blogger shows why (in his humble opinion) we need Arlen Specter and really succeeds in showing why he is NOT on our side. Here is his take at http://www.radioblogger.com/ :

"A little different tune. By the way, for all you who wanted to torpedo Arlen Specter as Judiciary Committee Chair (K-Lo, this means all of you on the Corner), after Gonzales finished testifying, three eggheads from academia sat down in an attempt to scuttle the nomination, using the torture policy. Specter asked a simple question to all three. If we had Mohammed Atta a day before the attacks, would torture be justified to prevent 9/11. He asked all three, and all three were immediately discredited because they either had no answer or diverted away from the question. Before any other Senator had the chance, these guys looked foolish.
Specter will eventually hose us somewhere down the line. He doesn't agree with us socially. But he is still someone you want on your side the rest of the 90% of the time. He knows how to run the committee."

"If we had Mohammed Atta a day before the attacks, would torture be justified to prevent 9/11. (sic)?
If we had Mohammed Atta a day before the attacks, would torture be justified to prevent 9/11? "

So, because Arlen Specter can score cheap points by (potentially) pointing out the hypocrisy of "eggheads," he is the man for the job at Judiciary?!? Does his question always get a yes answer? Should it? If torture is wrong, is it always wrong? (Disputations spend some time pondering this here: http://disputations.blogspot.com/. )

But shouldn't we be seriously asking the question? I think conservatives would be mad if liberals scored on such an obvious cheap shot. Clearly the matter is complicated. Clearly any quick "no" answer is going to seem either heartless or worse and any long answer (yes or no) will also seem the same. This is similar to the hypothetical asked of Dukakis about whether he would be in favor of the death penalty if his wife was raped and murdered. Though he famously blew the answer, it is an unfair question. The only correct short answer is, "Yes I would want to kill the sonofabitch quick but I would hope that the state would do so more patiently." To the torture question, the correct answer is another question, "How do you know Atta's information can help stop the attacks and if you know that how did you find it out short of torture?" or "How many people did you have to torture to find out Atta had the information you needed to stop the attacks?"

So, is Specter in favor of torture? We still don't know. He succeeded in ending an important and potentially fruitful national discussion without answering the central question himself. Specter is not on our side. We want to have the debate. We want to check our govt. including our "conservative" govt. We want our govt to err on the side of life. The hypothetical Specter places before us is not a sincere attempt to gather information. We want sincerity from our leaders. Specter is not on our side. But I'm sure "he knows how to run the committee."

Run Sinner Run!

As it turns out there are several other songs which are titled "I'm So Glad."
As you might guess, some are gospel tunes.

Most notable perhaps, is from Sam Cooke's the Soul Stirrers. With a cool refrain in which the singers call over and over, "Run sinner run, you'd better run sinner run."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000000QME/qid=1104575003/sr=8-4/ref=pd_ka_4/103-6719680-0340623?v=glance&s=music&n=507846
http://www.geocities.com/martynb88/imsoglad.html
Here are the complete lyrics:
Written by: S.R. Crain (ATV-BMI)Performed by the Soul Stirrers
"Well you know, I'm so glad I know that trouble don't last always (3x)
Oh My Lord, I wonder, what shall I do (2x)
You better run, run on sinner run you better find you a hiding place (3x)
Well, my Lord, what shall I do, I wonder
I'm so glad, I'm so glad Lord, I know that trouble last always (3x)
Oh my Lord, I wonder, what shall I do
Well, I'm getting worried, what can I dowhat can I do, I'm getting worried, what can I do
You promised me dearest, you'd be beside me
You promised me Lord, you'd bring me out of trouble
You promised me Lord, you'd be my friend now
You promised me Lord, you'd stay right beside me
i'm so glad, so glad Lord, I have religion
lord in time, I'm so glad that I got religion (2x)
Soon one morning, you _____ creeping in my room
O, soon one morning, I ____ one morningOh my Lord, I wonder, what shall I do."

http://opengatemin.org/ImSoGlad.html I'm so very Glad (Gospel)
http://www.dottieburman.com/imsoglad.htm I'm so Glad you're in my life (love song)

And here's a Norwegian Folk Christmas Song (via a Mormon weblog)
http://www.timesandseasons.org/wp/index.php?p=1768
"Even though my name and family background is Norwegian, I was not all that aware of Norwegian Christmas songs and customs until I served my mission in Norway. One of the Christmas songs that I learned to love was “Jeg er så glad hver julekveld” ("I am so glad each Christmas Eve"). Here are the words with the English translation and you can hear the tune at
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/i/m/imsoglad.htm
Jeg er så glad hver julekveld,for da ble Jesus født;da lyste stjernen som en sol,og engler sang så søtt.
Det lille barn i Betlehem,han var en konge storsom kom fra himlens høye slottned til vår arme jord.
Nå bor han høyt i himmerik,han er Guds egen sønn,men husker alltid på de småog hører deres bønn.
Jeg er så glad hver julekveld,da synger vi hans pris;da åpner han for alle småsitt søte paradis.
Da tenner moder alle lys,så ingen krok er mørk;hun sier stjernen lyste såi hele verdens ørk.
Hun sier at den lyser ennog slukkes aldri ut,og hvis den skinner på min vei,da kommer jeg til Gud.
Hun sier at de engler små,de synger og i dagom fred og fryd på jorderikog om Guds velbehag.
Å, gid jeg kunne synge så,da ble visst Jesus glad;for jeg jo også ble Guds barnengang i dåpens bad.
Jeg holder av vår julekveldog av den Herre Krist,og at han elsker meg igjen,det vet jeg ganske visst.
English translation:
I am so glad each Christmas Eve,
The night of Jesus’ birth!Then like the sun the Star shone forth,
And angels sang on earth.
The little Child in Bethlehem,He was a King indeed!
For He came down from Heaven aboveTo help a world in need.
He dwells again in heaven’s realm,The Son of God today;
And still He loves His little onesAnd hears them when they pray.
I am so glad on Christmas Eve!His praises then I sing;
He opens then for every childThe palace of the King.
[The remaining stanzas are best suited for home use.]
When mother trims the Christmas tree
Which fills the room with light,
She tells me of the wondrous Star
That made the dark world bright.
She says the Star is shining still,
And never will grow dim;
And if it shines upon my way,It leads me up to Him.
And so I love each Christmas Eve
And I love Jesus, too;
And that He loves me every dayI know so well is true.
Comment by Hans Hansen — 12/21/2004 : 2:38 pm"

Fakest place on Earth?

Okay technically it should be "most fake." What do you think is the most fake place on earth? Plastic surgeon's office on Rodeo Drive? The CBS newsroom document center? Lip service from Ashlee Simpson? The FAQ(e) section of Pamela Anderson's website? The beer depot next to campus? (all those fake I.D.'s)
or does Umberto Eco know what fake is? http://www.transparencynow.com/eco.htm

Should be fun.