The Prudence of Slaughter.

Yesterday, Puff got into a debate on Facebook with a priest on the subject of capital punishment. The priest thought some guy down in the States should be fried at the earliest possible convenience, apparently with maximal cruelty. When Puff pointed out that the Catechism of the Church states that the death penalty is to be avoided if at all possible, he responded that this was prudential judgement.

I see several issues here: First, the Catechism. Second, prudential judgement. Third, the Death Penalty, and my own opinions pertaining thereto, because, hey, this is my blog.

So first, the Catechism:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent

.

Fairly straightforward. The only acceptable reason for the death penalty is if there is no other way to protect people. "Guy has it coming" is not an acceptable reason.

Second: Prudential Judgement. I admit I am not entirely certain what this phrase means, although I have seen it used many, many times. Thus, even though I am not entirely certain what a prudential judgement means, I can tell how it is used. It is used almost exclusively by those who consider themselves to be politically right wing, and they use it in almost the exact same way that left wingers use the phrase "primacy of conscience": as a way to blow off a teaching of the Church with which they disagree, or perhaps find inconvenient.

Both those who identify themselves as left and those who identify as right wingers should understand that the Church is neither left nor right. Further, they should stop trying to force the Catechism to say what they want it to say and instead see what it does say, and, above all, stop teaching others how to get around the teachings they do not like. The Church's teaching here is difficult, and it calls upon the faithful to be wise and to weigh matters as best they might before deciding. Difficult teachings are the ones we are most inclined to blow off or at least sidestep. They are also the ones we should heed the most.

Finally, me. I have heard of the stories of many heinous murders, and know that monsters walk among us. I know the names of many of these monsters and their victims, and there are times when I wish upon them the most gruesome forms of vengeance my mangled soul can devise that the darkness they visited upon the innocent of this world may be doubly redoubled upon them.

But I also know other stories and other names. I know Donald Marshall, Guy Paul Morin, David Milgard, and yes, Steven Truscott. All innocent men who were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by their peers, and sentence to long terms in prison, and all innocent of the charges levied against them. When I think of their stories, I am profoundly grateful that Canada has abolished the death penalty.

Crimes are committed by people, then investigated by people, and judged by people. Mistakes are sometimes made. Occasionally, we send the wrong person to jail. If we had the death penalty, it is inevitably that we would from time to time kill an innocent. I find that unacceptable. It is a terrible thing to lock up an innocent man, but at least there is time to review the case, realise the mistake, and restore the man to society as best we can. There is no restoration for the dead, and an apology to a corpse is nothing but a most bitter irony.

At its heart, the Church's teaching on the death penalty is minimalist. It may be used only in extreme situations, and only if there is no other way. Those who, like the good father, endorse the death penalty, tend to be maximalist: kill early, kill fast, kill often. This they call prudential judgement. I can not believe it is so. There is no prudential judgement for slaughter.

I also believe priests should not be teaching others ways to ignore the Church's teaching.

Shall we use our words to heal or to hurt?

There are days, many days, when I read fellow Catholic bloggers- whether of the more traditional or less so variety- and I am disgusted and embarrassed by the amount of bile and hatred and snark they publish. I am not going to print names or cite examples. There are too many.

I know most of them are unaware of the existence of this blog, and almost none of them would read these words. On the occasions I have tried to speak to them, I have been dismissed and deleted. I have all but given up on trying to speak to them. But if I were to try again, I would say this: Many of you were not Catholic originally but converted to the faith. Many of you were lapsed Catholics who came back. Did you convert or return to the Church because someone called you an idiot, or mocked you, or called you a heretic or a pharisee? Did you come back because they posted your errors for all to see? Was it their talent for snark that convinced you this faith was the true one? If it wasn't, then ask yourself if you would be convinced by such tactics. If, as I suspect, the answer is no, then ask yourself why you would try to persuade people using tactics which at best you yourself would not find persuasive, and at worst, would drive you further away?

Who is served by all this snark, by dismissing the opinions of those who disagree with you in a way that denigrates them and elevates you? Is it done for the glory of God, or for your greater glory? Have you served the new evangelism by bringing people closer to the Truth, or have you betrayed its goals, and driven them away?

I, for one, would never be convinced of the existence of Christian Charity from reading the bloggers. Our actions towards each other are scandalous and a stumbling block for others. It is time, it is past time we set them aside, and acted like we believed our faith to be true.

If Only

Of all the thoughts that are deadly to human contentment, few are deadlier than these two words: "if only..."

These words haunt our thought of the past and our desires of the future. "If only this had happened, if only I had done this instead of that, everything would be better." "If I only had that thing, then I would be happy." We place our happiness on some impossible past, where everything would have turned out sunshine and roses, or as if advertisers were correct and things can give us happiness, despite the fact that the euphoria we were promised over and over again never quite materialised. Maybe this time it will work.

These thoughts take us away from the present, the moment in which we live, and defers our contentment to some future time, or places it in some imagined history, as though it were possible for mere humans to know with certainty what might have happened.

People, or some people, at least, knew this truth. Some even put it down, so their fellow men, even those not yet born, could learn from their hard won wisdom. But, as Uncle Screwtape pointed out, only the learned read the old books, and of all people, they are the least likely to derive any benefit from them.

When a learned man is presented with any statement in an ancient author, the one question he never asks is whether it is true. He asks who influenced the ancient writer, and how far that statement is consistent with what he said in other books, and what phase in the writer's development...To regard an ancient writer as a possible source of knowledge- to anticipate that what he said could possibly modify your thoughts or behaviour- this would be rejected as unutterably simple minded. And since we cannot deceive the whole human race all the time, it is most important thus to cut every generation off from all others; for where learning makes a free commerce between the ages there is always the danger that the characteristic errors of on may be corrected by the characteristic truths of another.

It was true in C.S. Lewis's time, it is even more true now, when the Historical point of view has given way to the ahistorical deconstruction, which tells its students that every writer who thought they were saying something was in fact saying nothing. As a result, when a modern student of literature reads a passage wherein a writer of the past confronts one of the central paradoxes of man's existence, he will not wonder if this writer saw the truth, and got it right, or even if the author got it wrong and how. They will not wonder if they themselves were wrong, and if they should change their lives.

To bring this post back to its original subject, the writer of old knew about the desires of the heart, and the yearning that says if only. Shakespeare wrote about it in several of his plays, but in none better than in Richard the Second. Here the deposed Richard considers his condition, and whether he is better off as a king, or as a beggar:

Thus play I in one person many people,
And none contented: sometimes am I king;
Then treasons make me wish myself a beggar,
And so I am: then crushing penury
Persuades me I was better when a king;
Then am I king'd again: and by and by
Think that I am unking'd by Bolingbroke,
And straight am nothing: but whate'er I be,
Nor I nor any man that but man is
With nothing shall be pleased, till he be eased
With being nothing.

Simple truth from clearly and brightly seen from the dim and dusty past: There are no "if only's" nothing will bring contentment, till we are contented with nothing.

Settling for smaller heroes.

I saw The Man of Steel a while back.  Since then, whenever I have mentioned in conversation that I saw the movie, I am inevitably asked if I liked it, and my answer has been "Yeah, mostly, but..."  I have even asked myself: was it a good movie or not, and I draw a blank. Was it good?  Was he as good as any Superman of yore?

Spoiler alert:  I make no attempt to hide the plot.  I waited until pretty much everyone who planned to see the movie saw it, so here goes.

Bringing a comic book movie to life on the screen is not like making a movie from a novel.  Many comic book characters have been around for decades, with hundreds upon hundreds of issues and stories that could be told.  The writers and directors of a movie adaptation are not bringing to the screen any particular story, but are rather bringing a character to the screen.  So the issue is not whether the movie was true to the story, but whether or not the movie was true to the character.  For superheroes, the character issue is usually twofold: there is the superhero character, but also the character of the human side of the hero- his or her secret identity.

In broadest terms, the two main companies that produce comics in North America- DC and Marvel- have chosen two different paths when it comes to the balance of the super vs the normal.  In DC, generally speaking, it is the heroic identity that is the primary identity.  Those of you who are old enough to remember the old Superman TV shows and serials may remember the old introduction.  It began it "Faster than a speeding bullet!...." but it included "Disguised as mild mannered reporter Clark Kent..."  Clark Kent was Superman's disguise, and not the other way around, because he really was Superman, and really wasn't Clark Kent.  In Marvel, on the other hand, we have characters like the Fantastic Four, who have made no attempt to hide their identity and have blended the super and the mundane.  There is also, far more popularly, Spiderman.  Peter Parker is not Spiderman's disguise- Spiderman is Peter Parker's disguise, because he really is Peter Parker, a boy who is driven by guilt to occasionally put on a suit and stop the bad guys.

Part of this balance, for Marvel, is that the Marvel characters tend to pay a high price for being super.  Peter Parker deeply  wishes that he could stop being Spiderman and go back to being a normal guy.  Bruce Banner's power of turning into a seven foot tall green rage monster has ruined his life completely.  In the classic Superman, or Batman, or pretty much any DC comic I can think of, the heroes do not have to pay that price or suffer the angst that the Marvel characters do.  "Is this the price I must pay for being Spiderman?" is a question Peter Parker often asks himself.  The equivalent question would never cross Superman's mind.

That is, until fairly recently.  Recent television shows- by "recent" I mean within the last twenty or so years- based on the character have tended to focus on Superman's more human persona, rather than the man in the blue tights. "Lois and Clark" was a show mainly about the romance between the two.  In Smallwille, Clark only takes on the suit at the very end of the show, in a brief glance at what he has become.  These shows reverse the usual balance and take a more Marvelesque approach to the character.

Oddly, though, in the movie adaptations Marvel tends to be lighter fare, the comic book roots still readily apparent in the movies.  It is broad cast to the audience at the beginning of every Marvel movie, where we see comic book pages flipping until the Marvel logo appears on the screen.  The character angst that fills Marvel's comics is present in their movies, but it doesn't often darken the movie.  Their finest movie, in my opinion, Spiderman 2, played on this angst greatly, and then ultimately resolved it.  Peter didn't want to be Spiderman and even stopped for a time, but then he took back the mantle of Spiderman to help others, even though he knew it would cost him his dream of a normal life.  And then, his dream reappears in his doorway, for Mary Jane has come, and has decided it was time someone saved him.

DC, on the other hand, has been making far, far darker movies. The directors have sought- successfully, I would say- to create the most unlikely creation of all: plausible superhero movies.   What would happen, these movies seem to ask, if these characters existed in our world?  The Batman saga leaves Batman with the question of whether or not he was actually doing any good.  In the name of law and order he takes down many mob bosses only to find himself damned by his own success, for he has created a power vacuum, into which steps chaos incarnate in the form of the Joker.

The Batman movies, particularly the third, were some of the most frustrating creations I have ever seen on screen.  I still do not, even now, more than a year later, know what I think of the third movie.  There was much that was right, and much that was wrong.  Batman was good, as was Gordon and Alfred.  Bane made a good villain, who worthily defeated the Batman early in the movie, until we learn that Bane was really a nobody, a flunky.  Nothing special.  This weakened the character of Batman immensely, as a hero is only as strong as his enemies.  Jack the Giant Killer is impressive because Giants are impressive.  George the Dragon Slayer is awe inspiring because dragons are awe inspiring.  Tim the Fly Swatter is not worth talking about.  So having Batman defeated by No One Particular was frustrating.  And there was also the character of Catwoman.  I believe Anne Hathaway did a good job with what she had, but what she had was completely wrong.  Catwoman is supposed to be both playful and dangerous.  The movie had her bored and sullen.

So I was curious to see what they would do with Superman.  Would they make the Big Blue Boy Scout a darker character, and would it work?  Or would they betray the character?  How would they make it plausible?

First thing to think about is the balance of character- is he Superman, who sometimes cunningly disguises himself with glasses, or is he Clark Kent in a circus strongman's outfit?  The answer is neither.  They haven't really dealt with that issue.  He is basically both in this movie.  He is both Clark and the guy in the suit, and there is little difference between the two.  The end of the movie sets up the idea that he will play at being a mild mannered reporter, but by then one of the basic elements of the canonical Superman story has already been removed: the love triangle  The Clark Loves Lois Who Loves Superman Who Is Really Clark But Can't Say So is missing from this movie.  In fact, Lois, being the crack reporter she is, figures out who Superman is in a five minute montage.  So that's gone and it won't be present in the next movie either.  At least we won't have a repeat of Christopher Reeve erasing her memory, and then giving it back, then erasing it again... I hope.

Zod is a suitably impressive villain, and one of the best things in this movie.  He makes a worthy adversary for Superman- sort of.  Zod is supposed to be a bred and trained warrior, with every fibre of his being deidcated to the art of battle, yet on Krypton he is soundly beaten by the born and bred scientist, Jor El, Clark's father, and onlyt manages to beat Jor El when Jor El is distracted.  So one wonders how good and worthwhile all that training was.  It certainly doesn not keep him from being defeated and killed at the hands of Superman, who, the movie points out, had neither the breeding nor the training.

Many of the commentators have already stated their opinion that the climax of the movie betrayed the character.  Superman does not kill, and killing Zod went against everything the character believes in.  Having him scream in frustration after doing the deed doesn't really help.  In my opinion, however, the character was betrayed earlier in the movie, by the character that was the most wrong in the movie: Johnathan Kent, Clark's human father.

That something was wrong was apparent immediately when Johnathan confronts Clark after Clark saves his schoolmates from drowning. He is furious Clark may have revealed himself and what he is.   "Should I have just let them die?" demands Clark.  "Maybe," mumbles Johnathan.  Let's translate and expand on that: "Yes Clark, your secret is so important that you should have let your friends die a horrible death, thus giving you years of guilt and self hatred. And probably years of therapy a farmer like me can't afford as you have to dealt with PTSD."

In the old movies, there is exactly one scene where Clark speaks to his father.  Clark is frustrated that he has to try and act normal and not stand out, and sit on the sidelines while his schoolmates play, when he could be a star.  "I could score a touchdown every time I got the ball," he said.

"I don' know why you have this gift, son," says Johnathan. "But I am pretty sure it isn't so you can score some touchdowns."  That single line of homespun wisdom tells you everything and every value that Johnathan instilled on his boy.  No wonder he grew up to be the hero he was.

That lesson was carried through to the end moments later in that movie, when Johnathan keels over and dis from a heart attack.  Clark fights back tears at the funeral.  "All my power, and I couldn't save him."  Clark has learnt that even with power as great as his, there are limits to what he can do, and he understands that life is precious, and not his to give.  Therefore, it is also not his to take.

Not so in this movie.  In what had to be the dumbest scene in the movie, Johnathan Kent rushes to save the family dog from a car in the path of a tornado.  Clark, standing with a crowd of people watching, sees that his father will not have time to escape the tornadoes path.  He moves to go to his father, but his father holds up his hand to tell him to stop, his face calm and peaceful.  "It's okay son," he seems to say.  "I don't mind dying to keep your secret.  Remember to keep your secret always."  So Clark does not learn that there are limits to his power.  He can make life and death decisions.   

The sacrifice of Johnathan is pointless, and laughably so, because it seems everyone knows who Superman is before long.  He hugs his mother in full suit and cape as a town cop arrives.  He is recognised by a schoolmate from the bus he saved who now works at the local Ihop.  If the guy at the local Ihop knows who you are, your cover is blown.  Johnathan died in vain, teaching his son the wrong lesson which he ignores before long.

You see it in some little things.  Yes, Clark does go out and save people, but there is also the scene where he steals some clothes because his were mostly destroyed in one of his rescues.  Understandable, perhaps, but I can't help but think that most other incarnations of Superman would have shown him flying back one day to drop off some money for the clothes he took.

And then there is the fight scene.  Of all the scenes, this is both the most awesome- sorry, I mean AWESOME!!!!!- and the most troubling, and it was made doubly so by the hyperreality of the special effects.  The clash between Zod and Superman levels whole buildings around Metropolis, as such a clash of titans must.  And here the plausibility distrubs and terrifies even as we watch the most awesome superfight ever put to screen.  There were people in those buildings.  There had to be.  The death toll must have been in the thousands.  In most versions of such a fight, Superman tries to get the fight to a place where fewer people will be killed.  Here. the fight carries Superman and Zod into space at one point, yet Superman drags it back down to Metropolis.  And where other incarnations of the character show him rushing out of battle to save people- "you'll be safe here, ma'am"- only to get blindsided by the bad guy, this Superman makes no effort to save anyone.  In a lull in the battle, when there must be hundreds trapped in the rubble, whom only Superman can see, hear or save in time, he stops to have a kiss with Lois.  Snapping Zod's neck is almost incidental in comparison.  He has already taken upon himself to decide who lives, who dies, and collateral damage is a regrettable fact of life.  Actively taking a life is merely the final step on curve.

This Superman is a Superman for our age, regrettably.  He is in someways like, and someways unlike the hero of old.  This Superman is strong enough to kill.  The old Superman was strong enough not to.  And that is why that Superman was immeasurably greater than this one.

How well does restoration work?

This is a thought that has crossed my mind of late. I thought I would kick it around for a bit, and see if I can get any feedback from any of you.

Here's how it goes: I was watching the video "Restoring the Sacred" which tells the story of the miraculous transformation of St John Cantius in Chicago, and how the church went from teetering on the edge of closure to true excellence. I highly recommend the video, found here.

The gist of the video is that Father Phillips took control of the old church at a time when, in his own words, the choir and the altar servers outnumbered the congregation. He began a two pronged approach to turn things around: restore the sacred, and restore the building. His efforts were wildly successful, to the point that he has even started an order- The Canons Regular of St John Cantius- which has experienced dramatic growth at a time when vocations are sinking across the board almost everywhere else, including his own diocese.

So, on the one hand, undeniably, restoration works. Restoring churches works. restoring Latin works. Restoring the Extraordinary Form works. The proof is right there. Fr. Phillips himself denies that what he has done is particularly special or magical. "This can be done anywhere," he says. And here is the crux. My questions are these: Can it really? Should it?

The reason why I ask comes from something Fr. Phillips says at another point in his video: namely, that there are people in his congregation who drive up to two hours and perhaps more with their families to come to Mass at St John Cantius. So, is he bringing people back into the church, or is he bringing them over from other churches? If. as father says, what he has done were to be done anywhere, say about an hour and a half closer to these people's homes, then would they not go there, instead of making the long drive to Chicago? I suspect, to a certain extent- how large, I cannot say- that an immediate result of mass adoption of Fr Phillips' methods would be a loss of parishioners in Father Phillips' own church.

And yet, what seems to be happening is that people are responding to a longing for beauty and truth. Father Phillips is providing that to them. It seems his congregation is made up of a mix of people who have been brought over, with people who have been brought back, with people who never left. Mass adoption of Fr Phillips' methods may mean larger congregations, but it could also mean parishes struggling against each other to keep the parishioners they have.

Travels with Mom, continued.

So, as I have said in the past, once a month I try to rent a car and take my mom out for a drive to somewhere or other,.  We have been visiting old churches, waterfalls around the city of Hamilton, battlefields from 1812 and, sometimes, just driving through the countryside looking for something for her to draw. (For some reason, she is fond of drawing barns.)

Once a year, around her birthday and Mother's Day, I take her for a longer drive, somewhere farther afield.  Last year, it was Montreal all to see the Basilica of Notre Dame (I tossed in St Patrick's and Marie, Reine du Monde and St Andrews near Cornwall as a bonus)  This year, I asked her where she would like to go, and she said, unexpectedly, Point Pelee.  Also unexpectedly, Puff, Younger and Frodo came with us.

When I planned to take her to point Pelee, I was thinking of Pelee as the Southernmost part of Canada.  She was thinking of it as one of the most famous sites for birdwatching in the world.  As a result, I wasn't quite prepared when we found ourselves surrounded by birders.  These people were serious.  I saw dozens of people with expensive cameras outfitted with lenses that had to be close to three feet long.  You could photograph Saturn with those suckers.  I was embarrassed to be seen holding my little rinky dink camera in their presence.  But they were very nice people, and I can think of far, far worse hobbies than going out and admiring the natural beauty of our world. We had a great time.  When we dropped by the next day for dinner, Mom was on the phone, telling people about her little trip the day before.

But I do sometimes get asked, usually by my sister, and sometimes by others, why do I bother to drive so far (Pelee was about a four hour drive, each way) for merely a day trip?  There seems to be little point in that.   To which I say, yes, there is little point in that.  But, by the same token, there is no point in not going at all.  As mom puts it, half a loaf is better than none.

I also get asked why do I take mother?  The main answer is that she and I like similar things (except the barn thing, but what the heck) and our trips are fun.  People look at me oddly, as though a trip with a late octogenarian with a pronounced tendency to yak could not possibly be fun.  There must be another reason.  And, yes, there are.  As I said, the fact that we have fun is the main reason.  But there are other reasons as well, and they begin with Dad, and my regrets.

Dad was the best man I ever met and am ever likely to meet.  My first regret is that I never told him that. Dad's died about seventeen years ago at the age of 74, which at the time I thought was good, ripe old age, but now seems far too young.  Prior to his sickness, his mortality was not really on my mind.  We had time, and the years stretched out before us.  There was no hurry.  Then he became ill, and time was gone.  I would dearly have loved, in retrospect, to have had a last chance with him. Before he fell ill, he was a healthy, active and vigorous man.  We had time, and the years stretched before us.  Then he was ill, and time was gone.  There was no opportunity to say:  "Dad, let's go bowling, or golfing, or fishing, one last time, for old times' sake."  I could not even ask him to do my favourite thing again, and tell his stories, just one more time.  He was in too much pain, and didn't want to talk about such things.  One of our last conversations, I asked him if there was anything he wanted me to do or take care of after he was gone.  "Take care of your family," he said.  "And keep an eye on your mother when you can."  And so I visited him, did what I could for him, and watched him die.

Mother endures. She is in decent health. Her mobility is not bad for someone her age. It is not unreasonable to think that she could make it to a hundred.  It is also not unreasonable to think that she could be incapacitated by a stroke, tonight, and possibly die in her sleep.  I don't know how much time she has.  And, quite frankly, it is not my business to know.  My business is to do the best I can with the time I have, and to save myself from regret and the thought that there were things I could have and should have done with her, but didn't. That's not to say I won't be sad upon her death, whenever it happens.  On the contrary, I will probably be a basket case.  But, I will also be able to beguile my grief with the fond and happy memories of the time we had together, and know that we did not waste it.

So we drive.  She likes it, and I like it too.  There may be places she wants to go that are out of my reach and budget.  She may wish to go to Europe.  I can't do that, so I don't bother myself with it.  Pelee I can do.  Montreal, I can do.  Places in between, not a problem.  My job is to do what I can with the time that we have, to live as best, as well and as much as we can, so that, when our time is done, we will not find that we watched life, rather than lived it.  The ancients were wiser than us in this matter, and knew this truth well.  Horace put it best and most famously:

sapias, vina liques et spatio brevi
spem longam reseces. dum loquimur, fugerit invida
aetas: carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
Be wise, pour the wine, trim to a short space
your long hopes.  Even as we speak, envious time has
already fled: Seize the day, and give tomorrow little faith.

However, this is the second reason why.  More accurately, it is the reason why I do something with mother.  The reason why the something I do is take her out for drives is because they are fun.  If they weren't, I would do something else.

How to create a false impression

Before I begin, I just want to say that I did not vote for Rob Ford for mayor, and I would not vote to re-elect him.  I do not think he is a good mayor.  But, having said that, I am weary of the incessant attacks upon Ford, lead by the Toronto Star, which has taken to printing any complaint about Ford, no matter how trivial or unfounded, in the hope of getting something to stick.  Today, for instance, there was this:

Catholic school board investigating Rob Ford’s ‘inaccurate’ Sun News interview

That's the online title.  The print version has a more forceful title:  "Ford slammed for 'demeaning' school remarks."

“We’d be better off without him as the football coach if he continues to speak this way,” the co-chair of the Don Bosco parent council said.

That's the lead in and the thesis of this article.  What could all this be about?

Mayor Rob Ford has angered teachers and parents at the Etobicoke high school where he coaches football — and prompted an investigation by the Catholic school board — with comments the teachers say depicted the school in a “demeaning way that was filled with untruths.”

Oh no! Sounds bad.  What did he say?

The board’s review of Ford’s interview with Sun News last week comes in response to an anonymous letter sent to senior board officials by a “significant” number of teachers at Don Bosco Catholic Secondary School.

Um... is anyone else a little confused here?  Is the letter anonymous or was it sent by a significant number of teachers?  How can it be both?  What is significant?  Is one? or is ten a more significant number?  Why doesn't the article say?  If they are refuting someone's inaccuracies, should they not replace them with their own accuracies, as opposed to, say, innuendo?

In the letter, signed “The Don Bosco Staff,” the teachers said Ford’s words were “disgusting” and “no reflection of the real Don Bosco.”

So it was signed by the Don Bosco Staff, or someone claiming to be the Don Bosco Staff.  They have found Ford's words to be 'disgusting', which poses a bit of a problem.  Disgust is an emotion, not a thought.  One can argue and defend oneself against facts, or against logic.  There is no argument against an emotion.  So, Ford has failed to reflect the "real Don Bosco."  So what is the real Don Bosco?  Let's see what the next paragraph has to say.

The Don Bosco parent council was so perturbed by Ford’s comments that it is calling a special meeting to decide how to respond, said co-chair Teresa Bridport.

Nope.  No real Don Bosco here.  Just more feelings- 'perturbed"- to pile onto the disgust.  The impression- and I use that word advisedly, as the article so far has only given emotions and impressions, not facts- is that Ford must have done something heinous to have offended so many people.  But what was it?

Ford, Bridport said, conveyed the false impression that Don Bosco is an unsafe and gang-infested place whose only redeeming feature is football. In fact, she said, the school is a thriving and improving institution with a dedicated faculty, motivated students, and other attractive extracurriculars.

Back to impressions.  Ford has conveyed a false one.  But where are his actual words?  Did he actually in fact say any such thing?

“I still believe his heart is in the right place. And I’ve said that before. It’s just that he does not know how to speak. He does not know how to communicate in a positive light. The way that he’s talking makes it look like all the kids at Don Bosco would be in the gutter if it wasn’t for him and his football program. And that’s not true,” said Bridport, who has two children at the school.

I completely agree with the assessment of Ford in the third and fourth sentence.  I have often been embarrassed by his pronouncements.  I have the 'impression' that the book he read on public speaking contained the two instructions: "1: Open Mouth.  2: Insert Foot."  But that's my impression.  The impression of the person speaking here is that Ford has given a bad 'impression' of the school while trying to convey a good impression of himself, of Ford the saviour.  If he has done that, I would like to see it.  Why have they not quoted Ford yet?  All they are doing is piling up negative comments about something he said, so that by the time we actually get to a quotation, the reader will already have formed an opinion on what it says.

“

It’s such a negative thing, what he’s saying, and it’s so untrue. For him to say that unless they play football their life is shot is so untrue. So untrue. We appreciate that he volunteers at the school; we appreciate the time he puts in for the football program. But not if he’s going to speak the way he’s speaking. We’d be better off without him as the football coach if he continues to speak this way. . . This has to stop.”

Board spokesperson John Yan said the interview contained “a number of inaccuracies,” which he would not specifically identify. (emphasis mine) In general, Yan said, “the interview is an inaccurate portrayal of the community.”

"We share the same concerns expressed by the Don Bosco community,” Yan said. “We really don’t have any comment at this time. We’re taking all their concerns under advisement, and we’re seeing what appropriate actions, if any, we may take.”

If this statement is so inaccurate, why are they not addressing the inaccuracies instead of dealing with impressions?  When I think someone is wrong, I will state chapter and verse where I believe them to be wrong.  What these people are saying is that the big bad nasty Ford hurt all their feelings, and as I said before:  Ford may be able to argue against their facts or their logic or their interpretations, but he cannot defend himself against feelings.

Before he became the coach at Don Bosco, Ford was told he was no longer welcome as the coach at North York’s Newtonbrook Secondary after a 2001 confrontation with a player. His spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

Fascinating, but what does it have to do with the case at hand?  Merely more mudslinging.  Another unspecific charge to be attached onto the other unspecified charges in order to create an impression.  Apparently for the Star, impressions are the only reality worth bothering about.

Ford made his contested statements in a conversation with Sun News early-morning host David Menzies, who lavished praise on Ford for his work with the Don Bosco team. Don Bosco, located at Islington Ave. and Dixon Rd., is home to many low-income students, and Ford has said frequently that football helps players avoid crime and keep their grades high.

Finally, with that, we get to the crux of the matter.  We actually start to get a few quotes from Ford himself, and possibly judge for ourselves whether or not what the Star said he said was in his actual  words.

Speaking to Menzies, Ford said members of the team “just wouldn’t go to school” and would have “no reason to go to school” if not for football.

“You can’t tell them to get an education. But I use the football as a carrot. I said: If you don’t go to school, and you’re (not) passing, you don’t play football. Oh, they’ll do backflips to play football,” Ford said.

Ford also called the football players “smart,” hard-working and financially prudent. But he said many players “come from gangs” and have “broken homes.”

He spoke of bailing players out of jail. He referred to Don Bosco as a “tough school” in a “tough area.” And he agreed with Menzies’ suggestion that some former or current members of the team would be in jail or dead if he had not launched the team.

"I truly believe that,” Ford said. “A lot of kids have said that to me. A lot of parents have said that to me.”

Since they have spent so much time and energy vilifying Ford, I would guess that they would also take the time to cherry pick their quotations to set Ford in the worst possible light. These few words here are what has caused that "impression".  This is the very worst of what Ford said. This is what the school is upset about.  A guy who runs a football program for a school in a tough neighbourhood says his program is working and helping the kids.  Now back to our regularly scheduled outrage.

The teachers’ letter said: “There is a sense of outrage in our school community in regards to his continued detrimental messages. Once again his comments depict our school in a very negative light. It is exasperating since we have been spending so much volunteer time and energy on community outreach to demonstrate the commitment, the excellent programs and the successes of our student body. Again, much of this good will and good work has been lost with his most recent media interview.”

More hurt feelings.  Perhaps Ford could have made a token gesture, saying that his program is one several designed to help the students, or put his laudable volunteer work in the context of one of many laudable volunteer groups in this school aimed at helping the students.  But that doesn't seem to be in Ford's makeup, and he was answering questions about his program, so I can't blame him for that.

However, not everyone is against him.

In a 2008 interview with Menzies for a National Post article, a former Don Bosco player who had received a NCAA scholarship, Jerome Miller, said “Rob Ford has been able to take a lot of kids off the street.” The mother of another player told the Globe and Mail last year that the media would be “reporting on the body on the street” without the football program.

So Ford's comments are therefore accurate.  He has said that some students and some parents have told him as much as is reported here.  But that doesn't seem to matter.

Some Don Bosco students, parents and staff, however, have bristled at Ford’s portrayal of students as would-be criminals. Some teachers were unhappy when Ford said, during a high-profile controversy about the team’s use of a private TTC bus, that “very few people can control these kids.” His brother, Councillor Doug Ford, drew private criticism for saying players “look up in the stands and they don’t see a father, they don’t see a mother, they see Rob Ford standing there and supporting them.”

Again, we are back to hurt feelings.  The article is arguing that Ford hurt some feelings by telling lies about the school, and what I am getting here is the possibility that he hurt even more feelings by saying some truths people did not want to hear.  If what he has said was a lie, where is the proof that he lied?

It is not clear how many teachers endorse the anonymous letter. Rene Jansen in de Wal, president of the Toronto secondary unit of the Catholic teachers’ union, said the letter “was broadly supported by the staff.”

Anonymous letters "broadly" supported.  How is a vagary supposed to refute an inaccuracy?

Don Bosco’s students and staff have made a concerted effort to repair the school’s reputation. In April, three busloads of supporters attended a board meeting to ask for trustees’ help in eliminating the spread of negative messages about the school, which they said has improved markedly in recent years under principal Ugo Rossi.

In October, students and teachers invited reporters to a “Give Your School a Hug Day” intended to bring attention to the Don Bosco’s positive attributes. Student Nicholas Thompson, 16, who gave a speech about stereotypes, said black students at the school are portrayed unfairly. “It’s just like, ‘We’re bad, we’re thieves, we’re criminals, we’re just sports stars,’” he told the Star.

Now race is in the mix?  Not that Ford said anything about black students, but not that it matters.  We are dealing with impressions and feelings.  If a black student feels the mayor is being unfair to black students, then that feeling must be aired, viewed, and recognized as concrete reality.

Said Bridport: “Many of the teachers spend many hours volunteering for the leadership program; taking the kids on trips; there’s a group of kids going to Europe on March break, my daughter’s going to Boston in April. So, lots of teachers that put in extra hours to help with things that are not football. And I think people forget that. Although football is wonderful for the people who play it, that’s not what our school is all about. We’re about a lot more.”

True, the school is about more than a football program, but what does that have to do with Ford's interview?  As I said, Ford could have put his program in the context of being one of many programs at the school, but he didn't. He was giving an interview about one of his passions, and mentioned little else. But that doesn't matter.  The false impressions created are not about what Ford said, seeing as, as near as we may tell from this article, his words were factually accurate, but over what he did not say. 

The Star is actively engaging in creating a false impression of its own.  Its report is factually accurate.  Ford did say some things, and people were offended at what he did and did not say, or seemed to say, or something.  The Star even reports briefly that accusers who believe Ford's statements were inaccurate cannot actually point out the inaccuracies, and furthermore that there are those who have confirmed Ford's remarks as accurate.  But the bulk of the piece is about hurt feelings, and top heavy with accusations of Ford's misleading statements, to the point that the over all impression is that Ford must have said and done something wrong, even though that wrongdoing is not stated and is nowhere to be found in the article.  What a filthy, deceitful rag this paper is.

As I said, I share a common purpose with this paper: I would prefer Ford to be out of office.  But I would prefer to do it it without lies, prevarications.,  and false impressions.  The job of the paper is to report truth and facts so that people may make an informed opinion, not skew the facts into the view the paper wants them to have. I did not vote for Ford, but many people did.  No one voted for the Star to be our representative and our voice, or our former of opinion.  If I am to be ruled, I prefer to be ruled by one who has been elected, not by one who has appointed themself the task of being my ruler for my own good, and who decides what I need to know, and how I should think about it.

You can have a Model T in any colour, as long as it's black.

Not that there's anything wrong with us being free to choose only one thing.  No sirree Bob.  Take a look.

In the news recently, the Newman centre on the University of Toronto main campus started a Courage group as a way of supporting Gay men who wished to live according to the Catholic faith (i.e. celibate). This was condemned in the news as being an attempt to force Catholicism down people's throats and trying to turn gay men straight.  In other news, about a week later, a "sexual education centre" at the same campus announced they had just reached a deal with a swingers club that would allow them to offer U of T students a discount.  This was applauded in the newspapers as a brave step forward into the new... whatever it is we're stepping in.  The university is applauding itself for being tolerant of everything... except for chastity.

Speaking of "anything but chastity" but in otherwise absolutely unrelated news, a newspaper in Britain published an article by an Australian psychologist on the effects of our hypersexualized culture on young girls.  The short of it:  It is destroying them inside and out by forcing them to accept sexual roles they are emotionally unprepared for, and by also making them think that extreme sexual behaviour is healthy and normal.  This article is a lonely voice perhaps signalling that we are moving from the "What could it hurt?" phase of our society and into the "How was I supposed to know phase?" One curious note in the article comes when the psychologist admits that he is not talking about boys at this time because he addressed that years ago.  the implication is that boys are now a write-off.

Speaking of boys and the "how was I supposed to know" phase: studies indicate that the changes forced by feminists on the education system for the last forty years or so has lead to decreased education scores among boys.  The feminists sought to make the education system more fair by removing areas in which boys tended to excel- rote learning, science, and competition- and replaced it with fields where the girls excelled- all in the name of fairness, of course.  Now the boys are lagging behind, which apparently shows that women were better all the time, at least when given a leg up over the boys.  Well done.   

ht Vox Cantoris, Redneck.

Music. 50 Shades, de Sade and People with "Problems"

It's been a while since I riffed on an idea or a statement I found on the Internet.  I thought I'd give it a go.

Background:  I found the following statement when I went to YouTube to listen to a recording of Tallis' Spem in Alium, one of my favourite pieces of music.  As it turns out, the song features prominently in the popular 50 Shades series of books, and fans of the books are looking up the music the read about in the book, and leaving copious comments on YouTube.  The old guard on YouTube is dismayed that these newbies have invaded their territory, and a minor kerfuffle has broken out.  I found this comment as the top comment as of writing from this recording of Spem in Alium

Personally, I'm not a Fifty Shades fan. But there's nothing wrong with those who are. There's nothing "trashy" about sex or erotica: people who think that way tend to be have been brainwashed by religious zealots and/or are terribly insecure.

And what does it matter where one first hears a piece? That's an extraneous detail that affects neither the music nor the listener's appreciation of it. So get off your "genuine" high horse.

Last bit first:1. a minor technical point, but no one 'heard' a piece of music in the book.  They heard of a piece of music in a book.  2.  No, it does not matter.  I am a firm believer in Pliny the Elder's dictum:  "I have never read a book so bad I did not get some good from it." If the readers of this book have been lead to expand their musical tastes an to encounter wonders of the musical world to which they would otherwise have been blind, then some good has come from the book.  My only comment to them is that, in the future, it would be wise if they would, upon encountering this new world of music, say something intelligent, rather than: "Man, I can't wait to (have sex) while listening to that!"

With that out of the way, lets take a look at the rest of what the commenter had to say.  The commenter begins with a "personally opposed, but..." kind of statement, a kind of toned down version of Voltaire's  famous dictum "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."  An admirable sentiment, except in the mouth of this speaker, for they contradict it with the next sentence.  The writer admits the right to like this sort of thing, but not the right to dislike it.  They dismiss those who disagree with them as either brainwashed or insecure, as having some kind of problem.  In conjunction, the two sentences are saying: "I somewhat disagree with what you say, therefore you may say it.  That other guy, with whom I completely disagree, however, should just plain shut up." 

I find this to be typical of the writers on the Left.  They tend to regard people who oppose them as somehow flawed, unbalanced or as having a problem.  The Right, on the other hand, tends to simply dismiss those who disagree with them as being idiots.  Thus both sides tend to dismiss, rather than engage, the other side, and debates between the two tend to be both tedious and pointless.  So let's engage with their central idea:  There is nothing "trashy" or wrong with sex or erotica outside of religion and/or insecurity. My opinion: yes, there is. It is terribly, terribly boring, and boredom and sex are a bad combination. I do not say this because I was brainwashed by religion.  In fact, I'll leave religion out of what follows.  I was 'brainwashed' into that opinion not by religious zealots, but by the most famous pornographer of them all, the man who put the 'S' in BDSM, the Marquis de Sade himself.

Sade's writings turned up on a few course lists during my long university career.    We were supposed to read them as philosophy rather than pornography, and were told that Sade used pornography as a vehicle to explain his philosophy.  His philosophy, such as it was, was rather thin, albeit honest.  At a time of revolution, Sade argued for the revolution to complete its course and go all the way.  The freedom envisioned  of the revolutionaries in France was the freedom to agree with the revolutionaries in France, to go thus far, and no farther.  Sade argued for absolute and total freedom.  He openly mocked the idea, so common today, that anything between two parties is acceptable as long as both parties consent, and no one is harmed, and argued that there was no reason for any such restriction.  His philosophy was, in the end, a sexualized version of Thrasymachus:  The strong will do what they will, and the weak will accept what they must.  His absolute freedom was only the absolute freedom of those who could afford or inflict it.

His masterwork was  the 120 Days of Sodom, a long work exploring what one of my professors called, in the jargon of the day, "every possible transgressive sexual passion."  I found it to be incredibly stultifying.  The section dealing with coprophagy in particular left a bad taste in my mouth.  The most interesting part, for me, was Sade's introduction, wherein he stated that he was writing to display how unrestricted sex degenerated into crime, and ultimately murder.  He wasn't writing a how to manual, it seemed, but a warning.  The boredom I felt was the point: this book was about the effects of boredom on those who dedicated their lives to the pursuit of unrestricted pleasure.  A short time after I read the work the trial of Paul Bernardo occurred, and I realized Sade had been, in his own way, absolutely correct.

I am not saying that everyone who reads this book will move on to become a murderer.  I am saying that those who seek a new thrill in the book will soon find only tedium and boredom.

Imagine you like steak, but haven't had one for a long time. One day you go to your favourite steak house, and order one.  It will be the best steak you ever ate.  So you have another, and another, and another.  They're still good, but not quite as good as the first.  By the twentieth, you are sick of steak, and start hankering for some bacon. 

Or imagine a roller coaster.  The first time you ride the coaster, it's terrifying, but thrilling.  So you get on it again.  Still thrilling, but not as much.  Then again and again.  By the thousandth ride, you are yawning through the loop de loops.  The roller coaster can no longer deliver, but you still yearn for that heady rush of the first time.

Now let's talk about sex.

At this point, our culture has abandoned the sole biological function of sex- reproduction- and pursues it for pleasure alone.  Our culture simultaneously touts sex as the best thing in life, the be all and end all of our existence, a force that cannot be controlled or stopped, and at the same time, no big deal, and casual sex has reached the point where songs are written calling former lovers "just someone that I used to know." 

When I was young, the teenagers would visit each other's houses.  Boyfriend and girlfriend would make out on the couch while the parents weren't looking.  They might get caught, which could be a dangerous (and potentially fatal) situation for them, if they got caught by their parents or if they caught something nasty, as this was the time of the AIDS scare.  It made what they were doing scary, but, like the roller coaster, that was the thrill of it.  Sex was transgressive, and it gave them a thrill to do something they weren't supposed to do, because virginity still meant something, back then.

(I say "back then", because it is increasingly apparent that it means next to nothing now.  In an era where parents regularly buy protection for their children, there is no danger in being caught by your parents, and no sense that you are doing something you are not supposed to do.  I even heard of one case where a father walked in on his high school attending daughter having sex with her boyfriend.  The father admonished the daughter for not informing him earlier of her intentions, so he could have known to stay out of her room.)

The problem with that thrill is that it is both fleeting and addictive, yet we live in a culture which tells us that the thrill should be permanent, as though we should be able to glut ourselves on steaks, and every steak as rich and delicious and appreciated as the first.  From what I have seen in the lives of my friends, it seems that women are most particularly vulnerable to the foolish idea that the thrill should always be present.  Those who learned that thrill on their parents couch find it lacking in marriage, when sex is not only not forbidden and not transgressive, but actually expected and required.  Some begin to look for the thrill of the forbidden again: and what is forbidden when one is in marriage?  Little, save adultery, or perhaps some peculiar tastes found in a book.  These will deliver the thrill again.  For a while.

As I said. that was then.  Now, it seems very little is forbidden even before marriage.  No wonder the book has gained popularity.  It can give a sense of that forbidden thrill.  For a while.  And then...?
What we have here is a badly written (from the few pages I read of the first book, the spelling and grammar are atrocious) little series of books that are introducing a new generation to an old set of transgressive pleasures with which they will most likely soon grow bored.  The thrill they seek, the alleviation of boredom will be only temporary.  At that point, their options are to escalate, or move on to something else.  Those who like the book, from what I have seen, heard and read from they themselves, like it not despite the fact that it is transgressive, but because it is transgressive,  But what makes it transgressive is not the pleasures it represents, but the fact that others deem it to be taboo.  The book and its readers need people to condemn it, they need someone to make taboos so they may break them.

The temptation is to prognosticate, and predict where we are going from here. There are those who believe we are progressing to a point where we leave the forbidden and transgressive behind once and for all.  I believe that nothing is ever once and for all.  Our generation has nothing to teach Rome, pre Revolutionary France, or Restoration England about sex.  We have nothing to teach Victorians about pornography.  These ideas have flourished from time to time, then faded.  Consider: the young, in particular, like to be transgressive. Right now, almost nothing is forbidden and unthinkable, except chastity.  It may become transgressive, and therefore popular, once again. 

In the meantime, go read a good book. Perhaps some Shakespeare.  If you were to read Shakespeare, you might read Richard II, and if you read Richard II, you would read this passage where Richard meditates on life and finding happiness and contentment not in things, or wealth,  or even sex, chains and whips, but in nothing:

Thus play I in one person many people,
And none contented: sometimes am I king;
Then treasons make me wish myself a beggar,
And so I am: then crushing penury
Persuades me I was better when a king;
Then am I king'd again: and by and by
Think that I am unking'd by Bolingbroke,
And straight am nothing: but whate'er I be,
Nor I nor any man that but man is
With nothing shall be pleased, till he be eased
With being nothing.

Gay marriage in Canada

Seeing as the debate is heating up down south of here, and the Canadian experience is getting invoked fairly regularly on both sides of the debate, I thought I would offer my two cents on what happened up here, and how, and why, and what I would have preferred to have happened.

The debate, as I recall, began with the issue of spousal benefits.  Namely, gay couples wanted to be able to claim the benefits for the plans into which they were required to pay, or the tax benefits which they could never have.  In that, I agreed.  Other aspects of the social safety net, like unemployment or welfare, we pay into in the hope that we never need them, but also in the knowledge that help will be available if we need it.  Taking their money for spousal benefits knowing full well they would never get it back nor derive any benefit from it, was a palpable wrong. The choice was to either exempt them from those payments, or recognize their unions.

The debate was circumvented, or ratcheted up a notch, depending on your point of view, when a gay couple in Ontario launched a Charter case, claiming that denying the right to marry was a denial of a fundamental human right, according to our Charter, or Bill of Rights.

(Side note:  The Charter came about with the repatriation of our constitution in the'80's.  It was decided that it was time we had a Bill of Rights like the Americans, but somehow they thought they could do a better one.  Frankly, the '80's were not the time to create a document for the ages.  Under pressure from feminist and minorities, the Charter was written to include the right not to be discriminated against on any grounds.  It sounds like a good right, but the problem is that discrimination has no definition: it can be anywhere, it can be anything, and right now, the person who decides if discrimination is happening is the person to whom it is happening.   There are people out there who are ready and willing, even looking for the chance to be offended at every possible turn. As it now stands, the right not to be discriminated against is a right that includes the right not to have hurt feelings, and the motives of the accuser were irrelevant.)

The gay couple found a sympathetic judge who overturned law and precedent and allowed them to marry.  The Government of Ontario mulled over this decision, and whether or not to appeal- they had every single legal precedent on the issue behind them, whereas this new decision had none- and opted not to, and they legalized it.  The Federal Government soon followed suit.  I should point out, none of these governments had raised this issue during an election, therefore none of them had a mandate for their actions.  And that is how gay marriage became law in Canada.  Some groups vowed to fight it, but the fight died out fairly quickly, as the reaction of the majority of Canadians was "meh."  Whether or not Canadians were swept away by a wave of tolerance or indifference is a matter of debate.

That is how it happened, to the best of my knowledge.  The action I would have supported at the time was not something that came up for debate, or was ever seriously considered, so I will outline it here.  I wanted the Government to get out of the marriage business entirely, and to recognize domestic unions, and to leave marriage up to the religious institutions.  I would have preferred it if we had a system like in Italy, where, if you get married, you go a judge and get legally married, then to a church and get sacramentally married.  I wanted this for a few reasons.  First, it would help protect the Church.  While it is convenient to have churches that do both right now, I think it could bite us before long, and I would prefer to have a firewall between government and religion.  Secondly, there was another group searching for spousal benefits at the same time as the gay community, one that is unfortunately not as well organized and does not get a sympathetic hearing, and was ultimately pushed aside and ignored as the debate became more heated, and that group was siblings.

It occasionally happens that some siblings, for whatever reason, never marry or move out and end up living together all their lives.  The benefit they were looking for in particular was survivor benefits, normally doled out to the widow or widower.  Almost inevitably, one sibling dies first, and the survivor is left in a  lurch, half the household income gone, and without any other support.  Domestic union recognition would have given them access to that benefit.  Notice, I am not saying siblings should be allowed to marry, that would be loopy, at least for now.

My solution was never seriously brought up, to the best of my knowledge, which is a pity.  I believe that this solution would have been hated by everybody and would have made everyone miserable, which in my estimation is the hallmark of a perfect compromise.

One of our Prime Ministers once famously remarked that the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.  That line was invoked fairly often during the debate, but ultimately it legalized relationships that are fairly much based in the bedroom.  It would have been better, in my opinion, for the government to say "We are out of this business entirely.  How you set up house is your business."  I know the objection: this would also open up the gates for bestiality and polygamy.  Perhaps, but not yet.  But, should these ever become legal, as it seems they might, at least they would not be called "marriage".

Facts vs Truth

The other day I was reading a piece written about one of Canada's most famous authors, Farley Mowat.  Among several quotations from the man was his famous dictum that one should not let facts get in the way of the Truth.  I thought I would riff on that idea for a while.

As far as Mr Mowat is concerned, I sometimes agree with him and sometimes disagree.  He is, in my opinion, one of Canada's greatest storytellers, either living and dead, and he has beguiled and bewitched many a pleasant hour with his tremendous gift of spinning a yarn.  As such, even though I disagree with him on some issues, I cannot help but like the man.  As for this statement, like the man who said it, I both agree and disagree.

As a storyteller myself, I know what the difference between facts and truth are, and I will sometimes play fast and loose with both to make a good story.  David Allen, the old comic, used to say one should never let the facts get in the way of a good story.  Mowat, as a storyteller first, knows this truth well.

The point of a good story lies in tension and drama, and the ability of the teller of the tale to convey these to get the point across.  Facts are not always obliging in being dramatic or even interesting, and sometimes have to be skewed or sidestepped for the sake of the story.   There are things that may be true in reality that are false in fiction, by which I mean undramatic.

Take, for example, final reality: the debate between theists and atheists.  The existence or nonexistence of God may be true in reality, but it is always false in fiction, particularly speculative and fantastic.  With the element of the supernatural, a story may sail far beyond the earth, beyond the stars, and encompass the heights of heaven and the deeps of Hell; Good may wage is desperate battle with evil in a never ending struggle that holds the balance of not only the world but of all possible worlds.  Without it, life is a bio mechanical process, after which we are dead and food for maggots.  Nothing that happens between life and birth is of any consequence, save as we are prepared for worm food.

I think, for example, of the old sci-fi series Babylon 5.  Space Opera is normally not the home of theological speculations, but this show featured it often, and for a time it added to the show greatly.  The show started out as one of the finest examples of sci fi I had ever seen, but then it flamed out and died.  The death came on slowly at first, then more rapidly.  For me, the real telling point came at the end of the Shadow War.  The war had been built up at first as the rise of an ancient evil, gathering minions among the younger races, and opposed by only a few who could be harnessed by the good forces, to stand fast and not let the darkness of the shadow cover the galaxy again. And then it was revealed that there was no good and evil, no light nor shadow, only two opposing, equally valid yet mutually exclusive, philosophical points of view.  The climax was supposed to be the younger races throwing out the representatives of the old ways, in order to find a new way without their interference, but since there was nothing to choose between them, there was nothing in not choosing them either.  Just another philosophical point of view.  The whole matter was of no consequence in the end, just one group of worm meat opposing another.   I changed the channel.

But the idea of not letting facts get in the way of truth bleeds outside of the world of fiction and into the world of men, often with disastrous consequences.  Take Stalin and the Ukraine in the '30's.  Stalin created yet another one of his plans which was deemed to be the truth.  He would remove the farmers from the Ukraine, and replace them with Russians who would form collective farms.  These new farms would be more rationally organized and therefore more efficient that the early farms, and produce far more food than before.  The idea seemed so simple, so obvious, it could not but help be true.  That the collective farms would be farming the same land and the same amount of land as before, was a fact that could not get in the way of the truth.  That the new farmers were not really farmers at all, that farming requires a vast amount of knowledge capital, and that requiring non farmers to do as well as farmers is like replacing the entire cast of the Bolshoi ballet with non dancers and demanding they pirouette as well as the professionals, was another fact that was allowed to stand in the path of the truth.  That they failed, and the food was not grown as predicted, likewise could not stand in the way of the truth.  Stalin stated: "I don't care if they have it or not, we are taking it!" and the Russian Communists took all the food that was grown in the Ukraine as evidence of the truth of their improved ways, and the millions who died of starvation in the Ukraine because of the resulting famine was another mere fact that would not impede the truth.   That this sort of thing happened repeatedly under socialism is another tiny little fact that today's socialists do not allow to stand in the face of the truth that socialism works.

This sort of thing came up about a year ago when I read two articles in the newspaper within a week of each other.  The first was a statement released by Toronto Public Health which stated that the rate of syphilis infection in Toronto has increased tenfold since 2001.  Furthermore, 90% of the new infection rate were male.

This article was avoiding saying an unpleasant truth: the explosion in infection rate is fueled by the gay community, all the more remarkable because they form as small portion of the population.  They did not mention the word "gay" in the release because the gay community has fought very hard since the '80's and the rise of AIDS in the era to not be regarded as the bearers of disease. 

Frankly, I have sympathy with the Gay community in this matter.  The AIDS terror brought out the absolute worst in many people who should have known better, and the Gay community was marginalized and shunned like never before. Claims that AIDS was God's punishment against Gays could be heard regularly, even though that makes about as much sense as declaring that SIDS is God's punishment on babies.  The Gay response to the double thrust of a disease that seemed to be concentrated mostly in their community and the renewed hatred from the outside was to band together, organize, and fight back, harder than ever before.  Had Christians acted like Christians back then, they would not have been so successful in creating their new worst enemy.

So no using the word 'gay' in the context of a syphilis epidemic.  But then I read the second article, written by representatives of the gay community, telling out the truth of the success of the safe sex program, and congratulating their fellow gay community members for inventing and perfecting gay sex.  Thanks to them, the article said, sex is now safer for everyone.

Then why the rise?  Either safe sex is not working quite as well as is being let out, or 'men' are not using it.  I suspect both.

Right now, the only acceptable truth is that safe sex works, and rising rates of infection of Syphilis and Gonorrhea and, yes, AIDS, are mere facts that are not to get in the way of that truth, and that truth cannot be contradicted, not even to warn a small and very vulnerable part of the community that they are at risk again.  There are facts, and there are facts;  there are truths, and there are truths, and not all of them are created equal.

Facts are interesting things:  their root is shared with words like factories or manufacturing- they are things that are made, or made up.  Truth, on the other hand, is supposed to be unmade, uncreated and existing.  In the end, I think Mowat and others who speak of facts not being allowed to impede the Truth are getting it backwards.  They have manufactured the truth, which is to say, they made some facts, and they are not to be denied, questioned or debated.  They are not stopping facts from impeding the truth, but not allowing the truth to interfere with their "facts."

When condemnation is free advertising.

There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church, which is, of course, quite a different thing.  -Archbishop Fulton Sheen.

I was thinking of this quotation the other day when I read this post of LarryD's in which he discussed two movies coming out this summer, one of which, entitled The Perfect Family, gives a view of the Church which would qualify as a parody, except the producers seem to mean it to be straight up.

The plot of “The Perfect Family” is predictable and formulaic. A “devout Catholic” woman, played by Kathleen Turner, is nominated for the “Catholic Woman of the Year” award by her parish. But her “non-traditional”family – a husband who is a recovering alcoholic, a lesbian daughter about to get married to another woman, and a son having an affair – hinders her from attaining that award, which she covets.

Throughout the movie, Turner’s character attempts to “clean up” her family in order to win that award and undercut a rival at the parish. At the end of the movie, she comes to “accept” her family for who they are.

The implication of the movie is obvious: Catholics who dare to follow the teachings of the Church are brainwashed fools who care nothing for the happiness of others.

Sounds remarkably like my family, actually.  Has anyone ever had a parish in which they nominated and awarded someone the title "Catholic Woman of the Year"?  I mean, I've been going to church forty plus years, and I don't recall any parish I've ever heard of coming up with such a thing.  But apparently, this is what Hollywood thinks of us.

(Incidentally, if there were such an award, a woman in circumstances such as Turner's would have been more likely to win, not less, as a woman who is sticking to and living the Faith in trying circumstances.  Their picture of "a perfect family" owes more to Martha Stewart than to the Catholic Church.)

So, when confronted with nonsense such as this, what should we do?  If we were to go off half cocked and launch a series of tirades against this movie, or take out ads in newspapers condemning the movie, like Bill Donohue of the Catholic League does routinely, and will probably do for this movie, that would amount to giving the movie a ton of free advertising.  In my opinion, the movie sounds like a preaching movie, one where telling a story is abandoned in favour of spreading a message, and those almost always bomb at the box office, unless someone wastes time and money condemning it and giving it a boost in the arm with a ton of free advertising.  For myself, I would say answer any questions, address any lies.  But, on the whole, the only people who will like this movie are those who are inclined to agree with it already, and their minds are already made up.  Let the movie go in silence, as much as possible, give it little notice, and let it die the death it deserves at the box office.

3.5 timeouts, i am hard up for ideas edition.

I have tried to write a few posts these last couple of days, and burned the lot.  I almost completely struck out on a 3.5 Tuesdays post, but then a random conversation with my kids gave me a flicker of an idea for a cheap and easy post, when combined with a rundown on the posts I burned.   So, without further ado, here is something you have long awaited- my top three Disney villains, plus something else.

3.

 The Wicked Queen from Snow White.  Here's someone who gave kids nightmares for decades.  One of Disney's best villains ever, and also their first.  Some people think the scene of her transformation, or the scene where Snow White races, lost, through the woods, are the scariest scenes in the movie.  Me, I think here in front of the mirror is her at her villainous worst.


Strange what you find in a kids' movie, no?

2.

Maleficent. 

Magnificent voice acting, with one of the most chilling laughs in movie history.  Apparently, there is a movie in the works called Maleficent, which tells the story of the Sleeping Beauty from Maleficent's point of view.  Big mistake on two counts. First, as Coleridge noted with Iago, the best villains have "motiveless malignity".  They are just bad.  Giving them a motive, like Hannibal Lector in some of the sequels, or the Joker in the Killing Joke, or the Grinch in the awful live action movie, is most often a  mistake.  (cough star wars prequel cough) Their evil is disproportionate, trying to give it an origins, a sympathy for the devil, if you will, just doesn't work.  There is just no mathematical formula to balance the equation to explain why they went so deep into evil.  Second, the movie is set to star Angelina Jolie.  I don't think she is a match for this cartoon.  I can't picture her uttering the lines: "Now you face me, oh Prince, and all the power of Hell!"


This was a children's movie, right?

1.

Speaking of the powers of hell: Chernabog.



Were they even pretending this was for kids?


.5

I was going to post on the Dan Savage thing, but quickly got verbose and rambling, so I deleted it. Short version: not a fan, when I finally found an actual quotation, I thought his comments were tame for him, though still not good.  Was he acting as a bully when he called the kids names? Yes.  Is this ironic? Also yes.

My reflection:  Sadly, for years I have been saying that bullying is not simply a matter that there are bullies and there are the bullied. The picture I see painted in anti bullying campaigns is too simple and too wrong for what is a complicated situation. Anyone who has been to school should know better than that.  there are circles and cycles, pecking orders and food chains.  Someone who is bullied by a social superior will, in turn, bully someone below.    The fact that they were bullied does not stop them from passing it on.  There have been a few times where I have witnessed someone who was once a victim suddenly finding themselves in a position of power or prestige.  We want to believe that such a person would say:  I was bullied when I was at the bottom, I did not like it, I will not do the same to others.  Perhaps that happens, somewhere, but I never saw it.  Every time I saw someone move up the ladder, their response to the new situation was; "My turn."

Savage's comments were his own version of "My turn."  Having been a victim of hate, he now gleefully passes it on.  The reaction of the audience was the most damning thing of all.  hundreds left, but thousands cheered.  Their anti-bullying campaign is a lie, and a farce, and they are enacting the oldest rules of the playground, even though they seem to be blissfully ignorant of it, and would probably protest if they were accused;  It's okay to be a bully, as long as you bully the right people.

Right now, Christians are the right people, the fair target.  Savage was correct, in one thing: not long ago, gays were the right people, the fair target, and now the tide has turned.  It may turn again, so let this be a lesson.  Remember your catechism, and know that when it comes to spreading hate, it is never your turn.

Chivalry's last hurrah.

Tomorrow is the hundredth anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic, at the time the largest ship ever built, and the largest moving object made by man up to that point.

The Titanic has come to mean many things to many people, and the story is rewritten with every generation.  Cameron has worked his own version, again, and peopled the Titanic with post modern self doubting men, and shown panic aboard the ship, despite the fact that every eyewitness account of the sinking tells that for the most part, calm reigned aboard the ship.  It does no justice to those who went down with the ship.

 For example, more women and children escaped from third class than did men from first.  When you factor in that the men in first class had first shot at the lifeboats, it means that every man from the first class who died on the ship volunteered to do so, that a woman or child might live in his stead.  Nor were they bitter to do so.  Industrialist Benjamin Guggenheim was seen dressed in his top hat and tails, sitting on a deck chair and sipping brandy and smoking cigars.  He gave a survivor a message for his wife:  "Tell my wife, if it should happen that my secretary and I both go down, tell her I played the game out straight to the end. No woman shall be left aboard this ship because Ben Guggenheim was a coward." He also stated:  We're dressed in our best and prepared to go down like gentlemen."   He was far from alone in these sentiments.  Many of the wealthiest men of the day went down on the ship. The band played Nearer My God To Thee in an effort to try and maintain some calm, and priests said Mass and distributed communion and blessing.  The captain of the ship commended his crew as the last lifeboat left, and told the crew they had done all that could be expected of them: "Now it's every man for himself." He was last seen on the bridge of his command, prepared to go down with the ship he could not save.

There is a desperation in those words.  Smith spoke them as a last resort: save yourself, if you can.  Compare it with the recent disaster of  the Costa Concordia, where the captain panicked and was among the first to flee from his ship.  Men on that ship were seen pushing women, old women, pregnant women, even children out of their way as they ran for the life boats, and as chaos and panic reigned supreme.  The men aboard the Titanic would have thought these cowards should be shot, and many would probably have volunteered to do the deed itself.  If chivalry is dead, the Costa Concordia went to the grave and relieved itself  there.

For me, the Titanic is a signpost marking the end of an era. Though I do not wish to deny the scale of the tragedy, I wish to point through the tragedy to the heroism and quiet dignity of these men and women who remained calm, yielded up their spot on the lifeboat for others who needed it more, and blithely stepped into eternity. Chivalry lasted beyond the Titanic, yet Titanic is chivalry's last hurrah, perhaps it's early farewell, and with a sense of timing rarely seen in history, chivalry saved its best for last.

Does blogging and commenting do us any good?

It was something I thought about when I was reading some posts on blogs I read irregularly that dealt with the American HHS policy, and the bishops statements.

First, I read a few prominent conservative blogs which said, more or less: "Oh, now the bishops want to act. If they had only listened to us or done their job back then, we would not be in this mess now..." Some of these blogs are very popular with large readerships and followers. They could have thrown their support along with their followers behind the bishops, but instead chose to use this as an opportunity to say "See? I was right."

I read this post of Fr.Z's the other day, wherein Fr Z shreds Doug Kmiec's letter to Obama, not because he disagreed with the letter and what it said as such, but because Kmiec had supported Obama and had helped cause the current mess. Apparently, the whole "there is more joy in heaven over one repentant sinner..." thing doesn't carry much weight. As usual, Father's combox went nuclear in a short time, with comments ranging from full agreement, to saying that Father did not go far enough in condemning Kmiec.

Then I read this post over at Mark Shea's, wherein he said something similar to what I thought- namely, if American conservatives and faithful Catholics hope to defeat this issue, they need to increase their voting power, which means they need to draw off some people who supported the president. If they reject people simply because they once supported Obama, they will certainly lose again.

And then the debate started in the comboxes. It quickly grew contentious, with Shea himself getting rather dismissive. As others have noted, Shea, when responding to comments, will resort to ad hominems and non sequitors to dismiss and belittle negative commenters.

My question, which I asked in Shea's combox, is this: How does any of this get any of us closer to heaven? How does being angry with the wrathful,  or passing judgement on the judgemental, or envious of those who covet power, or proud that in our humility we are not like the arrogant, do us any good? 

I see this quite often in blogs.  With no filters, no editors, it is too easy to just spout off anything at all, off the top of our heads, or when we are angry, or frustrated.  Are we not going to be called to account for all our idle words?  To put it simply: how does being a jerk with a keyboard make us better than other jerks with keyboards, or even jerks without keyboards?

While I admit that this battle needs to be fought and won, will it be any of any benefit to bloggers and commenters to win what will be a most bitter battle if it costs them their souls?