Stop It, Already

Ann Coulter's now well publicized reference to Democrat presidential hopeful John Edwards as a "faggot" at the Conservative Political Action Conference was unkind and uncalled for, but those prominent conservative bloggers who are rightly criticizing Coulter need to stop characterizing the insult as being on par with using the "N" word. Doing so only lends credence to the false assertion that sexual orientation is the equivalent of and indistinguishable from race and ethnicity. Regardless of whether or not one is born with same sex attraction, the fact of the matter is that gay sex is biologically unnatural, and every person with homosexual tendencies has the innate capacity to stop themselves from acting upon their desires.

Uh Huh...

In the spirit of the Lenten season, professional Catholic Apologist and BDS sufferer Mark Shea confesses his occasional sin of, get this, telling the truth in a mocking, flippant and snotty manner.

What an eye roller.

Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades Mark. How about confessing and repenting of the sin that you not only frequently commit in a mocking, flippant and snotty manner (a double sin) but which rhymes with the word "flying"?

Gay "Marriage"

Went to another Federalist Society sponsored event today, this time in downtown Los Angeles. The topic was gay "marriage", and there was a panel of four speakers that included the dean of Pepperdine Law School and former special independent counsel in the Whitewater matter, Ken Starr.

Two of the panelists were lawyers who are involved in challenging the constitutionality of Prop. 22, i.e., the California Defense of Marriage Act. The basis of their argument is somewhat technical, and disingenuous IMHO, but their position basically amounts to a contention that Prop. 22 invidiously discriminates against homosexuals and serves no legitimate government purpose.

The other two panelists, including Ken Starr, were presumptively against the legal recognition of gay "marriage". I say "presumptively," because the crux of their comments today pretty much focused on why the dispute over gay "marriage" should stay out of the courts and be resolved by the people through their duly elected representatives. One sensed the opposition these panelists had to gay "marriage" by the examples they provided as to how Prop. 22 could withstand constitutional scrutiny. (By "examples", I mean kinds of legitimate government purposes for which Prop. 22 serve. It is interesting to note that the government doesn't even have to be right about a particular purpose, e.g., traditional marriage results in less maladjusted children, in order for it to be legitimate.)

Since the event was co-sponsored by the left-liberal American Constitution Society, there were a significant number gay "marriage" proponents in the audience. I'm happy to report that no fisticuffs occurred, and I got 1.5 Mandatory Continuing Legal Education credits for basically $20.

Follow Up: I just remembered that one of the pro-gay "marriage" panelists attempted to argue that gay "marriage" was not an ideological issue that fell along liberal-conservative lines because noted stalwart conservatives like Andrew Sullivan are in favor of making gay "marriage" legal. Talk about self-undermining your argument.

John Yoo

I went to a Federalist Society speaking engagement today that featured John Yoo, a law professor at UC Berkeley (Boalt Hall) and former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas. From 2001 to 2003, Professor Yoo served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice.

As you might well be able to guess, the main topic of Professor Yoo's talk was the war on terror, and in particular, the national security policies of the Bush Administration (e.g., NSA wiretapping, coercive interrogation of terrorists, the Patriot Act). For all the handwringing that "civil libertarians" have been engaging in over these policies, Professor Yoo persuasively illustrated that not only does the administration have precedence on its side, none of what is going on now is nearly as "drastic" as what past presidents have done in previous wars. Roosevelt, for example, had ordered the monitoring of all forms of domestic communications a full year and a half before the U.S.'s formal entry into World War II. The Republic not only survived this seemingly imperial act, civil liberties would actually be expanded after the war concluded.

What I really found interesting about Professor Yoo is his willingness to publicly defend the Bush Administration's national security and war policies even when the administration itself does not seem all that interested in doing so. Indeed, this is the one major criticism that Professor Yoo has of the administration (he was especially critical of former Sec. of State Colin Powell and current Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice).

As a side note, I got to speak with Professor Yoo a little bit before he gave his lecture, and he informed that his old boss, Justice Thomas, will be releasing a book of his memoirs sometime this summer. In case you're wondering, the book is expected to address the whole Anita Hill affair.

Bizarre, Yes; But Not That Uncommon

Rob Vischer over at Mirror of Justice quips that Judge Larry Seidlin's handling of the Anna Nicole Smith case makes a compelling case for a return to jurisprudential formalism.

Here's a sampling of the reported behavior by Judge Seidlin:

The flamboyant Seidlin, rumored to be coveting his own reality TV show, let the proceedings spin out of control. The judge interjected himself into testimony, talked about his daily routine and wardrobe, and chatted nostalgically about his roots in New York, where he was once a cab driver. He freely gave nicknames such as "Texas," "California" and "Mama" to the people involved in the trial.

As crazy as this stuff is, Judge Seidlin's behavior isn't all that uncommon as far as judges are concerned. Fact of the matter is that a lot of judges, not all of them, are big time ego-manics who treat the courtroom as their little kingdoms where they can do almost anything they want. So when Vischer rhetorically asks if we can agree on the need to return to formalism, my answer would be an enthusiastic "yes!" Problem is, this kind of stuff has been going on for so long there's really nothing to return to.

Sign in and Say Howdy

If you look over on the right hand panel, you'll see a link to a cool new guestbook feature I set up. Feel free to sign it even if you don't leave a comment on any blog post here.

What, No Lenten Call to Fast for Tax Hikes on the "Rich"?

I dearly love the Catholic Church, but this using of Ash Wednesday and Lent by some in the hierarchy, particularly in my home diocese, to advocate illegal immigration and open borders in this country is a bunch of garbage. (link via)

In Orange County, the church asked people to fast — consuming liquids only — for one day between March 26 and 30 as an appeal for citizenship opportunities for undocumented immigrants and reductions in visa application backlogs for the families of immigrants.

The church also called for a temporary worker program.

Yeah, not only am I not going to do what is being requested by the diocese, I may see if I can organize a game of this to be played.

I Will Never Lack Confidence Again

Ever. (h/t)

Note to Lovers of Trindentine Mass

If you live in or around Orange County here in California, the Diocese of Orange has authorized (finally!) the offering of another Tridentine Mass. Said Mass will be celebrated on a six month trial basis every Sunday at 7am at the Pope John Paul II Polish Center in the City of Yorba Linda.

You think Bishop Tod Brown might be trying to set this up to fail?

Oink! Oink!

恭 喜 发 财! Happy Year of the Piggy and an early Happy Presidents Day.

I'm Number 1 on AOL Search!

Thanks to Site Meter, I discovered that I am at the top of the list for AOL searches on "Donovan McNabb life as a child till now."

Woo hoo!!

Bashing Bush Through "An Iraq Interrogator's Nightmare"

While I don’t mean to denigrate, or even doubt, the psychological trauma that Eric Fair claims to have incurred, his published article in the rabidly anti-Bush Washington Post about what he experienced as a contract interrogator in Iraq raises an eyebrow. Indeed, my eyeballs just rolled when I read Fair’s suggestion that the wanton prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, which the military began investigating well before it ever became news, is indistinguishable from the apparent approved interrogation practices of particular captured terrorists who may have information about planned terrorist plots. And the evidence Fair puts forth to support this suggested comparison, continuing violence in Iraq, is less than persuasive.

On a related front, some are quite predictably using Fair’s article as an opportunity to reassert their belief that the Catholic Church regards deportation torture to be “intrinsically evil,” and that anyone who disagrees with this is just a mindless apologist for SatanBush. Yeah, I don’t exactly know how he makes this connection either, but BDS has been known to make people lose all semblance of sense and sensibility.

Update (2/11/07): Somehow, I don't think the vital information provided by the detainees mentioned here was obtained by offering them milk and cookies.

Oh. My. Gawd.

The Archbishop of San Francisco, George Niederauer, states in a radio interview that he does not know what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's position on legalized abortion is.

One of the show hosts described Pelosi as "not only pro-choice, but she would be someone who would be working to try to keep abortion legal." The Archbishop was asked, "In your view is she less of a Catholic because of that?" He replied saying about Pelosi, "We haven’t had an opportunity to talk about the life issues. I would very much welcome that opportunity, but I don’t believe that I am in a position to say what I understand her stand to be, if I haven’t had a chance to talk to her about it."

Un-freakin'-believable.

I Can't Be the Only One to Have Noticed This

So there's been some going back and forth in the conservative blogosphere about the sincerity of Mitt Romney's pro-life conversion. Those who are suspicious of it point to statements Romney made as recent as 2002 wherein he expressly said he respected and would protect a woman's right to choose an abortion.

Supporters of Romney say that his past statements should not be held against him, and that it should be noted that Ronald Reagan, when he was the governor of California in the late '60's, did more to advance abortion rights than Romney has ever done as an elected official. (Reagan had signed a bill which effectively decriminalized abortion in California. It has been reported that Reagan deeply regretted doing this one year later after learning of the large number of abortions that had been performed).

I, myself, tend to fall into the camp that finds Romney's newfound pro-life position to be suspicious. Not so much because his shift is a 180 from the position he held as late as 2002, although it's certainly significant, but mostly because I haven't heard or seen Romney say or suggest that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. (It is well worth noting that in a 2002 Planned Parenthood questionnaire, Romney indicated affirmative support for the substance of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling). Until he says Roe v. Wade is bad case law, I really don't think Romney's new position on abortion can be taken all that seriously.

Theological Query Re: Torture

If, as some would argue, torture is held to be intrinsically immoral by the Church, why then doesn't the Church condemn Christ for willingly participating in the manner by which His Passion occurred? Christ, after all, had foreknowledge that He would be brutally tortured, and could have easily escaped.

Interesting Questions to Ponder

There is little question that for the most part, Rudy Giuliani is a liberal on several significant social issues like legalized abortion. On that basis alone, social conservatives in the Republican Party, such as myself, would normally not have a reason to support Giuliani's yet to be announced candidacy for President.

But here's the thing. Important issues like abortion have pretty much been out of the hands of our publicly elected officials since 1973. Sure, there are some things our legislatures can and should do to curb the frequency of abortion, but the bottom line fact is they can't outright ban it because abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court to be a constitutionally protected right.

It therefore stands to reason that until the Supreme Court reverses itself in rulings like Roe v. Wade, whether a candidate for President is pro-life just may not be that important; at least in the short term. Indeed, what might actually be a more appropriate gauge for pro-lifers and social conservatives in evaluating a presidential candidate for 2008 is the kind of judges that candidate would appoint to the Federal courts. On that, Ed Morrissey from Captain's Quarters provides information which strongly suggests that if Rudy Giuliani were elected President, he would appoint Federal judges who are in the mold of Justices Scalia, Alito and Roberts (why Justice Thomas was not mentioned is a bit curious)and presumptively in favor of reversing cases like Roe.

On the Federal judiciary I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am. I'm a lawyer. I've argued cases in the Supreme Court. I've argued cases in the Court of Appeals in different parts of the country. I have a very, very strong view that for this country to work, for our freedoms to be protected, judges have to interpret not invent the Constitution. Otherwise you end up, when judges invent the constitution, with your liberties being hurt. Because legislatures get to make those decisions and the legislature in South Carolina might make that decision one way and the legislature in California a different one. And that's part of our freedom and when that's taken away from you that's terrible.

Is this enough for pro-life advocates and other social conservatives to support a probable Giuliani candidacy for President? Would it make a difference that several polls show Giuliani as the only nationally known Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head match? Frankly, these are questions that I myself will have to work through.

No Faith League

In the name of protecting its' god, Ratings, the NFL invokes an FCC rule and bullies several churches into shutting down planned Super Bowl parties.

Under NFL guidelines — and federal law — churches, schools and other public venues can hold football-viewing parties only if they use a single, living-room-size TV, no bigger than 55 inches. When they project the game onto 12-foot screens or set up banks of TVs, they cross the line, according to NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy.

Jumbo screens "have the potential to draw thousands of people, and if we had that going on across the country, it would eventually erode the television ratings," McCarthy said.

Poor NFL. It must really be hurting for ratings and having a hard time attracting advertisers.

What a Language Can Tell Us

In Mandarin Chinese, the words for "Catholic Church" are "Tian Zhu Jiao." Literally translated into English, these words mean master, or primary, religion of Heaven.

The words for "Protestant" in Mandarin Chinese are "Xin Jiao." Literally translated into English, these words mean new religion.

Kind of interesting, eh? Especially considering that the Chinese language and culture predate Christianity.

Paleo-Con Bush Derangement Syndrome

So the American Enterprise Institute, a private "neo-conservative" think tank, makes a public offer to compensate scientists who will refute the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, and that is viewed by some as a nefariously orchestrated "bribe" by the Bush Administration.

Give me a break. If you want to criticize AEI for actively soliciting scientific studies/reports that have a specific result to them, fine. But to suggest that the Bush Administration is behind this without a shred of credible proof is illustrative of a disturbed mind.

Thomist Schwag

Along with the appropriate wine, what better way to introduce most people to possibly the greatest philosopher and theologian in world history?