Curses! Foiled again.

With great excitement we set up last night to tape the return of Foyle's War to Mystery! on PBS. But alas! The girls having unplugged our VCR earlier in the week (and thus reset the clock) we didn't get it. Sigh... Now one must wait two weeks for the repeat on KLRU2.

In other news, we braved the rain yesterday to go downtown and attend the noon mass at Saint Mary's Cathedral here in Austin. Arriving damp and slightly late, we had to stand in the vestibule through mass, and the monkeys here simply terribly behaved. Very beautiful mass, though, with organ, incense and the works. The church was packed to overflowing and with a pretty good showing of young families and UT students. We'll have to go again some time and make sure we get there earlier enough to make it into a pew.

One of the great things about the Austin cathedral is that it's actually been subject to a restoration that left it looking far better than it did before. You can see a few pictures at their website: www.saintmaryscathedral.org

I had a ladle spill chequer...

Now, my spelling has never been great, though it's got better over the years. But can I just say that it's profoundly unhelpful of Blogger's built in spell checker to implement its incipient German sensibilities by combining phrases together into single compound words like "bunchvaguelyelly"? Now, I suppose bunchvaguelyelly has a certain evocative sound to it, but I'd prefer to be creative on my own rather than with computer assistance.

I suppose I should stop cheating and do my own proofreading...

St. Paul & The Spirit of Vatican II

I've been meaning all week to discuss last Sunday's second reading from Paul's letter to the Romans:

Brothers and sisters:Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another;for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery;you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be,are summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no evil to the neighbor;hence, love is the fulfillment of the law. (Rom 13:8-10)

Now, as I held a squirming toddler in the vestibule last Sunday and listened to this reading, I had fresh in my mind some recent debates about the worth, or lack thereof, of Vatican II. (More on those later.) And it struck me: In a way this passage has all the same problems that I often hear people complain about in Vatican II.

What Paul is doing here is taking a bunch of prohibitions and turning them into a positive command. Don't think that you just need to not steal, not kill, not covet, not commit adultery. All of these are partial ways of saying, "Love one another, for each human being is a unique and valued creature of the Lord your God." And so Paul seeks to innoculate us against our pharisaic sides by saying, "Don't focus on what you don't do, focus on what you must do."

One of the glosses of Vatican II that I've read which really rings true to me is that in a mood of profound optimism, the council fathers essentially sought to say: "Children, you have shown by your obedience to the law that you truly love God and wish to make yourselves pleasing to him. Thus, we would like to draw your eyes away from the law a bit encouragerage you to enter a more mature form of spirituality, not merely to 'do not' but to 'do'."

Now, I think they were right at a very deep level, in that to be spiritual adults we must not merely obey God's commands and the Church's disciplines but grow to have an understanding and love for God that is active in the world. But the danger is, if you say, "Let's stop emphasizing the letter of the law so heavily and start thinking about the spirit of the law" and your audience really was only up to understanding the letter of the law, their response will be "Oh goody! We don't have to follow that law any more."

And I think, honestly, that this is much of what happened with the chaos that Vatican II ushered in. The council fathers were right to think that many of the laity (and indeed the clergy) were on autopilot, going through motions and following laws that they didn't understand very well. The problem is, many of these people were so stuck on the motions and the laws, that all they heard from the council was "You don't have to worry about those laws so much anymore."

For instance, think of the Friday fast. This had, for many Catholics, simply become an identity exercise. So when the bishops advised people that instead of abstaining from meat on Fridays they could, if they so chose, substitute another act of penance or charity to be performed on Friday's in commemoration of Christ's death what happened? People didn't hear the "substitute another penance or charity" part of the equation, they just heard the "you don't have to abstain from meat" part. So now even most church attending Catholics do no particular Friday penance.

It's easy to say, as many do, "Vatican II just produced a bunch of vaguely worded 'pastoral' guidance that destroyed the solid old church." But given the way the practice of Catholicism fell apart so quickly in many areas, there must have been something wrong in the first place. Furthermore, we find Christ and the apostles themselves often making these kinds of "vague" pastoral statements. After all, how much have we seen statement's like the above passage from Romans abused by those who object to traditional Christian morality. "Christ told us the greatest command is to love one another, so how can we say that it's wrong for two men to love one another." What these people forget is that Jesus (and Paul in the passage above) is not saying that people do not need to obey the law, rather he is explaining to them why they must obey the law. The commands such as "do no kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery" are the training wheels: they help us form a proper understanding of what "to love" is. You cannot throw someone with an unformed conscience out into the deep by saying "Just love everyone and you'll be fine." Before someone can get by with only the command "love one another" he must first have a firm idea of why having relations with his neighbors wife could never be an example of "loving".

Without question the implementation of Vatican II in many places was deeply deficient, but at root the documents of Vatican II did us no greater disservice than Christ himself: they gave us not only the precise, training wheel-style moral instructions, but also the general principles on which they are based. And like Christ's words, Vatican II's more general statements have been twisted by those who object to it's specific teachings, in order to turn it back as a weapon against itself.

Mean Girls

We did watch Mean Girls last night, which turned out to be mostly a blast. I think, though, that Tina Fey (the writer) has never actually met any homeschoolers. Most homeschooled kids are as likeable and charming as Lindsay Lohan at the beginning (though not everyone has that body at 16 -- I myself didn't look like that 'til I was 17...).

We watched the special features at the end, however, and I took a nasty delight in noticing that in the documentary footage the actresses didn't look as perfect and svelte as in the edited movie. This may be the pregnancy pudge talking, though.

Mr. Orkin-man

Rejoice with us, o my friends: the Orkin man is coming this morning to wreak vengance on the colony of ants living in our carpet. (This is what happens a few months after two small girls grind an entire bag of brown sugar into the carpet.) The pestilence endeth!

(Or it had better, because we're not quite ready to put hardwood in the living room just yet, especially after the emergency tiling job in our bathroom because our idiot builder years ago put carpet by our bathtub and two small girls dumped water on it and it wouldn't dry out...)

Hurricane Wrap-Up

So after initially saying I wasn't in a position to say much about the hurricane, I guess I've said a fair amount... Here's my last go 'round.

Two articles caught my eye yesterday, both linked to by the Corner.

One is about FEMA insanity sending highly trained fire fighters to sensitivity training for eight hours before deploying them, and then only asking them to hand out information to help people contact the FEMA response line:

In a document that went out from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the agency asked for firefighters with very specific skills and who were capable of working in austere conditions. When they got to a center in Atlanta, they found out their jobs would be public relations.

"Our job was to advertise a phone number for FEMA," said Portage Assistant Fire Chief Bill Lundy. "We were going to be given shirts and hats with a phone number on it and flyers, and sent to shelters, and we were going to pass out flyers."

Lundy and Calhoun said they don't want to bash FEMA or its mission, Rogers reported. They said they only want to help, and that there were plenty of other firefighters in the room who felt the same way.

"There was almost a fight," said Portage Assistant Fire Chief Joe Calhoun. "There was probably 700 firefighters sitting in the room getting this training, and it dawned on them what we were going to be doing. And then it got bad from there."

Lundy and Calhoun's first task was an eight-hour course on sexual harassment and equal opportunity employment procedures, Rogers reported. Neither firefighter would be involved in technical rescues of trapped people or any of their other specialties.

The other is from the Washington Post, about how Louisiana receives far more Army Corps of Engineers money for civil works than any other state in the union (California comes in second with 1.5billion to Louisiana's 1.9billion) but much of that money was diverted to local pork barrel projects by the congressional delegation:

Much of that Louisiana money was spent to try to keep low-lying New Orleans dry. But hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to unrelated water projects demanded by the state's congressional delegation and approved by the Corps, often after economic analyses that turned out to be inaccurate. Despite a series of independent investigations criticizing Army Corps construction projects as wasteful pork-barrel spending, Louisiana's representatives have kept bringing home the bacon.

For example, after a $194 million deepening project for the Port of Iberia flunked a Corps cost-benefit analysis, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) tucked language into an emergency Iraq spending bill ordering the agency to redo its calculations. The Corps also spends tens of millions of dollars a year dredging little-used waterways such as the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, the Atchafalaya River and the Red River -- now known as the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, in honor of the project's congressional godfather -- for barge traffic that is less than forecast.

The Industrial Canal lock is one of the agency's most controversial projects, sued by residents of a New Orleans low-income black neighborhood and cited by an alliance of environmentalists and taxpayer advocates as the fifth-worst current Corps boondoggle. In 1998, the Corps justified its plan to build a new lock -- rather than fix the old lock for a tiny fraction of the cost -- by predicting huge increases in use by barges traveling between the Port of New Orleans and the Mississippi River.

In fact, barge traffic on the canal had been plummeting since 1994, but the Corps left that data out of its study. And barges have continued to avoid the canal since the study was finished, even though they are visiting the port in increased numbers.

Pam Dashiell, president of the Holy Cross Neighborhood Association, remembers holding a protest against the lock four years ago -- right where the levee broke Aug. 30. Now she's holed up with her family in a St. Louis hotel, and her neighborhood is underwater. "Our politicians never cared half as much about protecting us as they cared about pork," Dashiell said.

Now, when Jonah posted the FEMA story to the Corner with the comment "Your government at work..." Rod Dreher (always good for a critical response) demanded, "And exactly who has been responsible for that branch of the government since January 20th, 2001?" This pretty clearly is also the kind of thinking Mark Shea has had going on at some length since his return to blogging earlier this week.

Now, as any reader here could attest I'm certainly one for looking at the politics of a situation. However, one of the things that has struck me in relation to a number of different issues lately (responses to the hurricane, the situation in Iraq, the governing of the Catholic Church especially in dealing with the recent abuse scandals, etc.) is that most people seem to have a very simplistic idea of how authority works in an institution. When the diocese of San Francisco made a court filing using the phrase "engaging in unprotected sex" in regards to a paternity suit against a Redemptorist priest, lots of people immediately started talking about "Archbishop Levada telling women to use birth control". This isn't just a defense of people I like either. Remember all the accusations that went around about "Clinton ordered this" and "Clinton was responsible for that" back during his administration?

Maybe I'm being overly forgiving here, but even in the moderately well run large organizations that I've been a part of, there is a lot that goes on under the authority of a leader that has nothing to do with his actual wishes. E.g. the VP of a division says "We need to cut operating expenses" and next thing you know some mid level manager is saying, "Based on the VP's instructions, you must now fill out this form and get approval before buying new staples."

I'm a big fan of some of the WW2 era British authors like Evelyn Waugh and Anthony Powell. Now, like many others, I'm a big admirer of Churchill, but read any account of what it was like to live in Brittain during the war years or serve in the army and you realize what how much money, energy, time and sometimes even lives were put into totally idiotic things. The opening chapters of Brideshead Revisitted (and just as much so Nick Jenkins' experiences in the war years of Dance to the Music of Time) deal with the absolutely soul numbing pretenses that made up much of army life.

I'm not sure exactly what to draw from all this beyond "humans have an amazing capacity to muck things up" but I think there's always a balance to be looked for in judging the performance of high level leadership. One wants to see some sort of administrative sanity enforced all the way down from the top to the bottom, but it seems that even among great leaders, when you're dealing with a huge organization like a government, the best you can often hope for is a good overall direction and perhaps the appointment of a few good upper to mid level subordinates. Then the Kenneth Widmerpools of the world take over, and whether anything else functional befalls us is very much in question.

Life in Darwin-land

The monkeys have decided that they enjoy Shakespeare -- or, more accurately, Kenneth Branagh's version of Much Ado About Nothing. They call it the "horses taking a bath" movie, in reference to the opening scenes where Don Pedro's men ride up on horses and everyone takes a bath in preparation for the formal meeting. Does this count as high culture at an early age? Can I brag about it at parties?

Babs has just turned two -- a noble age, to be sure, and now she's all grown up. When I was speaking with Noogs about the coming birthday last week, she said, "No! She will not be two. I will be three again, and have a cake and presents and a balloon." Birthday envy, anyone?

Darwin and I watched a stupid movie last night -- so stupid, in fact, that I won't disclose the title here (it was one of those impulse rentals that didn't pan out after all). It contained a preview for a movie entitled "Drunken Jackasses: The Quest". I leave it to your imagination to puzzle out what kind of a quest drunken jackasses would be on in Cabo San Lucas with five friends, four days, three nights, two dwarves, and one virgin. If anyone has any recommendations for "blowing off steam" movies that don't require much mental effort yet do not have previews for "Drunken Jackasses", please pass them along. We hope to have better luck tonight with "Mean Girls".

Jambalaya, y'all

Mrs. Darwin thinking about food here -- I do that a lot lately...

Been reading a Creole cookbook my mother picked up on a trip to New Orleans in 1991 (I know that because on the inside cover it says "New Orleans trip 1991). This cookbook, which I have used and valued for many years, is La Bouche Creole by the late Leon Soniat, who wrote a food column in the Times-Picayune. This is true Creole cooking at its finest, and of course all my recipes are seasoned by memories of my mother's own twists. (She's a native of Baton Rouge.)

Here's what we're eating tonight: Sausage Jambalaya. I confess that I never follow a recipe exactly, often because I don't have exactly the ingredients called for (tricky when trying to make something out of Cook's Illustrated). However, the basic premise of jambalaya is hard to mess up -- just good stuff and rice. Here's the recipe (and reflections) as M'sieu Soniat gives it.

One thing the Cajuns should be praised for is the way they have developed the art of sausage making. Once you have tasted andouille, chaurice, boudin rouge, boudin blanc, or saucisse boucaner, you've got to go back for more, and I've named but a few. Both the Creoles and the Cajuns used these delicious sausages in soups, vegetable dishes, in gumbos, and of course served by themselves.

One of the favorite uses is in a jambalaya. Here is an easy, quick way to whip up a tasty Sausage Jambalaya.

You will need about a pound or a pound and a quarter of chaurice, smoked sausage, or andouille. Slice the sausage into small pieces, then brown in a deep frying pan or Dutch oven. Take the meat out and put into the same fat, 2 large onions, chopped, 1/2 cup finely chopped celery, and one chopped bell pepper. Saute until tender. Mix in thoroughly 1 large can tomatoes. Add 2 bay leaves, 1/2 teaspoon basil, 1/2 teaspoon thyme, 1/2 teaspoon chili powder, and 4 toes chopped garlic. Mix well and add 1 10 1/2-oz. can of been consomme and 2 cans of water. Let simmer for about 40 minutes.

Put the sausage back, and add salt, black pepper, and Tabasco to taste. Add 2 cups raw rice. Put a cover on and allow the mixture to cook slowly, stirring occasionally. As the rice begins to absorb the mixture, the jambalaya might get too dry. If so, add a little more water. Cook until the rice is tender.

Just before serving, stir into the jambalaya 1/2 cup finely chopped shallots and 2 tablespoons minced parsley. Let set for 10 minutes, then serve with a big chunk of French bread and butter. Serves four to six.

1 or 1 1/4 lbs. chaurice, smoked sausage, or andouille
2 large onions, chopped
1/2 cup finely chopped celery
1 bell pepper, chopped
1 large can tomatoes
2 bay leaves
1/2 tsp. basil
1/2 tsp. thyme
1/2 tsp. chili powder
4 toes garlic, chopped
1 can beef consomme
2 cans water (instead of consomme and water, I use 4 cups chicken broth)
salt, black pepper, and Tabasco to taste
2 cups raw rice
1/2 cup finely chopped shallots (green onions -- I use the whole green onion, not just the white bit)
2 tbsp. minced parsley

That's how many of the recipes in the book work -- a story, seguing into cooking instructions, and at the end the ingredients list. Charming, n'est pas? Hope y'all like this jambalaya -- we've just finished ours, and it was tres bien.

Dead Men Tell No Tales?

The Anchoress has a very good post up about the latest Katrina related flap: Those who feel that Bush is primarily at fault for the destruction are upset that the Feds have been trying to keep reporters from running around photographing dead bodies. (Reader be warned, the Anchoress does show such a photo as part of her post.)

There's a balance to be struck on these sorts of things. Without question, there's a need to know how bad things are in the world. But it's not a front page need. And with everyone yapping right now trying to figure out who is "to blame", I don't think that quiet contemplation of the depth of human mortality and tragedy is what most of those demanding pictures had in mind.

Similar questions were being asked after 9/11 about whether it was appropriate to be showing bodies; whether it was appropriate to show the planes hitting the buildings; whether it was appropriate to show the buildings falling. Answer (IMHO): In the first case, probably not. In the second two, acceptable, but keep it to a minimum. On the one hand I think that people do need to remember what we're facing with the threat of radical Islam terrorism. On the other hand, we don't want anything that resembles a "five minutes of hate" ala 1984. So while I think people need to remember the reality (in the case of both 9/11 and Katrina) I can't help feeling that those who are over-excited to see images of destruction (whether it's Bill O'Rielly pushing for the former or Andrew Sullivan pushing for the latter) are up to something.

Random Yet Designed

Scott Carson over at An Examine Life has an excellent post from a while back about how evolutionary biologists talking about "undirected evolution" and ID theorists talking about "design" are in fact discussing different and not necessarily contradictory things. It's a distinction that takes a little while to make clearly, and he does it better than I have to date.

Looks like a great blog, though of course I'm biased since he appears to have been so kind as to blogroll us...

Wal-Mart Gets it Right

Dilys over at Good and Happy links to a WaPo story about Wal-Mart's relief efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Some selections:

At 8 a.m. on Wednesday, as New Orleans filled with water, Wal-Mart chief executive H. Lee Scott Jr. called an emergency meeting of his top lieutenants and warned them he did not want a "measured response" to the hurricane.

"I want us to respond in a way appropriate to our size and the impact we can have," he said, according to an executive who attended the meeting. At the time, Wal-Mart had pledged $2 million to the relief efforts. "Should it be $10 million?" Scott asked.

Over the next few days, Wal-Mart's response to Katrina -- an unrivaled $20 million in cash donations, 1,500 truckloads of free merchandise, food for 100,000 meals and the promise of a job for every one of its displaced workers -- has turned the chain into an unexpected lifeline for much of the Southeast and earned it near-universal praise at a time when the company is struggling to burnish its image....

...Clinton, who is leading a hurricane relief fundraising effort with Bush, said he hoped Wal-Mart's plan to allow relocating employees to take jobs at Wal-Marts across the country "will give some guidance to our members of Congress."....

...The Bentonville, Ark., company is rushing to set up mini-Wal-Marts in storm-ravaged areas, handing out clothing, diapers, baby wipes, toothbrushes and food. With police escorts, it delivered two truckloads of ice and water into New Orleans. It is shipping 150 Internet-ready computers to shelters caring for evacuees....

...Asked what motivated the chain's relief efforts and how he thought critics would respond, Scott said: "We have never claimed to be flawless. But on the other hand, we have always demanded that we as a company do care. If anything, this week has shown we do care."

He said: "We can't do any more than our own part. We are not the federal government. There is a portion we can do, and we can do it darn well."

As Katrina's winds were still dying down last week, preparations at the Brookhaven distribution center ensured that goods desperately needed by ravaged sections of the Gulf Coast started appearing on Wal-Mart shelves.

At the nearby gas station that had set up a special line for Wal-Mart workers, the general manager of the distribution center, Brent Hinton, pumped gas for nearly seven hours to keep up employee morale.

In my personal shopping preferences, I'm not necessarily a Wal-Mart fan. But this is an incredible example of a company doing what private enterprise, at its best, can do well. While there are those who certainly haven't covered themselves in glory, Wal-Mart and Lt. General Honore ought to be recognized as two of the heros of the Katrina aftermath.

Religion Statistics

There's kind of an assorted mish-mash of info drawn from two large phone surveys about religious practice over at religioustolerance.org. "The Graduate Center conducted a National Survey of Religious Identification (NSRI) in 1990. It questioned 113,723 individuals about how they viewed themselves religiously. A similar American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) was conducted in 2001-FEB to APR. The latter included telephone interviews of 50,281 persons who were 18 years of age or older."

Now, just as a note of caution, the fact that their sources have been trying to use the 1990 and 2001 survey to guage growth is problematic given that these were separate surveys with different questions conductioned by different organizations with different methodologies. To make more definative statements about how religous practice and belief have increased or decreased, you'd want the same organization to ask the same questions. (Perhaps even more interesting would be to actually follow up ten years later with a large sample group and see how that paricular sample group has changed over the years.)

There are also some topics the authors seem over-interested in. For example, although Wicca is growing fast on a percentage basis, that's just because the difference between zero and any positive number is an infinite percentage growth. There were so incredibly few Wiccans in 1990 (about 8000 nationally according to the NSRI study) that their percentage growth doesn't actually say anything about their longer term viability as a belief system.

However, after all those qualifications, there are some interesting things to be found here.

On conversions:

The ARIS survey asked the subjects whether they had changed their religious identification during their lifetime. Some results:

• About 16% of adults have changed their identification.


• For the largest group, the change was abandoning all religion.


• Baptists picked up the largest number of any religion: 4.4 million. But they also lost 4.6 million.


• Roman Catholics lost the greatest number, 9.5 million. However, they also picked up 4.3 million.

The pollsters commented: "Some groups such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses appear to attract a large number of converts (in-switchers), but also nearly as large a number of apostates (out-switchers). It is also interesting to note that Buddhists also fall into this category of what one might call high-turnover religious groups."

Retaining Youth:

It is common for young adults to drift away from the faith group of their youth. Some never return. The large liberal and mainline Christian denominations seem to lose large numbers in this way. Only between 10 and 12% of those identifying with the Congregational, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, and United Church denominations are between the ages of 18 and 29. Islam and Buddhism appear to fare the best in this area; 56 and 58% of persons identifying with these religions are in this age group.

Gender Differences:

The ratio of females to males who identify with different faith groups varies over a wide ratio. Only 38 or 39% of Seventh-Day Adventists, Buddhists, and Muslims are women; 55% or more of the persons identifying with the Episcopalian, Methodist, Pentecostal, or Presbyterian denominations are female.

And, or course, Political Affiliation:

Adults identifying with a specific faith group are almost evenly split among Republicans, Democrats and Independents. But those who do not identify with a religion are 43% Independent, 39% Democrat, and 17% Republican.

59% of Assemblies of God followers prefer the Republican party; only 13% of religious Jews and 9% of Buddhists agree. 56% of Jews prefer the Democratic party; only 14% of Mormons and 12% of those who identify themselves simply a Evangelical or Born-again agree.

Oedipus the King (of the road)

Courtesy of my brother, the story of Oedipus Rex, told through license plates! Who sits around and comes up with this stuff? Dunno, but I was snickering through the whole piece.

ONCEPON ATIME LONG AGO IN THEBES IMKING. OEDIPUS DAKING.
LVMYMRS. LVMYKIDS. THEBENS THINK OEDDY ISCOOL. NOPROBS.
OKAY MAYBE THEREZZ 1LITL1. MOTHER WHERERU? WHEREAT MYDAD?
NOCALLZ NEVER. HAVENOT ACLUE. INMYMIND IWNDER WHOAMI? IMUST
FINDEM.
JO MYWIFE GOES, "OED DONT USEE? WERHAPI NOW LETITB." IGO
"NOWAY. IAMBOSS. DONTU TELLME MYLIFE. INEED MYMOM. II WILLL
FINDHER. FIND BOTHOF THEM."
SOI START SEEKING DATRUTH ABOUT WHO IAM. ITGOEZ ULTRAAA
SLOWE. THE SPHYNXS RIDDLE WAS ACINCH BUT NOTTHIZ.
SUDNLEE WEHEAR SHOCKING NEWS. WHEN IWASA TINY1 THISGR8
4SEER SED IWOOD OFF MY ROYAL OLDMAN THEN MARREE MYMAMA. SICKO
RUBBISH, NESTPAS? WHOWHO COULDBE SOGONE? STIL MOMNDAD SENT
MEEEEE AWAY. MEE ABABI AWAAAY.
NOWWWWW GETTHIZ. MANY MOONS GOBY. IMEET THISGUY ONATRIP.
WEDOO RUMBLE. WHOKNEW? ILEFTMY POP ONE DEDMAN.
UGET DAFOTO. MAJR TSURIS. JOJO MYHONEE, MYSQEEZ, MYLAMBY,
MIAMOR, MYCUTEE. JOJOY IZZ MYMOMMY.
YEGODS WHYMEE? YMEYYME? LIFSUX. IAMBAD, IAMBADD, IMSOBAD.
STOPNOW THIS HEDAKE. THIS FLESH DUZ STINK. ITZ 2MUCH PAYNE 4ONE2C.
TAKEGOD MYEYES! AIEEEEE!

GUDSTUF. THANX BRO.

Right to Work

In time for Labor Day, Bonfire of the Vanities has a thoughtful post about the National Right to Work Committee, for which he worked for a time.

Often, a "Catholic" argument against Right to Work is that you have balance various goods--the good of individual workers in relation to the good of the group.

Accepting that approach for sake of argument, that would be an argument, I think, for the situation that obtains in 22 Right to Work states: unions keep their monopoly-bargaining privileges, with no-forced-dues as a corrective. Unions aren't non-existent in Right to Work states; but they are more accountable. But if you're going to commend a more pragmatic, rather than idealistic, approach, then I fail to see how that can't allow someone to embrace Right to Work on the same, pragmatic basis.

The argument is given that Right to Work will kill unions, or at least neuter them. Whether that be so is beside the point: that's just another way of saying, workers should be pressed into union affiliation because it's good for them or good for society.

The solidarity argument is a more credible one: the idea being that individual workers have some responsibility to stand in solidarity with their fellow workers. That is, indisputably, Catholic teaching.

But does it mean, for example, that one must go on strike? Or might one say, either, I disagree with this strike, in substance or in conduct; or, I have to feed my family, I must continue to work.

I invite anyone to show where the Church has ever said that a worker isn't responsible for making precisely such a choice. Likewise, a worker has the responsibility -- this is clear from papal teachings -- to discern whether the union is worthy of his affiliation. Leo XIII made this point directly: workers, you may not join the wrong sorts of unions!

The "Childfree" Lifestyle

Southern Baptist Albert Mohler wrote an opinion piece in the Louisville Courier-Journal a couple weeks ago editorializing against couples who deliberately choose to remain "child free". The language is in places very Protestant in style, but it's an interesting read. The following are excepts, but it's worth reading the whole thing.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Joe and Deb Schum of Atlanta aren't worried about baby proofing their house or buying a car seat. As a matter of fact, the couple doesn't ever intend to have children, and they are proud of their childlessness. According to the newspaper's report, "the Schums are part of a growing number of couples across the country for whom kids don't factor in the marriage equation."

The paper also pointed to the fact that the nation's birthrate fell last year to an historic low of 66.9 births per 1,000 women age 15-44. That represents a decline of 43 percent since just 1960. "Many childless couples," according to the report, "revel in their decision, despite badgering from baffled mothers and friends. Others struggle with the choice before keeping the house kid-free." ...

Christians must recognize that this rebellion against parenthood represents nothing less than an absolute revolt against God's design. The Scripture points to barrenness as a great curse and children as a divine gift. The Psalmist declared: "Behold, children are a gift of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one's youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; they will not be ashamed when they speak with their enemies in the gate." [Psalm 127: 3-5]

Morally speaking, the epidemic in this regard has nothing to do with those married couples who desire children but are for any reason unable to have them, but in those who are fully capable of having children but reject this intrusion in their lifestyle....

The Scripture does not even envision married couples who choose not to have children. The shocking reality is that some Christians have bought into this lifestyle and claim childlessness as a legitimate option. The rise of modern contraceptives has made this technologically possible. But the fact remains that though childlessness may be made possible by the contraceptive revolution, it remains a form of rebellion against God's design and order....

The church should insist that the biblical formula calls for adulthood to mean marriage and marriage to mean children. This reminds us of our responsibility to raise boys to be husbands and fathers and girls to be wives and mothers. God's glory is seen in this, for the family is a critical arena where the glory of God is either displayed or denied. It is just as simple as that.

The church must help this society regain its sanity on the gift of children. Willful barrenness and chosen childlessness must be named as moral rebellion. To demand that marriage means sex -- but not children -- is to defraud the creator of His joy and pleasure in seeing the saints raising His children. That is just the way it is. No kidding.

Now, the big point of difference I'd have with this fellow (and I think this is probably the Catholic/Protestant difference) is in his thinking that all adults should marry and be parents. Beyond the obvious example of priests and religious, the Church sees the non-consecrated single life as a legitimate vocation.

I think one factor (though honestly probably a minor one) in our society's problems in thinking about marriage and its relation to childbearing is that when you assume that absolutely everyone should be married, yet concede that some people are simply not (by inclination or temperment) cut out to be parents, you end up backing into the view that some people are meant to be married but intentionally not have kids.

William Rehnquist, RIP

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has died. Courtesy of Bench Memos at National Review Online, here is the president's statement.

Our nation is saddened today by the news that Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed away last night. Laura and I send our respect and deepest sympathy to this good man's children, Jim, Janet, and Nancy. We send our respect to all the members of the Rehnquist family.

William H. Rehnquist was born and raised in Wisconsin. He was the grandson of Swedish immigrants. Like so many of his generation, he served in the Army during World War II. He went on to college with the help of the G.I. Bill. He studied law at Stanford University. He graduated first in his class, that included his future colleague, Sandra Day O'Connor. Judge Rehnquist, and his late wife, Nan, raised their family in Phoenix, where he built a career as one of Arizona's leading attorneys. He went on to even greater distinction in pubic service as an assistant U.S. attorney general, associate justice of the Supreme Court, and for the past 19 years, Chief Justice of the United States.

He was extremely well respected for his powerful intellect. He was respected for his deep commitment to the rule of law and his profound devotion to duty. He provided superb leadership for the federal court system, improving the delivery of justice for the American people, and earning the admiration of his colleagues throughout the judiciary.

Even during a period of illness, Chief Justice Rehnquist stayed on the job to complete the work of his final Supreme Court term. I was honored and I was deeply touched when he came to the Capitol for the swearing-in last January. He was a man of character and dedication. His departure represents a great loss for the Court and for our country.

There are now two vacancies on the Supreme Court, and it will serve the best interests of the nation to fill those vacancies promptly. I will choose in a timely manner a highly qualified nominee to succeed Chief Justice Rehnquist. As we look to the future of the Supreme Court, citizens of this nation can also look with pride and appreciation on the career of our late Chief Justice.

More than half a century has passed since William H. Rehnquist first came to the Supreme Court as a young law clerk. All of his years William Rehnquist revered the Constitution and laws of the United States. He led the judicial branch of government with tremendous wisdom and skill. He honored America with a lifetime of service, and America will honor his memory.

May God bless the Rehnquist family. Thank you all very much.

Now we have two empty Supreme Court seats, one of which is the Chief Justice's. Get ready for mud to fly, whoever is nominated! And God rest the soul of this good man.

Marriage Demographics & Fertility

It's been a really busy couple weeks at work, but I ran across an interesting article and some stats I'd like to take a closer look at:

I found this brief essay on historical demography on the MIT website. It's interesting in that it both dispels some common myths about how pre-birth control societies worked at a demographics level, and also gives us some insight into NFP, natural law, and fertility.

Since Malthus wrote about the dangers of population growth back in 1798, it's been one of the standard enlightenment myths that back in the "bad old days" people bred like rabbits until there wasn't enough food to go around and then were cut back by plagues and famines. (They also, if 1980s movies can be believed, never took baths...) The only other alternative, Malthus imagined, would be to encourage the lower classes not to breed, or else practice infanticide.

However, as the MIT essay discusses, when people went back and starting doing studies of parish registries from medieval and renaissance Europe, it became clear that this was by no means the case. Instead, what we find is that people based their decision to marry upon economic circumstances.

This should hardly be surprising, given that people living before 1800 were generally no dumber than people born afterwards, and before the advent of artificial birth control, people understood very clearly the connection between sex and childbirth.

Thus, in western European societies where the oldest son inherited, oldest sons were much more likely to marry than younger sons. And people married later or earlier based upon their ability to support a family. During much of European history men married at 26-29 and women at 23-25, while 20-30% of the adult population never married. (Among the more affluent class, women tended to marry much earlier, though men still often did not marry till their late 20s or even early thirties.)

In the period leading up to the industrial revolution (throughout the 1700s and early 1800s) marriage ages began to fall until men were often marrying in their early twenties and women were marrying in their late teens. Much of this was a result of the rapidly increasing productivity and relative prosperity resulting from the agricultural innovations of the 1700s.

Settlers in the Americas tended to marry even earlier, and the percentage of the population that married was much higher, perhaps to a great extent because there were more available resources for an able bodied young family to go out and support themselves.

Moving into the 20th century, the trend of more and more of the population marrying (and doing so younger and younger) increased up until the 1960s, when the percentage of never married adults began to increase again.

This table shows the number of never married adults as a percentage of the total adult population from 1900 through 2003. The percentage of never married adults declines dramatically from 40% in 1900 to 23% in 1960. Some of this is the result of declining age at first marriage. Age at first marriage declined from 26 to 23 for men and 22 to 20 for women between 1900 and 1960. The effect of this downward trend in marriage age would have been exaggerated by the fact that the average lifespan in 1900 was shorter than in 1960, and so a greater percentage of adults were under 25 in 1900 than in 1960. However, this can't account for all of the change. Significantly more people either married very late or did not marry at all in 1900.

While some of this may have been by personal preference, it seems likely that most of the difference was the result of adults deciding that they could not afford to have a family.

Since 1960 the percentage of never married adults has risen back up to about 30%. This is a result of both a rising age at first marriage (now 27 for men and 25 for women) and more people never marrying. However, the choice never to marry is now often a lifestyle rather than an economic choice, and the rate of sexual activity among the unmarried and never married has skyrocketed since 1960.

On the one hand, it seems very much a good thing that modern economic circumstances have made marriage possible for nearly anyone who wants to marry and can find a suitable partner. On the down side, the advent of artificial birth control seems to have increasingly separated the linkage of marriage and childbirth in people's minds. While once upon a time people who could not afford to have children did not get married, it is now quite common to marry first and then decide when it is affordable to have children. Since a two income married family without children provides both the savings of communal living and unprecedented income potential, married childless couples often face a significant economic sacrifice when choosing to have children. Thus, for those not ideologically or emotionally motivated to begin childbearing, childless marriage is increasingly becoming the preferred option.

Blog for you

Thanks to Flos Carmeli for a mention! Interested in Carmelite spirituality, the arts, and contemplation? Then check him out, and leave a comment. You may recall that I linked to an interesting post of his few weeks back on Miss Marple.

Poor Planning

Haven't the time and knowledge to do much hurricane blogging, but I noticed this on the AP site. Given the thousands of people trapped at the SuperDome and Convention Center, it makes you wonder a bit...

The caption:

An aerial view of flooded school buses in a lot, Thursday, Sept. 1, 2005, in New Orleans, LA. The flood is a result of Hurricane Katrina that passed through the area last Monday.(AP Photo/Phil Coale)

There are over 200 large school busses sitting in that lot, which if they'd been got to a staging area above water before hand could be ferrying a good 10,000 people per trip out of the area.

Evacuations and common sense

Alrighty, I'm already bracing for accusations of "you insensitive clod" and such, but when a city issues evacuation warnings for a hurricane, and the area is already declared a federal disaster area before the hurricane strikes, doesn't it seem like you should GET OUT WHILE YOU CAN? I know already that there were many poor in the urban wards of New Orleans who have said that they had no access to transportation. God bless and protect all who are so truly without resources that they had no way to escape, and nowhere to go. But one also hears reports of those who didn't really think that the hurricane would be that bad, or who just didn't want to go, and are now being rescued from rooptops. These rescues are costing the taxpayers millions of dollars and the time and resources of trained personnel who might otherwise be deployed to stabilizing the area and getting the disaster under what control they can

The city of New Orleans issued evacuation warnings in advance of the hurricane, and according to reports 80% of the city's population did evacuate beforehand. The Superdome was designated as a shelter, and many chose to stick out the storm there -- not in the most pleasant conditions (as was expected), but lives were saved. Here's what I want to know:
1) Was transportation, either out of the city or to the Superdome, provided from the poorest areas, to those who needed it most?
2) Since warnings were issued beforehand, where were activist groups before the hurricane struck urging people from their neighborhoods and supplementing city and state agencies? Isn't an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? Next time, instead of complaining about how the poor bear the brunt of these sorts of disasters, help get them out in time!

There have been discussions on The Corner and on Amy Welborn's blog about the proper response to looting. Of course there are those who cannot otherwise obtain food and water and diapers right now, and there is much food that will spoil if not eaten quickly. But TVs? Name-brand shoes by the boxful? That's greed, and it's criminal. The police forces in New Orleans are stretched to the limit and are working under difficult and dangerous situations as it is, and there are no facilities to hold looters right now. If someone doesn't respect an officer's order to "stop and drop it", what exactly ought the officer to do to keep law and order? Everyone knows theft is a crime (and ignornance of the law is no excuse, as they say). Darwin tells me that during the riots in Los Angeles in 1992 (I think that's the year) jails were filled to capacity, and so officers would just use plastic cuffs on looters and leave them face down on the ground until someone could come pick them up. But there's several feet of water in downtown New Orleans right now, so that doesn't exactly work. I think that the quickest solution to restoring order would be to first of all provide a quick evacuation solution to get people out of the downtown area, but also to warn looters once and then shoot to kill. Law and order must be maintained if the entire area is not to descend into civil chaos.

Just my thoughts, and I'd be interested to hear what you think.