Monday, March 31, 2003

Favorite Liberals Dept. Dan Kennedy lets Maureen Down have it for her latest piece of NYT tripe:

"Maybe Dowd considers herself just a cheap entertainer at this stage of her career, but there's no excuse for this kind of disingenuousness. Rumsfeld may be in a heap of trouble (and he should be), but he clearly has not walked away from General Franks's plan."

Read more.

Thursday, March 27, 2003

Why Mark Steyn makes my day:

"In the early hours of last Thursday morning, Washington opened the war by dropping a bunker buster on a meeting of the regime's A-list psychos. Ever since, Saddam has been in reruns. Iraqi TV is dependent on generic exhortations to the masses that can be dated only by the varying amount of Grecian in the dictatorial moustache. The great leader's message to his people is: "Here's one I made earlier." With Saddam embedded into the concrete of Sub-Basement Level IV, where's the even more psychotic son, Uday? Alas, it seems that, in that opening salvo, Saddam's baby got thrown out with the Baath water."

Read more.
Just another reason why Tiger Woods has so much class:

"Our Congress and President tried hard to avoid the use of force, but ultimately decided it was the best course of action. I like the assertiveness shown by President Bush and think we owe it to our political and military leaders, along with our brave soldiers to be as supportive as possible during these difficult and trying times. I just wanted to take this opportunity to let our forces know that I am thinking about you and wishing you and your families the best."

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

Interview I did with Jeremiah Kipp at Culture Dose is now online. Kipp was great to talk to. He really knows his film and video and I appreciated his straightforward qualms about shooting in video as opposed to film.

Monday, March 24, 2003

I can't think of a conservative whose views on science I disagree with more—but on the issue of the Pope and his stance against the Iraq war, I think Tom Bethell hits the nail right on the head:

"If the Pope were to say that an attack by Western countries on Iraq would not auger well for Christians in that country, everyone would (at the least) appreciate the good sense of his position. But here, as so often in his papacy, the pope seems to subordinate the welfare the Church he presides over to the promotion of a woolly theistic humanism. It is the whole world that he is concerned with, not these merely parochial concerns. All too often, he sounds as though he would rather be, instead of Pope, a one-man United Nations, filled with caring for the material welfare of all the people in this world. Dare I suggest that he does not have his priorities straight? It is our spiritual welfare that he should be concerned about."

Read more.
Maybe it is about oil—but not the way the anti-war goons think. Read this superb piece in today's New York Post by Nicole Gelinas.
My latest piece is at Tech Central today. How digital video is changing the landscape for documentary film-makers.

Thursday, March 20, 2003

Favorite Liberals Dept. Richard Cohen in the Washington Post today:

"I don't know—and I somehow doubt—that George W. Bush spends much time ruminating on the Holocaust and pairing it with what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I do think, though, that he thinks about evil. He does so, we are told, in religious terms, and in that he is different from me. But we both come out in the same place: Evil must be confronted."

Wednesday, March 19, 2003

David Frum at National Review provides a superb summation of the racism, bigotry and hatred of America that motivates Pat Buchanan and the vaunted "paleo" conservative movement.

In the end, it does come down to this: listen to an Iraqi immigrant kicking the crap out of an airhead anti-war activist. (It's mp3 file. Via Andrew Sullivan.)

Tuesday, March 18, 2003

More Bishops acting like boobs, according to David Mills at Touchstone Magazine:

"This is beyond silly. It would not be quite so morally blind did he not forget that the Iraqi people have been asking for bread for twelve years because the tyrant who rules the country refused to keep a treaty made after he lost a war he began iwthout any justification, and today refuses to let his people have the food and medicine the embargo would allow them. To call President Bush "Pharaoh" when the name fits Hussein almost perfectly is extraordinarily dim."

Read more.


Monday, March 17, 2003

Sobering thoughts on this Saint Patrick's Day as we prepare to go to war.

Fred Hiatt at the Washington Post writes:

"Last year the U.S.-Russian "Project Vinca" succeeded in spiriting bomb-grade material out of an insecure site in Yugoslavia. But that operation required more than a year of planning and an infusion of private funds -- and there are at least 24 other such high-risk sites around the world. In Russia, little more than a third of nuclear material has been secured in cooperative U.S.-Russian programs, and tales of theft, attempted theft and sloppy protection are legion: guards who do not patrol because they have no winter uniforms, security systems shut because of unpaid electricity bills. "Weapons-grade and weapons-usable nuclear materials have been stolen from some Russian institutes," says the CIA. "We assess that undetected smuggling has occurred, although we do not know the extent or magnitude of such thefts."

A focus on Iraq may be seen as a distraction from this threat, or as one essential component of a response; in either case, it is certainly not sufficient. Yet the danger of unsecured nuclear material has not received a fraction of the official attention devoted to the Iraqi threat. And Nunn asserts that, as inadequate as the American response has been, most other nations have done far less.

Why? The authors of the report offer various explanations: bureaucratic resistance, suspicion among nations, the absence of any corporate constituency that profits substantially from such work, the mistaken belief that everything possible is being done or, alternately, that nothing useful can be done.

And then there is the most human of reasons: No one likes to think about the unthinkable."

Thursday, March 13, 2003

Guess who's blaming the Jews...again. Guess who's making a name for himself as the Father Coughlin of the 21st century.


Wednesday, March 12, 2003

More delightful anecdotes from Yankee-loving French via Rod Dreher:

"One of the most moving things I have EVER seen was my father's 60-something assistant, a wiry, austere, formal French woman, bear down on an American college student who was wearing short-shorts and listening to his boombox in one of the cemeteries in Normandie. She grabbed him by the ear and dragged his face down to one of the crosses and proceeded to explain to him that he owed more respect than that to the 23-year-old who died on a nearby beach to help liberate Western Europe (somehow, this point gets lost) from Nazi domination."

Great stuff.


Tuesday, March 11, 2003

If you want to feast on a decade's worth of film write-ups (and waste an easy hour at least), check out the New Yorker's new online Film File compendium.
On the other hand, it's good to hear that there are some Yankee lovers over there.
Paul Johnson on France:

"France is playing the peace card because it is the only one it holds. But for fragile entities like Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, France, which recently failed to impose its military will on a small West African state (the Ivory Coast), has nothing to offer. In the end, as Hobbes pointed out, covenants are useless without swords to enforce them."

Read more.

Monday, March 10, 2003

I don't normally blog on religious issues, but the scandal in Boston—and now its disturbing aftermath in the Catholic press—have raised some questions among Catholics who have never been at odds with the Church but now find themselves, as Eileen McNamara recently wrote in the Boston Globe, Still Catholic But Changed.

Last month Richard John Neuhaus wrote a long piece in First Things about his thoughts on the scandal in Boston. As a major thinker and writer in Catholic issues in this country, he has considerable influence. It's quite obvious that he's bothered by more than the church's wrongdoing. And I think he is taking exactly the wrong route in addressing it.

For the first time I find myself deeply disagreeing with him, a man for whom I have written and whose many articles and books I have read with pleasure.

George Weigel is also entering the fray along these lines: it looks like some conservative Catholics have decided there's been enough bad press, and the best thing to do is to try and change the subject of the scandals altogether.

How? By attacking liberals in the church. By attacking the media.

I'm not a liberal. I must say, at my age, I have no patience with people who want to turn the Catholic Church into the Burger King of liberal Christianity.

Having said that, I am in the media (in however humble a capacity), and I am alarmed by the apparent strategy on the part of critics like Father Neuhaus to go after doctrinally lax clergymen in print when what he and other writers need to be doing is reminding the bishops and administrators in the Church in this country that they need to operate less like corporate bankers and more like the preservers of the Gospel Jesus Christ meant them to be.

Some items that stand out in Father Neuhaus's piece:

There is no doubt that the Catholic Church has been 'singled out'; that the incidence of sexual abuse in other religious communities, in public schools, and in social services is as high, and possibly higher, than it is in the priesthood.

He provides no evidence of this whatsoever. I for one would like to see some, with references, please. But even taking Father Neuhaus's claim as true, it misses completely the cause of the scandal—not the incidents themselves so much as the corporate style cover-up by the bishops and the Cardinal. Is Father Neuhaus prepared to argue that the incidents of cover-up in the other religious communities is as high or higher as it has been shown to be in the Catholic Church in Boston? In the U.S.?

I would like to know.

He goes on, defending Cardinal Law in the worst possible fashion:

He cared passionately about the reputation of the Church, but did not understand how practices once thought judicious are now ammunition for destroying that reputation in a new world where confidentiality is condemned as secrecy and discretion as dissembling.

Practices once thought judicious? Meaning what? Hushing everyone up? Buying them off? Threatening them?

Especially odious were the attacks occasioned by the Cardinal's letters of sympathy to priests removed from ministry. Critics exploded in high dudgeon because he wrote to one priest who was apparently guilty of serial abuses that his ministry had been a blessing to 'many people.' No doubt his ministry, despite all, had been that. The repentant priest is still a brother in Christ and ontologically—as in 'a priest forever'—still a priest. The critics would not forgive the Cardinal for not being as mean-spirited as they are.

No. Pure and simple. Not even close. What appalled Catholics about those letters was the fact that there were no corresponding letters of true sympathy and assurances written to the victims or their families. Did the bad old Boston Globe just not publish those letters out of mean spiritedness?

Or is the harsh truth that neither Cardinal Law—nor any other bishop—ever wrote one? That they never really considered the sense of betrayal that must have been felt by the children and by the parents of those assaulted?

Does Father Neuhaus think it was not a good thing that these evils were exposed? Does he prefer they should have remained hidden, festering, rotting out the core of the archdiocese? That is the impression one gets from his repeated attacks on the media. Yes they did their job and it's a good thing, he seems to be saying, but at the same time aren't they all just a bunch of low bottom-feeders. Is it not clear that if the Globe hadn't done its job, however grubby, the hierarchy certainly wasn't going to?

But Father Neuhaus can't resist falling back on the age-old excuse: anti-Catholicism in the culture and the media.

Boston is a peculiar place. The Brahmins who once indisputably ran 'the hub of the universe' and still control the media have never really accepted the presence of the great unwashed of Irish and Italian immigration. Catholic politicians, prosecutors, and judges who want to ingratiate themselves with the establishment seem to vie with one another to prove themselves as anti-Catholic as their betters.

This is just risible. Boston Brahmins still control the media? At the Boston Globe, for example, where my father wrote for years, there's Renee Loth who currently runs the editorial page; Helen Donovan is the executive editor; Steve Bailey (from North Carolina I seem to recall) is the main writer on the Business page; Eileen McNamara writes on local issues, Steve Kurkjian, Walter Robinson on news—oh yes and Derek Jackson. Boston Brahmins all??

At WCVB-TV Five, where I worked for two years in promotion and local interest programming, the General manager is Paul LaCamera—a blue blood if ever there was one??

As you can see, this claim about the Boston media is just plain ridiculous. There's no other word for it. Those unwashed Irish and Italians (and Jews) now ARE the establishment. In politics and the media. Lament, if you will, that the Irish and Italians aren't as Catholic as they should be. But the puppets of Brahmins? What Brahmins? If they're not dead, they're drunk like William Weld and writing bad novels, or running museums and WGBH.

The complaint that I and many Globe readers have these days isn't that the media is controlled by Boston Wasps—it's that the Globe doesn't hire more home-grown reporters on the beat with real roots in the neighborhoods. There are too many imports from other regions in the country.

To fall back on this kind of stereotyping just smacks of desperation. Blame the media. Blame liberal Catholics. But don't stress the fundamental question of corporate corruption in the church.

As for those liberal clerics that Father Neuhaus and other conservative Catholics are upset about, the 58 liberal priests who signed that letter asking for Cardinal Law's resignation may indeed be what Father Neuhaus calls 'the usual suspects.' They may indeed have an axe to grind and may make for boring dinner-table conversation on a nightly basis. But it was Cardinal Law who gave them the opportunity to write that letter. And by the way, a large chunk of the other more traditional conservative parish priests wanted the Cardinal out as well. Just make the rounds and ask some of them.

This is what Father Neuhaus and George Weigel don't seem to grasp about the scandal in Boston. The true dismay and loss of faith in the hierarchy (not the Church per se) has been determined by the slow, day by day, drip by drip headlined realization that the corporate structure of this archdiocese is just that. A corporate structure. Collar or no collar, the bishops have been bureaucrats in the worst sense. Their prayerfulness and piety and vocations have not preserved them in any better way from the same slinking behavior that determined the worst actions of the Enron execs. Cover-up. Denial. Obstruction. Blaming the victims, which is the worst sin of all.

And it continues, as McNamara writes. The Archdiocese of Boston is spending collection box money to hire lawyers and psychologists to attack the victims. Why? To save money? Church Property? Is it any wonder so few people turned out for the Ash Wednesday mass at the Cathedral? To see the Archdiocese engaging in such sordid tactics is demoralizing.

Maybe it's me. Maybe I don't get it. Maybe I just don't understand how a ruthless corporate culture was from the beginning meant to be an intrinsic aspect of the Catholic Church. But I'm not the only one who's wondered. There may be good reasons why the Church should act so ruthlessly toward its own parishioners. But I would love for someone to point out a reference or suggestion in the Gospel somewhere showing how Jesus foresaw and approved such corporate behavior for the men he entrusted with the task of spreading the good news.

I wish Father Neuhaus and Mr. Weigel would be aware of something. By all means, they should keep reminding us and the Bishops about Fidelity Fidelity Fidelity. That's their job as Catholic journalists. Granted. But there is something we pew-sitters expect the hierarchy in this country to be about right now.

And it is not scapegoating.

Friday, March 07, 2003

Rod Dreher of NRO eloquently expresses what's on the mind of many American Catholics today.
I have to agree with some of Glenn Reynolds' critics. We were in the taxi on the way home from Logan (and St. Thomas) last night. To me, Bush sounded very patient and determined. Not pumped. Not bellicose. And indeed, he passed over many opportunities that I would have used to rub the French and the other European appeasers the wrong way.

Meanwhile, as Reynolds points out, the hatred that many anti-war protesters have for Bush personally becomes more and more shrill and irrational.