Seven Quick Takes Friday! (Vol. 7)

ONE:

I'm now on Twitter! You can follow me: @AnthonySLayne. Also, dlvr.it is sending feed from both blogs to the Outside the Asylum Facebook page. And I'm currently working on a deal where, when you close your eyes at night, I appear on the inside of your eyelids. (Sorry, recycled Bob Hope joke.)

TWO:

Two of my sister's boys, Colin and Aidan Toth, are in town, spending a week with us while Peggy and her DH Michael (one of the most stand-up guys I've ever met ... a great person to have as a BIL) take a cruise courtesy of Michael's employers. This gives me the perfect excuse to see HP&DH2 in the theater. Not that I'm concerned about being a grown adult seeing Harry Potter movies on my own ... I just can't justify the expense of going to a movie by myself. The boys seem cool with the idea, although Aidan has this bit of frustration with the movies: apparently, they take too long to cut to the action at Hogwarts. (How do I tell him that all but the last few chapters of DH take place everywhere BUT Hogwarts?)

THREE:

In preparation for the boys' advent, I cleaned and dusted my office and bedroom, which I normally keep in states of Dickensian clutter ... books on every flat surface, some opened face-down with cracked spines, some closed and dog-eared, all showing the signs of one who actually reads the books he owns (several times). Much to my surprise and embarassment, I found I already own a copy of Pope Benedict's The Spirit of the Liturgy! So now I'm reading it in what spare time I have. I love reading Papa Ratzinger's work; it's a perfect blend of rational theological scholar and mystic poet you find few other places.

FOUR

Speaking of organization, I still need to take a crack at the shelf in my office where all my reference books reside. In 2002, when I first started researching for the only book I actually finished writing (and then lost in a hard drive crash ... back up your work, Layne), I started buying books by other Catholic writers. Nine years later, I haven't taken full inventory yet, but it should comprise something like forty-five to fifty different soft-back books representing over $600, from Hilaire Belloc to Pope Benedict, from G. K. Chesterton to Karl Keating, including writings by St. Thomas More and Thomas Merton (Seven-Storey Mountain, not one of his later Eastern strayings). All piled up on one shelf in the office closet ....

FIVE:

Great Value has a chocolate raspberry creamer that is just AWESOME! Of course, it would be great if I had some Mystic Monk to put it in ... though I'm almost morally certain Father Z would consider it a venial sin to spoil MM Coffee like that ....

SIX:

I request your prayers for my uncle, Joe Cronin, who had a fall July 3rd and broke his arm. Because of a condition with his carotid artery, the doctors aren't going to pin the fragments together; they'd rather hold off surgery unless it's absolutely, life-saving necessary. So it's going to be a long, slow heal for a man who's had a hard-luck life, a man I love and respect tremendously.

SEVEN:

Had a great exchange with Devin Rose and Brandon Vogt on Facebook on the inerrancy of Wikipedia, especially on the ongoing battles with "sola Wiki" and how it contrasts with "solo Wiki" (which admits that other Internet sources have their use, although they're not as authoritative). Between manning the pro-life barricades with Stacy Trasancos, tweeting with Lisa Graas and (of course) exchanging posts with my friends the Bright Maidens, I'm meeting so many people I admire as Catholic writers ... and finding out they're pretty fun people as well!

Wherever the Catholic sun does shine,

There's laughter and music and good red wine.

At least I've found it so.

Benedicamus Domino!

— Hilaire Belloc

And that wraps it up for this week! Next week, I promise to have the installment out on time. Have a great weekend, and God bless!

Mermaids ....

Yumiko Kayukawa: Mermaid Lady Time

I refer you to The Wide-Eyed, Legless, a blog centered on mermaids, which also links you to other blogs that apparently have these mythical sea vixens on the brain.

Is this the new thing? Did Hans Christian Andersen and Disney inspire a segment of Generation Y to opt for sirens instead of nosferatu? I can only hope; after all, the whole Goth thing is so done.

(Though I must admit Pauley Perrette's "Abby Sciutto", the Goth forensic scientist on NCIS, adds depth to a kind of  person I'd only encountered in Omaha's Old Market area, looking misunderstood, hostile and more than a little emo.)

Can anyone clarify, or add to my pathetically small knowledge of this subset?

Who cares what Grover will say?

A friend of mine sent me a copy of an article from The Economist, “The Republicans are playing a cynical political game with hugely high economic stakes”. Just four paragraphs is all we need to look at; you can follow the link to make sure I’m not ruining the analysis with an out-of-context fallacy:

The House of Representatives, under Republican control as a result of last November’s mid-term elections, has balked at passing the necessary bill. That is perfectly reasonable: until recently the Republicans had been exercising their clear electoral mandate to hold the government of Barack Obama to account, insisting that they will not permit a higher debt ceiling until agreement is reached on wrenching cuts to public spending. Until they started to play hardball in this way, Mr Obama had been deplorably insouciant about the medium-term picture, repeatedly failing in his budgets and his state-of-the-union speeches to offer any path to a sustainable deficit. Under heavy Republican pressure, he has been forced to rethink. …

The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical.

[The Economist] has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

House Republicans have used the rhetoric of raising taxes on “Americans”. However, the loopholes the Obama Administration wants to close would only affect those in the top tax bracket, and would go a long way towards the reform the Republicans say they want.

Let’s face it, folks, while Republicans have scorned the White House’s “reckless spending spree”, a good chunk of the $14.3 trillion national debt preceded Barack Obama’s inauguration, from two overseas wars and a couple of bailout packages for “too big to fail” industries … expenses the Republicans approved when Dubya was in office.

Now the Republicans are trapped by their rhetoric and their voter base into standing firm on a “no new taxes” pledge that’s just plain silly, and of a type that not only Reagan but Bush père reneged on. Moreover, it looks increasingly to me as if it had always been their plan to stick the Democrats with the onus of raising taxes, and have suddenly realized that owning the House of Representatives right now takes that legerdemain out of play.

Read my lips: Any way you slice it, a political disaster is in the making for the GOP unless they give in on closing the loopholes. Their position isn’t so firm they can afford to be stubborn on the matter.

A variation of Godwin's Law — UPDATED

Just to remind you of what Godwin's Law states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 (100%)." Ladies and gentlemen, I now propose for your thoughtful consideration Layne's Exception:

In any online discussion where the topic is the Catholic Church, its leaders or beliefs, as the discussion thread grows longer, the probability of a reference to pedophile priests approaches 1 (100%).

• Corollary 1: The reference will be not only invalid but inappropriate and abusive.
• Corollary 2: The earlier the reference is made, the greater the probability the rest of the discussion will follow the reference down a rabbit hole.

Any comments?

Update — same day
Made a minor modification to broaden its scope. 

The Golden Calf of Scientism

Science works.

Wait, no. That's actually wrong. 

The scientific method produces useful results. It adds to our body of knowledge. It leads to technological applications that, in general, have increased the length and quality of our lives ... though not without costs and dangers.

But science is not a machine. It's not a self-programmable computer cum assembly line that takes in raw data at one end and spits out illumination at the other. Science is a methodology.

Because science is a methodology, it can be misapplied, or even barely applied. Scientists get emotionally vested in imperfect explanations. They bend data to fit models rather than models to fit data. They draw incorrect inferences. They commit logical fallacies and mathematical mistakes. They build experiments that can't falsify the theory they're testing. They cherry-pick statistics and results that support their arguments, while leaving out those that contraindicate. Their successes can come by accident, or after years of by-guess-and-by-golly. In biology, under rigid controls of light, heat, moisture, food and temperature, the biota will do as it damn well pleases regardless of your theory. The peer review — the gem of the method — can be sloppily or cursorily done (consider the "Bogdanov affair"), letting shoddy research out into publication.

But most of all, since the scientific method has produced such a humonguous body of results, at least 90% of what any one scientist knows is taken on authority. There's simply not time enough in any person's life to re-check everything. So when a highly reliable theory stops producing expected results, it can take years before scientists start checking the theory for subtle errors; the trust in the system produces an institutional inertia.

Because science is, in a sense, an art — a human art — it's vulnerable to all the weaknesses of fallen humanity: ignorance, sloth, greed, envy, fear, and so on. Because science is done by humans and not machines or angels, it can fail, it can err, it can create public dangers, it can be deliberately subverted. That's why, to work, the sciences need men and women with integrity, compassion and well-formed consciences. That's why scientists should not be treated as gods or superhumans, and should not be given unquestioning credence or obedience.

And that's why I get irritated with secularists who treat Science (and the way they speak of it, you might as well capitalize it) as a cross between the Oracle at Delphi and a soda-pop vending machine. To listen to them, you'd never know any scientist had fudged his results, or that the various disciplines have their internal quarrels over competing theories. The myth of Scientism is quicky eclipsing the quirky, messy, mundanely human reality of science, creating a cult-like atmosphere of fervent credulity, and treating the obiter dicta of people like Stephen Hawking as the Voice of God even when they speak outside their spheres of competence.

xkcd ... I don't own the rights.

In fact, if they're not careful, they'll become everything they've always accused Catholics of being: intellectually-crippled sheep placing blind faith in mere humans. If it happens, it'll be because they've convinced themselves it will never happen.

Yes, science has been wildly successful, and therefore I shall always remain respectful of the scientific method. But it's not The Source of All Knowledge. I refuse to be ruled by the priesthood of the lab coat. I refuse to worship at the Temple of the Method. I refuse to bow down before the Golden Calf of Science.

"I came in here for a good argument!"

So, after having a no-fun-at-all argument with a pro-choice ... person yesterday, I managed to post about it, heckle New Atheists and poke fun at myself. Got it all out of my system.

No, I didn't. Otherwise, I wouldn't be up at 4:18 am with a stomach churning like an overloaded washing machine and a back too tense to sleep.

At the end — and, believe me, it was neither pretty nor one of my best performances — I countered her dismissive, snide "Study embryology" with a snap: "Study the philosophy of science, and actually engage arguments instead of trying to insult them away." Her reply? "You've got to be joking. Philosophy is just a bunch of people's subjective opinions."

Now, realize that this ... person has also been trying to discuss morality and ethics with Stacy Trasancos and others, misusing the words abominably, not to mention using subjective to mean alternately "personal" and "skewed and boneheaded". Half of her arguments weren't arguments at all; they were an attempt to re-create Al Jaffee's Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions ... a failed attempt. (If you don't remember Al Jaffee from MAD Magazine, all I can tell you is that you missed a golden era of satirical humor for the immature ... though he still does the fold-in back cover.)

So when she wrote three thousand years of search for truth, meaning and reality off as "a bunch of people's subjective opinions, I simply signed off: "*sigh* Yep, that's what I thought you'd say. I'm out."

What I wanted to say was this:

Yep, that's what I thought you'd say. Of course, you don't realize that, because YOU DON'T KNOW JACK ABOUT PHILOSOPHY, you just wrote off all the fundamental assumptions of science as "subjective opinion". And, because YOU DON'T KNOW BUBKES ABOUT PHILOSOPHY, you don't realize that you just wrote off all your own belabored arguments about ethics — A BRANCH OF PHILOSOPHY — as "subjective opinions". (By the way, "subjective" is NOT synonymous with "personal" or "false"; "ethics" is the theoretical study of principles of right and wrong, while "morality" is the study of their practical and cultural application. If you wish to be understood, you will PLEASE USE WORDS AS OTHERS USE THEM.) 

And, because YOU DON'T KNOW DIDDLY-SQUAT ABOUT PHILOSOPHY, you don't know HOW you just rendered every argument you've made so far incoherent, with a statement that — ironically — you intended to assert your intellectual superiority. Guess what? FAIL.

Argument can be enjoyable even if agreement never follows. But between your mule-headed dogmatic pronouncements, your snide slanging and your philistine dismissal of anything you can't or don't want to understand as "subjective opinions", it gives me no joy whatever even to tell you that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I repeat, STUDY THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE. You may not end up agreeing with us anyway, but AT LEAST YOU'LL KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. I'm done.

 Now I feel better! And, believe me, that was the charitable version!

Actually, the whole sordid affair reminded me of this classic sketch:

Back at'cha, Abbie Hoffman!

Reading Abp. Timothy Dolan's remarks on the gay-marriage fight two Fridays ago, I nearly started humming "Blowin' in the Wind" and making myself some tie-dyed shirts.

In passing, the Prince of the Big Apple said, "As Blessed John Paul II often commented, the Church is 'counter-cultural,' like Jesus, often at odds with what passes as chic, enlightened, and progressive." Another way to say it is that we're a sign of contradiction, a living poke at the complacency and self-assurance of those who account themselves wise according to the world. His last two paragraphs really bring this theme out:

Finally, last point, for us in the Church, not much changes.  We continue to hold fast to the God-given definition of marriage, and acknowledge that no unfortunate legislative attempt can alter reality and morality.  Yes, we have a big catechetical challenge, in that we have to admit that quite a few people no longer hold to this timeless moral truth.  (Although I still believe most people do; thus the fear of a referendum on the issue by those who still claim this is a “grassroots movement” sweeping the nation.)  Yes, we do have our work cut out for us, as even some Catholics, and, scandalously, even political leaders who claim to be Catholic, tell us the Church is “out of it,” and has no claim on truth.

So, we try our best to witness to the truth, encouraging our married couples and their kids to be loving, radiant, “lights to the world.”  We acknowledge that, as St. Augustine taught, if something is wrong, even if everybody else is doing it, it’s still wrong; and, if something is right, even if nobody else is doing it anymore, it’s still right.  Like St. Thomas More, we’re willing to take the heat and even lose our head from following a conscience properly formed by God’s revelation and the teaching of His Church, even if it is politically incorrect, and clashes with the King’s demands to re-define marriage.

Yes, those who once lived according to the motto, "Question Authority!" have themselves become The Authority (and they don't tolerate being questioned!).

But it's not "We Shall Overcome". It's "He (the Lord) Shall Overcome"!

Now to complete the revolutionary picture, let's have a little Marx and Lennon!

Some thoughts on L'affaire Corapi

I was going to let the John Corapi story die without comment; the whole situation is just too sad and sordid for me to add myself to any dogpiles. However, I can't.

First, I'm saddened and sickened by the loss of a priest who was an effective communicator of our Faith. Whatever he does from now on to the end of his life, Corapi will never have the same chance to make a difference in the lives of American Catholics.

I wish I could say I were shocked. However, his own testimony about his life prior to entering the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity makes it clear to me that money and fame aren't a good combination for him. Many men have come from equally ugly backgrounds to become not only priests but saints; St. Camillus de Lellis comes immediately to my mind. However, the founder of the Hospitallers never had to drink from that lethal concoction called celebrity.

In general, I'm more convinced than ever that even parish priests should live in community with other priests, to limit the dangers of loneliness and help reinforce each other's vows. It's not good for any man to be alone. In this respect, the Society bears some of the blame for letting Corapi live apart and set up his ministry without oversight; I doubt this situation would have come about had Corapi been a Dominican or Franciscan.

On the other hand, I can imagine someone outside the Church demanding of me, "Why aren't you more angry? Why aren't you so disgusted with such hypocrisy and filth that you leave the Church?" My response would have to be: "Why would I be so astonished that what the Church teaches about temptation and human frailty happens to be just as true of priests as it is of laypersons?" 

It's a fairly recent innovation — and not altogether a good one — that the Church in America has begun shooting her wounded. Christ's parables of the wheat and the tares and of the net full of fish (Mt 13:24-30, 47-48) teaches us that there will always be bad Christians among the good, and that their final disposition will be with everything else at the end of time. Until then, we should extend every opportunity for conversion and commitment to discipleship, keeping in mind that we may need such opportunities ourselves.

Above all, Corapi is a reminder to all of us that to set yourself up as a public witness to the Faith is to set yourself up as a target of Satan. His Infernal Majesty is to be feared most not when you're faced with opposition and hatred but when you encounter adulation and admiration; his deadliest weapons hit you at your spiritual weaknesses in private, not at your strengths in public. "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Mt 10:28). 

This is why St. Paul says, "Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor 9:25-27). We should never be so certain of our conversions that we neglect the care of our own souls; that way lies pride and presumption.

Finally, we should pray for the quondam Father Corapi ("The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek'" [Ps 110:4]), for the Society, for the women hurt by his behavior, and for the faithful he has betrayed. And let's all remember the prayer attributed to St. Philip Neri: 

"Lord Jesus, watch over me always, especially today, or I shall betray you like Judas."

Happy 235th Birthday, America!

Over the last month, I've had plenty of opportunity to reflect on what freedom means. But it wasn't until today that I finally saw something I'd missed about patriotism. Doubtless many of you are wise enough to already know this:

To love your country is to run the same risks as to love another person. It's to risk disappointment when your country doesn't live up to its promises, to the ideals it professes. It's to risk being hurt when you and your people are rejected and disrespected. When your leaders sell out for their own gain, when your intellectuals become dishonest, when your religious leaders lose their faith or their courage, to love your country is painful.

And yet, without that love, your country can never be better than it is right now. The old Latin tag tells us, Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori (To die for your country is both sweet and seemly). However, for a country to fulfill its promise, to live up to its ideals, you — Joe Citizen — have to live for your country. Duty isn't enough: a man doing his duty does simply what is asked, and does it well, but doesn't necessarily go any further. In a sense, to help make your country beautiful, you have to see her as beautiful first, if nowhere else but in your heart.

We hold these truths to be sef-evident:

that all men are created equal;

that they are endowed by their Creator

with certain unalienable rights;

that among these are LIFE, liberty

and the pursuit of happiness;

that to secure these rights governments

are instituted among men,

with their just powers of government

arising from the consent of the governed ...

Seven Quick Takes Friday! (Vol. 6)

ONE:

The funny thing is, I didn't feel any worse at 1:40 am Thursday morning than I did when I woke up ... or for Lord knows how long before that. So when I started coughing up blood, it kind of piqued my interest.

Turns out I've had a touch of pneumonia for some time; what coughing I've had I'd written off as part of my usual smoker's hack. I just got out of the hospital a couple of hours ago, with a couple of prescriptions, a couple of Band-Aids from the sticks, and a throat made a little raw from breathing treatments and O₂ stuck in my nose. However, looks like my ongoing sinusitis is clearing up!

TWO:

While I was laying on my back, trying to tune out my frustration at not being hooked up to the blogosphere and aching for a cigarette, one of the talking heads was grumbling how Congress could come to such an easy agreement over switching the hats of Gen. David Petraeus and Leon Panetta but no one could come to grips with the spiralling national debt, a major driver of which is the cost of US intervention in foreign lands.

"Well," says I to myself, "that'll make an interesting commentary for The Other Blog." I'll have to work on it. But the short answer is: The DoD is a major driver of the budget because the DoD is a major driver of our economy! The money we send to Washington every year doesn't just sit there or go into congressperson's pockets, folks! A lot of it gets spent on stuff that 1) costs a lot of money and 2) puts a lot of people to work at 3) quite a bit more than minimum wage. Do you really want to put thousands of servicepersons, government workers and government-contractor employees on the dole right when we're trying to get out of the doldrums? (And that's part of the reason I think we're nailed.)

THREE:

You should never go to a hospital for a rest. Nurses, techs, specialists and other folks are scheduled to interrupt sleep at two to three hour intervals.

FOUR:

On the other blog, a person commented that the idea of women fertilizing women, laughable in 1992, is being worked on even now. She reminded me of something my family and I — all major Star Trek: The Original Series fans — have talked about before.

Tablets and Kindles = PADDs. Your cell phone is rapidly becoming a cross between the communicator and the tricorder. Although the tech is still a little gimpy for my tastes, you can talk to a computer that talks back to you. (Just think of Jimmy Doohan — God rest his soul! — in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home: "A keyboard ... how quaint.") On deck, a lab in Australia is working on transporter technology; over here, we have a race on for commercial shuttles, as well as burgeoning applications for adult stem cells in re-growing skin, bones and organs.

On the downside, though, we have genetic manipulators working on creating Homo sapiens 2.0. Just think of Khan Noonien Singh, and wonder how far we are from the Eugenics Wars ....

FIVE:

My nephews Colin and Aidan are coming to Texas in a couple of weeks. Both of them are really good kids with sly senses of humor; Aidan is the one that's going to be in the movie I mentioned a month ago, Life Fine Tuned. Then, a week after that, my buddy Steve is coming down from Omaha to kill some time while his wife and kids are out of town; we may go to WinStar to see Styx and Yes in concert ... or we may just spend the weekend swimming, playing penny-ante poker and drinking beer over at my brother's house. So this month's had a rough start, but it looks to be good from here on out!

SIX:

Got another email requesting a book review. The author introduced himself as Thomas Peters, and I was thinking, "Cool! American Papist himself!"  But then I read a little of his bio, and he's a bit older than I am, let alone Ed Peters' boy. Nevertheless, after I get some contact issues settled, I'll hopefully have something else I can recommend to fellow readers. I still don't think Steven Greydanus has anything to fear from me ....

SEVEN: 

Julie at The Corner With A View is looking to devote some posts in August on the Catholic Church and sex — not sexuality, sex. I enjoy her writing style; moreover, she's one of the Bright Maidens, whom I've written about as "what feminism should have produced but didn't". I'll probably contribute posts to a couple of the topics, but do go check hers out first!

*     *     *

On Monday, I will probably post a couple of quick blips noting the Declaration's 235th anniversary, and pick up steam again on Tuesday. Of course, look for Random Political Observations on Sunday. As always, have a blessed weekend!