The Hound Of Ulster

Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much unnecessary distress and problems.

For me, all that matters is the Truth Incarnate, and the interests of His one true Church, through which alone we can save our souls and give eternal glory, in our little way, to Almighty God. So I have only one comment, from the prophet Jonas, I, 12:

“Take me up and throw me into the sea; then the sea will quiet down for you; for I know it is because of me that this great tempest has come upon you.”

Please also accept, and convey to the Holy Father, my sincere personal thanks for the document signed last Wednesday and made public on Saturday. Most humbly I will offer a Mass for both of you.

“Imprudent” seems like a very strange word to use there.  It sounds almost as though he’s saying: “I’m sorry; I should have known that the media would distort my words badly.  Should have held my tongue.”  Which is very, very different than saying: “I’m sorry that I said something that is probably both incredibly false and flat-out ugly.”

Very strange stuff.
 

The dispute centers on a five-year, $63,000 contract the library wants to sign with 3M, an international technology company based in Minnesota, to service five scanner machines library patrons use to check out books.

But 3M, a company with operations in 60 countries, refused to sign Berkeley’s nuclear-free disclosure form as required by the Nuclear Free Berkeley Act passed by voters in 1986.

As a result, the library’s self-checkout machines have not been serviced in about six months. Library officials say 3M is the only company authorized by the manufacturer to fix the machines, which were purchased in 2004.

The library asked the Peace and Justice Commission for a waiver, but at its Jan. 5 meeting the commission voted 7-1, with two abstentions, to reject the request. The library is now appealing the decision to the City Council.

I’m not sure someone could come up with that sort of thing on their own even if they were trying to be funny.  But then, that’s probably true of the creation of the COMMISSION itself.  Seriously, could there be a better example of government and ideology run amuck than this?  (I almost feeling bad labeling it “Politics.”  But I don’t have a “Absurditas” category yet.)

Special bonus: they LOST.
 

Man, I wish I’d come up with that moniker.  Unfortunately, I’m not that clever.  Luckily, Dana Milbank IS.

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) begged the Goracle to look further into the future. “What does your modeling tell you about how long we’re going to be around as a species?” he inquired.

The Goracle chuckled. “I don’t claim the expertise to answer a question like that, Senator.”

It was a jarring reminder that the Goracle is, indeed, mortal. Once Al Gore was a mere vice president, but now he is a Nobel laureate and climate-change prophet. He repeats phrases such as “unified national smart grid” the way he once did “no controlling legal authority” — and the ridicule has been replaced by worship, even by his political foes.

I was pleased to see this, though:

If that wasn’t quite enough, Corker added: “Very much enjoyed your sense of humor, too.”

Humor? From Al Gore? “I benefit from low expectations,” he replied.

That seems borderline-clever. 

…

OK, OK, I’ll be nice.  It’s flat-out clever.  Course, now I just wonder how he could be flat-out clever about his humor, and still willing and able to put up with this sort of absurd, starry-eyed stuff from US Senators.  I guess I should probably wonder how he’s even able to hold this position in the first place, though.  Just to be consistent.

Youngsters are shunning books and outdoor games to spend up to six hours a day in front of a screen, a survey has revealed.

Children as young as five are turning their bedrooms into multi-media ‘hubs’ with TVs, computers, games consoles, MP3 players and mobile phones all within easy reach.

The trend triggered warnings that the next generation will struggle to compete in the adult world because they lack reading and writing skills.

At the same time their mastery of technology is not widely appreciated by their parents.

The market research involving 1,800 children aged five to 16 found that they spend an average of 2.7 hours a day watching TV, 1.5 on the internet and 1.3 playing on games consoles, although in some cases these activities are simultaneous, such as watching TV while playing on a console.

In contrast, youngsters spend just over half an hour reading books, according to the survey by ChildWise.

Almost a third take a games console to bed rather than a book, while a quarter never read in their own time.

And instead of kicking a football around, more than a quarter of boys regularly meet in an online games ‘environment’ where they discuss tactics and technical problems.

Parents justified internet access on the grounds that it would help with homework but the survey found education had become an ‘afterthought’, with only 9 per cent of youngsters looking up information for schoolwork the last time they went online.

In contrast, 34 per cent played games, 32 per cent used instant messaging, 31 per cent visited a social networking site and 28 per cent watched video clips on sites such as YouTube.

More than half of children now have their own PC or laptop and a third say their computer is the single piece of equipment they could least live without, compared with a declining number - one in five - who name TV.

A report on the findings from ChildWise concluded that many youngsters were ‘leaving traditional books behind’ but were caught in a ‘communications trap’.

It said: ‘Their online abilities often exceed those of their parents’ generation, but this is not necessarily recognised or valued.

‘Their conventional reading and writing skills are frequently criticised and their limited experience and expertise in this area makes it harder for them to compete in an adult-dominated world.’

Rosemary Duff, research director of ChildWise, said: ‘They are a generation abandoning print and paper.’

Most of the defenses in the comments seem to revolve around the idea that “well, there are worse things they could be doing than spending six hours-a-day on the computer.”  Which is true, I suppose.  But not very compelling.  And it seems like a bit of a false dichotomy.  “We don’t want kids working the streets, so we have to let them spend all their time on computers.

Right.

Ray Gunner’s got a semi-like-minded PIECE from Michael Waldstein.

I must admit to being somewhat amused by the fact that “Bishop” Richard Williamson represents himself as a dinosaur.  That’s sort of the way I think of him, as well.

This sort of THING - in response to Benedict’s “gift of peace” - is not likely to change my mind any time soon:

Lots of interesting RUSH-RELATED-MATERIAL floating around in the last couple of days.  Finally, THIS one interests me the most, despite the fact that the Rush connection is a bit subtler:

It’s also clear that Republicans, battered after big losses in 2006 and even bigger losses in 2008, are finding their feet on this issue.  The House leadership is running hard on this, trying to make sure every Republican knows what is in the 647-page bill, and handing out individual analyses to each GOP member of what the bill, if passed, would cost his or her particular congressional district.  At the same time, Republicans are looking for any signs of Democratic nervousness about the proposal.  They see a few, but there’s no doubt that Democrats, with 256 members (to 178 Republicans) are going to push the bill through.  They have to; anything other than the passage of the bill as currently written would be an enormous defeat for the new president, and Democrats simply will not allow that to happen.  They won the election, they’ve got the numbers, and they’re going to get their bill.  And Republicans, finally, have something to be united about.

Fascinating times.
 

President Barack Obama’s pledge to seek a worldwide ban on weapons in space marks a dramatic shift in U.S. policy while posing the tricky issue of defining whether a satellite can be a weapon.

Moments after Obama’s inauguration last week, the White House website was updated to include policy statements on a range of issues, including a pledge to restore U.S. leadership on space issues and seek a worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites.

…

Watchdog groups and even some defense officials welcomed the statement, which echoed Obama’s campaign promises, but said it would take time to hammer out a comprehensive new strategy.  Enacting a global ban on space weapons could prove even harder.

For instance, it was difficult to define exactly what constituted a “weapon” because even seemingly harmless weather tracking satellites could be used to slam into and disable other satellites, said two U.S. officials involved in the area who were not authorized to speak publicly.

Michael Krepon, co-founder of the private Henry L. Stimson think tank on space, cited recent reports that the Pentagon was using two smaller satellites launched in 2006 to fly near a dead missile-warning satellite and investigate what happened. The Defense Support Program satellite, DSP-23, built by Northrop, failed on orbit in mid-September.

“This incident clarified how important it is to have rules of the road for technologies that could have many different applications,” Krepon said. “There are lots of benign reasons to have a closer look at an object in space. But we all know that when satellites make close passes they could also do things that are not benign.”

I think I need to watch more Battlestar Galactica to really appreciate this fully.  Or just talk about Star Wars a bit more with the boys.

In almost related news, I really wish THIS were true.
 

Correction: January 23, 2009

An article on Thursday about new ethics rules imposed by President Obama on members of his administration paraphrased incorrectly from a statement by the Republican National Committee about a provision barring former lobbyists from working for agencies they had lobbied within the past few years. The committee criticized the Obama administration for violating the new standard in some of its appointments; it did not criticize the new rule.

(HT: NR)
 

First of all, the timing of this decree is not an accident: It came in the middle of a week of prayer for Christian unity. In his Angelus address on January 18, Benedict exhorted the faithful to “pray with greater intensity that Christians may walk resolutely towards full communion among themselves.” He continued, “I address particularly Catholics scattered throughout the world so that, united in prayer, they do not tire of working to overcome the obstacles that still impede full communion among all Christ’s disciples.”

The decree lifting the excommunications of the four bishops was preceded by a written expression of pledged cooperation and by 1.7 million rosaries prayed throughout the world for this very intention. As the Society has always considered the excommunications an obstacle to relations with the Holy See, these prayers meet the Holy Father’s stated objective for moving toward full communion. And while the SSPX’s canonical status still remains irregular, and their press release falls far short of calling for immediate communion, this is surely a positive step forward.

By remitting the excommunications, then, Benedict, who on his own initiative has long courted the SSPX to return to the fold, was responding to the Society’s reciprocated good will. In doing so, he was following the ecumenical plan that he announced in his message to the cardinals on the day after his election, which the New York Times described as “a message of openness and reconciliation to his Roman Catholic followers, other churches and other faiths.”

Another key paragraph:

Undoubtedly, the SSPX has several serious theological reservations that must be worked out before full communion with the Holy See can be reached. But so do the Orthodox, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, and all the other ecclesial communities in dialogue with Rome, and theirs are more numerous, more complex, and centuries old. Benedict is not moving the Church to the right by gesturing to the SSPX any more than he is bringing the Church to the left when he meets with leaders of other Christian denominations, as he does on nearly every papal trip abroad. Rather, his decree seeks to foster “an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church” — just as he explained in his opening message to the cardinals; just as Pope John Paul II expressed in Ut Unum Sint; just as Vatican II expressed in Unitatis Redintegratio; just as Jesus Himself expressed at the Last Supper: that they may be one (Jn 17:21).

I’m just glad someone wrote something that says: “Hey, massive irregularity here still. Orthodox/Lutheran style. No one get carried away,” while at the same time reminding us: “Hey, do we really want to be upset about the fact that B16 might bring a large number of lost sheep back into the fold?”  (And here’s a fascinating PIECE from George Weigel that deals with some of the “non-theological” issues at stake.)

Good stuff.

From a more politically ecumenical perspective, THIS is not what I was expecting:

House Democrats are likely to jettison family planning funds for the low-income from an $825 billion economic stimulus bill, officials said late Monday, following a personal appeal from President Barack Obama at a time the administration is courting Republican critics of the legislation.

I’m really not sure what to say.  Part of me - OK, most of me - wants to attribute it to savvy, shrewd political maneuvering on Obama’s part.  A small section of me thinks it might be connected to THIS.  (And there’s a still, small voice somewhere in the back that wants to keep praying like crazy, just in case it’s something else altogether.)
 

Ray Gunner sent me an interesting LINK on the lifting of the Excommunication Ban.  The whole thing is worth reading, but the part that really jumped out at me was this:

This goal was seemingly accomplished, in large measure, with the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum which Pope Benedict issued on July 7, 2007, and the Pope’s decision was greeted with joy among more traditional Catholics, and praised by Bishop Fellay. The document said that the old Missal had never been abrogated — an argument used by Lefebvre to defend his attachment to the old rite. [John Paul II had appointed a Commission of Cardinals to investigate the issue, and they had concluded the same. However, in 1988, when Lefebvre consecrated the four bishops, John Paul felt the time had not arrived for liberalization of the celebration of this liturgy, because of the overwhelming opposition of European bishops.]

Yet more evidence to support my “B16 thinks just like JPII, but has been able to take advantage of a pastoral opportunity that was not presented to his predecessor” theory

Lots of wild rhetoric flying around on this one.