Hmmm. Do I Have Any "Pretenders" CDs?
I don't think so, but I'd better check. If there are any lurking in the collection, I now have more skeet targets.
Why? Well, has-been vocalist Chrissie Hynde announced her fervent love of tyranny and her desire to see her erstwhile countrymen slaughtered:
Between songs, the pugnacious Hynde, in a classic black T-shirt and jeans, bantered and battled with the crowd. She dedicated "You Know Who Your Friends Are" to "all you junkies and f--," gave a shout-out to the late Joe Strummer, opined that she hopes the United States loses if it goes to war with Iraq ("Bring it on! Give us what we deserve!")....
However, there weren't a lot of witnesses for this incident involving a performance by the formerly arena-worthy Pretenders, given the modest size of the Warfield Theatre.
It's quite possible the marquee for the Warfield read "Puppet Show and The Pretenders." It's not that the band's fan base is shrinking, mind you:
Marty: The last time Tap toured America, they where, uh, booked
into 10,000 seat arenas, and 15,000 seat venues, and it
seems that now, on the current tour they're being
booked into 1,200 seat arenas, 1,500 seat arenas, and uh
I was just wondering, does this mean uh...the popularity
of the group is waning?
Ian: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no...no, no, not at all.
I, I, I just think that the.. uh.. their appeal is
becoming more selective.
Wednesday, March 05, 2003
Bravo, Mark Cameron!
Mark gets an InstaNod in the discussion over the Catholic Church and anti-Semitism. Scroll down to the bottom for his take on the discussion. I think he pretty well nails it, too:
As a Catholic who is pro-Israel and, with reservations, pro-war with Iraq, I understand (and share) your frustration with the Vatican's cosy dealings with tyrants, and particularly Arab dictators. However, the accusation of anti-Semitism is, I believe, unfounded. I think you have to separate Vatican diplomacy which, I agree, is quite unbalanced and anti-Israel, from Catholic theology towards Judaism, which has seen remarkable changes in the past forty or so years. Since Vatican II's Nostra Aetate (1965), the Church has unequivocally condemned anti-Semitism. Even before then, the Church had moved to remove anti-Semitic remnants from the liturgy and had distanced itself from priests (like Fr. Coughlin and Feeney in America) who published anti-Semitic materials....All of this being said, the Vatican has problems with the State of Israel for several reasons.
As the proverb goes--read the whole thing.
Mark gets an InstaNod in the discussion over the Catholic Church and anti-Semitism. Scroll down to the bottom for his take on the discussion. I think he pretty well nails it, too:
As a Catholic who is pro-Israel and, with reservations, pro-war with Iraq, I understand (and share) your frustration with the Vatican's cosy dealings with tyrants, and particularly Arab dictators. However, the accusation of anti-Semitism is, I believe, unfounded. I think you have to separate Vatican diplomacy which, I agree, is quite unbalanced and anti-Israel, from Catholic theology towards Judaism, which has seen remarkable changes in the past forty or so years. Since Vatican II's Nostra Aetate (1965), the Church has unequivocally condemned anti-Semitism. Even before then, the Church had moved to remove anti-Semitic remnants from the liturgy and had distanced itself from priests (like Fr. Coughlin and Feeney in America) who published anti-Semitic materials....All of this being said, the Vatican has problems with the State of Israel for several reasons.
As the proverb goes--read the whole thing.
Sunday, March 02, 2003
Thanks!
For all the congratulations and kind words about the birth of my son. While "Mark Phillip" is indeed a solid name, we've settled on Dale III. My dad's thrilled.
The lad is doing great, and already has a different personality from his sister: he's much more laid back, and I've heard him cry about five times since his birth. At the same age, Maddie cried at the drop of a hat. He doesn't. He also has a case of jaundice as part of the natural transition to breastfeeding. It's temporary, and already starting to go away. But the jaundice, coupled with his easygoing demeanor, has helped me give him his first nickname:
"Mellow Yellow."
[Ducking brickbats]
Thanks again!
For all the congratulations and kind words about the birth of my son. While "Mark Phillip" is indeed a solid name, we've settled on Dale III. My dad's thrilled.
The lad is doing great, and already has a different personality from his sister: he's much more laid back, and I've heard him cry about five times since his birth. At the same age, Maddie cried at the drop of a hat. He doesn't. He also has a case of jaundice as part of the natural transition to breastfeeding. It's temporary, and already starting to go away. But the jaundice, coupled with his easygoing demeanor, has helped me give him his first nickname:
"Mellow Yellow."
[Ducking brickbats]
Thanks again!
Kudos to the Archdiocese of Detroit.
Yes, you read that right. The Archdiocese hosted its first-ever Men's Conference yesterday, and yours truly attended (along with 800 other Catholic men). One of my complaints about life as a Catholic is the lack of ministries for men. Now, at least in part, it's been answered.
Superb, superb job, professionally presented. Chuck Colson was the keynote speaker, and the experience was magnificent.
How important was this regarded by Archdiocese? It closed with a Mass celebrated by Adam Cardinal Maida. Great signal.
More details later as time permits.
Yes, you read that right. The Archdiocese hosted its first-ever Men's Conference yesterday, and yours truly attended (along with 800 other Catholic men). One of my complaints about life as a Catholic is the lack of ministries for men. Now, at least in part, it's been answered.
Superb, superb job, professionally presented. Chuck Colson was the keynote speaker, and the experience was magnificent.
How important was this regarded by Archdiocese? It closed with a Mass celebrated by Adam Cardinal Maida. Great signal.
More details later as time permits.
Friday, February 28, 2003
The Containment "Solution": Why it Won't Work.
Greg Krehbiel reasonably asks "why not containment?"
While I still remain uncommitted, I'm increasingly skeptical about our justifications for war with Iraq. My biggest concern is that we say containment didn't work, but the truth is that it didn't work while Clinton was in charge, which isn't saying much. Now that we have a real president, maybe containment could work. I haven't heard any reason to say why it couldn't. Maybe there are reasons, but I haven't heard them.
Actually, I've been puzzling over this one myself for the better part of a month or so, and I've come to the conclusion that it is impractical, as I do not believe it would work so well under these circumstances. Let me take a crack at explaining why.
First, let's remember what "containment" was, in the only American experience of the same--the Cold War. The Cold War saw the establishment of a national security apparatus, the development of a series of entangling alliances, forward deployment of American forces, and most notably, the development of a large peacetime military and ever-ascending arms race. This is the template proposed to "solve" the Iraq crisis. Applying the template here would have repercussions that most of its proponents have not explored or even considered. If a war with Iraq would prove expensive in all senses of the term, then an expanding policy of containment would be the same, if not more so, long-term.
Foremost is that it effectively concedes and de facto encourages the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by an increasing number of regimes. Under a doctrine of containment, you are not so much denying the right to acquire arms as trying to limit the likelihood of them ever being used. (The notion that inspections will find anything of consequence is laughable: four months in, and there's still no accounting for the serious material--e.g., the 5000+ liters of anthrax. You know--the stuff that could kill a major American metropolitan area.) In other words, "containment" would send a signal to all of those interested in developing WMDs that there are no consequences for the development of such devices. The only consequences would come if they are actually used. But, the more unstable or "coup-prone" regimes that acquire the weapons, the more likely they eventually to fall into or be delivered into the wrong hands, and thus the more likely they are to be used. Deterrence worked with the Soviets because, ultimately, the Communists were at the bottom line rational. Rationality is a much more rare global commodity than we prefer to think, and deterrence is unlikely to work with, for example, fanatics who think their actions are going to inaugurate the reign of the Mahdi.
"Containment" also inevitably leads to an arms race. Remember how the doctrine worked in the Cold War: MADness. Mutually Assured Destruction. The Soviet Union and the United States were frozen into a standoff based upon the premise that direct conflict between them would lead to deployment of nuclear weapons, and nuclear weapons would mean obliteration--of most of humanity. But, in order for the threat to be credible, both sides had to develop better and more effective weaponry. On our part, this meant a transition from a few hundred bomber-delivered freefall devices to thousands of ICBMs, SLBMs, and MIRVs (not to mention tactical and in-theatre weapons)--all as part of a deterrent mix that told the Soviets that we had more than sufficient survivable firepower to destroy them should they consider a first strike.
Under containment, once Iraq develops nuclear weapons, we would threaten them with obliteration as a means of deterrence. In response, Iraq would develop a sufficient force (including longer and longer-range missiles) to threaten us with catastrophic damage. Ditto other regimes.
So much for the end of the arms race. Set the nuclear clock to about thirty seconds before midnight.
Moreover, how real would our threat be, unless we had a substantial American presence on the ground in the threatened region (e.g., NATO)? "I just nuked Foreign City X, Mr. President. Care to risk New York, Boston, or Detroit in response?" Barring a "one for all, all for one" alliance like NATO, I really tend to doubt it.
Then consider the dread "Our SOB" Syndrome, whereby America would have to continue to make dishonorable, soul-killing deals with such hellish regimes as the House of Saud, in return for basing requirements, forward deployment, and so on. Only spread this to a larger and larger expanse of the globe--American troops everywhere, containing more and more regimes. Not to mention more and more grievances with groups inclined to hate us: we were in the cross-hairs of bin Laden because of our Saudi bases, remember?
And what of the military establishment necessary to achieve "containment"? What few concessions that have been beaten out of Hussein have literally been done at swordpoint: an American and British force on the order of 200,000+ troops, sailors, airmen and marines. I have a hard time picturing the long term basing of a force of remotely similar size in the region. Multiply this headache by six or seven times, as Psycho States D, E, and F get the Bomb.
I don't think the American people are ready to pay for this policy, either in blood or treasure. It seems clear to me that such a policy, and the proliferation it invariably encourages, would lead to us paying in a lot more blood in the long term.
Finally, perhaps the greatest weakness of the argument as formulated by Greg is this phrase: "Now that we have a real president...." What if we elect a President with less fortitude? Would President Hillary (or Kerry, or Edwards, or Dean) have the same determination? Containment encourages Hussein and others like him to ride it out until the next election.
That's why I think we have to nip this in the bud now.
Greg Krehbiel reasonably asks "why not containment?"
While I still remain uncommitted, I'm increasingly skeptical about our justifications for war with Iraq. My biggest concern is that we say containment didn't work, but the truth is that it didn't work while Clinton was in charge, which isn't saying much. Now that we have a real president, maybe containment could work. I haven't heard any reason to say why it couldn't. Maybe there are reasons, but I haven't heard them.
Actually, I've been puzzling over this one myself for the better part of a month or so, and I've come to the conclusion that it is impractical, as I do not believe it would work so well under these circumstances. Let me take a crack at explaining why.
First, let's remember what "containment" was, in the only American experience of the same--the Cold War. The Cold War saw the establishment of a national security apparatus, the development of a series of entangling alliances, forward deployment of American forces, and most notably, the development of a large peacetime military and ever-ascending arms race. This is the template proposed to "solve" the Iraq crisis. Applying the template here would have repercussions that most of its proponents have not explored or even considered. If a war with Iraq would prove expensive in all senses of the term, then an expanding policy of containment would be the same, if not more so, long-term.
Foremost is that it effectively concedes and de facto encourages the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by an increasing number of regimes. Under a doctrine of containment, you are not so much denying the right to acquire arms as trying to limit the likelihood of them ever being used. (The notion that inspections will find anything of consequence is laughable: four months in, and there's still no accounting for the serious material--e.g., the 5000+ liters of anthrax. You know--the stuff that could kill a major American metropolitan area.) In other words, "containment" would send a signal to all of those interested in developing WMDs that there are no consequences for the development of such devices. The only consequences would come if they are actually used. But, the more unstable or "coup-prone" regimes that acquire the weapons, the more likely they eventually to fall into or be delivered into the wrong hands, and thus the more likely they are to be used. Deterrence worked with the Soviets because, ultimately, the Communists were at the bottom line rational. Rationality is a much more rare global commodity than we prefer to think, and deterrence is unlikely to work with, for example, fanatics who think their actions are going to inaugurate the reign of the Mahdi.
"Containment" also inevitably leads to an arms race. Remember how the doctrine worked in the Cold War: MADness. Mutually Assured Destruction. The Soviet Union and the United States were frozen into a standoff based upon the premise that direct conflict between them would lead to deployment of nuclear weapons, and nuclear weapons would mean obliteration--of most of humanity. But, in order for the threat to be credible, both sides had to develop better and more effective weaponry. On our part, this meant a transition from a few hundred bomber-delivered freefall devices to thousands of ICBMs, SLBMs, and MIRVs (not to mention tactical and in-theatre weapons)--all as part of a deterrent mix that told the Soviets that we had more than sufficient survivable firepower to destroy them should they consider a first strike.
Under containment, once Iraq develops nuclear weapons, we would threaten them with obliteration as a means of deterrence. In response, Iraq would develop a sufficient force (including longer and longer-range missiles) to threaten us with catastrophic damage. Ditto other regimes.
So much for the end of the arms race. Set the nuclear clock to about thirty seconds before midnight.
Moreover, how real would our threat be, unless we had a substantial American presence on the ground in the threatened region (e.g., NATO)? "I just nuked Foreign City X, Mr. President. Care to risk New York, Boston, or Detroit in response?" Barring a "one for all, all for one" alliance like NATO, I really tend to doubt it.
Then consider the dread "Our SOB" Syndrome, whereby America would have to continue to make dishonorable, soul-killing deals with such hellish regimes as the House of Saud, in return for basing requirements, forward deployment, and so on. Only spread this to a larger and larger expanse of the globe--American troops everywhere, containing more and more regimes. Not to mention more and more grievances with groups inclined to hate us: we were in the cross-hairs of bin Laden because of our Saudi bases, remember?
And what of the military establishment necessary to achieve "containment"? What few concessions that have been beaten out of Hussein have literally been done at swordpoint: an American and British force on the order of 200,000+ troops, sailors, airmen and marines. I have a hard time picturing the long term basing of a force of remotely similar size in the region. Multiply this headache by six or seven times, as Psycho States D, E, and F get the Bomb.
I don't think the American people are ready to pay for this policy, either in blood or treasure. It seems clear to me that such a policy, and the proliferation it invariably encourages, would lead to us paying in a lot more blood in the long term.
Finally, perhaps the greatest weakness of the argument as formulated by Greg is this phrase: "Now that we have a real president...." What if we elect a President with less fortitude? Would President Hillary (or Kerry, or Edwards, or Dean) have the same determination? Containment encourages Hussein and others like him to ride it out until the next election.
That's why I think we have to nip this in the bud now.
Monday, February 24, 2003
Sunday, February 23, 2003
The Intolerance of the Liturgy People™ in the American Church.
Prosecution Exhibit A.
The estimable Fr. Rob Johansen, fellow Michiganian and priest of the Diocese of Kalamazoo, recently posted about his visit to the Nebraska seminary of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, better known as the FSSP. He related several common-sense points:
It is most unfortunate and unfair, it seems to me, that so many "moderate" and "progressive" Catholics have relegated faithful Traditionalists such as those of the FSSP to an Outer Darkness of sorts: Such people love to portray themselves as champions of diversity within the Church, but somehow that diversity doesn't include the riches of our own Latin liturgical patrimony. The fact is that the rites of the 1962 missal fulfill the spiritual needs of a large and growing number of Catholics. If that's not diversity, I don't know what is.
* * *
I attended a couple of seminary liturgies, and while at Vespers last Saturday evening I was struck by the true austerity, a beautiful austerity, of the liturgy. Those who pooh-pooh the old rite as overwrought or difficult to follow, it seems to me, simply have not made any effort to understand it. That liturgy wasn't complicated: what it was was reverent. And it seems to me that that Novus Ordo opens itself up to irreverence in a way that the Old Rite doesn't.
Then Fr. Johansen related a tale of the visceral, neurotic hatred of Latin held by far too many in positions of influence. A parishioner made the mistake of inquiring as to the addition of Latin to the Mass in the presence of the parish Bolsheviturgist:
The only real die-hard opposition to Latin in the liturgy anymore comes from the aging-hippie set. Many such people have a virulent hatred of Latin or anything that smacks of tradition. I recall an incident I witnessed at a parish some time past: A parishioner innocently approached the parish music director and asked if we could have "some Latin at Mass". She literally drew back her shoulders and declaimed in her most authoritative voice "We don't do Latin at this parish. Latin isn't accessible to the people." The parishioner (who was by no means elderly) spoke of the beauty of Latin and how much she and many other parishioners would enjoy it. I then chimed in and said, "Why couldn't we? We would have to start with simpler stuff, but why not? I'd be happy to help." She then turned to me and with a voice of cold fury made it clear that there would be no such goings on at that parish. When I pointed out that a couple of parishes in the diocese (including, at that time, the Cathedral) in fact had regular Latin Masses, she harrumphed and said that unfortunately there was nothing she could do about such pastors.
Interesting, but hardly surprising stuff. When our cantor added the Agnus Dei in Latin during Easter, there was tut-tutting amongst the "The Nuns Were Mean To Us In The Old Days" crowd. Still and all, a fairly innocuous post from Fr. Rob.
So, of course, his Bishop ordered him to cease posting to his blog.
Another good priest in the Diocese offered the reason:
The chancery has received complaints that Fr. Rob's description of an incident several years ago involving a former member of the diocesan liturgy commission [who lied to Rob and parishioners about a diocesan ban on the Novus Ordo Mass -- no such ban exists] [I think he means Latin in the NO--DP] was inflammatory and imprudent, and casts aspersions on the current diocesan liturgy commission, whose chairperson is a member of Fr. Rob's parish. I have no idea if this parishioner/chairperson is the one who reported Fr. Rob's "inflammatory" blog to the chancery -- I doubt it strongly, as I know this person to be a good person, not given to overreaction, and generally well-disposed to Fr. Rob. In other words, no axe to grind here.
Fr. Rob's comments made no judgment upon the current diocesan liturgy commission, but simply described an instance of deception by a former member, who is no longer a resident of the Kalamazoo diocese. I am extremely disappointed in the action taken here to Fr. Rob. I have known him since he first started studying in the seminary for the diocese, and he has been the subject of much scrutiny and criticism by the "ageing hippy" element among the presbyters of this diocese. The mere fact that Fr. Rob has degrees in classical languages sets their false teeth on edge. That he is of a more traditional turn theologically and spiritually does not win him any further support among this crowd.
This reminds me of something....It's on the tip of my tongue.... Don't worry: I'll figure it out.
In the legal profession, the gripe about impugning the commission is what we call a facially-invalid complaint. Quite simply, how can it "cast[] aspersions on the current diocesan liturgy commission" when it makes no reference whatsoever to it? Re-read the post a few times: of the phrase "diocesan liturgy commission," only the term "liturgy" appears. There's no indication that Kate, the parish music enforcer, was a member of the DLC. Accepting fully the description of the good faith of the Bishop, it is still indefensible. What we have here is the iron hand of a bureaucracy that tolerates no deviation, and no dissent.
Except for itself, of course.
Adding some Latin to the Mass? That's not "inclusive." It's not "accessible." Note the profound condescension of such a position. Even as OCP promotes the addition of Spanish hymns to the Mass--a few lines of Latin would be incomprehensible to Joe and Mary Catholic. Spare me.
Why, the temerity of such a suggestion! Msgr. O'Brien of the DLC has requisitioned the rat cage for Fr. W. Smith. He will learn to love Big Haugen.
But for the proles, the Thirty Five Year Plan will continue. FACP quotas will be achieved. Folk music will be sung. Parishes will be renovated. Sacred meals will be celebrated.
Churches will empty.
Prosecution Exhibit A.
The estimable Fr. Rob Johansen, fellow Michiganian and priest of the Diocese of Kalamazoo, recently posted about his visit to the Nebraska seminary of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, better known as the FSSP. He related several common-sense points:
It is most unfortunate and unfair, it seems to me, that so many "moderate" and "progressive" Catholics have relegated faithful Traditionalists such as those of the FSSP to an Outer Darkness of sorts: Such people love to portray themselves as champions of diversity within the Church, but somehow that diversity doesn't include the riches of our own Latin liturgical patrimony. The fact is that the rites of the 1962 missal fulfill the spiritual needs of a large and growing number of Catholics. If that's not diversity, I don't know what is.
* * *
I attended a couple of seminary liturgies, and while at Vespers last Saturday evening I was struck by the true austerity, a beautiful austerity, of the liturgy. Those who pooh-pooh the old rite as overwrought or difficult to follow, it seems to me, simply have not made any effort to understand it. That liturgy wasn't complicated: what it was was reverent. And it seems to me that that Novus Ordo opens itself up to irreverence in a way that the Old Rite doesn't.
Then Fr. Johansen related a tale of the visceral, neurotic hatred of Latin held by far too many in positions of influence. A parishioner made the mistake of inquiring as to the addition of Latin to the Mass in the presence of the parish Bolsheviturgist:
The only real die-hard opposition to Latin in the liturgy anymore comes from the aging-hippie set. Many such people have a virulent hatred of Latin or anything that smacks of tradition. I recall an incident I witnessed at a parish some time past: A parishioner innocently approached the parish music director and asked if we could have "some Latin at Mass". She literally drew back her shoulders and declaimed in her most authoritative voice "We don't do Latin at this parish. Latin isn't accessible to the people." The parishioner (who was by no means elderly) spoke of the beauty of Latin and how much she and many other parishioners would enjoy it. I then chimed in and said, "Why couldn't we? We would have to start with simpler stuff, but why not? I'd be happy to help." She then turned to me and with a voice of cold fury made it clear that there would be no such goings on at that parish. When I pointed out that a couple of parishes in the diocese (including, at that time, the Cathedral) in fact had regular Latin Masses, she harrumphed and said that unfortunately there was nothing she could do about such pastors.
Interesting, but hardly surprising stuff. When our cantor added the Agnus Dei in Latin during Easter, there was tut-tutting amongst the "The Nuns Were Mean To Us In The Old Days" crowd. Still and all, a fairly innocuous post from Fr. Rob.
So, of course, his Bishop ordered him to cease posting to his blog.
Another good priest in the Diocese offered the reason:
The chancery has received complaints that Fr. Rob's description of an incident several years ago involving a former member of the diocesan liturgy commission [who lied to Rob and parishioners about a diocesan ban on the Novus Ordo Mass -- no such ban exists] [I think he means Latin in the NO--DP] was inflammatory and imprudent, and casts aspersions on the current diocesan liturgy commission, whose chairperson is a member of Fr. Rob's parish. I have no idea if this parishioner/chairperson is the one who reported Fr. Rob's "inflammatory" blog to the chancery -- I doubt it strongly, as I know this person to be a good person, not given to overreaction, and generally well-disposed to Fr. Rob. In other words, no axe to grind here.
Fr. Rob's comments made no judgment upon the current diocesan liturgy commission, but simply described an instance of deception by a former member, who is no longer a resident of the Kalamazoo diocese. I am extremely disappointed in the action taken here to Fr. Rob. I have known him since he first started studying in the seminary for the diocese, and he has been the subject of much scrutiny and criticism by the "ageing hippy" element among the presbyters of this diocese. The mere fact that Fr. Rob has degrees in classical languages sets their false teeth on edge. That he is of a more traditional turn theologically and spiritually does not win him any further support among this crowd.
This reminds me of something....It's on the tip of my tongue.... Don't worry: I'll figure it out.
In the legal profession, the gripe about impugning the commission is what we call a facially-invalid complaint. Quite simply, how can it "cast[] aspersions on the current diocesan liturgy commission" when it makes no reference whatsoever to it? Re-read the post a few times: of the phrase "diocesan liturgy commission," only the term "liturgy" appears. There's no indication that Kate, the parish music enforcer, was a member of the DLC. Accepting fully the description of the good faith of the Bishop, it is still indefensible. What we have here is the iron hand of a bureaucracy that tolerates no deviation, and no dissent.
Except for itself, of course.
Adding some Latin to the Mass? That's not "inclusive." It's not "accessible." Note the profound condescension of such a position. Even as OCP promotes the addition of Spanish hymns to the Mass--a few lines of Latin would be incomprehensible to Joe and Mary Catholic. Spare me.
Why, the temerity of such a suggestion! Msgr. O'Brien of the DLC has requisitioned the rat cage for Fr. W. Smith. He will learn to love Big Haugen.
But for the proles, the Thirty Five Year Plan will continue. FACP quotas will be achieved. Folk music will be sung. Parishes will be renovated. Sacred meals will be celebrated.
Churches will empty.
Saturday, February 22, 2003
"Eruzione shoots...he scores!!!"
Today is the 23rd anniversary of the most titanic upset in Olympic team sports: the victory of the U.S. hockey team over the Soviets. It certainly made an impression on this eleven year old and his friends, who were playing a lot of field hockey in the gym at the time. "I'm Mike Eruzione!" "I'm Dave Silk!" "I'm Mike Ramsey!" "I'm Jim Craig!" Fortunately, no one got too badly bruised.
I have it on tape, but I hope it comes to DVD. I still get chills as Al Michaels calls the Eruzione goal. Montreal Canadien Hall of Fame goatender Ken Dryden was in the booth as the color commentator, and he was clearly caught up in the moment, too.
The real hero of the game was goalie Jim Craig, who turned away 38 shots from what was probably the greatest Olympic team ever assembled.
Actually, the Russians were one of the great teams, period. Just ask the Canadians, whose team of NHL all-stars barely eked out a 4-3-1 victory in an unsurpassed eight game hockey war in 1972, better known as the Super Series. Paul Henderson's goal in Game Eight has a mythic quality in Canada that's hard to describe to Americans. Think Bill Mazeroski's seventh game home run in the 1960 World Series against the dread Yankees, combined with Joe Montana's last minute drive in the 1989 Super Bowl, wrapped up in Eruzione's goal in 1980, and you have something of the flavor of it.
Now, maybe, you have a feel for the magnitude of the upset of the Soviet team in 1980 at the hands of a bunch of American collegians.
Of course, the world changed radically after that, and now Russian players are commonplace in the NHL. A little over seventeen years later, I cheered like a maniac when future Hall of Fame defenseman Slava Fetisov, a member of the 1980 Soviet team, hoisted the Stanley Cup over his head as a member of the mighty Detroit Red Wings.
But, with all due respect to Slava, I still glory in the 1980 victory. As, I suspect, do all Americans who remember it.
Today is the 23rd anniversary of the most titanic upset in Olympic team sports: the victory of the U.S. hockey team over the Soviets. It certainly made an impression on this eleven year old and his friends, who were playing a lot of field hockey in the gym at the time. "I'm Mike Eruzione!" "I'm Dave Silk!" "I'm Mike Ramsey!" "I'm Jim Craig!" Fortunately, no one got too badly bruised.
I have it on tape, but I hope it comes to DVD. I still get chills as Al Michaels calls the Eruzione goal. Montreal Canadien Hall of Fame goatender Ken Dryden was in the booth as the color commentator, and he was clearly caught up in the moment, too.
The real hero of the game was goalie Jim Craig, who turned away 38 shots from what was probably the greatest Olympic team ever assembled.
Actually, the Russians were one of the great teams, period. Just ask the Canadians, whose team of NHL all-stars barely eked out a 4-3-1 victory in an unsurpassed eight game hockey war in 1972, better known as the Super Series. Paul Henderson's goal in Game Eight has a mythic quality in Canada that's hard to describe to Americans. Think Bill Mazeroski's seventh game home run in the 1960 World Series against the dread Yankees, combined with Joe Montana's last minute drive in the 1989 Super Bowl, wrapped up in Eruzione's goal in 1980, and you have something of the flavor of it.
Now, maybe, you have a feel for the magnitude of the upset of the Soviet team in 1980 at the hands of a bunch of American collegians.
Of course, the world changed radically after that, and now Russian players are commonplace in the NHL. A little over seventeen years later, I cheered like a maniac when future Hall of Fame defenseman Slava Fetisov, a member of the 1980 Soviet team, hoisted the Stanley Cup over his head as a member of the mighty Detroit Red Wings.
But, with all due respect to Slava, I still glory in the 1980 victory. As, I suspect, do all Americans who remember it.
Is the tide about to turn in favor of Pope Pius XII?
Mark Cameron reports a Zenit story about Sir Martin Gilbert's perspective on the Pope and the Shoah. It contains this favorable quote from the eminent British historian:
Three years ago, Gilbert published the book "Never Again: A History of the Holocaust." Interviewed by United Press International, the English historian said: "Christians were among the first victims of the Nazis. ... One of the things I try to bring out in the book is that the Christian churches took a very powerful stand. ... At every stage of the Holocaust, the Church had no hesitation ... all the great bishops of France protested the deportations, ... Poland had more Righteous Gentiles than any other country."
In the same book, Gilbert says that he is not unaware that some Christians, violating their faith, did not oppose the Nazis, but he explained "that they did so, in spite of, and not because of, their religion. This was particularly true regarding the Catholic Church, whose moral teachings against racism, anti-Semitism and murder were perfectly clear."
Gilbert added: "I try to find out what the Catholic Church and churchmen and Pacelli himself actually did do. So the test for Pacelli was when the Gestapo came to Rome to round up Jews. And the Catholic Church, on his direct authority, immediately dispersed as many Jews as they could."
That's a perspective on the Pope that I had not considered before: the hour of decision was the attempted round-up of Roman Jews--and the Pope used his authority to intervene decisively in favor of the Jewish population. The attempted round-up was his "Schindler moment"--and four-fifths of Rome's Jewish population was saved at his direct order. A very helpful way to look at the Pope's conduct.
Mr. Cameron also provides a link to The Righteous, which is selling quite briskly at Amazon (# 1,118 as of this post).
Gilbert is one of the premier historians of our time. If, at a minimum, these books are not on your shelf, your personal library is by definition deficient. His book on the Second World War is especially poignant, as it makes a determined effort to document atrocities that are otherwise forgotten or left out of books of comparable scope.
Gilbert's stature ensures that no credible account of the Pope's actions will be able to ignore his perspective. Perhaps the tide turns. If so, it is long overdue.
[P.S.--Thanks to Mark for his kind reference to the Pagans post.]
Mark Cameron reports a Zenit story about Sir Martin Gilbert's perspective on the Pope and the Shoah. It contains this favorable quote from the eminent British historian:
Three years ago, Gilbert published the book "Never Again: A History of the Holocaust." Interviewed by United Press International, the English historian said: "Christians were among the first victims of the Nazis. ... One of the things I try to bring out in the book is that the Christian churches took a very powerful stand. ... At every stage of the Holocaust, the Church had no hesitation ... all the great bishops of France protested the deportations, ... Poland had more Righteous Gentiles than any other country."
In the same book, Gilbert says that he is not unaware that some Christians, violating their faith, did not oppose the Nazis, but he explained "that they did so, in spite of, and not because of, their religion. This was particularly true regarding the Catholic Church, whose moral teachings against racism, anti-Semitism and murder were perfectly clear."
Gilbert added: "I try to find out what the Catholic Church and churchmen and Pacelli himself actually did do. So the test for Pacelli was when the Gestapo came to Rome to round up Jews. And the Catholic Church, on his direct authority, immediately dispersed as many Jews as they could."
That's a perspective on the Pope that I had not considered before: the hour of decision was the attempted round-up of Roman Jews--and the Pope used his authority to intervene decisively in favor of the Jewish population. The attempted round-up was his "Schindler moment"--and four-fifths of Rome's Jewish population was saved at his direct order. A very helpful way to look at the Pope's conduct.
Mr. Cameron also provides a link to The Righteous, which is selling quite briskly at Amazon (# 1,118 as of this post).
Gilbert is one of the premier historians of our time. If, at a minimum, these books are not on your shelf, your personal library is by definition deficient. His book on the Second World War is especially poignant, as it makes a determined effort to document atrocities that are otherwise forgotten or left out of books of comparable scope.
Gilbert's stature ensures that no credible account of the Pope's actions will be able to ignore his perspective. Perhaps the tide turns. If so, it is long overdue.
[P.S.--Thanks to Mark for his kind reference to the Pagans post.]
Whatever happened to Cardinal Law?
Funny you should ask, because the Detroit News has the answer, and it relates to a recent link I posted, too:
Law issued a statement Friday [February 7], saying he plans to move to Clinton, Md., to live at a house owned by the Sisters of Mercy of Alma, a conservative order of nuns based in Alma, Mich.
"I am very grateful to the Sisters of Mercy of Alma for their kind invitation to be their guest during this time of transition," Law said. "It is my hope to be of assistance to the Sisters as a chaplain."
There is no firm date for his move, Law said.
The house is located on the grounds of a convent in Clinton about 20 miles from Washington, D.C. No one answered the phone at the order's headquarters in Michigan on Friday.
And I just blogged about the Alma Sisters on Thursday. Interesting.
The News' Religion page is generally quite worthwhile--it's where I learned about the proponents of G.K. Chesterton's canonization. Unfortunately, the story was published in 1999, and Detroit News links expire after two years.
Funny you should ask, because the Detroit News has the answer, and it relates to a recent link I posted, too:
Law issued a statement Friday [February 7], saying he plans to move to Clinton, Md., to live at a house owned by the Sisters of Mercy of Alma, a conservative order of nuns based in Alma, Mich.
"I am very grateful to the Sisters of Mercy of Alma for their kind invitation to be their guest during this time of transition," Law said. "It is my hope to be of assistance to the Sisters as a chaplain."
There is no firm date for his move, Law said.
The house is located on the grounds of a convent in Clinton about 20 miles from Washington, D.C. No one answered the phone at the order's headquarters in Michigan on Friday.
And I just blogged about the Alma Sisters on Thursday. Interesting.
The News' Religion page is generally quite worthwhile--it's where I learned about the proponents of G.K. Chesterton's canonization. Unfortunately, the story was published in 1999, and Detroit News links expire after two years.
Got Sleep?
Surely you jest. My beloved toddler daughter has been getting up at 5:30am consistently for the past week. "Awake" awake, not merely a brief wake up. This is probably God's way of preparing Heather and I for the sleeplessness that will be caused by our son, who is going to be born on Wednesday.
After that, we'll have several "sleep-optional" months.
So, I should be thankful. I guess.
I probably will be with more coffee.
Since she's watching SpongeBob on the DVD player, I will blog. Sounds fair.
Surely you jest. My beloved toddler daughter has been getting up at 5:30am consistently for the past week. "Awake" awake, not merely a brief wake up. This is probably God's way of preparing Heather and I for the sleeplessness that will be caused by our son, who is going to be born on Wednesday.
After that, we'll have several "sleep-optional" months.
So, I should be thankful. I guess.
I probably will be with more coffee.
Since she's watching SpongeBob on the DVD player, I will blog. Sounds fair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
New digs for ponderings about Levantine Christianity.
The interior of Saint Paul Melkite Greek Catholic Church, Harissa, Lebanon. I have decided to set up a Substack exploring Eastern Christi...
-
Being a little worn out and dispirited over comboxing (at Jay's, primarily, and also the invaluable American Catholic), I'll instead...
-
The interior of Saint Paul Melkite Greek Catholic Church, Harissa, Lebanon. I have decided to set up a Substack exploring Eastern Christi...