IrishLaw

What profit a man

2009-05-22T12:58:00.000-05:00

Watching the ND Commencement on television Sunday, my first thoughts were that Fr. Jenkins and President Obama were going to come off very well in most subsequent reviews. They were clearly a hit with the students, and they did very well in seizing their moment. That, of course, made it all the worse for Notre Dame, the pro-life movement, and the Catholic Church.

Jenkins sounded confident in his speech, but I wondered as I was listening in the beginning, as he kept talking about dialogue, reason and faith, truth in the abstract, dialogue again, and debate -- would he ever actually name the things we were meant to dialoguing about with the president? Jenkins kept going, and cited Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II on dialogue and debate. Finally, in a single sentence he named the issue: "President Obama has come to Notre Dame, though he knows well that we are fully supportive of Church teaching on the sanctity of human life, and we oppose his policies on abortion and embryonic stem cell research." That's good, and direct. But Fr. Jenkins then immediately went on to cite more Church teachings on dialogue, respect for differing views, and dialogue again -- and finally he started into the glowing portrait of President Obama that I was expecting. Indeed the whole talk was more or less as expected: a single sentence confirming that ND disagreed with Obama on life issues, with the bulk of the enthusiastic remarks celebrating both Notre Dame's own openness and Obama's great list of admirable qualities. Throughout his own talk and Obama's, Fr. Jenkins was pretty much beaming the whole time.

Obama's speech also celebrated the value of dialogue, and he named the issue of abortion. In characteristic fashion, however, he said a lot of nice-sounding words that have no relation to his actual actions or (apparently) beliefs. He made the customary gestures toward abortion being "a heart-wrenching decision" with "moral and spiritual dimensions," without ever engaging any of those. He talked about finding common ground and dialogue, but while his language suggested he thought abortion was at least regrettable, he neatly avoided mentioning that he has never once supported a single legal restriction or qualification on abortion rights through all nine months of pregnancy. He talked about respecting even irreconcilable differences and rights of conscience, but he supports taxpayer (so forced) funding of abortion and ESCR, and he is actually repealing Bush-era conscience protections for physicians.

The president said, "I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away." What is his argument for abortion, though? He didn't actually say. Ultimately, his best anecdote on being open-minded and fair-minded was that he once agreed to stop calling pro-lifers "right-wing ideologues." So generous! But in the meantime he, like Fr. Jenkins, agreed debate and dialogue were great things.

The net result of both talks was that both parties celebrated their openmindedness and tolerance, while neither engaged the actual issues. Listening to Fr. Jenkins, one would think that dialogue was a higher virtue in the Catholic Church than protecting innocent life. Listening to President Obama, one would think he was a reasonable moderate on abortion and other life issues, when in fact he's been remarkably extreme in his support of unlimited abortion rights. There's no doubt the president emerged triumphant from this visit, because most observers would think, again, that he sounded perfectly moderate -- and by all lights he had the endorsement of the nation's premier Catholic university in addressing these issues. One line from Fr. Jenkins was hardly enough to save Notre Dame's credibility here, no matter how sincerely he believed it.

Looking hard, there may be some good things to come out of this. The fact that the Catholic Church stands for life was prominently disseminated, and maybe in the course of the national debate some people have become more aware of what Obama actually stands for on life issues. ND Response's efforts certainly helped in that regard, and the networks did cover their prayer vigils (although not as much as the outside protesters). But I'm not so optimistic that the end result isn't just Notre Dame tarnishing its own image as a Catholic institution, hurting its relationship with the institutional Church, and providing the means for Obama to continue his outstanding tradition of getting credit for his pretty words while his actions are relentlessly the opposite.

On campus this morning

2009-05-17T13:11:00.009-05:00

Cool and calm on campus this morning, but with a bit of an edge in the air. It looked like ND Response was going to get a good turnout as people were streaming in hours early, though not yet collected on South Quad. I saw Bill Kirk driving around in his golf cart to check on arrangements.

Now the ceremony is being broadcast live on the cable news networks. Fox is doing a good job with its coverage. I'm disappointed but hardly surprised to see the wildly enthusiastic reception for the president from faculty and staff, as well as big smiles from Fr. Jenkins. Fox is reporting that Obama is going to speak "at length" on abortion based on a leaked copy of the speech. I hope, but without any real cause, that he won't insult our intelligence by pretending the controversy on abortion and embryonic stem cell research is all some minor policy disagreement he has with the Catholic Church. Well, not much else to do now but watch, and pray.

UPDATE: CNN is reporting Obama is going to use all the "social justice" codewords. Great. Well, as someone just said to me, he can't do worse than Cuomo on giving cover to pro-choice Catholics because he's not Catholic. Still, looks like there will be plenty for administrators to feel pleased over, and not a lot for pro-lifers to respect.

Center of the storm

2009-05-16T22:28:00.004-05:00

This afternoon at the St. Mary's commencement ceremony (which was lovely, by the way) a huge military plane flew in low over the campus -- advance agents and materials for the president's visit tomorrow. Since getting into town yesterday, I've seen a lot of protesters on ND Avenue and Angela/Edison and heard a lot of people talking about the controversy. It looked like platforms for the NDResponse demonstration were being set up on South Quad tonight - I've read they're expecting thousands of people, which I hope is true. Hopefully this peaceful witness being shown by so many will make it harder for the media to misrepresent the objections to ND honoring Obama. (I have noticed that the South Bend tv stations have been mentioning Bishop D'Arcy and the bishops' statements more than some other outlets.)

One thing I forgot, for whatever reason, until today's commencement, was that the honorary degree recipients have glowing statements about their lives and achievements read aloud before the degrees are conferred. They don't publish the biographies in the Notre Dame commencement program like they do at some schools (like St. Mary's), so we don't know what the introductory statement on the president as he's presented for a doctor of laws, honoris causa, tomorrow will be, but we can be fairly certain it won't involve dialogue or nuance, both because of course that's not customary for these things, and because we've become pretty familiar with Fr. Jenkins's enthusiastic plaudits of the president over the past two months. So I fear we can expect a nice, unqualified hagiography, with smiles all around.

Some people don't think any of this matters. But walking around campus tonight, by the Grotto, in the Basilica, even in LaFortune, and feeling that whole special sense of place that Notre Dame always conveys, I felt again how keenly it does matter -- because Notre Dame matters to the Church in America. It's a special place, and betrayals of Catholic values like we expect to be seeing tomorrow only diminish it.

Dialogue

2009-05-16T22:00:00.001-05:00

No news isn't good news

2009-05-06T08:35:00.003-05:00

I haven't heard or seen anything at all regarding last Friday's Board meeting for Notre Dame, which I think is disappointing. Presumably if the trustees had decided to take action or make a public statement censuring Fr. Jenkins, they would have done so by now. As it is, graduation is a week from Sunday and it seems that, despite hundreds of thousands of signatures in opposition, public outcry, division (and not a little disillusionment) sown among the alumni, and public opposition from no less than one-third of the U.S. bishops, including Bishop D'Arcy, Fr. Jenkins hasn't been moved a whit.

The good news is that the student-led prayerful protest movement has organized and will be peacefully demonstrating during the commencement exercises. Bishop D'Arcy will be participating in this, and I know the organizers are hoping to have a huge turnout. I am keeping them in my prayers and hope to be able to participate somewhat, at least on Saturday.

Unapologetic

2009-04-27T10:45:00.003-05:00

Father Jenkins has used a variety of talking points and defenses to counter criticisms of his decision on President Obama, including employing poor Biblical citations. I don't appreciate his attempts to spin those of us who are seriously concerned about his actions, but I feel worse for Notre Dame Club officers who are getting spun by him as well at the same time as these officers are hearing lots of criticism and concern themselves. According to a source who attended this weekend's Alumni Senate gathering at ND and heard Fr. Jenkins speak, he not only isn't backing down (as we know), he thinks alumni officers should be "on the front lines" defending the University's positions. Apparently he also made light of Bishop D'Arcy's Thursday letter chiding him for not consulting the bishop ahead of time and for propogating incorrect statements on the USCCB document; he said that he didn't consult the bishop, but then again he doesn't consult him on most decisions regarding the university.

Now granted, there are alumni who have no problem with the Obama invitation and honorary degree (a few even approved of his response to the bishop, unfortunately). But there are quite a few who are very upset, and they didn't sign on (in being involved in their local clubs) to defend a position that they completely disagree with and that seems to directly contradict Church teaching.

Again, what is the Board of Trustees going to do here?

Compounding the embarrassment

2009-04-27T09:14:00.005-05:00

Breaking: Mary Ann Glendon, in a public letter to Father Jenkins, has declined to receive the Laetare Medal this year. In her letter, posted at First Things where she is on their editorial board I believe, she says she was originally honored to receive the award, but then realized she would have to change her speech once President Obama was announced. Finally, she decided that she couldn't accept for several reasons: first, granting him an honorary law degree was (as Bishop D'Arcy pointedly noted on Thursday) in violation of USCCB directives and Catholic teaching (and I would add, cheapens the value of her own much-deserved honorary law degree). Second, she realized she was being used by Fr. Jenkins (in his "talking points") to be the university's counter to President Obama, and apparently as the primary means of "engaging" the President on life issues -- at commencement exercises that shouldn't be focused on those issues in the first place. I commend Professor Glendon for taking this stand -- but feel continued embarrassment for the university -- *our* university -- that would honor a pro-abortion, pro-embryo-destructive-research leader over one of our nation's foremost Catholic legal scholars.

I understand that the Board of Trustees is going to meet this coming Friday. I would encourage people to write (politely, of course) to members of the Board to express their opinions. I know some of them are already upset by Fr. Jenkins's course of action here, but the question is, what will they do about it? Is this issue something the university is prepared to suffer loss of its good Catholic character and division of its alumni over?

ETA: David Freddoso (an alum) at NRO reports that Fr. Jenkins's reply to this is that he's disappointed but intends to find "another deserving recipient." Says Freddoso, rather snarkily: "Joe Biden, perhaps?" Perfect.

More in reply to Fr. Jenkins, though: Really? No reply *at all* to the reasoning given by Professor Glendon? Doesn't she merit more respect than such a curt "move on" statement in response?

This is getting out of hand.

Poor excuses

2009-04-24T14:36:00.005-05:00

I am hearing from a few relatively high-placed sources that Father Jenkins is continuing to change/extend his justifications to donors for conferring the honorary degree on President Obama. While he consistently states that the University is pro-life, and does not and will not support the President's positions (and actions, one should add) on abortion and embryonic stem cell research, among other things, Fr. Jenkins does not think the honorary degree controverts Notre Dame's mission. In fact, he is now employing biblical analogies to affirmatively justify the degree -- he is citing 1 Peter 2:17 to say that while we honor God above all, we must also "honor the king" since we live in this world.

I'm pretty sure this passage does not apply at all in this situation, and I'm hardly the biblical scholar Fr. Jenkins should be. Honoring the king (even in spite of persecution, which is the context St. Peter was writing in) means that "for the Lord's sake" we "accept the authority of every human institution," accept Caesar's authority to rule, and do not revolt against him -- it does not, by any reading, mean fêting him, especially if he is not using his authority wisely. In Values in a Time of Upheaval, Pope Benedict reads this passage in concert with Romans 13 ("There is no authority except from God") to discuss how Christians should relate to the state. (Hint: it doesn't involve honoring those who support use of the law to kill the innocent.)

The task of the state is . . . [to] ensure peace at home and abroad. As I have said, this may sound somewhat banal, and yet it articulates an essential moral demand: peace at home and abroad is possible only when the fundamental legal rights of the individual and of society are guaranteed.

Our constitutional and federal statutory law -- as actively supported by the President -- does not respect the fundamental legal right to life of the unborn. We can respect the office of the president -- be polite, offer prayers -- without at all being able to justify celebrating or honoring the officeholder who doesn't understand that most fundamental obligation of the state. I just finished reading Archbishop Chaput's Render Unto Caesar the other day, and he is very much on point in this question of what the Bible really teaches us our responsibilities are as Christians living in this world:

What belongs to Caesar, and what belongs to God? To Caesar we owe respect and prayers for our leaders (1 Timothy 2:2); respect for the law; obedience to proper authority; and service to the common good. It's a rather modest list. And note that respect is not subservience, or silence, or inaction, or excuse making, or acquiescence to grave evil in the public life we all share.

I'm pretty sure St. Peter never meant for us to affirmatively and freely grant honors to leaders who advocate, vote for and enact laws that destroy innocent human life. Because before that "Honor the king" directive comes the more important one: "Fear God."

Ironically, ASU apologizes . . .

2009-04-20T21:02:00.004-05:00

... for not doing enough to properly honor President Obama during his commencement speech at Arizona State. In fact, after they said that they were not conferring an honorary degree because, they said, the president did not yet have a body of work sufficient to merit it, they heard howls of outrage from people who thought this was an insult and completely inappropriate. It now turns out that ASU's policy is simply to not give honorary degrees to sitting politicians (hey, that would solve some of our problems right there), but they already backpedaled hard to show the proper amount of deference to Obama. Their president assures that Arizona State "will honor President Obama in every way" (!) and they even created a "Barack Obama Scholars" scholarship program in his honor. ASU has no institutional or moral reason to oppose the president's policies, of course, while ND does. The contrast between the two schools and who has been outraged by each is (or should be) instructive, however.

I'm sure others have suggested this, but can't ASU and ND just switch? They can give the honorary degree, and we can decline to confer one. Then all the right people should be happy.

Getting the (canon) law wrong

2009-04-11T12:40:00.003-05:00

Canon lawyer Ed Peters is harsh in his reply to Fr. Jenkins's interpretation of the USCCB statement "Catholics in Political Life." Fr. Jenkins said, in a letter to the ND Board of Trustees, that he consulted with canon lawyers who confirmed his reading that the bishops' statement only applied to Catholics who acted against Catholic teaching. On the face of it, this might sound plausible, but a moment's thought (which one hopes the Board of Trustees would give it) reveals it is ludicrous. As Peters says:

Is the man serious?

Does Jenkins really think that Catholic bishops would countenance a Catholic institution honoring a philanthropic murderer, or a free-speech crusading pornographer, or a right-to-privacy pimp, provided merely that the awardee was not a Catholic? Really, that's too bizarre for words.

Fr. Jenkins also says that conferring the honorary degree does not connote support for the President's positions on life issues. "In every statement I have made about the invitation of President Obama and in every statement I will make, I express our disagreement with him on issues surrounding the protection of life, such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research," he said. "If we repeatedly and clearly state that we do not support the President on these issues, we cannot be understood to 'suggest support'."

If one needs to clarify repeatedly and in every instance that conferring the degree does not "suggest support," doesn't that indicate that yes, the degree itself does suggest support? Otherwise there wouldn't be a need to be constantly clarifying. And how prominent are ND's disavowals of support of the President likely to be in the public eye, and how long are they likely to last in the public perception? Answers: Not that prominent, and not that long. I hope the Board doesn't buy into this.

Retrenchment

2009-04-11T09:33:00.006-05:00

Over the past two weeks, the University has only been digging in with its defense of inviting the president and giving him an honorary degree. 32 bishops around the country have spoken up to condemn the decision to honor the President in contravention of Catholic principles and the 2004 USCCB statement. But I've heard the dismissal from University backers that that's only a small fraction of the total number of US bishops, so it's insignificant. I've also been told by a University spokesman directly that they are bothered by the "lack of consistency" in the bishops opposing ND's decision but not speaking out against Obama at the Al Smith dinner in New York last year. My points would be: first, the importance of any number of bishops speaking out in this context is that they, as authors of the USCCB statement, certainly have some authority in clarifying what it meant. (Fr. Jenkins has claimed it was ambiguous and intended only to apply to Catholic pro-choice politicians, but the bishops are rebutting that interpretation.) Second, whether or not there was opposition to the Al Smith dinner last year, it doesn't speak to whether the bishops are right in this instance with regard to Notre Dame. As a response to my question about whether ND was affected by Bishop D'Arcy's statement and declining to attend commencement, this administration official's reply was disappointing.

I've also talked to a few high-level donors who are receiving the same standard responses as everyone else. Extending invitations to new presidents is "customary"; they aren't honoring Obama's pro-choice or anti-Catholic positions; they're disappointed by Bishop D'Arcy's response but it won't affect their decision; and of course they understand concerns from the alumni but they want this to be an "opportunity for dialogue," and who knows? Maybe the President will be changed by the encounter. Finally, they are being told, Laetare Medal honoree Mary Ann Glendon may well take the opportunity for her speech to directly challenge the President's positions on life issues. I don't think the alumni are too reassured by this, but rather continue to be distressed. (I've also talked to "regular" alumni who, like me, aren't any kind of high level donors but just love the school, and are so upset by the University's decision and seeming lack of response to alumni concerns, that it's coloring their whole perception of the school.)

The latest news ought to be as publicly embarrassing as three dozen bishops censuring the school: Arizona State, which is also having the President speak at its commencement, is not conferring an honorary degree, because, according to its spokesman, "It's our practice to recognize an individual for his body of work, somebody who's been in their position for a long time. His body of work is yet to come." Ouch. Well, it's yet to come except in the key bits of policy he's managed to find time for in the first few months, like taxpayer funding of international abortion advocacy groups, federal funding for newly destructive embryonic stem cell research, appointment of pro-choice Catholics to key positions, and so forth.

ND's spokesman officer seems as bland in his response to this as to the story overall:

University spokesman Dennis Brown said it's customary at Notre Dame to confer a degree on every guest speaker. The university tries to select speakers who have made significant contributions to society or can give a compelling message.

Those statements don't follow, and I wonder if Brown made them in sequence. It's clearly possible, as ASU demonstrates, to invite a speaker to come without conferring an honorary degree. And whether or not it's "customary" to give the degree, perhaps there should have been an examination of the particular circumstances in this case to see whether it was appropriate this time. More Brown:

"Every university has its own traditions and has its own missions. I don't think it's at all fair to gauge one against the other. Everybody's different."

Yes, and Notre Dame's supposed to be different in a meaningful way. That's what I always thought, anyway.

More fallout

2009-03-25T20:08:00.002-05:00

The Obama invitation and honorary degree has attracted more widespread attention and criticism than I would have expected since the White House broke the news on Friday, but while I wish the criticism weren't necessary in the first place (if Obama weren't invited), it's certainly warranted now. The way the university has handled it (no press release until the White House said anything, no featured stories on the ND homepage, not even a courtesy call to the bishop until just before the news broke) has something to do with it. Most of their actions suggest they knew it would be an objectionable choice not in line with Church teaching and specific guidelines. In other words, I think the decision can't be attributed to cluelessness as to how alumni and the wider American Catholic community would respond. The administration knew, they attempted to downplay it, and while they are trying to make an affirmative case for why the honors are valid, they're really on the defensive now as people are severely disappointed and upset by the whole affair. Then again, maybe they knew but didn't expect the scope of the blowback?

As many people thought, Bishop D'Arcy has responded by stating that he will not attend Commencement. The statement was not harsh, but was extremely pointed: "[A]s a Catholic University, Notre Dame must ask itself, if by this decision it has chosen prestige over truth." Given that this president has "separated science from ethics and has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life," the decision by ND to confer an honorary degree can't be reconciled with the Catholic mission of the university. The bishop has asked for prayers for the university to recommit itself to the "primacy of truth." I'm glad he has taken a strong stand and hope it has an impact on the administration.

The alumni association, though, isn't handling it that well yet, judging by its statement yesterday. Thomas Peters posted this letter sent out to ND Club presidents yesterday. A key point:

Here are a few University observations about the selection of the President as the Commencement speaker: The University does not support President Obama’s positions on specific issues regarding the protection of human life, including abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Notre Dame’s positions on these issues are firm and unwavering. The invitation to the President to be the Commencement speaker shouldn’t be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions that contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Rather, the University has invited the President to campus for what he’s done for racial equality, and for his stands on poverty, health care, immigration, education, infectious disease, and seeking peace. These are causes dear to the heart of Notre Dame, and he has elevated these causes and made them his own.

I fully concede that my reaction to the claims of the second paragraph are mostly political (i.e., how exactly is the push for socialized medicine a praiseworthy thing? How is eliminating voucher programs for disadvantaged minorities a great thing for racial equality and education?) Regardless, however, the fact is that human life issues trump all of these in importance, according to the Church (and one would hope, according to the conscience of most citizens). Active support and furtherance of a legal regime that's resulted in forty million innocent deaths in America alone since Roe v. Wade -- itself a legal abomination that Obama the law prof supports and would codify into law -- has to trump, and does trump, a stand on immigration in any moral calculus. (Unless, for instance, the existing immigration policy was the legalized mass slaughter of immigrants.) Very notably, the Alumni Association letter doesn't say anything about the USCCB policy that was specifically intended to address moral equivalence between (or inversion of priority of) life issues and abortion, on the one hand, and "justice" issues like immigration and education on the other. Any "University observations" that miss this key point are severely flawed. (The Alumni Association letter also makes more points about dialogue and discussion being the point of the invitation.)

I still think that if the University can't back away from having Obama as Commencement speaker, they should at the very least not confer an honorary law degree on him. But I hope they do more than that. If Fr. Jenkins thinks people should be satisfied on Commencement day with a generic, "We have our differences on life issues, but we have *so much* in common on these other points and we're honored and thrilled to have you here," he is sorely mistaken. I am waiting to see what the next steps will be.

Scandalous invitation

2009-03-23T23:02:00.000-05:00

The news broke late Friday that President Obama will be Notre Dame's commencement speaker this year. That the nation's preeminent Catholic university would invite the most pro-abortion president we've ever had to give such a prominent address and receive an honorary law degree is astonishing and unjustifiable.

After a weekend with little to no comment from the university -- they must realize how objectionable this whole affair is -- Fr. Jenkins commented yesterday in an interview with the Observer. My take: I'm still as upset as I was on Friday when I heard about it, and a lot of other people are too. I bet Bishop D'Arcy won't even attend the ceremony.

In its 2004 statement "Catholics in Political Life," the USCCB advised, "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." This should be a no-brainer, but the frequency with which Catholic institutions host such speakers means it needed to be said. Unfortunately, Fr. Jenkins seems to be ignoring the clear meaning and context of this directive in favor of hair-splitting interpretations: The president's honorary degree, he said, "does not, it is not intended to condone or endorse his position on specific issues regarding life. That's not what we're honoring."

So how is he going to make that clear? As the USCCB statement implied, it's hard to separate public honors and accolades of a person from censure of his positions. That's assuming censure even occurs, which I doubt it would here. Fr. Jenkins can tell the alumni and students in the student newspaper that of course we disagree with the President on life issues, but is it likely he's going to say even that much on stage? - much less give any sort of harsh rebuke to the President for causing taxpayers to fund international abortions or destruction of human embryos? Of course not. (You can already tell from Jenkins's comments that he is looking forward to honoring Obama as a "powerful and eloquent" speaker who is "an inspiring leader." Um, sure.)

Even if Catholics could delude themselves, a la Doug Kmiec, before the election that Obama was somehow, despite all evidence to the contrary, really pro-life in practice, there is no way they could think so now. The President has gone out of his way, during a time of economic distress, to allow taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research and abortions. He routinely selects pro-choice Catholics (Biden, Daschle, Sebelius) for key positions, including ones that will affect health care in America. And regardless of whether it's likely to end up on his desk, he has said he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act to eliminate all legislative restrictions on abortion. This is morally and ethically wrong, especially to Catholics. Fr. Jenkins doesn't pretend otherwise (I don't doubt he adheres to Catholic teaching on life issues; of course he does); he just thinks hosting Obama will allow us to have a dialogue and engagement with Obama on these issues.

I think this is unlikely, to say the least. I think, instead, the media and public at large will miss any nuanced "dialoguing" that happens on campus in connection with the event, leaving the main narrative perception of the commencement events to be that Notre Dame hosted Obama, and so abortion just must not be that big of issue for the American church today. (Everyone today remembers Mario Cuomo's "personally opposed" debacle in the 80s happened at Notre Dame. Was there "dialogue" on campus at the time? Who knows?) It gives cover to the Pelosis and Bidens of the world who promulgate ludicrous misreadings of Church teaching and continue publically supporting abortion and other moral wrongs in America. It undermines the moral standing and Catholic character of Notre Dame. It's a huge disappointment for anyone who loves the university and cares about its character. For shame, Fr. Jenkins.

Change to believe in?

2009-01-22T13:01:00.005-05:00

Among President Obama's first official acts scheduled perhaps as soon as today, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, will be ones destructive of human life. He will sign an executive order overturning the Mexico City policy, which was implemented by President Reagan to stop federal funding of international abortions. President Clinton overturned it his first few days in office, but President Bush had reinstated it. Now, American taxpayer dollars will once again be used to fund abortions and abortion advocacy abroad. Anyone who values the rights of the unborn has to feel grieved that we have changed from a president who understands what the culture of life is all about -- who knows that protecting the lives of the innocent and voiceless includes protecting the lives of the unborn -- to one who, far from recognizing the sanctity of human life, by his own account would work actively to entrench and expand abortion rights.

Relatedly, President Obama is also planning to reverse Bush's executive order banning federal (taxpayer) funds for embryonic stem cell research, which involves the creation and destruction of human embryos. Nevermind that such research is immoral, ineffective and unnecessary (adult stem cell research is far more promising and already effective, with no moral issues), as I've written about many times before, or that (for instance) in this economic climate federal money might better be spent elsewhere.

Finally, and again, Obama told Planned Parenthood last year that the first thing he'd do as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which supposedly would codify Roe, but would actually go far beyond that to wipe out all abortion laws in the country: parental notification laws, waiting periods, counseling laws, bans on partial-birth abortion, and so forth (all laws "interfering" with the right to abortion). It would allow taxpayer money to directly fund abortions through Medicaid by eliminating the Hyde Amendment. And it could threaten the right of conscience for Catholic hospitals and pro-life physicians not to perform abortions. In short, it's pretty much the most radical pro-abortion legislation we could have, and with a Democratic majority and a committed president, it's going to take tremendous effort on the part of Catholics and other pro-life supporters to fight it.

It's a terrible shame that, even in a year in which the bishops spoke out more than ever about the Church's clear teaching on abortion, around 54% of Catholic voters picked likely the most pro-abortion president we've ever had. Please pray for the marchers in the annual March for Life in Washington today, for the defeat of FOCA, and for the conversion of this president to recognize the value of unborn human life.

You can follow events from today's march at Blogs 4 Life or EWTN. (I just saw the Notre Dame right-to-life club go by in the crowd. Go Irish!) For media coverage of the march, which is usually quite lacking, keep an eye on Get Religion. Looks like the Post has an article for tomorrow planned, though nothing ran today. I should hope in this year the march gets more attention -- if nothing else, the arrival of the new administration, as the Post seems to have noted, provides a good hook.

Another bad feeling about this

2008-11-08T21:48:00.003-05:00

After the field goal kicker finds his mojo, the quarterback loses it . . . and we start turning the ball over and piling up penalties again on the road.

Oh, Irish, you're killing me.

Policy preferences

2008-11-06T01:26:00.004-05:00

I'm disappointed that Obama won last night, not least because I think if Mr. Hope'n'change has any vision at all for this country besides promoting vacuous feel-goodism, it's probably a severely leftist vision with which I'll almost entirely disagree. Obama spent a lot of his Illinois and U.S. Senate career studiously avoiding taking a position on issues by voting "present" or not voting, which was convenient for his later political career as it meant there was less of a record hindering him. Yet when he did stake out positions through his votes - and since then occasionally in his speeches, or inadvertently - it often revealed an ideological-left orientation.

For one thing, Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate the country has ever elected to high office. (Kerry would have been, but of course he stayed in the Senate in 2004.) Where even the most hardened pro-choicers in the U.S. Senate voted for the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, Obama went out of his way to vote against an identical act in the Illinois Senate. That means he voted against legal protections - basic attempts at medical care - for babies who happen to be born alive following botched abortions. He heard testimony from nurses who had personally witnessed live babies being left alone to die - and still voted against an act that would guarantee at least an attempt to save the lives of such innocents. He's promised Planned Parenthood that his first act in office would be to push to pass the Freedom of Choice Act, eliminating every existing federal and state limitation on abortion that states and Congress itself have managed to pass since Roe - including, for instance, parental notification laws, waiting periods, and bans on partial birth abortion. This would also almost certainly reinstate federal funding for abortions, and Obama would also allow federal funding of abortions abroad, meaning our tax dollars will directly support unfettered rights to abortion on demand. I believe no pro-life person can fail to be horrified at the possibility of such sweeping support for abortion becoming even more entrenched in the law than it already is - even the Supreme Court, which started the whole problem, has allowed many small but meaningful restrictions to stand. Obama's stated policy preference is, simply, abortion on demand. I think 45 million plus is enough already.

For another area I disagree with Obama on, I think his comment to Joe the Plumber about how he really doesn't want to punish success, he just wants to spread the wealth around, was quite telling. That vaunted "top 1%" of taxpayers that everyone thinks it's fine to target for more taxes? They already pay FORTY PERCENT of all income taxes in the country. The top 5% pay 60% of the taxes. The top 50% pay 97% of all taxes in the country. In other words: the top earners in the country pay way more than their fair share of all taxes in the country already. How can Obama give a tax "cut" to 95% of Americans if at least 45% don't pay any taxes at all? (I'll tell you - it's not a cut, it's free money, just like the "rebate" earlier this year that sent checks to millions of people who hadn't paid any taxes at all in the first place, and gave no rebate at all to anyone in the top 10% that had actually paid out those taxes.) Moreover, how it is not punishment of success to further tax the top earners that are already funding most of the federal government? Throughout the campaign, Obama and Biden progressively (heh) shrank the number at which they consider people to be "rich" and thus due for tax increases. $250,000 - $200,000 - $100,000 - well, eventually the "rich" will include everyone who's paying any taxes at all already, and we'll all be due for significant increases. I don't mind paying taxes to fund the military, the roads, and other valid governmental programs. I do believe I'm entitled to keep the bulk of what I earn, though, and that I am a better steward of my own money than the government. I believe small businesses should not be disincentivized to grow and succeed by knowing they will face progressively higher taxes and regulatory costs the better they do. Beyond extremely prescribed limitations, I don't believe that the government should be taking my money and, essentially, cutting checks to people who pay no taxes at all. How is that not the definition of socialism? "Spread the wealth" - the government is fat and bloated already. If liberals want to give more money to the government, they're free to send extra money to the government. I'd rather direct my funds elsewhere, such as to Catholic charities, for instance, or maybe just my own savings account for my rainy day fund or retirement. I think that's my right.

Those are just two major principles. Ultimately, what I see as an observer of Obama is that I think he's a pretty standard-issue liberal law professor, of the sort with which I am all too familiar. He thinks it's perfectly reasonable to use the courts to advance liberal policy preferences (usually the kind of radical but oh-so-earnestly-reasoned hogwash that wouldn't ever succeed outside the pages of law reviews, but for sympathetic judges). He wants judges to be "empathetic" towards the so-called little guys - never mind if judges have to go outside the actual law to achieve desired results. He voted against Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito despite their impeccable legal credentials, because he thought they wouldn't support Roe, which was an outcome-based deal-breaker, apparently. Diversity and affirmative action are core American values, fine by him. Guided by the likes of the New York Times and David Brooks's Bethesda "bobos," he also cares too much about "world opinion" - by which we may quite well assume he means liberal Western European opinion and not, say, Russia's - which I fear may put him in conflict with what is best for American interests. French newspapers and The (London) Times may sneer at American attachment to fossil-fuel-based energy production - would Obama be partly swayed by their approval to impose punitive taxes on our energy industries here? He's already said he doesn't mind if his policies bankrupt the U.S. coal industry. (I don't think the New York Times minds either, of course.) Of course Western Europe has frequently been critical of the War on Terror and Obama seems more in line with their views (and admittedly also, with those of his base) on the war than with this country's - he opposed the surge, which has proven to be a necessary step and strong success in Iraq.

I do recognize the symbolic achievement of Obama's election. In the spirit of the Vatican's telegram to him today, I will wish him well and hope for the best - (hope'n'change!). But for me, the "best" in this case would be that Obama actually decides to govern from the pragmatic center, and not the ideological left he seems to be at home with.

Musical follies

2008-10-20T07:33:00.002-05:00

The music situation at our new parish has, if anything, become even harder to bear over the last few weeks than when we first started attending. I usually love singing at Mass, but I can’t bring myself to sing most of this stuff at all, much less with any enthusiasm, simply because it is so bland and/or even inappropriate for Mass. Two weeks ago there was a choir-only song at communion, with the first line “This iiiiiiis, the moment of graaaaaace,” which sounded for all the world like a Broadway number. Standard sweeping piano intro, soft start, rousing chorus, etc. A pure performance piece. In fact, when I googled it later, it sounded quite a lot like Jekyll and Hyde’s “This is the moment.” (Or Spamalot’s “The song that goes like this” - heh.) I like Broadway quite a lot. I don’t find it particularly liturgical, though.

Last week, in addition to the standard Gloria and Sanctus that involve multiple gratuitous repetitions of, for instance, “blessed is he, blessed is he, blessed is heeee” and “hosanna (ho-sa-ha-na), hosanna (ho-sa-ha-na), hosanna,” we had the regular children’s liturgy song for children to process out. (”Children, listen to the word of God!” - complete with “Children’s!” ™ type happy piano music.) We also had two hymns that were so awful liturgically that I was still shaking my head for days afterward.

The first was called “As a fire is meant for burning,” text by Ruth Duck, arrangement by Marty Haugen. Misleadingly, the tune was actually a traditional one, but the lyrics involved such choice lines as how we go out into the world “not to preach our creeds or customs / but to build a bridge of care.” Gee, I thought the Catholic Church actually cared quite a bit about our creed. Right? We do recite it every week. And “bridge of care”?? The hymn also contained a feel-good reference to being “seekers” and creating oneness “'mid earth’s peoples, many hued.” Yeah, diversity! (I only get this, oh, everywhere on a weekly basis since school ended, thanks to academic and legal profession publications, etc.) You could not come up with a better collection of hippie-type platitudes in this hymn if you were trying hard to parody it. A bit of research determined that Ruth Duck is exactly who you might come up with if you were trying to create a parody of a hippie-type “womyn’s” liturgist. Duck, who very unfortunately actually has an M.A. from Notre Dame, is an ordained UCC minister (hence the no-creed stuff - fits right in with the UCC, which honestly is great for her, but not the Catholic Church!) who lives with her “partner” (at least he’s a guy) in a liberal Chicago suburb, has written a book about revising the names of the persons of the Trinity to not be so male, and has made part of her approach to hymns to be to “revise old hymns that would provide an alternative to traditions showing God as exclusively male.” I could not roll my eyes any more than I am right now. Her music is used in many denominations, which - again, honestly - is great for her, but her theology is clearly not Catholic. I simply have no idea how this has worked its way into Catholic hymnody.

The second awful hymn last week, liturgically speaking, was called, “Let us be bread.” This starts off with “Let us be bread . . . life for the world / Let us be wine, love freely poured.” Okay. Well, while we are part of the Body of Christ, I’m pretty sure we aren’t the bread or wine ourselves. I’m pretty sure that’s just Christ. But move on to the first verse: we switch from at least singing in our own persons, to singing in the person of Christ (which we’re really not supposed to do), “I am the bread of life, broken for all / Eat now and hunger no more.” Back to chorus. Another verse: “See how my people have nothing to eat / Give them the bread that is you.” Again, this is a confusion of persons - I’m not even sure if this verse is supposed to be spoken as if Christ was saying to us, or what - ? What is this stuff? Whatever it is, the focus is certainly on us, much more than on the actual Body and Blood of Christ that we are supposed to be focusing on during the Eucharist. The writer of this hymn actually is Catholic, and unfortunately also has a degree from Notre Dame in music and theology. The focus is just unfortunate - I have to assume it’s the same poor catechesis so many of us have had in the last forty years.*

Here’s the thing - music during Mass is not supposed to be about drawing attention to the choir. It’s not supposed to draw automatic applause every week. It’s not supposed to be about telling ourselves how great we all are. And it’s not supposed to rely on sappy platitudes (contained in treacly musical numbers) that are completely devoid of any theological substance. It’s supposed to integrate into the liturgy as part of the prayer and worship, and it’s supposed to help us orient ourselves interiorly and exteriorly towards a more reflective, reverent posture in the Mass. I like participating in singing, but not at the expense of abandoning good music and good theology.

In any event, rolling my eyes throughout Mass is not a good posture to be assuming. I know that. So last week I decided to try and do something about it, and have reached out to my new music director to see if we can visit a bit and discuss the music at the parish. I have tried to take a very respectful, conciliatory tone, and he has been surprisingly receptive so far (and hey, we even got a "Holy God, We Praise Thy Name" yesterday at Mass - a good sign!). Even if it eventually comes to nothing, I appreciate the music director's willingness to listen - and at least I’ll have tried!

*For instance, one random thing I realized last week at Mass was that the first time I ever heard the words “dona nobis pacem” and sang them was in my eighth-grade public school choir. (!!!) The next time probably wasn’t until I moved to Maryland after law school and started attending my little parish there - I distinctly remember that I had to pay attention to learn “qui tollis peccata mundi”. Even at ND, attending the more informal dorm Masses every week (which I did love) the traditional Agnus Dei was rarely heard (though I have good word it is heard regularly at all of the Basilica Masses).

Alaska moose rap

2008-10-19T08:15:00.002-05:00

I think Sarah Palin showed herself to be a great sport on SNL last night. Amy Poehler's Alaska moose rap was pretty entertaining, but just watch the Governor dancing along. Heh.

This blogger has more analysis and the first "press conference" skit as well.

Getting it

2008-10-17T08:12:00.002-05:00

Surprisingly nice video from MSNBC on how Sarah Palin has connected with other parents of special needs children around the country. I keep thinking she must be overwhelmed by the response to her (since she's only six months into being such a parent herself) but the joyful way she reacts to and engages with such other families indicates rather that she's probably encouraged herself by this community of parents.

Here's the transcript of her speech in Johnstown, Pa. (that the excerpt is taken from in the video) where she spoke more at length about how she reacted to news about her son's Down syndrome and why abortion is the wrong answer.

Not Murphy's Law

2008-10-15T07:55:00.003-05:00

There must be some other name for the football law that says, pretty simply, the team with the fewest turnovers wins. The Irish were able to escape that situation against SDSU this year, but otherwise, you can pretty much be assured that if you turn the ball over five times in a game (while not taking it away the same amount), you're going to lose. Which is what happened Saturday, as the normally extremely accurate Clausen made a couple of common mistakes and threw some ill-advised passes. The most devastating was the first pass of the second half, and out route that should never have been thrown unless the lane was completely clear, because it's far too easy for an LB or safety to step right in the lane and return it straight back for a touchdown, which is what happened. That ended up being the difference in the final score. Argh!!

One offensive note this week. Even with the interceptions, Clausen had yet another career passing day, with 383 yards and a pair of beautiful touchdown passes. Among the regular completions were a 47-yard completion to Tate. I know rushing is absolutely essential for a team to be successful over the long term (especially given what it says about the offensive line's effectiveness), but an effective passing game is so much fun to watch. It did lead to a solid halftime lead on the road in this case, before the turnovers did the Irish in in the second half - though even then, Clausen was cool enough to direct one last long drive down the field in the final 1:45 before coming up short in the (crazy) finish.

For the record, on the crazy finish, I thought Floyd was trying to flip the ball up to the refs so it could be spotted, my husband thought Floyd fumbled, and lots of other people, including the players, thought Floyd was trying to lateral to a teammate to keep the play going. If it was that unclear to all of us, there's no way this was an indisputable call! The refs may have blown it in how they handled the replay because of when the whistle blew, whether the Irish had snapped the next play, etc., but in the end - you just don't win with four turnovers in the second half, so no sour grapes here. The Irish just need to go out and beat Washington 50-0. I'm pretty sure we have a good chance of that.

-

Showing up an aspirational peer

2008-10-08T10:07:00.004-05:00

A few thoughts on Stanford:

- It didn't take long for Clausen to have another career day. The run game receded a bit this week from the showing against Purdue, forcing us to rely more on the passing game, but - we have an increasingly effective passing game, and it's outstanding to watch. Spreading the ball around to seven different receivers - WRs, RBs and the tight end - show Clausen is seeing the field well. (Weis said he was happiest about a check-down short pass to Allen that Allen then turned into the game's first Irish touchdown.) The audibled bomb to Floyd was perfect. I even saw Clausen shrug off a pass rusher this week like Quinn made a habit of doing so well by his senior year. In short, while the offense has not yet been consistent throughout an entire game - causing the lackluster and shaky efforts I noted in the SDSU and MSU games earlier this season - Clausen is looking every bit as sharp and composed as anyone could have hoped he would this year.

- One point I thought, after watching the Purdue game in particular (with that fantastic fourth-and-seven TD reception) but also the other ones this season, is that Grimes has stepped up his game a bit with the emergence of Floyd and Tate (and also now Rudolph). Having solid receivers on the outside allows him to play the middle a bit more and get open himself. His seven receptions Saturday for a solid 60 yards fit him comfortably in the mix of this newly-effective offense.

- Special teams overall has been improved this year. (In particular, it has been great to watch walk-on Anello being the first guy to the return man on almost every kickoff, and even when the coverage isn't great he's still impressively determined. On one fourth quarter Stanford punt, Anello missed the first shot, but jumped up and ended up in on the tackle most of the way back across the field. Not a great result for the Irish, but I can certainly admire the pursuit.) Nonetheless, Saturday wasn't the best game of the season for this unit. Walker's unfortunate mental block on field goals will inevitably cost the team again this season if no solution is found, and kickoff coverage was not as strong as it has been to date.

- The defense has also been a bit confusing. Sometimes we're better defending the run, other times the pass. The opportunism in creating/taking advantage of turnovers has been exciting to watch, but the tackling often leaves a lot to be desired. Weis tried putting this in perspective during his press conference Sunday:

You know, defense yesterday in the first quarter, our run defense was bad. I mean, they had a bunch of long runs. They rushed for over a hundred yards. I mean, they were gashing us pretty good. We didn't handle the shifts and unbalanced very well.

But you realize after the first quarter, they averaged two yards a carry in the run game. So you say, Well, how can we be getting gashed like this? Okay, but for the rest of the game, they had one long run in the fourth quarter, 27-yard run at the start of that drive. But including that one long run, it was two yards a carry for the rest of the game after the first quarter.

So I think he's concerned, but there's still some good results to be found. UNC will be one of the tougher rushing opponents we face this year (like MSU), and on the road (also like MSU), so the team has to find an effective way to shut down the run.

- Finally, 4-1 after five games? You betcha I'll take that! :)

And we're back

2008-10-01T07:45:00.004-05:00

This past weekend provided a MUCH better experience in South Bend than last year's sole trip, which was (sadly) to the USC game. Saturday, we had the best offensive showing in two years. After a slow start, the defense (led by true freshman Blanton's interception return for a TD) kept us enough in the game that when the offense finally started to click, it was a great thing to behold. In particular, Armando Allen finally showed the speed we had been promised since his first appearance, with over a hundred yards rushing and even more all-purpose yards. Clausen had a career day (although I'm sure there will be more to come) - he rarely misfired and a few of his tougher passes were so perfectly thrown, they couldn't have been done any better. His third quarter touchdown pass to Grimes on fourth-and-seven was dropped in perfectly in stride. I think even Quinn didn't have that same touch on long passes. Finally, Kyle Rudolph marked our return to having a good blocking/receiving tight end, which I'm always happy to see, and the offensive line did a quite creditable job of giving Clausen time to see the field and move around. The defense did follow a bend-and-don't-break strategy (intentionally or not), but Purdue always seems to rack up passing yards against us. Scoring defense and a few big plays along the way did the job. So, a beautiful day in South Bend! (And best seats I have gotten to be in, also. Check out the view!) Go Irish.

Lackluster

2008-09-20T16:53:00.002-05:00

Well, after an exciting day with Michigan last week, where everything seemed to come together great - offensive effectiveness, solid and opportunistic defense, and great special teams work, especially from Mike Anello - nothing's working that well at Michigan State. I'll change my tune if we break a few big plays here in the fourth, but in a game where we're only down two scores but we keep shooting ourselves in the foot with turnovers, the offense is decidedly blah today. Clausen has made some uncharacteristically bad throws, and despite the protection not being too bad - the spread worked to beat the pressure several times up till now - he's been pressured far more than in the first two games and not done a great job of evading it. Two intentional grounding penalties and a couple of sacks shows that. He's still mostly accurate, and the spread is working well enough, but it's got to kick into gear here. We don't look like a team that should be shut out here. Come on, Irish!

Sloppy, sloppy

2008-09-10T08:03:00.003-05:00

Well, Saturday's game wasn't much fun to watch, and the end feeling was not so much of confidence but of uncertain relief. In retrospect, I feel a bit better about things, but of course it will all be contingent upon fixing the easy errors that so managed to kill our momentum that we scraped by with an 8-point win instead of skating with a 22-point win. An easy 15 points were left on the field by two red zone turnovers and one botched hold. So - what I didn't like is obvious:

- Turnovers and penalties. I'll grant that I thought this was one of the more poorly officiated games I've ever seen (put me in mind of the infamous Grimes catch at Stanford last year). Replay standards mean nothing if the refs won't implement them correctly, but when you can see, Phelps-winning-the-gold-like, in freeze frame, Hughes's knee down at the goal line while the ball is still in his hand, how is that not indisputable video evidence he's down? That was at the end of a solid, extended drive that would have changed the tone of the game for good. But setting that (and some phantom penalties - on both sides, I admit) aside, there's no doubt our other three turnovers were of the plain-stupid variety - bouncing a missed catch high up in the air, total miscommunication on an out route, and not wrapping up the ball before a hit. The botched hold also ruined another trip to the red zone. Combined with a relatively high number of penalties, this game was too sloppily played to have allowed us to emerge with a win against any other team. It made me afraid that even against wholly-depleted opponents with no quarterbacks, lots of injuries, new coaches, etc. (see, e.g., Michigan), we could still manage to make them look like geniuses.

But - there were many things to be pleased about in the game as well. A few, briefly:

- We have a quarterback. He may look like a Viking or some Euro-thug from a standard-issue action movie (i.e., he needs a haircut), but Clausen can play and seems to be validating the positive signs we were starting to see last year. (It helps to have no sacks - a definite plus.) I only counted two or three passes where I would say he was really flat off on, including a miss to a pretty wide open Tate in the end zone in the second quarter, but other than that he had a good touch on threading-the-needle type slants, fades, long balls, and sideline routes. He apparently audibled the first touchdown to Floyd. (Go Floyd!) He stares down his receivers too much still, but moves around pretty well and I saw him look off receivers a few times as well. He led the team on a couple of long drives, and as Charlie pointed out:

Jimmy finished that 8 of 9 stretch for about 100 yards, a couple touchdowns in the fourth quarter, and he completed over 60 percent of his passes. . . . I think that with a game under duress or with him being under duress, for him to calmly march us down the field in six plays for 80 yards for a touchdown and then come and follow right back with a 14-play drive for another touchdown I think showed a lot about the ability of the kid to lead the team when things aren't looking so good.

- Receivers were hit or miss. Golden Tate looked much improved over last year in his ability to run routes, and he made some great catches down the stretch. It was nice (great!) to see Michael Floyd make that fantastic touchdown reception in his first game as a freshman. Kamara made one or two good catches in the beginning, but made some poor decisions. Hopefully he'll start remembering to catch with his hands and look more for the ball.

- Defense played pretty strong, especially in the first half. They didn't record many sacks at all, but were in the backfield quite a bit, and only let a couple of long plays (shovel pass?!) by them. Otherwise, they kept the SDSU third down percentage low (5 for 16) and held down the score. Tackling was pretty good overall, and there weren't too many passes where the corners and safeties were out of position.

I don't know how to evaluate Michigan at all, except to feel confident we'll score more points than last year (UGH). A win? Oh, I hope so. But this team mentally has a long way to go yet....

Hope springs eternal

2008-09-06T10:28:00.002-05:00

For everyone else the college football season kicked off last weekend, but the Irish have had to wait one more week. I've seen some of the practice videos and read the press conference transcripts from the past month and believe there is plenty of reason to be optimistic that this season will be a definite improvement over last season - maybe even a success by the Irish faithfuls' exacting, always-high standards :) We certainly have the talent, and now a lot of it should be seasoned by, basically, a year of getting pounded into the ground. The biggest keys to improvement this year will be the offensive line - creating some push off the line to allow the running game to get established, and giving protection to Clausen so he can continue to develop as the sharp passer we saw flashes of last fall.

The Irish don't usually play softer openers along the lines of Kent State or Louisiana-Lafayette, which I usually take some pride in, but I can't help thinking if we ever needed a year with a confidence-booster as the first game, this one's it. We should be able to beat San Diego State no problem with the talent and coaching we have - even NDN, which with clear-eyed assessments last year accurately predicted us losing most games, thinks this one should be straightforward. That's not to say there isn't a lot to be looking for in this game - we need to see all that improvement in the offensive and defensive lines, running game, receiving game, etc. and also, ideally, see some consistency in the performance of all these units. But hopefully having this team as a softer opponent, opening at home, will give the Irish a chance to come out and show everything they've learned from the tough times of last season. (If they don't, my husband is already worried the severe distress would induce early labor. So come on, Irish - help me hold out till the Boston College due date!)

Heading out to the Dallas club game watch soon. GO IRISH.

All Favre, all the time

2008-08-06T23:09:00.003-05:00

A few weeks ago, ESPN added a "Favre" category to its league scrolls. That's right . . . NFL, NCAA, AL, NL, FAVRE. Good grief. What is up with the worshipfulness? (My favorite quote from Al Michaels last year is recounted in this post.) And this summer, it's for a guy who did in fact retire in March and has just been jerking around his former team for over a month now. I'm not the only one who can't possibly roll my eyes any more. Joe Sports Fan has posted some very funny limited-edition trading cards of People Who Love Brett Favre. (Warning: some minor vulgarity.) Oh, ESPN just bumped Baseball Tonight for the BREAKING NEWS! that Favre has been traded to the Jets. I hope he has fun in Jersey (what am I saying? - of course he will, he's always "just having fun out there!"). I'm sure Peter King will at the Meadowlands every week and they'll be very happy together.

(Meanwhile, in my team news, J.T. O'Sullivan (who? exactly) will be starting the preseason for the 49ers Friday. Should be another fun season :)

Cape Town Bound

2008-08-06T22:47:00.002-05:00

I made a happy discovery last Tuesday - Ewan McGregor (he of my ongoing minor crush) and Charley Boorman did another cross-continental motorcyle trip last year ("Long Way Down"), this time from Scotland to South Africa, and it's just starting to be aired in the U.S. on Fox Reality Channel. I never heard of the channel until I stumbled across it last week, but again, it was fortuitous because Thursday night there was a one-night-only showing of a two-hour cut of the series in movie theatres. One was in Dallas, so we headed off to watch what, as expected, turned out to be another highly entertaining documentary by the pair. I particularly enjoyed when they stopped at the Tatooine set in Tunisia and took pictures like a regular pair of tourists excited to be at a movie set - except Ewan was on the posters on the wall, too. (I don't think he ever actually filmed any scenes in Tunisia, since the last scene of Episode III added him in later.) He later poked fun at himself by saying he had rather arrogantly assumed he'd be mobbed. "I found it very amusing. I didn't get recognised once! I was going up to people, you know, doing the Obi Wan Kenobi voice, and I put a beard on, but still nothing. I was so gutted!" Heh. It was also cool when they saw a baby gorilla in Zambia. Can't wait to watch the extended series over the next few weeks.

Final countdown: T minus 29 days

2008-07-25T08:27:00.004-05:00

I'll try to make this the last post about bugs, but I can't help it. I'm just disgusted by it, and counting down the days until I can move into our new house (with which, the sellers told me, they almost never have had bug problems). Every morning I either get completely dressed before coming downstairs, or if staying in pajamas, at least freshen up and make use of the flip flops I leave at the bottom of the stairs. I don't like walking around barefoot down here in the mornings or not having ~~contacts in~~ glasses on, in case any roaches happen to be scurrying away or lying belly-up in the middle of the floor when I flip on the kitchen lights. So what happened this morning? I came down the stairs (dressed and with shoes on) to see that a roach had walked onto my flip flop before flipping over and dying. Yeah, good morning to you, too, sweetie. I'm calling the exterminator again.

Note: If my in-laws are reading this, my house is PERFECTLY CLEAN and I am glad you're coming this weekend. You really shouldn't have any problems! And we have bug spray if you do :) (You lived in New Orleans once, I hope you understand.)

EDIT: Turns out the bug was not quite dead yet. But it was stone dead in a moment.

Vanity of vanities

2008-07-22T23:37:00.004-05:00

Reading this post and comments from a "mommy blogger" about children's oh-so-humbling effects on their post-pregnant moms just makes me cringe. And then laugh. I will confess I'm not humble enough yet to be sanguine about the weight gain thing - but it'll come, I have no doubt, as this little guy only gets bigger:

Side effects

2008-06-23T20:56:00.004-05:00

I went to the eye doctor this evening after work because I noticed on Saturday night some serious blurring in my left eye, and this after a lot of redness a few weeks ago and ongoing sensitivity and watery eyes at night, etc. I thought originally it was just more severe allergies than normal this spring, but it turns out no, it's another side effect of pregnancy. Seriously? Apparently so. I never heard of this before, but the cornea can decrease in sensitivity and be much more easily irritated and damaged by contacts. That's what has happened to me. (The optometrist scolded me for not coming in sooner, but last time I brought it up with the obstetrician he thought it didn't look so bad - at least I came in as soon as the actual vision problems started!) The doctor prescribed some drops I'm supposed to take for the next week, which will hopefully clear up the problems with my eye and let me see clearly again. Everything seems to say be careful with using the drops during pregnancy, but it's okay if they are necessary. I'm glad there's a solution, but I'm off contacts indefinitely, which I can't help feeling somewhat grumpy about. My glasses are an older prescription, so I can't see as clearly with them, but I can't get new ones until my eyes clear up. I also can really only drive with sunglasses. I just got some cool new ones last week, too, but now until I can get a new glasses prescription next week (and maybe possibly get prescription sunglasses as well), I'll be stuck driving with a fugly plastic insert that goes on my nose behind my glasses. Boo. Oh well - again, I'm glad there's a solution for the blurry vision, so I'll be grateful for that. And hopefully by Christmas I can wear my contacts again.

Another adult step

2008-06-22T20:28:00.004-05:00

So, aside from moving to Texas, changing work environments completely, getting knocked up, taking another bar exam and everything else going on this year, we have also decided to embark on another "adult" step in our lives, and buy a house :) I did end up giving up on the dream house ideal, but given the restricted universe of 1970s suburban ranch houses we became limited to, I'm very happy about the house we did find. It has been very well maintained (which doesn't stop me from wanting to redo the bathrooms - I already understand the homeowner's impulse to upgrade) and it has a pool, which is great. That would never make sense in Ohio, but in my first six months in Texas, we've already had unbroken week-long strings of 95+ degree days several times. When the swimming season lasts for a full six months at least, I think this will be a lot of fun to have. (Another future home improvement, though, will be a pool fence once the kid is old enough to be mobile.)

Closing went pretty well. It was my first residential closing, and of course also the first closing where I was signing the loan documents, not drafting them for someone else to sign. The title commitment and survey came in first, and I marked up the title commitment the way I usually do. The only exception documents were the subdivision covenants, which were interesting. I deleted most of the survey exceptions since even the limited, ca. 1986 survey didn't show any required exceptions, if the title company was going to accept it. They didn't provide the deed, so I asked for that. The title officer wrote me back and cracked me up by saying something along the lines of, "Yes, here is the 'vesting deed' you requested." I'm guessing they don't get many requests for these, but hey, it's due diligence to check. She also told me "we don't do 'proformas' for non-commercial closings under $500,000." Which makes perfect sense, and you only learn by asking. I did appreciate that she revised the title commitment for me, though, and did delete the survey exceptions. I just couldn't stop laughing at the quote marks around "proforma" and "vesting deed." I think she wanted to pat me on the head while she was at it.

I read over the closing docs on Tuesday night when the title company sent them and had to keep fighting off the urge to mark up the (draconian) deed of trust with my comments. No negotiating at this end of the spectrum: I am the little guy. The bank is the big guy. They set all the terms, take them or leave them. I did make sure to put in no prepayment penalties ahead of time, and declined escrow, which helped some with closing costs. It was still the single biggest check I've ever drawn (or expect to draw) on my bank account. And our estimated costs for the things we'd like to do later on this summer when we move in - like scrape all the glitter popcorn ceilings (que?) - is pretty high also. But, that's what we've been saving for, right? And this a long term investment, not in terms of any intended economic return, but in terms of building a place to settle in and raise our family. So I think it'll all work out :) But I'm still planning to pick up any extra needed furniture on Craigslist - so don't worry, I've still got the "cheap" instinct.

There can only be one

2008-06-13T21:38:00.003-05:00

Sitting at work yesterday morning - trying to review a few surveys and keep up with the massive amounts of email coming in for this New York deal - I felt this 'pop - pop' feeling a bit lower than where you would normally feel gas bubbles. It was an odd realization, that the movements I have been on the lookout for had suddenly arrived (or I was suddenly aware of them - maybe I missed them earlier on). But I think that is the official "quickening" that you always read about. Since then, I feel pretty constantly aware that there is something doing somersaults down there. It's pretty crazy. I have always wondered what this felt like - what can it possibly be like to feel something moving around independently in your abdomen? - and now that it has happened it surprisingly doesn't feel all that strange. When I saw my stomach moving a bit this morning, though, that was strange. I think it only gets more like "Alien" as you go along, right? Because eventually I'll be able to see elbows and knees and shifting around pretty clearly. Crazy.

Except for all the tiredness and indigestion, this has been a pretty good pregnancy by any measure so far. I am pretty excited about the upcoming ultrasound in a few weeks. Last time they did one, the baby was the size of a kidney bean. My disappeared waist is testimony it's already a lot bigger than that now! (I'm going to have to abandon my nice darted button-down work blouses from here on out, I think - the one I had on today was stretching too much. Boo.)

Welcome, Pope Benedict!

2008-04-15T21:29:00.003-05:00

I'm very happy about the pope's visit to the U.S. this week. While I can't go to the Mass at RFK on Thursday or see the pope along his route at all, probably, I am excited that I get to attend the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on Friday morning in D.C. - I was invited by a pro-life policy group that I recently did some pro bono work for, which is extremely nice of them (the invitation, I mean, not the sublease :). So, I'll be working out of my old office on Thursday and Friday (although they gave my actual old office to someone else), and attend the breakfast on Friday morning, where we will pray the rosary, hear Bishop Robert Finn and another speaker, and then watch the broadcast of Pope Benedict's address to the United Nations. It will be wonderful to be a part of a group equally as happy to have His Holiness here in America - and D.C. being as small a community as it is, I probably should expect I might even recognize a few faces there. (I've run into a surprising number of people I know at Federalist Society events, blogger meetups, National Review meetups, etc. Am I phrasing that right? I mean to say the same conservative Catholic types seem to show up at all these events. One of the many reasons I'll probably always miss living in Washington!)

EWTN has posted an interview with the president that Raymond Arroyo conducted in advance of Pope Benedict's visit. President Bush is, as Arroyo notes, amazingly on-message in all of his replies, bringing most things back to Iraq and the war on terror (where I believe he has made some moral misjudgments), but he also makes several comments that remind me why I still admire his character in many ways. I certainly appreciate his admiration for the pope, and found this comment impressive:

And I don't know what's going to happen in American politics, I really don't. I do know that in order for a President to be effective he better bring a set of principles from which he will not deviate, and articulate them as clearly as he can -- or she can -- and then not worry about immediate popularity, because popularity comes and goes, but what doesn't change are solid principles. And I'm going to remind His Holy Father how important his voice is in making it easier for politicians like me to be able to kind of stand and defend our positions that are, I think, very important positions to take.

(That view of leadership has always been something I like about President Bush.) The statement that he values the pope taking strong stands on moral issues is also interesting. Does the president really feel that because popes speak strongly on matters of life, he has more confidence in taking his own positions? I'm not entirely sure with regard to Bush in particular, but I hope it's the case for other pro-life (for instance) politicians. (Not to mention bishops.) In any event, I look forward to reading more of what the Holy Father has to say this week. And happy 81st birthday to him, too!

Happy Easter

2008-03-26T21:00:00.006-05:00

Happy Easter! This weekend my brother-in-law was confirmed into the Church, so we went to see him at Kansas, where he is a student. It was my first trip to that state and the campus seemed pretty nice - not unlike most other college campuses, but, surprisingly to me, hilly. The Catholic church on campus, St. Lawrence, was pretty stripped down, but it did have good artwork, a lovely organ, and important details such as, you know, having the tabernacle in the right place. It also had a hymnal I haven't seen before - the St. Michael Hymnal - which, while unfortunately retaining a few Haugen classics like "On Eagle's Wings" - mercifully kept those to a minimum and actually seemed very solid.* Quite a few chants were included, and several hymns were older Latin ones. It's great to have the options - sometimes I think that efforts to reform ordinary parishes are hampered just by the tools they have (you can't sing the Sanctus in any traditional settings, even if you want to, if the ubiquitous "Breaking Bread" doesn't even have it). The prayers for Stations were much better than those I've seen in recent years - no focus on how I'm feeling and what I'm doing, but rather almost entirely composed of Scripture and petition prayers. Following up on the strong musical and prayerful indicators here, Saturday's Vigil was absolutely beautiful. The choir and organist were amazing. I got a bit emotional both with joy at the power and beauty of the "Sicut cervus desiderat" (Psalm 42) in particular - and sadness at the fact that so many, many churches in this country are so far away from it. It was also unusual in that the seminarian, who is being ordained in just a few months, sang the entire introductory part of the Mass and the gospel as well. I usually only ever see that on EWTN with the Vatican Masses. He said afterwards that he is learning the Extraordinary Form but he is excited to be a part of the new generation of clergy that is truly restoring reverence to the Ordinary Form as well. What a blessing to the Church!

My brother-in-law picked St. Thomas More as his confirmation saint. I've always liked his motto of "The King's servant, but God's first." It was fitting for someone who wants to go into government. It was a great thing to witness his confirmation and the baptisms in the quiet of the darkened church. Christ is risen!

*Their website says "We believe that it is very usable in a parish that would like, without moving precipitously, to reclaim and restore some of the traditional music of the Church." So for the liberal parishes resisting traditional music, it keeps some contemporary hymns in there, but the majority is more solid. Sounds a bit subversive! That works for me :)

Irish day

2008-03-15T17:28:00.009-05:00

This morning we headed out to the Sam's Club parking lot on Greenville and Park to "tailgate" for the St. Patrick's Day parade with the ND Club. Thanks to my sister the coordinator, the Club had a float with some food, t-shirts, plenty of ND-Irish decorations and beer. The staging area was next to the Hare Krishna float. (?) But we were clearly more Irish. It was so much fun to meet new people, including one family with 5 (and almost 6) six kids, another with an adorable baby boy, and a few transplant couples with kids out of the house (including a few working in D.C.). That was one thing I noticed, by the way - an awful lot of people are transplants here and a lot of people seemed to have lived in D.C. at some point. The other main place of origin seemed to be Chicago (well, with any ND Club that makes sense). I guess Texas is a pretty welcoming place.

The tailgating was so much fun, I wanted to watch a football game afterwards, but unfortunately, it's March. Instead, we jumped onto the flatbed and rode (near the back of the parade) a few miles down Greenville, throwing beads and dum-dums to all the parade-watchers. The route was pretty packed. It was a beautiful day and really a fun event. Yay to my sister for planning such a successful Club event!

Now that I somehow survived the bar exam, I feel like I am starting to settle in here (except for the bugs, who keep making unwelcome appearances - ugh, time to call the exterminators back). It's nice to have people to go to lunch with at work (and visit with during not-lunch times while the market's slow!). We're also starting to drive around and look at neighborhoods so we can find a house by end of summer/fall. I'm excited about the process but I'm trying to set myself up for compromise in terms of the house itself. The problem here is that my "Not So Big" houses, which I have loved ever since I read about the concept and could put words to why I hate two-story foyers, are actually not completely the stuff of future dreams here, but are available and in our relatively modest price range (like, $200,000 or less for a four-bedroom - inconceivable in D.C.) from certain builders. Walking through some of these models is fantastic - cozy spaces, good sight lines, open floorplans, spaces with multiple purposes. So it would all seem to be within reach! Oh, but the catch is, none of these is in the established school districts, and/or has much longer commute times. I may end up just being practical for the sake of the future family, and stay within the better school districts closer in - and get a completely uninspiring house. But we'll see...

Flotsam and the bar exam

2008-02-27T20:11:00.005-05:00

I have made it seven weeks through this move, job transfer, studying, and two days of the bar exam without a meltdown, but I don't think I can make it through tonight. This test is just really difficult, and tomorrow is twelve essays that you can pretty much guarantee will include some issues that I just flat have no idea where to even start on. At least you can get partial credit (I hope!). Who knows if that's enough to pass?

Seriously, I found myself buying conspiracy theories yesterday because the Texas Procedure and Evidence exam included questions that weren't even of the "I recognize this, just can't quite remember the answer" variety, but were of the "I have never seen or heard of anything that would answer this question" type. I went back and verified in our BarBri lectures on a couple - flat out no reference to them at all. And I thought: do the bar examiners get copies of the BarBri books and then deliberately try to write questions that aren't in the study materials or past exams, just to think themselves all clever and to stump us? Like it's not enough material to pull from already - there were three, three-hour lectures and 130 pages of notes on crim pro, two three-hour lectures on civ pro, and two entire days of a review - plus multiple past practice exams, and hours of individual review. And are they happy they came up with some things nobody's ever seen? Well, bully for them. Way to NOT test what people have been studying (it's hard enough to get down the main testable areas in each of a dozen subjects) or what they might actually know. Memorization of stupid little details really are the true measure of a lawyer, after all. I'll be so excited to encounter that tomorrow on the essays. "Hey! They'll never get THIS arcane rule on probate!"

No conspiracy theories necessary for multistate. Those questions are just designed to be obnoxious and test the twists of all the rules -- you read through a fact pattern and think you recognize the rule they're looking to test, and then the question deals with a completely unrelated matter that just throws you for a loop. One thing that kind of surprised me this time around was that the subjects I thought were hardest three years ago - evidence, real property, and criminal law - were actually stronger for me on all the practice tests, where contracts and con law just seemed harder. (Also intentional torts, though negligence seemed fine.) There's just no way to know how you did on this until you see the grade, given the number of questions with hard to distinguish "right" and "also right but slightly better" answers.

One thing I notice during tests is that once my brain starts focusing and being active, all sorts of weird stuff floats to the surface along with (hopefully right) rules of law. So, Kanye West songs were playing in my head all day today (I know: que?) along with dinner options, house flipping TV shows, friends I need to get in touch with, and other things that just raced through along with contract formation, mortgage deed recordations, specific intent crimes, and strict liability theories. But that's all gone now. Time for wills and consumer law and commercial paper and oil and gas. Oh yeah, and my horrendously high electrical bill and house that I haven't had any time to help clean in weeks. Ugh, ugh, ugh.

Don't stop thinking about tomorrow

2008-02-21T10:24:00.003-05:00

No, that's not a reference to the latest amazing message of "hope" from the Dems (although, even more than when John Edwards promised to make the lame walk, Obama's promises to "heal a nation and repair the world" - and attendant Messianic swooning by voters and media alike - are both hilarious and cringeworthy).

Ahem. But, this post is supposed to be about football. Having put last year's excruciating season behind us, the Irish had an excellent day at National Signing Day two weeks ago, and we have a few graduated players with good prospects at the NFL combine coming up. At National Signing Day, the Irish landed a balanced class - ranked in the top two recruiting classes in the country by most observers - of 23 very promising players. Blue-Gray Sky ran profiles of each player when they originally committed, and they have a nice roundtable summing up the outcome. For myself, I've enjoyed watching the highlight videos of Dayne Crist in particular (and also WR Michael Floyd - great receiver, and doesn't go down easily!), and his enthusiasm for coming to Notre Dame is a great thing. He commented (although I can't get the video to play on NBC) that he isn't fazed at all by coming in only a year behind Clausen, because he thinks the competition will be a good motivator for both of them and he welcomes the challenge. With regard to coaching, Charlie Weis has already made a lot of changes for the coming year - e.g., he'll step back from offensive playcalling and focus a bit more on special teams; Jon Tenuta is joining the staff as assistant head coach, but will work with the linebackers in particular - which hopefully will have the effect of correcting a lot of last year's problems.

Finally, for the few players we have heading to the NFL, check out Trevor Laws's blog here. He always seemed to have a lot of energy on the field and in interviews - it absolutely comes through on his blog, too! Good luck to him - and to Zibby, Carlson, and Sullivan, who are also preparing - at the combine.

Sunday school teacher smackdown

2008-02-16T13:51:00.002-05:00

Inside Catholic tracked down this great clip from the Colbert Report the other night. He discussed the Fall with Philip Zimbardo, a guy who apparently argues Lucifer didn't act wrongly because God was being unjust, or something like that. I was watching the show after class (I can be awake for it now that I live the Central time zone - ha) and remember sitting forward a bit stunned at the intensity of Colbert's explanation of how Hell was created that he launches into at the end of the interview:

This is from a guy who's recited the entire Nicene Creed on his show in thirty seconds before. Now, he can mock Christian conservatives and Republican right-wingers quite a bit on the show - but sometimes he turns those parodies on their head and makes some pretty good points while people are laughing at him. Nicely done.

BarBri's over

2008-02-15T09:58:00.005-05:00

Next step, bar exam. I'm running into an unexpected impediment to studying, though: this *!@#$$%^ dog next door to our townhouse, that starts barking incessantly every morning around 7:30 and won't shut up. Wow, it's annoying - and really hard to shut out. Earplugs aren't helping at all. In the neighborhood we're in, I'm not really inclined to try knocking on the neighbor's door, either. During my first summer in D.C., I once had to take a final exam with jackhammers going on the roof above us in the classroom building at GWU, but even that wasn't too bad since a steadier sound like that can kind of fade into the background. But not barking. I may have to retreat to a library or Panera someplace.

The last few days of class went well enough. The lecturer for Texas wills, trusts, guardianships, community property and family law (he did all of them!) was pretty good, although he never explained who the "Hobie Gates" of his hypotheticals was. (He said it would come to us in a revelation someday.) One thing that struck me during family law, as it did during the Florida segments a few years ago and would with any other state too, is how sad it really can be. Aside from the much more brief body of law dealing with marriage or adoption, the bulk of this law deals with divorce and its related subjects (spousal maintenance, child support, child custody, etc.). Once you get divorced and especially if you have kids, the government thereafter gets to be involved in your life indefinitely, weighing the "best interests of the child" standard, making social services visits, dividing time between parents, evaluating parenting skills, sometimes terminating parental rights, withholding money from paychecks, and holding hearings upon various life events (new spouse, new kids, new cohabitations, underemployment) to adjust the withholdings. And throughout, the kids get shuffled back and forth between houses ("between two worlds," as Elizabeth Marquardt puts it). The lecturer said you can always tell when it's visitation weekend in Texas (first, third, and fifth weekends of the month I believe), because the Southwest terminals are full of kids travelling solo. How sad is that? No matter how common divorce may be overall, it's still a tragedy for most of the individual kids who have to go through it. (Not to mention the 1/3 of American kids who are born out of marriage in the first place, who get the often tougher situation right from the beginning.)

Super Tuesday

2008-02-05T22:57:00.000-05:00

For a relatively political person, I paid little attention to the 2008 race all of last year because I was annoyed it had started so early. Now that actual primaries are happening, I've missed them all between work and class. Mostly, I'm still bummed Fred Thompson never took off; Romney is otherwise closest to my positions, and I would vote for him in Texas if my registration is processed in time, but now it looks like McCain will finish strongest tonight. His next question will be, can he make nice with all the conservatives who, while respecting him personally and for many of his votes, are quite skeptical about issues like illegal immigration and campaign finance?

Multistate musings

2008-02-05T21:55:00.000-05:00

On January 2, we packed up the apartment. On January 3, we drove to Nashville, and on January 4, we arrived in Dallas. On January 5, I encountered my first Texas-sized bugs - several of 'em - running across the kitchen floor in the empty townhouse we were renting, and I promptly freaked out. Luckily I'd brought the roach spray in the car with us. Before starting at BarBri and at work here, before the movers caught up to us, the first trip was to Target (purchases included roach bait) and the first call was to the exterminator. Well, yes I'm a wimp, but when I thought we'd move away from a "luxury" apartment into a perfectly fine-but-not-luxury much cheaper place here, I didn't intend to sign on for the bugs. So, they had to go. Things are much better now! (Our stuff made it all right, too.)

However, I'm still in BarBri, getting ready for the bar exam. It's about as much fun as last time, which is to say, not at all. At least all the MBE topics are sort of coming back to me - the practice test was all day Saturday, with review all day Sunday and yesterday, and I did all right. The review person, Rafael Guzman, was the same as three years ago; I imagine he does this every six months. He's pretty helpful for doing a 16-hour wrapup of topics. I remembered Joe Tom Easley's property review as well - apparently he does multiple states. (Even though I am a real estate lawyer, it doesn't mean I know anything at all about the Rule against Perpetuities.) But the Texas torts and evidence lecturers weren't as memorable as the Florida ones. I suppose it's a testament to how good the last guys were that I can actually remember some of their anecdotes. Does anyone else remember the example of fettuccine alfredo being used as a memory aide for a little old Italian lady witness for present recollection refreshed? Or the loathsome disease of the pox for defamation? Okay, maybe that's just me. (Ah, I just googled torts guy: Professor Roger Schechter from GWU. That guy was funny :) He does have other fans out there. Looks like evidence was by Professor Faust Rossi.) Class has been about every day since I arrived after work, and Saturdays. Still three weeks to go to study Texas subjects and do a few performance test practices. I just took tonight off since it's the first weekday in four or five weeks without class. Three weeks to go... Welcome to Texas.

Merry Christmas

2007-12-24T13:56:00.001-05:00

Everyone has their Christmas traditions in terms of what films they watch, and mine is like half of America's: watching a Charlie Brown Christmas (with popcorn and hot chocolate). Given how popular it is, I'm always amused to read how the network executives were originally horrified by the show, with jazz score, lack of laugh tracks, and - oh, yes - Scripture reading. (Execs would still be horrified today by that last.) But of course, those are the very reasons it became so beloved. And the message against commercialism is only more relevant today.

Merry Christmas!

Not as SAD

2007-12-04T08:13:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the lack of posts lately. I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving - I enjoyed the vacation days and had a very nice holiday eating good food (everything from turkey to ceviche) and watching football (the biggest reason I love fall). Aside from that, however, I have been more listless and down for several weeks, struggling, as I customarily do, to adjust to the time change. For some reason it's just difficult to adjust to it getting dark before five, and my situation at work, while pleasant enough in terms of the actual work I am doing, has been less than ideal lately in terms of interaction with other associates and team members (because, in short, there aren't any I work with here). So I have resolved, in the last few days since I realized what was going on (I never remember that I get affected by S.A.D. until a few weeks after I've gotten mildly depressed), to make a positive change to regain focus and energy - not sleeping in, exercising more, working harder, being more social with family and friends outside of work, and finally looking forward to the big change coming up in a few more weeks: we are moving to Texas in January! So, Irishlaw will be soon be a Domer in Dallas, not D.C. I'm excited about the professional opportunities this transfer will create for me at the firm - to work more directly with other practice group members - and I think for the long term, it should be a great place to settle down and start a family.

Still have posts to write on football as we move into bowl season (don't you love how all the media still manage to find ways to mention the Irish even when we're so far down the polls, we might qualify for a ranking in I-AA?) and December in the NFL. But first, have to keep my resolution to be more focused at work ... by heading there now. Ciao!

Dear PAC-10 refs: Are you totally blind or just legally blind?

2007-11-24T18:47:00.000-05:00

Yeah.

ETA: Here is the video:

Random thoughts

2007-11-17T13:10:00.000-05:00

1. When did Southwest Airlines stop being cheap?

2. My current daily read is the Housing Bubble Blog, which collects articles from various bubble areas around the country to marshal ever more evidence that the insanely easy access to credit and steep run-up in home prices over the last five years was simply unsustainable. When "starter homes" are $500,000, or one-bedroom condos are asking $350/sf, that's just crazy. This blog is also good for reminding you that homes should be looked at primarily as places to live, not ATMs or investments (unless you're good at timing and managing investments professionally) - since generally speaking, equity is illiquid and you can't count on appreciation like the last few years anyway. In any event, that's one of my favorite topics lately and I appreciate the blog.

3. Brent Musberger makes me want to tear my hair out. Or at least drink a lot (not usual for me). I can't even take two sentences in a row. I'll add "the gun" to the drinking game rules. Anytime Brent says the OSU or Michigan quarterback today is in "the gun," take a drink to shut out the folksy colloquialism. AAGH. You also feel bad for Kirk Herbstreit.

Dinner gala

2007-11-15T08:34:00.000-05:00

One of my favorite things about being in D.C. these last few years has been getting to go to the Federalist Society national convention dinner each fall, since my firm usually buys two tables. (As a member, I could register for the convention panels, and they always sound really interesting, but I can't usually make it off of work.) A few years ago, Karl Rove spoke (this after the Harriet Miers incident - there was an interesting but gracious and polite reception) and last year Justice Alito spoke and Justice Scalia stepped up also (a hugely enthusiastic reception for them, naturally :). For this year's dinner we were a bit oversubscribed on the number of people interested in coming from my firm, but happily I made it on to the confirmed list of attendees. They just announced a couple of days ago that this year's featured speaker will be President Bush. What can I say, despite several policy disappointments over the past few years, I still like W. So I'm excited to attend. Should be fun!

An epic battle

2007-11-15T08:06:00.000-05:00

...of one-win teams approaches this Saturday. We'll be barbequeing with a friend of ours (a Duke alum) and hoping to see the Irish take advantage of our last best chance to win this season. At least we don't have a quarterback controversy anymore! I enjoyed watching Clausen for the most part last weekend (except when he got leveled by unblocked defenders and receivers dropped ten separate passes - not his fault) and think it's evident he just has more a leadership presence on the field. It appears time off for his arm did him some good as well - beautiful over-the-shoulder pass on the second touchdown to Grimes really epitomized that. And yet, and yet. End result was yet another loss. Weis sounded as frustrated as he has all year with the lack of progress all around and said he needs to retool his teaching strategy:

COACH WEIS: ...So what he [Belichick] always used to teach us is that you had to find whoever the lowest level of football intelligence was in a classroom and try to gear all your teaching to him because if he could get it, then usually everyone else would be able to get it, too. So obviously part of the breakdown, to go back to answer the main part of your question, is the fact that we have to start gearing to make sure that everyone from the bottom up, whoever might end up playing in the game, is getting it, because if they're not, whether it's an experienced player or inexperienced player, then that's just not good enough.

Q. I guess the problem here at this point in the season is teaching that -- in the short amount of time left is a pretty big challenge?

COACH WEIS: Well, one of the problems is some of those breakdowns mentally were not from the younger players. You know, they were from experienced players. So it would be one thing if you had that cop out, well, it was just a freshman making a mistake. But when it's an older kid and making a mistakes or more experienced guy making a mistake, that goes back to the message that I was taught that, you know, you've got to find a way to get that done on a week to week basis. You've got to find a way to get that done so you're not dealing with the same issue next Sunday when we get together.

I do think we'll win Saturday. Same formula needed as always - cut down on mistakes, execute the plays called, improve third down conversion rates, etc. We haven't really been able to do that all at once this year. Hopefully the team will get it down this week.

ETA: If you can stand to read through the catalogue of mistakes that ND put together last weekend, BGS has the full recap. It is a pretty painful read. Of course, it was pretty painful to watch as well, since given the defense's play in the first half and the Irish opportunities, this really could have been winnable. We're just . . . not good. Sigh.

Anchors aweigh

2007-11-07T08:13:00.000-05:00

We all knew the season was a wash, and most of us were just looking for signs of improvement anymore. Nevertheless, the frustrating thing about Saturday's loss to Navy was that the Irish appeared quite capable of winning - i.e., the production from our running backs was strong enough to have produced a win - but didn't show enough improvement where it would have counted to actually win. I think it came down to three things, two of which I already had zeroed in on during the game itself:

- Evan Sharpley isn't really a good quarterback. If he had the skills to be the clear-cut starter, he would have built on his experience as a backup to Quinn and seized the opportunity last spring to beat out the competition - or seized the opportunity against USC, or seized it Saturday. But he doesn't, and he didn't. The positives were that he completed a few clutch passes, and some of the misses weren't his fault (receiver drops). But the negatives, which far outweighed these in my mind, were the mistakes. Sacks that did NOT need to be taken, general lack of mobility (the few scrambles were all right, but more like Drew Bledsoe than Steve Young), poor ball protection when it counted (the fumble was absolutely the gamebreaker - see #3 below), and passes that seemed to float a bit. I would rate Sharpley "competent" even for all that, since he was good enough at handing off the ball and he did make some plays happen, but overall I was so frustrated by his lack of vision (and did I mention the killer sacks?) that I wanted to yank him after the first half, much less after the fumble. At this point, I will be extremely disappointed if he is the starter this week, even though Weis has said several times about Clausen and Sharpley that "they're both in the running." Still, he does realize at this point that you have to start looking ahead:

I think the number one thing is who is going to play the best versus -- who's going to play the best for you down the stretch. I don't think what you want to be doing here is each week say, well, who's going to play the best for us against Air Force, who's going to play the best for us against Duke, who's going to play the best for us against Stanford.

I'm at the point right now where I want to win this game, and simultaneously, I want to start -- I want to start building some upward momentum. So they go together.

So the decision isn't as simple as, okay, over the last half dozen weeks who's done what better. It's who gives you the best chance to win this week and the next two weeks and moving forward.

- Back to Navy, the second critical thing was the playcalling that really just seemed indefensible on several plays, particularly given that Weis told everyone ahead of time what he was going to have to do to win this game: essentially, score on every drive because it will be so hard to get Navy's offense off the field. We scored on three of four first half drives, but the key miss was calling for a fake field goal on fourth-and-fifteen. More comprehensively, the play sequence was, after three successful runs following a critical turnover by Navy, a pass for a loss, then two incompletions, and THEN a fake field goal on fourth-and-fifteen at the twenty. Weis said after the game, in a way that made it all sound reasonable, that Navy had given a certain look on such field goals eight times previously so the play should have worked - but they gave a different look this time and were able to stop the fake. It still seemed wrong not to take advantage of a gift scoring opportunity first by going away from what was working (steady running plays), then losing yards, and then not trying for at least a field goal. Because if possessions were going to come few and far between, surely turnovers even fewer? I acknowledge the Irish also had a missed field goal later in the game, so maybe that's why Weis didn't want to try it at 37 yards early on and at the end of the game - but it seems that you want to give the kicker an attempt, especially where every point is going to matter. So: calling no attempts on field goals at the times Weis did, and calling passes at inopportune times, made for a frustrating game to watch.

- Leading back to the third point, turnovers. We didn't capitalize on their turnover, and they did capitalize on ours - 0 and 7, and setting aside everything else, you could mark that alone as the difference in the game in regulation. And ARRRGGGGHHHH, but that turnover was a killer. Absolutely inexcusable for Sharpley not only to have so little presence facing the rush but also not to protect the ball if he was going to take a sack. The one thing he just couldn't do in Irish territory is give up a fumble for a touchdown, especially when all he had to do was wrap up, but he did. It obviously didn't lose the game all by itself, but that play was about as critical as they come. Making fewer mistakes than the other guy, in a game as close as this, is going to be the edge needed to win. (Note that it's good to be in a position where the game is close enough that turnovers matter, as opposed to games that are so unbalanced that turnovers barely seem a factor. But still.) ND isn't good enough to win without playing error-free. We came closer this week and by all rights could have scraped out a win anyway, but we didn't, and we lost the game and the streak.

So now it's time for Air Force. I was pretty pleased with the running game last week, all things considered (although that was more a testament to the backs than to the line, which still doesn't get much of a push), so hopefully they'll do well again this week. The good news is the players are focused and determined to keep improving. I'll still be with them watching. Go Irish.

$@#$&^!

2007-11-03T16:59:00.001-05:00

Win or lose this game in overtime (I don't expect a win), there will be a lot to say. But I'll start with a few here:

Sharpley is not good.

Playcalling is indefensible (see, e.g., fake field goal, second drive; no field goal attempt, second-to-last drive).

Go Gameday

2007-11-03T10:14:00.000-05:00

Kirk Herbstreit and Lee Corso just picked the Irish in today's game, as we try to make it 44 in a row against Navy. They even predicted we'd score a lot of points! Well, that would be fantastic, but we'll have to see whether the bye week helped this team out and whether they actually are able to turn this last part of the season into something to build on for next year.

Charlie is appropriately concerned with impressing on the team that three-and-outs won't do the job this week:

Like I said to the team yesterday, you're going to get fewer possessions. You're going to have to make the most of them. For example, last year we scored 38, and usually most games this year, 30s or 40s are regularity with them. And because the most touchdowns we've scored in a game offensively, let's be bottom line, we've only scored three touchdowns in a game offensively. This is a team that's scoring five, six touchdowns a game; it's definitely a concern about the production per possession because you're going to have fewer of them in the game.

Some good news comes with Aldridge: "He's back and ready to go." Also, I was wrong that Sharpley wouldn't necessarily keep the starting job, as he has been named the starter for this week - although Clausen is apparently still recovering some from being banged up the last several months. Hopefully the receivers will make the plays this week to help the team overall build confidence with Sharpley. Could this be the week we break out and score over 30? We can hope. Go Irish!

On a different note, yesterday many team members traveled to Chicago to attend the funeral of Robert Hughes's older brother, who was murdered earlier this week. It is good to see how much support everyone, including Weis, personally has given to their teammate at such a difficult time, though knowing how the Notre Dame family comes together at tough times, I wouldn't expect anything less. Prayers for the Hughes family.

A nicer weekend

2007-10-29T07:15:00.000-05:00

At least we didn't lose to BYE, like some pundits predicted. Heh.

At least there's a bye

2007-10-24T06:53:00.000-05:00

Ouch. I haven't reached this level of disgust with the Irish offense since 2004, but Saturday was so unpleasant I also did something I haven't done since 2004 - "turned off" the game in the fourth quarter by leaving early. Beforehand, I had joked that I would be there until the end if the score was anything better than 38-0. Maybe I should have kept my mouth shut.

So what to say? I was extremely encouraged by the play of the defense, particularly in the first half, as they surrendered only 10 points on long drives (7 came on the 10-yard field) and forced six punts. On the game, USC was held to 5-14 on third downs, with even a fourth-and-short hold in the third. I didn't see too many people out of place -- Darrin Walls made some nice tackles, Laws and Kuntz were making their presence felt on the line, and the whole stadium loved that apparently our defensive looks were good enough on SC's first drive to cause them to take two timeouts (before failing to convert). Thus, for those looking for ongoing signs of improvement on the defense, I believe they were there to see.

The offense was an entirely different story. What a disaster - and how demoralizing must it have been for the defense, which were playing their hearts out, to repeatedly trot back on the field three plays after a fantastic stop? I had a few thoughts, some of which I admit were more frustrated than considered: One, do all the plays the team runs in practice end up in three-and-outs? Because to have under 25% third-down conversion rates, you pretty much have to be trying and well-practiced at it. Two, at least we don't have a quarterback controversy. Anyone thinking Sharpley would seize his chance to be permanent starter by beating the most beatable SC team in recent memory, was quickly disabused of the notion. If Clausen is healthy, he might as well start from here on out, since he is younger and provides at least as good, if not better, chance to move the ball. Three, when did Thomas and Schwapp earn starting RB/FB positions? When we have Allen and Hughes available? Really? As much as I may like Thomas personally, he just hasn't done much to show he should be a starting back, especially when Allen is putting up the averages he is and is running the way he is. It was a bit demoralizing from the beginning for fans not to see our more promising young backs starting. And finally, four: has there ever been better proof of the fact that everything offensive begins with the line? If you have zero push off the line, you won't establish a running game, you won't be able to set up the passing game, and so you'll pretty much go nowhere. There were no penalties on the line except one false start in the fourth, and the protection has improved slightly since Georgia Tech, but their lack of production has been the key to pretty much all of the offensive struggles this year. That's not to say inexperienced receivers, off-target QBs, etc. haven't caused their share of problems, but so much goes back to the line. I really hope that time and experience cause this group to improve. Maybe in time for us to beat Navy ... ?

The very good news is that Saturday's drubbing didn't deter two great new recruits from signing on to next year's class: RB Jonas Gray, a four-star player from Detroit, and WR Michael Floyd from Minnesota, one of the top-ranked players at his position in the country. Said Floyd: "I'm going to help them bring this back and I'm going to get a great degree." Now that's nice to hear! With a class currently ranked #1 for next fall, this Irish fan (along with everyone else!) can continue her ever-stubborn optimism looking forward.

Could this be the day?

2007-10-20T07:42:00.000-05:00

Well, maybe not, but I hope the Irish give SC a heck of a run. And who knows? The opportunities are there if we want to take advantage of them. I'm not really sure how much of a jump start Sharpley will give the offense - as Weis accurately noted earlier this week, he really can be hot and cold, and only a few lucky breaks kept his INT total from looking like Clausen's last week. But he's not bad, and if he makes some good decisions and maybe a few inspired plays like the late pass to Carlson last week, you never know. In any event, after making it through an extremely hectic week, I am excited to get to go to my first home game in about three years. Should be on the road to South Bend shortly this morning . . . Go Irish!

When you're blaming the refs

2007-10-13T19:33:00.000-05:00

... it means you didn't play well enough to win. Which is undeniably true tonight. And yet, it really sucks when the refs kill your comeback attempt by first taking away a first down, then taking away a touchdown on the fourth down. Thanks so much for that. Ugh.

Memos to Pat Haden

2007-10-13T19:30:00.000-05:00

None of your viewing audience OF NOTRE DAME FANS thinks the "Push by Bush" was particularly cute, as you seem to think.

Additionally, since you are supposed to be calling NOTRE DAME FOOTBALL, the constant favoritism for our opponents gets old.

Middle of the field

2007-10-10T07:03:00.000-05:00

Charlie's press conference transcript is up from yesterday here (I don't think there was a transcript of the post-game presser, though, and I haven't been able to watch that one yet). With regard to my earlier question of "where did the slants go?" it appears that it was a deliberate call:

Q. Can you be aggressive and not risky, or is it just inherently both?

COACH WEIS: Yeah, you just don't try to throw the ball -- last week we were either dinking and dunking or taking play action shots. Really there wasn't a prescribed intermediate passing game last week because it was kind of an all or nothing approach, which goes with a conservative nature approach that we were playing last week. When you're playing against a team like Boston College that is so good against the run, they might give up some extra yardage in the passing game because they're going to play a bend but don't break game. In that way they are very similar in mentality, not scheme wise, but mentality to Penn State. When Penn State plays, they just count on you not to have the patience and you mess it up.

I think that we're going to have to do a very good job and be consistent to put some drives together because if not all of a sudden it's 1st and 10, 2nd and 7, then it's 3rd and 7, and you're off the field and you're punting again.

I guess I'm not a huge fan of the conservative approach taken last week with this team, because it certainly seemed as though it resulted in a lot of short drives by not stretching the field at all. The Cowboys got a lot of mileage out of their underneath routes on Monday against the Bills, but then their "dink and dunk" passes also resulted in sustained drives because you can do more with 8-yard passes than 3- or 4-yard passes. Also, Charlie seemed well aware that being up 13-6 in the third wasn't a guarantee of victory, so to go conservative at that time was a gamble in itself, even though UCLA was turning the ball over every other play. Well, it worked on Saturday, and I'm not a coach -- I guess it's just interesting how willing Weis is to go with completely different offensive schemes in different games (while the fans are perplexed). Conservative can be risky, too. A few other comments from the press conference:

On why Robert Hughes, who was fantastic a few weeks ago, didn't play against UCLA: "No, we didn't have a string of longer drives. It wasn't like we had a bunch of 13 play drives in there. He was listed right behind James (Aldridge) in all the pounding packages, we just weren't on the field that many consecutive plays to warrant James being that tired to have to go out. Robert is very much in the mix. I really think that the sky is the limit for Robert."

And then the laugh line: "Q. Can you talk also about the football aspect of it [the BC rivalry]? It seems like there's a history of one team ruining another season.

COACH WEIS: Well, they're not going to ruin our season. (laughter)"

But with more seriousness: "We'd love very much to put a damper on their season. But I think that we understand that they're playing very, very good football and they deserve a high ranking based off of their production. We're going to have to play a very good game to be able to win."

Here's hoping!

Well, that's a relief

2007-10-07T23:42:00.000-05:00

The Irish finally put one in the win column at the Rose Bowl last night, and that felt pretty good. It was fairly ugly on offense, but a win's a win. Go Irish! A few thoughts:

- What a fantastic night for the defense. They gave up 282 yards, but forced seven turnovers and played smart and aggressive all night. Crum's stat summary (two INTs, two fumbles forced and fumbles recovered, one sack, seven tackles and two pass break-ups) was incredible, and won him a defensive player of the week award. Trevor Laws was in the backfield quite a bit and continued to play tough. Kerry Neal had a role in breaking up several passes. Generally, the defense seemed to be in good positions. There were still a few examples of poor tackling technique but overall the effort was strong. This should be a great confidence-builder for the next few weeks, which are going to present much tougher challenges.

- My impression has been that we had a power running game two weeks ago, an effective passing game against Purdue, and now a very strong defensive night. Against BC, can we put it all together? That would be great.

- What happened to the slant? Clausen played a conservative, generally mistake-free game (17-27, no TDs, no INTs), and it was nice to see the return of the QB sneak. But total passing yards were only 84. That helps explain the low total of 12 first downs in the game, and continued horrendous third down conversion rate (3/17). Last week against Purdue, Clausen and then Sharpley were able to stretch the field a bit and engineer longer drives by making better use of mid-range passing patterns. Maybe UCLA took away the slant options yesterday, but did they take away all mid-range pass options, or were these just not called? Or is it just that the slightly improved pass protection for Clausen in the first place is happening only because receivers are being held in the backfield for blocking purposes, and not running routes. I'll be interested to see if Charlie discusses this at all in his press conference tomorrow.

- Some have commented that this game felt a bit like 2002 victories, where the team scraped by largely on defensive opportunism that masked poor play-calling and inept offensive play. I think the situation is somewhat different given the players we have now, and also again the evidence of the past few weeks, with at least a couple of legitimately good offensive drives in each game.

- Penalties are still hurting the team: eight for 61 yards, leading to three first downs for UCLA and stalling or hurting at least a few ND drives (the penalties on punt returns are still killers with regard to field position). A couple of the penalties were questionable calls, and ultimately they evened out since ND also made three first downs off UCLA penalties, but there is still room for improved discipline here.

- This may have been the first time in years I was more critical of the team than the network announcers, who struck me as both fair and unobtrusive in calling the game (as opposed to normally, when they seem usually to be rooting for the opposing team). In talking this over today, the thought was that maybe the B-team announcers can actually be better in some respects because they aren't as tied to the storylines the network is pushing for the main games. We were an 0-5 team, 21-point underdogs, lots of young players, in a game showing in only 17% of the country. Might as well just call the game straight, minus any hype - this was refreshing. But as I said, the announcers were actually even more sympathetic to the Irish than I was at times - they kept saying how well Clausen was managing the offense, when I thought it seemed much less effective than last week. Not complaining, though!

While I'm still happy about the Irish this weekend, I have to add a few thoughts on the NFL. First: Trent Dilfer?! The Niners may be doomed for the season (or at least the next month, until the younger players who had been starting to show more promise return from injuries). Watching today's 9-7 loss to the Ravens would have been a better experience if the impressive defensive effort hadn't been spoiled by utter offensive ineptitude and failure to score more than once. Ouch. Second: Could the networks get over their worshipfulness of Brett Favre already? You'd think they would feel embarrassed after awhile to keep fawning over him every time he steps on the field (or stands on the sidelines, or isn't even on camera) - but the swooning for St. Brett only continues. Good grief. I hope the Bears pull this one out. [pause] 2:05, Bears have the go ahead TD. Cameraman dutifully cuts to Favre for reaction shots. What's that - he's grim? Oh, so sad. NBC is sad, too. Al Michaels actually just said, "A night that started out so beautifully and brilliantly has ended up with the Bears winning." (!?!) Well, that was funny. Good riddance.

Signs of progress

2007-10-01T07:24:00.000-05:00

There was some actual excitement at McFadden's on Saturday afternoon for about 20 minutes. We had a drive? We had three drives? Excelente. I'll write more later - just wanted to say that for those who are taking a "football vacation" by watching not so much for wins, but just for marked signs of progress on a young squad, this was a pretty good day.

Tories and Trek

2007-09-30T10:02:00.000-05:00

After holding out for more than a year, Kathryn Lopez finally delivered: Star Trek Weekend on NRO. Now, as John Podhoretz concedes, TNG was basically "a conservative's nightmare." But I wasn't so politically attuned in my formative years, and even if I had been, I clearly wouldn't have been alone in still liking Trek. It's just that now, I agree with my dad that Kirk was the better man, even if Stewart was inarguably the better actor - and to a degree I even agree with Jonah Goldberg that TNG has not aged well. Still, as it is, I can still tell you within 2 minutes of watching the title of any given Next Generation episode. This is a cool trick only among a certain small population of guys, a fact of which I was only too well aware in high school (why yes, I was writing fanfic when it was in its BBS/Usenet days, and I did save up baby-sitting money to go to a convention once). Heh. It all worked out when I met my husband because of Star Wars (and Notre Dame football, I always hasten to add), leading to an appearance by Darth Vader at our rehearsal dinner and a reception toast from my father to "live long and prosper."

Anyway, some amusing articles are up at National Review this weekend. Celebrate the dorkiness.

Beat Sparty

2007-09-22T11:59:00.000-05:00

Vannie's MSU preview is predicting another loss. Ay. Regardless, I'll be down at McFadden's with the ND Club today and hopefully finding some things to cheer about. Go Irish!

Halftime update (stayed home instead of heading downtown): See, now that's improvement. We're uneven so far, but "uneven" is better than "hopeless" and we are seeing some great play from the freshmen. With two offensive TDs, plus on turnovers, a few actual drives, and fewer penalties (overall) and sacks than the last few weeks, we're on pace to stay in this game and maybe even pull out a win. Woohoo! I hate Michigan State.

Fourth quarter update: Or not. Still hate MSU, but unhappy with the second half regression.

Appropriate judgment

2007-09-22T11:23:00.000-05:00

On Tuesday, the Maryland Court of Appeals turned down a challenge to the state's Defense of Marriage Act, declining to invent a state constitutional right to same-sex marriage. I was surprised but pleased by the opinion, as the Court applied an appropriate standard of review (rational basis) for the existing DOMA, and concluded that the statute did withstand rational basis scrutiny. Moreover, the Court noted that it was following the majority of state courts that have taken up the issue since 2003's Goodridge in Massachusetts. As this was one of the likeliest states to have followed the Massachusetts court (which the plaintiffs certainly believed, having chosen to bring the challenge here and won in the lower courts), it is somewhat of a relief to see the Court, albeit by only a 4-1-2 vote, effectively ruled that the issue was the province of the legislature. Thus, SSM advocates vowed to take the matter to the legislative.

I'm glad they want to go to the legislature now rather than attempting to circumvent the legislative process, but I hope they intend to have a fair debate. Eighteen months ago, Maryland delegates killed by procedural maneuvering an attempt to place a marriage amendment on the 2006 ballot, so that Marylanders could decide the issue for themselves. The delegates at first seemed not to want to place themselves on the record - which I called a cowardly act, since if they were so much in favor of SSM, they ought to have openly supported it instead of hiding their stance from the voters and denying those same voters the chance to decide for themselves. A few days later, the entire House did vote on whether to consider the amendment, and while many Democrats joined Republicans in voting for a full legislative vote, 78 delegates showed by their vote they were not even going to consider allowing Marylanders to decide for themselves on the marriage amendment. I thought the issue might have been more salient in the 2006 elections, though it turned out not to be. Still, with a renewed focus on the issue in light of the Court of Appeals' ruling this week, I am glad to see the Republicans (again, few though they are) intend to try re-introducing an amendment to the legislature (amendments cannot appear on the ballot via popular initiative in Maryland, but must first be approved by the legislature).

"I assure you the constitutional marriage amendment will be reintroduced this session," said Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr., an Anne Arundel County Republican and leading same-sex marriage opponent in the House. "Without it, there's nothing to preclude a future legal challenge made on a different argument or a different basis. The legislature ought to have the courage and the desire to publicly vote on the issue of marriage."

Now that we know the Court has made the judicially prudent ruling not to strike down Maryland's DOMA, I welcome a debate in the legislature - as long as delegates also act prudently, not patronizingly, by allowing open votes in the House itself and/or giving the state's voters a chance to decide the issue themselves.

Dazed and confused

2007-09-17T06:47:00.000-05:00

Well, things didn't improve at all on Saturday after the first quarter, including in the measures (penalties and errors) I forgot to mention at the time. They all got worse, except for the fact that we finally went into positive yardage on offense - but not rushing, because the numerous sacks are still negating every hard-fought gain in this regard. Does anyone out there know how to play offensive line? RW at Rakes of Mallow has a job posting for you!

Strangely, I'm not nearly as despondent or fatalistic as might have been expected after a drubbing identical in outcome to four years ago (although it did kill my mood on Saturday night). I think this is for several reasons. First, this is not our program's lowest moment. (I know that's hardly an endorsement. Bear with me.) I've been reading comments about how this was the worst game Irish fans can remember seeing for 50 years, and all I can say is -- where were you during Davieham? This is nowhere near as bad, and that has to be because of the long-term situation. Yes, this team is stinking badly in ways that we didn't expect at the beginning of the year. But it's traceable to two things primarily that we did know to expect, at least somewhat: an offensive line that is truly, horrendously offensive, and a lack of experience across the board. We knew to expect that our line would probably not be as good this year and our team was going to be younger than average because we're playing under NCAA sanction-like conditions, missing a full 15 scholarship players at the junior-senior level, thanks to the prior coach's recruiting "efforts." But these things are going to improve in the next few years, as Weis's strong recruiting classes gain experience and maturity. If we can keep the recruits we already have lined up for next year (class is currently ranked #1) the situation will improve. Thus, I just don't have the same sinking feeling as a few years ago, when it wasn't clear that many good new players were coming up. It's still embarrassing because the players should still be playing better than they are, but that explains some of the difference.

In addition, the team is making so many correctable errors that things will look magically improved as soon as they fix the errors. I'm sure that sounds simplistic, but cut out the false starts, snap the ball to the actual quarterback, don't freaking clip on special teams coverage (those last two apply to you, fifth-year seniors), and turn your head around when it appears the receiver you're covering is looking for the ball, and suddenly the team overall looks better - at the very least stops killing field position and drives for no reason. I understand the buck stops with the coach on all of these errors, and Weis has rightly accepted responsibility, but then again, I'm sure he's not telling John Sullivan to snap balls way over the quarterback's head or telling Travis Thomas to punch people. If the players themselves just played smarter, the team as a whole will have a much better chance to implement the offense.

That still leaves the offensive line, which I will agree is the worst I've seen. They need to figure out how to block better than 1-AA lines (or heck, the Oaks Christian HS line). I don't know what Weis needs to do to fix this - some have suggested he needs to run more physical practices, others have just said the players need to just wake up and decide to play. We'll see what happens with this over the next week.

All signs point to negative

2007-09-15T15:18:00.000-05:00

After one quarter, I see: another 2 sacks; another 3 fumbles; more total negative yardage; and another scoreboard blanking.

Here's hoping we improve in the next quarter.

Not-so-happy Valley

2007-09-13T06:49:00.000-05:00

We ending up "watching" last week's game by hitting "refresh" at several intervals during the reception on the boxscore on my Blackberry. Accordingly, my impressions were mostly just of the statistics. Ones I liked: We scored a few more points this week (albeit 7 on defense). Clausen started off 12-16, so he must have been throwing fairly well. The defense looked promising, especially holding down the PSU rush yards in the first three quarters. Stats that stunk: Six sacks. Relatedly, another game with zero rushing yards. Ouch. 1 for 10 on third downs. 14 penalties for almost 100 yards. And, of course, the final score.

I can't offer much analysis of the above, not having seen it all, but the stats do speak for themselves, and the main thing they scream is: The offensive line is royally bad, and the mental mistakes and playcalling aren't helping much. I'll point y'all to Rob's recap at Rakes of Mallow and Mike's thoughts on recruiting and playcalling at BGS. Then, as we look toward Michigan week (how ugly could this one get?), here is JVan's preview at NDN. Even with UM reeling, he calls a (closer) loss for us. I hope he's wrong. . .

First law of weddings and football

2007-09-06T00:13:00.000-05:00

That is, as has been noted before, don't schedule weddings on football Saturdays! There's another 40 weekends you could use over the rest of the year, so this ought to be an easy law to adhere to. For my own wedding, we not only avoided any ND weekends, we even managed to schedule it for the bye weekend between the conference championships and the Super Bowl in January (although, given the outcome of the Super Bowl this year, my Chicago-native spouse maybe would rather not have had that next weekend free to watch the game). For my best friend (a Domer, like me), a June wedding this year nicely avoided having any guests (not to mention the bride herself) have to sneak away during the reception to catch snippets from a game. Nonetheless, my other closest friend (this one from law school, not college, and so not necessarily attuned to the fixed appointments that are Saturday gametimes) has scheduled her wedding for this weekend. While I'm thrilled for her and am looking forward to a fun and full weekend, I'm aggrieved at this blatant disregard for the football fans in the congregation. Who's this day all about, anyway?? :)

In the lions' den

2007-09-05T22:07:00.000-05:00

It's time to look forward to Saturday's game at Penn State, but first Charlie Weis freely admitted that his reaction to the Georgia Tech outing was the same as a lot of fans: "I wanted to vomit." A few other tidbits to take from last week:

- In answer to everyone's question of whether he didn't expect that Georgia Tech would bring blitzes throughout the game, this unsettling response: "But all of the blitz zones and the Michaels and the Sam Mikes, they were, unfortunately, they were what we practiced every day unfortunately. And the reason why I say unfortunately is because when you know what they are doing and you don't handle it, that's even a bigger problem than when you don't know what they were doing, because at least you can say, hey, we weren't expecting that. That's where I feel we had our biggest failure. So rather than sit there and blame the players for not getting it done, I blame me for not practicing enough to get it done."

- On whether there were any positives to take from the game on defense: "[Y]ou lose 33-3, there's no good stat. But that would be the one stat looking back and reviewing, you know, you would say, hey, like in the first half, they had shut them down on third down. He's 0 for 6 on third down and you look at that and you look at the red zone stops, and you're encouraged in certain aspects by what we did on defense."

Jimmy Clausen is going to start on Saturday. Looking back at his plays from last week, he seemed by far to be the most in command, moving out of the pocket when needed, with a quick release and accurate throws. He's still a true freshman playing behind an offensive line that apparently has trouble with blitz defense even when they're expecting blitzes, so I don't expect Clausen to necessarily be a superstar right away, but I'd be surprised if he can't move the offense a lot better this weekend than last. Given BGS's latest post on how even our spread offense last week wasn't as bad as it looked at first, my optimism is definitely up again. (Only to be crushed again?) No, I really do expect to see a lot of progress and a competitive game this weekend, maybe even a surprising win. Go Irish.

Return of the BSOD

2007-09-05T21:53:00.000-05:00

I just got a new computer this weekend after five years with my last laptop (which still works really well - I was just persuaded it was finally time for an upgrade), and switched to Dell after nine years total with Toshiba. I like the current 1420 model's specs and aesthetics, and so far everything's been pretty good. Nope, the only adjustment is coming with (and I feel like there should be an ominous chord here) Microsoft Vista. I went five years on XP without seeing a single blue screen of death, but now it's happened five times in the last two days. I've been able to solve most of the compatibility issues by Googling and patching, but it looks like I'll have to do without Paint Shop Pro XI, since patches only work once a program's installed but the computer crashes every time I insert the disk. Otherwise, things seem to be fine, but I'm just waiting for "Windows Genuine Advantage" (which I avoided installing on XP) to tell me my pre-installed copy isn't valid and shut down the whole system. A ver.

An inauspicious start

2007-09-01T21:48:00.000-05:00

That's being polite. I'm trying to find positives in today's 33-3 loss to Georgia Tech, but they're hard to come by. (At least Charlie's great fourth down percentage continues...) So, just some thoughts.

- It was surprising how flat the offense started out. I was expecting to see a focus on the run, given our depth here, but none of the running backs really broke out and it wasn't immediately clear to me whether that was a failure of the offensive line to get any push or open any holes, or whether it was a failure of playcalling. At one point I think the run-pass ratio from the beginning of the game was 20-1, and the one (incomplete) throw was made on a rollout under tremendous pressure. No slants, no out routes, no quickness to beat the blitzes. And two turnovers in the first half. Give credit to Georgia Tech - the blitzes were creative, the defense was aggressive and their push off the defensive line was strong all game.

- I liked our defense in the first half in particular, especially given that GT had such good starting field position. I thought they only started to really tire/unravel after the idiotic Justin Brown foul got him ejected and negated what had been another in a great series of third-down stops. Holding GT to a few field goals kept us in the game throughout the first half, and Laws got some terrific height on his blocked field goal. The overall GT third down percentage was under 30%. It didn't seem people were out of place on too many plays, except on occasion to the outside.

- Nine sacks is absolutely horrendous. Brady, where art thou (and thy great ability to evade sacks)? If we're going to have a porous offensive line all year before the great new recruits start arriving and maturing, we're going to have to select a quarterback who has more mobility - so in spite of the fact that he did get benched for his two fumbles (which were also good strips by GT) and a need to shake up the game, I would probably still rank Jones ahead of Sharpley. But based on the last eight minutes or so, I think Clausen might have earned the nod - he showed a bit of mobility and some great zing to his passes. Of course, if we'd called any slants in the first two quarters, maybe Jones would have demonstrated he could complete those as well. But even if Clausen takes his lumps like everyone else, he looked the best out of the three.

- Charlie said to strike him dead if he ever used the word "rebuilding" to describe this year - so I won't use it, but I will note that apparently we have only 20 scholarship players in the junior and senior classes total instead of 20 in each class, which is Ty's legacy of NCAA-penalty-level recruiting. Where we should have great depth on the offensive line at this point, we just don't and that's been a problem for the last two years as well. Take the last series of the third quarter for one example - on the first play, Sharpley was sacked on first down to inside the Irish ten, and two or three offensive linemen were on the ground. Next play, Sharpley completed a nine-yard pass to West under some pressure. Third down, Turkovich just checked off his defender, who ended up in the Irish backfield again and helped pressure Sharpley into an incompletion. At least Price had a nice punt on this drive - but otherwise it was just emblematic of the way most of the game went. This team needs to gain some experience and momentum. We'll just have to watch closely for the adjustments next week.

- But here's some consolation in the meantime: Hey, Michigan lost.

Ready for some football

2007-08-30T08:06:00.000-05:00

I feel like I'm only just now emerging from some dark bunker of lease and REA reviews on tight deadlines, all-night deal closing sessions, out of office assignments, lease negotiations and drafting (also on tight deadlines), and a few family events in quick succession (one fun, one sad and unexpected). Now, stepping out into the daylight, it turns out football season starts this weekend, and I'm getting excited and ready to enjoy the fall. Unfortunately, I'm also woefully underprepared to discuss this Irish squad because I've had no time to read up over the last few months - so it's time a few quick homework assignments, and then we'll be set. On the syllabus:

First: Blue-Gray Sky on the Irish run game and offensive personnel groupings.

Next: Charlie Weis's latest press conference from Tuesday.

Next: ND Nation's Georgia Tech preview.

And: The Rock Report on optimism and chocolate.

That should be a good primer. And my other last minute assignment is to remember to sign up for my friend's College Football Pick'em group. I hope it's not too late!

It's storming outside

2007-07-29T15:07:00.000-05:00

Which means there is less cause to regret that I have to be inside all day working instead of outside by the pool. I still feel somewhat grumpy!

This morning we went to the early Mass, instead of the summer late-morning Mass, so my husband could go back into work and I could get started earlier also (this, after 12-hour days yesterday - we are not an exciting couple this weekend!) Unfortunately, however, the early morning Mass is Monsignor's concession to the parishioners who prefer the 1970s Marty Haugen/Carey Landry/John Foley liturgical stylings. Haugen isn't even Catholic (a fact I only became aware of recently). While some of his songs aren't so bad theologically or musically (I grew up with them and like several of them), enough are irreverently-styled, vapid and theologically suspect (from a Catholic perspective) that it's a mystery to me why they have come to so dominate in Catholic parishes. They're often performance or pop pieces, not real worship music. Anyway, I notice that Monsignor never celebrates the early Mass himself, only the late-morning and Saturday evening Masses with organ, incense, and chant. I also notice that our sweet, well-meaning choir at the early Mass is populated by middle-aged folks, while our organist and the more traditional choir are all under 30. (Caveats, exceptions, and so forth.) Oh well. I do still sing all the hymns (except for the really bad arrangement of the Our Father) and make the most of it! And I know that, as for the other side of things, it's certainly possible for organ music to be uninspired and sleep-inducing - I've been to parishes where that is the case. In any event, I honestly believe we're past the nadir in American Catholic liturgy, historically speaking, but sometimes I can't wait for these unfortunate elements of the recent past to be left to the past.

Not dead yet

2007-07-18T21:20:00.000-05:00

I'm still around - I just haven't been able to find any balance at work. Either I'm completely slow, or completely busy. To make up for the slow times, I've decided to accept pretty much any assignment people want to give me . . . leading to at least four due this Friday. When I get out from underneath these lease reviews and closing document drafts I do have a few articles I've been meaning to post on, not to mention the news that Notre Dame seems to have almost the entirety of its 2008 team committed. With all this great recruiting news coming from South Bend, it helps to make the wait time until college football season starts again more bearable. Of course, another thing that undoubtedly helps is Every Day Should Be Saturday, which is posting daily affirmations until kickoff.

Vaccines and politics

2007-07-07T18:41:00.000-05:00

A reader asked what my opinion was on the new HPV vaccine, so I thought I would write briefly on the subject . . . I don't think there's anything morally wrong with it. Human papillomavirus is fairly ugly, and causes increased rates of cervical cancer (and infertility) in far too many women. Being vaccinated against HPV doesn't mean that a person is less likely to be chaste because sex would now be "safer"; after all, there are (unfortunately) quite a few other rampant STDs out there, such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, or herpes; a vaccine against one type of venereal disease is unlikely to encourage a person to think of sex overall as less risky. I believe a family could vaccinate their daughter without fear that it would send a message inconsistent with the virtue of chastity they want to model and impart. That is, it's a far cry from handing out condoms or visiting Planned Parenthood to obtain birth control pills! I also think that no matter how faithfully your children practice chastity and value waiting until marriage, it is, unfortunately, not necessarily the case that their spouse will also have waited until marriage (prior to meeting their intended), and it is possible they may have HPV; if the vaccine could prevent people from contracting HPV from their spouse in that instance, surely it would be a good thing. This is also the case for terrible instances of abuse.

That said, I do have a few problems with issues related to the vaccine. It doesn't protect against all kinds of sexually transmitted HPV strains, for one thing, and so offers incomplete protection. I don't see why it shouldn't be given to boys as well as girls, if preventing the spread of diseases is the main goal. There's no clear evidence on how long the protection lasts and it's quite expensive for those without insurance. Moreover, HPV isn't a communicable disease in the same way that, say, measles are. For those reasons, and the fact that some people do have moral concerns, I would absolutely oppose making the vaccine mandatory (as Texas has done) and I wouldn't think it is a necessary thing, especially if the money isn't there. My understanding is there are no side effects, though, so if a family doctor thinks, and a family agrees, that it's worth it, I don't think it's a bad thing. (For additional commentary, see the National Catholic Bioethics Center statement here and the Catholic Medical Association here.)

My current thoughts on liturgy (or, How to create a reactionary)

2007-07-07T17:20:00.000-05:00

I went to a church in southeastern Pennsylvania last week since we were there for a family event and found myself saying the same thing I've been feeling more often lately, which is, "I'm not a Trad, but . . ." That is, I don't particularly long for the Tridentine Mass - I really do prefer the current rite - and I've never particularly minded the modern hymns I grew up singing. And yet, I can recognize and cringe at the worst abuses of the current rite, and as I've become better catechized over the last few years (largely thanks to my husband and my best friend, a recent convert and now mostly a Traditionalist), I find myself becoming ever more aware of the extent of the damage that American liberals did to the Church in the 1960s and 1970s, hijacking the intentions of the well-meaning Vatican II reformers to completely revise and deform, as the Pope put it today, the liturgy. Putting yourself into the place of God in hymns ("I am the Bread of Life" -- well, no we're not, Christ is), applause for the choir during Mass (it's not a performance), using treacly and vapid "teen" music (did I *really* have to sing "Our God is an awesome God" so much in high school?), removing the tabernacle from the altars, priests extemporizing excessively during Mass, general lack of reverence during Mass. I think a lot of the damage that was done, however, was not so much an inevitable outcome of Vatican II, as a consequence of the Council having supremely bad timing. That is, at a time when the Church undertook to implement some gradual and welcome reforms, the entire West was going through massive social and cultural upheavals, and the "revolutionaries" seized the moment in parishes around the country, leading us toward more casual, in some cases more freeform Protestant and in some csaes New Age-y, and less reverent worship. It's only been in the last few years that the priests who came of age under the John Paul II "revival" (and older priests who missed the way things had been before) I think have started bringing back the reverence and solemnity - so often in a joyful way - to our worship.

But in the meantime the country is dotted with parishes that exemplify all the worst elements of the 1970s. The parish we went to on Sunday looked like a spaceship with a sail on top (no photos online so I can't post it). In a postmodern move that I'm sure the architect was extremely pleased with himself on, the church had no actual entrance or vestibule ("Hey! Only capitalist patriarchal oppressors put doors on buildings!"). Instead, there were six small unmarked doors scattered around the building, each six feet away from inner doors leading to the sanctuary. Which looked like a spaceship. There was a giant white plaster abstracted/mosaic type Jesus behind the altar on the wall, while rows of track lighting led up to a center point on the ceiling. If they had suddenly started blinking in sequence, I would fully have expected to be beamed up. There was dark slate around the base of the walls but otherwise just white drywall. The saddest part was that behind the altar in a small area of pews where we were sitting (not having found the non-existent main entrance to the church to sit in the main pew area), and not visible from the outside, were about ten beautiful stained-glass panels with (I think) Czech words. They'd obviously been taken from an older parish somewhere in town that now no longer existed. Unsurprisingly, inside the spaceship, it was a little hard to concentrate on the actual worship, even though the priest was actually quite good. I was embarrassed for St. Ann to have her name attached to the parish. Meanwhile, the Methodist church down the street looked quite ordinary and respectable. I found myself thinking - why? But we all know the great, (mostly) well-meaning people who enthusiastically set about "modernizing" the church over the last 40 years, bringing it "up-to-date" while jettisoning hundreds of years of history and tradition relating to architecture, art and music. Funny how it all looks so dated to my generation now.

Fortunately, things are changing. I'm blessed to be able to attend a wonderful little parish with a pastor who cares about solemnity in the liturgy, using incense every week, singing the ordinary parts of the Mass, encouraging respectfulness and orthodoxy by the example he sets. Our organist trained at Catholic, and selects traditional hymns and makes some use of chant while staying unobtrusive and keeping the focus on the Mass instead of her or the choir. And the architecture of our small church allows for this, with the choir loft set above and behind, and the general shape of the church in the cross shape that has so much theological significance as well as practicality and grace. Aside from this example, though, I know there are priests all over the country concerned with regaining the reverence and beauty of the Mass. (Fr. Martin Fox collected hundreds of examples here.) Our generation has really grown up with the joyful and blessed examples of Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who have given us many serious reflections on the liturgy and the life of the Church. Re-catechizing the new generation will take time and effort, but we have good examples (even from the last 40 years! - great institutions and communities, full of people like my parents, actively involved in teaching and witnessing the life of the Church) and a lot of energy I think going forward.

We are expecting a new translation of the Mass in English, much more faithful to the Latin from which it derives, that I think is to be implemented starting later this year. And today the Vatican released Pope Benedict's motu proprio encouraging the wider celebration of the 1962 missal (Tridentine) Mass as the "extraordinary" rite not needing any special permission from bishops anymore, as used to be the case. He is also focused on restoring the ordinary rite (the Novus Ordo) to greater orthodoxy, because:

This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

As Gerald at Closed Cafeteria (linked above) put it, "I bet there are a lot of "Amen!"'s out there right now." Yep. For those who do prefer the old Mass, it's great that they should have the opportunity and freedom to assist it, but the ordinary rite deserves to be rescued as well and with his deep concern about the liturgy, Pope Benedict I think brings much cause for hope to the faithful.

I'm hardly likely to become a Traditionalist - I do prefer the Novus Ordo, solemnly celebrated. (Personally, I also am extremely leery of the smugness and misogyny I often encounter with this group.) Nevertheless, if the motu proprio, combined with the upcoming new English translation of the Mass, leads American pastors to celebrate the ordinary rite with due solemnity, I absolutely welcome it. After all, "I'm not a Trad, but . . ."

An unlikely sort

2007-06-20T22:00:00.000-05:00

Something more uplifting than those last sour thoughts . . . For those who haven't caught it yet, you have to watch this video of Welsh car phone salesman Paul Potts stunning the judges of "Britain's Got Talent" last week with his unlikely talent: singing opera.

The poor man just looks so defeated and dumpy before he starts singing and you can see the judges rolling their eyes . . . but then he proves he can sing. I love watching this transformation. I've been to half a dozen operas, which is enough to appreciate the enormous talent it takes to perform, even though it isn't my favorite kind of music or theatre. It's just nice to see someone succeed with true talent -- gives me goosebumps every time I watch. Potts's second and final, winning performances proved he wasn't a fluke in this case. It's hard to be anything other than happy for him :)

Visual assaults

2007-06-20T20:59:00.000-05:00

Has anyone else seen the posters for "Captivity," the latest horror movie? They're plastered all over Metro right now, and feature a closeup of a stereotypically pretty blonde behind a fence or cage, with her mouth open in fear and her eye makeup smeared, with a tear streaking down her face. Apparently the previous poster (which didn't make it to DC, only to New York and L.A.) was even worse, showing the same girl being kidnapped, tortured, and finally killed. It's really disgusting, and I hate that it's hard to avoid seeing these images every day on the way to and from work. I would ask, who in the world is this sick stuff supposed to appeal to -- but we all know the target audience, some subset of teenage/twenty-something guys who have some disordered fascination with seeing ever more inventive tortures depicted, preferably on young, pretty women. I'm aware some of these graphic horror movies involve torture of men, but of course the fact this "torture porn" is equal-opportunity doesn't make things any better. This certain segment of Hollywood keeps churning out dark, twisted films and plastering their images in our faces - and they must be making some money. Just like regular pornography, they're often doing it by crass exploitation and victimization of women, and I would hope all women could agree that this isn't "empowering," it's just sick.

Stephen King, offering quite a few caveats, still is of the opinion that "[s]ure it [these types of movies] makes you uncomfortable, but good art should make you uncomfortable." On the other hand, sometimes things that make you uncomfortable have no redeeming value and are actually just bad art.

Will somebody get this walking carpet out of my way?

2007-06-17T09:22:00.001-05:00

Abortion agendas and ironies

2007-06-11T22:18:00.000-05:00

The Economist this week prints two letters in response to its recent article looking at world abortion laws. The first, signed by professors from Johns Hopkins and the London School of Hygiene, as well as a Guttmacher Institute representative, decries the "significant economic costs" related to the 19 million illegal abortions estimated to occur each year around the world. "Legal" apparently equals "safe" (never mind that abortion harms plenty of women's health even in countries where it's routine); "illegal" apparently equals "unsafe." The writers note that unsafe abortion costs include "long-term health consequences" including: subfecundity and infertility. I am quite impressed by the researchers' touching concern for women's fecundity and fertility, but I wonder whether any of them has ever noted the irony inherent in their worrying about these things following abortions. The abortions themselves, after all, have a direct and short-term effect on fecundity and fertility every time one is performed, seeing as how actual pregnancies and children are terminated thereby. Indeed, if the writers are concerned with fecundity and fertility, perhaps they might encourage women to carry to term the pregnancies they have already conceived.

Then again, having the children would also impose its "significant economic costs" - so maybe the best answer is to get rid of even more of them. The second letter printed, by one John Bermingham of Denver, observes that the map of countries that prohibit or severely restrict abortion "is almost identical to regions that are distressed from overpopulation." They face "severe social stress, ethnic tensions and civil disorder," and on top of all that they're all going to need food assistance. Bermingham delicately does not spell out the conclusion he means to suggest by his association, but it is clear all the same: legalize abortion, and these poor countries that are essentially welfare queens on the international dole, living in squalor, might just improve their lot just by causing there to be fewer of their citizens. If it's the same man, Bermingham has apparently been involved in pushing liberalized abortion policy for four decades. He used to justify it just on the basis of preventing back alley abortions (the numbers of which used to be -- and often still are -- quite falsely inflated). He seems now to have moved on to general population control rationales. Is that progress? It bothers me that reasonable people might well think so.

Lasting a lifetime

2007-06-04T21:07:00.000-05:00

Sweet, noncynical article in the Post today about the archdiocese's celebration of married couples at Mass in the Basilica yesterday. 500 couples who had been married at least 25 years each came to renew their vows, and it seems like they all had neat relationships and large families celebrating with them. I had to smile at this couple:

That same attitude has kept Betty and Ray Lankford, 81-year-olds who own a plumbing business on Solomons Island, going during their 62 years of marriage. (Her father predicted it wouldn't last.)

Their only fights, they said, were about the kids.

But they had 10 kids. [So they must have gotten along well enough!]

So, Ray said, they had an agreement. "Never go to bed mad and always kiss and make up," he said. "And when you get up in the morning, say, 'I love you.'"

The last anecdote is about a couple married 63 years tearing up as they restated their vows, the same simple vows used in many Catholic weddings today. What a beautiful model these couples provide by their love and commitment, especially for all married couples just starting out :)

In which I discover social networking

2007-06-04T06:52:00.000-05:00

Usually I think I'm pretty Internet-savvy, since I've been on it for so long -- and to such an extent that my family always thought I was kind of weird :) Still, I do miss a lot. I've been posting on and reading various forums and message boards for ages, but never got into the social networking sites, since I think Facebook and MySpace got popular just after I left college. Long and short of it is, I finally discovered Facebook this weekend, tagging along after my four younger siblings (and four younger siblings-in-law), and what a great invention! It was great to be able to find friends from school that I haven't been in touch with in awhile, and to have another way to stay connected with my family. I may have to start spending even more time online. Heh.

ETA: Apparently Howard Kurtz also just discovered Facebook and wrote about his experiences navigating the site as a guy older than "99.99% of the Facebook population." It's fairly amusing.

Dawn in DC

2007-06-03T20:00:00.000-05:00

Tuesday night I got to meet Dawn Eden, along with a very nice group of other commenters on her blog, at a little get-together in Dupont. I've enjoyed Dawn's writing for several years -- particularly her unapologetic challenges to Planned Parenthood's false messages to women, and her impossibly clever headlines -- so it was great to have the opportunity to meet her in person. It felt a little subversive talking about chastity and random Catholic topics in the particular neighborhood we were in, given it is one of the hippest neighborhoods for singles in the city and I doubt many people would be all that keen on chastity in relationships there! -- but I think everyone had a good time getting to know one another. For my part, I'll definitely have to remember to keep reading the Musical Monk and the Three Massketeers, now that I know some of the personable guys behind these sites. Thanks to Dawn for inviting us out!

A bit more on IVF

2007-06-03T17:43:00.000-05:00

I felt my last post was not as well explained as I wanted it to be, so here's a stab at some additional thoughts. I think far more people understand the moral objections to abortion than to IVF or other artificial reproductive technologies, which seems to be an exclusively "Catholic thing." How can anyone oppose the creation of new life, after all? All people want is children to love, so it's hard to see why technologies that help infertile people conceive might be morally problematic.

I think there are intrinsic and extrinsic answers to that. First, in the Catholic understanding sex has two equally important and inseparable aspects, the unitive and the procreative. Cutting off either aspect can do grave damage not just spiritually, but also relationally and socially. Sex outside of marriage cannot be truly unitive because a couple cannot give themselves to each other fully, with the sacramental and lifelong commitment found in marriage. Artificial contraception cuts off the procreative aspect of sex by making a couple closed to the possibility of life. These may be two main examples of how either the unitive or procreative aspect could be denied, but there are certainly more, and everything is frequently interrelated. Just as artificial contraception helped facilitate ever more widespread nonmarital sex and helped separate sex from marriage, ART has helped separate childbearing from sex and in ever more cases, from marriage as well. Instead of being used only to help married couples overcome infertility -- which might seem less objectionable, but still is not acceptable because of the dissociation of procreation from union -- ART is now ever more frequently being used by unmarried single women, by homosexual couples, and by even more creative arrangements involving surrogates, egg donors and sperm donors. All of these violate marital unity and cause children to be harmed by being created in such a way as to intentionally deny them the right to be raised by their own married mother and father. Conception by IVF or other ART, in these cases, is not comparable to adoption or to situations where a child does not have his own mother and father by unfortunate happenstance (death, divorce for serious reasons, or abandonment). It is not making the best of a less-than-ideal situation; it is creating the less-than-ideal situation by intention, from the beginning. Morally, it takes us away from God's design and contributes to us thinking of children as rights, rather than gifts.

As often happens when a situation is morally objectionable, problems may be seen in many practical aspects as well. The processes involved for many ART procedures are arduous and potentially harmful to women's health, in particular -- high doses of hormones to induce superovulation for egg donation or use in IVF could have negative effects, for example, and the egg harvesting procedure is painful. The chances of conceiving and ultimately bearing a child through IVF are surprisingly low (less than 30%, last I saw), meaning these processes may have to be repeated multiple times. Children conceived through ART, while often healthy, have significantly higher incidences of birth defects and are higher risk pregnancies all around, with higher miscarriage rates and premature births. Part of the increased risk comes from the fact that a much higher incidence of ART pregnancies are multiples, including high-order multiples, than occur in nature. People faced with high-order multiple pregnancies are frequently driven to the evil of abortion in order to eliminate some of their unborn children. People who create excess embryos often leave many frozen in stasis for years, only to be destroyed later. People who conceive with anonymous donor sperm or eggs may face the reality of their children having a myriad, unknown number of half-siblings who may grow up anguished about missing the chance to know their siblings or their unknown parent in common. The physical and emotional trauma involved thus are often magnified beyond what is usually found in pregnancies.

Behind all of this is the fact that assisted reproduction is a multi-billion dollar business, marketed efficiently by an industry that has a lot of incentives to turn human beings into commodities, and not many incentives to concern itself with ethical questions. Doctors used to restrict their services to married couples, but if homosexual and single parents represent more customers, more business, more profit, the industry will eagerly expand its services. If women patients are above an age where they can healthily bear children, the industry will offer tempting financial incentives to young college students or poor foreign women, encouraging them to risk their health to donate eggs. Couples or individuals looking to conceive are encouraged to pore through books of egg and sperm donors selecting for superficial traits, as if people were specimens of meat being critically evaluated in a supermarket for quality. The market only encourages this evaluation of people not for who they are, but exclusively for their hair color, SAT score, and height. And the industry has financial incentives to play on the desperation and emotional distress that often come along with the desire to have a child. At ten to twenty thousand dollars per attempted cycle of IVF, people are often at their most vulnerable as they are asked to shell out money for the promised cure. Additional information about donors often costs extra -- want to hear what his voice sounds like? See her baby pictures? That's a value-added service; pay up. Sperm banks and fertility clinics can't really be faulted for trying to increase profits at the margin.

Thus for all of these intrinsic and extrinsic reasons, IVF and assisted reproductive technologies are seriously problematic. Everyone can sympathize with the heartache and despair felt by those who face infertility -- I certainly do. But the answer should not be to seek to create children outside of marriage, with anonymous donors or create surrogate arrangements; it is to lay this burden at the foot of the Cross, to pray for strength through the suffering, and perhaps to help make the best out of another child's difficult situation through loving adoption or caregiving in another way. Doctors should be able to work to find cures for impotence or infertility, but I don't think creating children outside of marriage or artificially should count as such a "cure" that would be morally permissible.

ETA, though I would hope it goes without saying: Of course the circumstances of their conception are never the children's fault, and their lives should be celebrated as should the lives of all children. I know several families with multiples who are great, happy kids. Appreciation and support for those who are already here (and hopefully a part of loving families!) shouldn't stop us, however, from questioning whether the industry and methods used to conceive them should continue to be unregulated and widely accepted.

Sins crying out to heaven

2007-05-29T23:24:00.000-05:00

The other week's Sunday Post carried an interesting story from writer Liza Mundy, who wrote the "Everything Conceivable" book referenced in my last post. I can't help but think the Post published it intending it to be yet another one of those articles meant to portray abortion sympathetically (in this case, the practice of "selective reduction" of individual fetuses from multiples pregnancies caused by ART), as it followed an abortion doctor throughout a few of his typical days -- but instead, it became yet another article that portrayed the practice so honestly that its evil could not help but be exposed. In that sense, then, I think Mundy was doing her job well. According to Stanley Kurtz, Mundy "largely favors the brave new world she portrays," but nevertheless is honest enough not sugarcoat its realities. Rather, the brutal reality of the world of selective reduction is quite evident in the article.

Among the many risks of ART is a higher risk of birth defects or low birth weight and related problems, even among singletons, but particularly among the many higher-order multiples that tend to be conceived in these procedures. Some people, though undoubtedly scared, put faith in God and accept the children they have conceived, knowing their lives will be forever changed but accepting the responsibilities, joys and sorrows all together. But many couples opt for abortion of some of the multiples. They justify this by saying it will make for a safer pregnancy for them (likely true) and better odds for the remaining children (also possible, though not at all certain) - or they justify it simply by saying they could not afford/handle raising multiples. In this case, none was quite so divorced from human feeling as to undertake reduction just so they wouldn't have to start shopping at Costco (N.B., in that case the triplets pregnancy was natural) - but the logic of reduction is still cruel and chilling. First, the abortion doctor (Mark Evans, here) goes on what George Will, the father of a boy with Downs Syndrome, correctly terms a "search and destroy" mission for any babies who are slower to develop or who appear to have abnormalities indicating Downs or other conditions. If all of them look equally healthy, the doctor might make the call based on gender. Two boys, one girl? One of the boys will probably have to go. Ethicists all seem to agree that's an ethically sound form of sex selection, as opposed to sex selection done for the "wrong" reasons. Finally, if there's no other way to pick which baby to eliminate, it may come down to just an accident of placement in the womb -- closest to the needle, first to go. There's absolutely no mistake about what's going on here, since the first steps in the procedure involve detailed ultrasounds, and few of the patients have any illusions. Indeed (and again, going to how great this "choice" is), some are terrified, some are pressured, and some are horribly guilt-ridden (though not enough to stop the procedure).

[O]n Greenbaum's screen were three little honeycombed chambers with three fetuses growing in them. The fetuses were moving and waving their limbs; even at this point, approaching 12 weeks of gestation, they were clearly human, at that big-headed-could-be-an-alien-but-definitely-not-a-kitten stage of development. Evans has found this to be the best window of time in which to perform a reduction . . .

"They are all measuring at 11 weeks and 6 days," Greenbaum said.

"That's right," the woman said, wonderingly. "It is 12 weeks tomorrow."

So far, there was nothing anomalous about any of the fetuses. Greenbaum turned the screen toward the patient. "That's the little heartbeat," she said, pointing to the area where a tiny organ was clearly pulsing. "And there are the little hands. There's the head. The body."

"Oh, my God, I can really see it!" the patient cried. "Oh, my God! I can see the fingers!"

"Okay!" she said, abruptly, gesturing for the screen to be turned away. She began sobbing. There were no tissues in the room, so her husband gave her a paper towel, which she crumpled to her face. The patient spent the rest of the procedure with her hospital gown over her face, so she would not see any more of what was happening.

WHAT WAS HAPPENING WAS DAY ONE OF A TWO-DAY PROCESS, in which one of the woman's three fetuses would be eliminated through an injection of potassium chloride, which stops the fetal heart.

Greenbaum, the nurse, twists herself ethically to say she'd never work at an abortion clinic, but somehow this is fine. Yet: "It's a very hard procedure, because the baby is moving, and you are chasing it. That is what is very emotional -- when the baby is moving and you are chasing it." Hunting it down.

Mundy, to her credit, points out the contradictions inherent in ART patients praying for children and then deciding "God gave me too many." It is a form of playing God. I doubt articles like this will really make a dent in the number of people who nevertheless keep spending and trying for ART pregnancies and subsequently face multiples pregnancies, but again, anything that shines light on this darkness is ultimately serving the good.

IVF out in the open

2007-05-22T07:08:00.000-05:00

I've been writing about and trying to follow IVF and assisted reproductive technologies for years, but even when you highlight the occasional feature articles and profiles on the subject, you still get the feeling that people aren't seeing the broader picture. Anything that helps spread information on the subject to a wider audience, then, is a good thing -- like Slate's article a few weeks ago about two new books on infertility treatments.

(Of course, there is a major problem when articles like this only start coming out many years after a multi-billion dollar industry is entrenched and it can seem too late to *do* anything about it, but you have to take these stories where they come, I suppose . . . ) One key question, for instance, that you don't often see raised is this:

[Mundy's] book offers an important chronicle not only of the existing technology, but also of the unanswered questions about the short- and long-term implications of reproductive medicine. Why, for example, do IVF babies—not just twins, but singletons, as well—tend to be born prematurely and smaller compared to non-IVF children? Why, too, are there higher rates of birth defects, including bowel and genital deformations, as well as a form of eye cancer, among IVF children? Mundy notes that parents who have trouble conceiving may somehow differ genetically from their fertile counterparts. Or the problems may be related to some aspect of fertility treatment. We don't have the answers yet, but patients should at least know about the question marks.

The books also talk about how the emotional desperation involved for so many families using ART leads them to ignore risks like this and be vulnerable to the commercial industry that often charges them more than $10,000 per cycle (and the odds of success in the first cycle are shockingly lower than you might think given the hype - less than 30%, the last time I read). I tend think the best solution would be to move away from using these technologies at all - not merely getting government involved to regulate - but in the meantime just getting people to think more carefully about all of the issues involved is important.

Ghosts

2007-05-21T21:49:00.001-05:00

I've actually been motivated to blog lately . . . just as work has picked up significantly. All the deals have to close by the end of the month, and even though they probably won't, we have to act like they will. It's good experience - I'm helping on the sale of several portfolios of retail properties - and I'm enjoying it, but often working from home every night, so no blogging. I did get to make the trip this past weekend to South Bend, though, for my younger brother's graduation from Notre Dame. It was great to see my family and be back on campus. The commencement itself was a very nice ceremony. They need to move it out of the JACC, since it simply does not work to force elderly relatives to climb up bleachers without railings, and it isn't especially fair to not have enough seats for all relatives of the graduates to actually see the ceremony. Nevertheless, it was a great thing to see, and the speakers all did a nice job too. The valedictorian, Michael Rossmann, who I think is the younger brother of one of my classmates (who was a pretty successful guy himself), was amazingly accomplished and is planning to become a Jesuit priest (at the same seminary where another one of my world-traveler classmate friends is currently studying). The commencement speaker, the CEO of GE, had a nice speech as well, and earned some appreciative applause when he joked several times about being the main guy in charge of televising our football games every fall. [Note to NBC: Production values can still be improved on the telecast, and maybe it's about time for some new announcers . . . but hey, it's nice to have the contract at all, right? :) ]

I never feel nostalgia so acutely as when I am remembering Notre Dame. Reading ND Magazine updates on all the classes throughout the years and seeing the different stages of life we all pass through produces an almost physical pang. The recent graduates are all getting married and having children; as you move back twenty-five years alums are reaching the top in their businesses and sending their kids to college; as you move back twenty-five years the alums are moving into retirement and sending news about their grandkids and their battles with cancer; and as you move back twenty-five years from that, you catch a few glimpses into the lives of a disappearing generation that still loves the same place you do.

Walking around campus evokes a similar feeling. I've only been out of school there five years; it's hardly as though my friends have passed on or anything - in fact, I was thrilled to see and talk to many of them just a few months ago at my wedding, and my best friend's own wedding is coming up soon. Still, as there are unfamiliar, newly raised buildings and other changes around campus, it all feels different and yet the same. Walking around the corner to the front of South Dining Hall, I felt as though I would surely see my regular group of friends waiting on the steps there. If I had walked into Stanford, I would hear the Irish songs playing at a party my friends were throwing. If I'd turned down the steps at SDH, I would find the old Scholastic team putting together the next issue. If I'd walked down the hallway in Lyons, I would find my friend leaving a message on the white board. I did actually see Fr. Poorman, who warmly said he missed seeing me at Keough Mass every Sunday night, as I used to attend with my friend from Texas whom I now haven't seen in a few years. These memories - these ghosts - are everywhere you step at this place. They mean more to me than I can even express sometimes except through a simple, profound sense of gratitude. But while the new students pass through each year and new buildings are constructed, I look to the connection to the past with the present - to newer memories of my own, like sharing hot wings and beer (well, I had Dr Pepper :) with my ND friends after my wedding and reception where they gave me an amazing scrapbook full of photos and reflections from our undergrad days (I have an inordinate number of friends who went to graduate and professional schools!), and the cross-country phone calls to share our news with each other as we all start to move forward through our own new stages of life, and backwards in the alumni class listings. It's hard to say much more except - this place is truly blessed.

Sunday afternoon naps

2007-05-06T16:01:00.000-05:00

Well, I'm not napping -- I'm reviewing title commitments and surveys for the afternoon, fun fun -- but I had to post these cute otters for your (well, at least my mother's!) viewing enjoyment. Here ya go:

Real progress

2007-05-06T13:38:00.000-05:00

Part of practicing in commercial real estate involves reading old property documents, and occasionally I run into tidbits that are rather shocking to modern sensibilities. I've seen a lot of conveyances and title deeds to "John Q. Smith and wife" -- as if said wife was so much of an afterthought that it wasn't even worth recording her name. (I can promise when I buy a house with my husband, my name will definitely be on the deed, thank you very much.) A lot of times I'll also see title companies noting "covenants, conditions, and restrictions agreements" pertaining to the land but specifically excepting anything in those agreements that violates the Civil Rights Act. Sometimes I wonder why they have to be so careful to exclude such provisions -- but then today I read an actual deed from the 1920s in which the purchaser promised that the land would never be owned or occupied except by members of the White race. Wow. I remember Shelley v. Kraemer, but don't usually come across for myself examples of what that case was dealing with. Sometimes it's good to be reminded and grateful of how far we've come since the days that such blatant prejudice and offensiveness was actually sanctioned by the law.

Draft drama

2007-05-02T20:19:00.000-05:00

I was going to go grocery shopping after Brady Quinn got picked on Saturday, so I figured I'd be able to head about by 1 or so. Turned out I wasn't able to leave until closer to 5, since, as everyone knows by now, the selection process did not go exactly as planned. I wasn't too concerned when Brady wasn't picked in the first several selections, as I was convinced that the Dolphins would grab him at #9. Their most likely current starter was "Cleo Lemon," which sounds more like a stage name for a 1940s jazz singer than an NFL starting quarterback. Quinn to Miami would have been a fantastic match. And it all looked meant to be, until the Dolphins' new coach announced he wanted an average-to-good receiver/punt returner who just happened to be an old family friend: Ted Ginn Jr. You can watch the reaction here:

And watch again. And re-watch. Oh, it's so painful. Ouch. What a colossally dumb move by the Dolphins. One fan on the team boards was so upset he misspelled his exclamation as "WFT???" Heh. Anyway, I felt their pain. It was not a great move, since who was supposed to be throwing to this great new receiver? Even though Miami did later pick the 26-year-old BYU QB John Beck, they could have had a guy who's already had two years under a pro coach, with great accuracy and decision-making.

I think you had to feel Brady Quinn's pain, too, or at least the awkwardness of having the cameras focused on him during every selection announcement. I'm glad the commissioner eventually pulled him away from the cameras, since even though it was only to be expected that teams with mid-round selections wouldn't pick quarterbacks since they all had them, it still would have been hard to watch the next couple of hours if Brady was still out in public, waiting. I'm not thrilled he has ended up going to the Browns after all of that, but he really does love that team, they seem happy to have him in turn, and I hope it ends up being a good fit. At least he will have a good offensive lineman in front of him.

Other Irish players drafted included Abiamiri (by the Eagles) and Ryan Harris (by the Broncos). Darius Walker signed as a free agent with the Bears, and I hope he earns a spot on the team. Overall, it was the best draft for the team since 1997. As for my other pro interests, it looks like the 49ers had a solid draft, as they picked up a few defensive linemen, including LB Patrick Willis from Mississippi in the first round. I hope to see these players contribute to the slowly ongoing improvement in San Francisco next year.

"The Final Word on Quinn Spin"

2007-04-28T10:31:00.000-05:00

Good analysis from the Rock Report, here:

First, Quinn didn't struggle in big games. He was fantastic against Penn State which most considered the biggest early game on the Irish schedule. Quinn won the Georgia Tech game and led the two big comebacks against Michigan State and UCLA (which looked like a weak win until they knocked of USC.) He completely outplayed the Heisman Trophy winner in the biggest game of the Weis era and engineered what should have been the winning drive.

He also looked at the top of this game early against LSU. Replay it. Dropped passes and penalties are the only things that stopped the Irish early on. LSU was able to get the Irish back on their heels and Quinn sustained a knee injury and he was ineffective later in the game, but no quarterback would have been effective under those circumstances.

Here's the real headline: Quinn didn't have great games against defenses that dominated Notre Dame's offensive line and played tight on our receivers. That's really a duh, point. By this same 'bash' thought process JaMarcus Russell struggled in 'big games' against Florida and Auburn... in fact, he pretty much lost the Florida game early on. Troy Smith looked abominable when he was pressured and forced to play without Ginn. Same has been said of Manning . . .

Time for the draft! My non-penetrating thoughts are, I think Quinn will do fine with pretty much any team except Oakland or Detroit, so I hope neither of those teams picks him. I think he'd do great with Tampa Bay if he lasts that long -- it would be great to have him throwing to Stovall again and Gruden is overall a pretty good coach -- and I don't think he'll last until 9 but Miami would be a good place to go too. And I suppose Quinn would do well enough with Cleveland, too, although I was never a Browns fan. I really, really pity whoever gets picked by Detroit, unless it's Calvin Johnson, who's probably the only single player whose talent couldn't be crushed even by that pitiful system. In any event, all speculation will be moot in a half-hour. Until then, I am enjoying Will Ferrell's draft coaching bit:

The wider effects of chastity

2007-04-26T07:55:00.000-05:00

Someone found my site the other day by googling "effects of chastity on family." I don't think I've ever written specifically about that topic, but it got me thinking. The decision to practice abstinence and chastity (which aren't exactly the same thing, but close enough for these purposes) should be individual, in the sense that it is practiced because you believe it to be the right thing to do - but it definitely has implications for family and community as well. So aside from all of the real moral, personal, relational and (for many) religious reasons for choosing to be chaste, I did have some thoughts on how that decision plays out in a wider context.

Being chaste can have an effect on your family whether they are generally supportive of chastity, don't give it much thought, or (following the wider culture) don't necessarily value it at all. In my family, I knew that chastity was valued as part of living our faith, and my parents had the expectation that all of us would hold that value as well. We talked about it openly and any kid (or adult, as we got older) who had questions or challenges regarding sex and chastity in relationships could always talk to our parents or to each other, which helped reinforce our commitments. We also helped encourage each other simply by the example of our actions. I know that if I had ever casually or unapologetically broken my commitment to waiting until marriage, I would not only disappoint my parents, but I would rightly be embarrassed to participate in conversations with my family about the Catholic values we usually affirmed freely, because I would have been acting hypocritically. I would also have let down my younger siblings, who might conclude that no, this really wasn't a realistic value to hold after all. Instead, I took the fact that I might be some sort of role model or example to my siblings very seriously. Assuming you are acting to be chaste because it's something you value, other people's expectations can still be a pretty good support for you.

In a family that doesn't necessarily value chastity, practicing it may be harder - simply because no one expects you to - but that decision can still have an effect on them. Many people don't believe chastity can be practiced at all, much less over a long period of time in a single relationship, or especially as you get older and/or closer to marriage. A lot of parents think it's completely unrealistic and they communicate that. Let's get real, they say. Confounding their expectations or even their approval of not saving sex until marriage, you, by living the value of chastity - not in a showy manner, but matter-of-factly and with resolve - may surprise your parents or cause them or your siblings to think about the matter a little more than they otherwise would have. They may come to respect your decision or they may be indifferent, but they will notice.

I think the same patterns hold with friends and the wider community. Many of my friends are Catholic and I know valued waiting until marriage. Just knowing we held that value in common, my decision to practice chastity in my relationships could have the effect of encouraging their decisions as well, and vice versa. As with my family, I would have been embarrassed to tell any one of my friends if I ever decided to move in with my boyfriend - as common as that is in our culture, no one else may ever have batted an eye, but I would have it on my conscience as a betrayal of my professed values, and it may have had the effect of eroding their values as well, sort of in a if she didn't stick to it, maybe it is too hard way. By blogging or speaking about abstinence publicly, I also made myself accountable for my choices here. Had I transgressed against my values and my faith, I would disappoint others and open myself up to charges of hypocrisy. So there is a sort of positive reinforcement that comes with sharing your values with like-minded friends and communities.

Again, on the other hand, anyone who practices chastity is much more likely to be surrounded by friends and communities that don't value it at all, and chastity can have an impact in these situations as well. People do notice. Now, some will deride your decision entirely, and others will dismiss it indifferently. But I also used to know people who would "check in" every now and then, to see that yes, I was still waiting until marriage. Sometimes people are just looking for proof that it's possible at all. As Dawn Eden can attest, sometimes people haven't ever considered that chastity can be a real option for their own lives, and they're looking for someone who can help them find the courage to be chaste in their relationships. (Dawn's own story is about the way she used to not think abstinence was realistic or desirable at all, but after years of not living a chaste lifestyle, her beliefs changed and she now serves as a strong witness - to the wide audience of both her blog and her book - to the powerful effect becoming chaste has had in her own life.) Practicing abstinence outside of marriage and chastity within relationships thus can have an effect on others even if you never become aware of it and even if - especially if - it's as countercultural as it is today.

Maybe the above is the case with any virtue - by practicing the virtue, you encourage others just by example; by not practicing the virtue, no one may really notice or care, but some people will notice, you may disappoint yourself and others, and compounding the sin you may contribute in your own small way to devaluing that virtue in society as a whole. ("Scandal" has lost some of its meaning today, but what it really is is a sin, one in which by your actions you lead others to sinfulness as well.) Virtues can be practiced in isolation, but by their nature they play their roles in the contexts of family and community as well.

JC and Crist

2007-04-23T07:16:00.000-05:00

Despite being April, it's been a busy couple of weeks around Notre Dame football. First, we're up to 10 commits for next year's class already, as a few well-regarded high school juniors committed to the Irish over the past two weeks. One, another top quarterback like Jimmy Clausen from California, Dayne Crist, was being recruited by USC and Michigan. The Rock Report notes:

On film, Crist screams prototype. He's got a big arm... on one play he's chased out of the pocket and with a defender on his knees Crist wrists the ball 40 yards downfield for a completion. He's accurate, seems very fluid and already has a college build.

It's always great to steal strong players out from Southern Cal's backyard. Last weekend we also had another offensive commit from California - 6'7" tight end Joseph Fauria, and then Chicagoan Darius Fleming, an LB, who according to NDN was being recruited by "everyone," also picked the Irish. I don't even have a handle on all the freshmen incoming this year, much less guys we won't be seeing on the field for, figure, three years from now, but if now's the time to be recruiting these guys, I'm happy to see the nationwide recruiting strength of Weis continue in evidence.

Saturday also marked this year's Blue-Gold game. Mike at Blue-Gray Sky shares his trip experience here , and if you want to watch the post-game conferences for Charlie and guest coaches Ara Parseghian and Lou Holtz, try this page. It was great to see Lou back doing commentary just on our team without having to fight off Mark May at the same time. As always, Lou was filled with good observations but also some of those slogans that are both simple and true.

Q. What did you say to Evan Sharpley when he took that sack at the end of the second quarter there?

Lou Holtz: Well, we just prayed on it a little bit. (Laughter) It's just, you know, you don't win because you make the great play; you win because you eliminate the bad play . . .

Q. Does the work you do, the studio work, does that replace the void for you or is it completely different?

Lou Holtz: Well, it is different. I've always felt this, everybody needs four things to do. Everybody needs something to do, someone to love, something to hope for and something to believe in.

Charlie Weis seemed fairly relaxed at his own presser but stayed guarded about what information he wanted to give out. The main revelations were that injured John Sullivan is "probable for Georgia Tech" (ha) and none of the four quarterbacks is out of contention for the starting job yet. I'm sure we'll see a lot more over the summer, but there's an early spring update. Keep checking BGS for details!

Happy hour

2007-04-22T21:18:00.000-05:00

I was able to attend the National Review happy hour at the Dubliner Friday night, and it was a lot of fun. I was able to meet Jim Geraghty (always one of my favorite bloggers owing to his frequent Star Wars references!), contributing writer and actress Cheryl Rhoads, and Ramesh Ponnuru and his wife. Ramesh graciously signed my copy of Party of Death that I brought along, which was nice of him. I also met several people who work at various conservative groups in town who I hope to be able to stay in touch with - it's always nice to meet like-minded people with whom you can instantly start talking about Hillary Clinton, Anglo-American relations and the latest Supreme Court rulings :) In any event, I suppose I should be over the novelty of this after a few years in DC, but I'm not - I'm still grateful for all the unique opportunities I've gotten here to meet people whose work I've been reading for years. Thanks to NRO for hosting!

Still it can't be rationalized

2007-04-22T19:02:00.000-05:00

I found a link to this article today about a woman who chose to abort her mid-term pregnancy after the child was diagnosed with a neural tube defect indicating spina bifida and possible hydrocephalus (excess fluid in the brain). The writer, Gretchen Voss, has published her story several times over the last few years as a way to speak out against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, and I was directed to it by a poster who thought it clearly made such a case against the ban. How could anyone, they ask, want to take away the choice to use abortion (and here, a late-stage method) when it seems so necessary in cases like this?

But I believe Gretchen Voss's story, as with others that use hard cases to justify abortions (like this woman who didn't want a genetically imperfect baby), makes exactly the opposite case she thinks it does.

No one would deny that a diagnosis of a terminal or devastating fetal abnormality can be absolutely shattering for expectant parents. Hopes and expectations must be altered; any compassionate person must have tremendous sympathy for the grief and fear parents must feel on learning this news. But abortion doesn't solve the problems and it doesn't make the grief or sadness any less. Look at Voss's story: she tries to say abortion was the "easiest decision I ever made" yet in the same sentence says it's "the hardest to live with," and her entire story is testament to the profound emotional confusion that was not lessened by abortion.

On learning the news that her unborn child likely had a severe form of spina bifida, Voss was crying, panicked, numb. Quickly, though, she "already knew what I had to do. Even if our baby had a remote chance of surviving, it was not a life that we would choose for our child." She says it was an easy decision to make, but much of what she writes says it was not. Why? Because she knew what she was doing:

My decision tortured me. This wasn't some mysterious clump of cells that would simply be sucked away in a vacuum. This was a 19-week-old baby, one that I desperately wanted, that would be pulled out of me bit by bit -- that's the way it works through the "dilation and evacuation" procedure.

Voss found the abortion procedure "excruciating" and was "petrified" as she "fought the anesthesia, clinging to my last moments of pregnancy" that she didn't have to end but was actually choosing to end. She experienced a "rip current of emotions" following the abortion because she knew it was a life she was ending. Nor was she alone in being affected: she later found her husband "one night, all alone, kneeling on the floor of our bathroom with the light off and the door half-closed, doubled over, bawling." She still can't deal with the reality of the entire process: she refuses even to use the term "abortion."

Voss's baby wouldn't necessarily have died at birth had she elected not to abort, as most babies with spina bifida survive and are living longer and better lives than in the past; she could have had a chance to love it even if its life was short. The families who have shared their stories of hope and love through difficult prognoses at Be Not Afraid can testify to the value of giving their babies a chance, even if small, to survive as long as they can. Human life has value even if it's not genetically perfect and even - perhaps especially - in hard cases, abortion wreaks a great evil on both the unborn lives and the parents who do such damage to their own capacity to love.

On the day of her initial sonogram, Voss had been eager to find out whether her child was a boy or a girl. Trying to mourn the child years later, she realized she never knew. Abortion doesn't stop the pain of a difficult diagnosis. It seems to me that it only compounds it.

Site notes

2007-04-21T12:18:00.000-05:00

I've been spending a lot of time the last few days trying to go back and categorize all my old posts, since Blogger added that very useful feature. It's going a little bit slowly since their search function isn't working for me so I have to click through posts individually, but I'm making a lot of progress - you can see at the bottom-most list on the sidebar. Some predictable (I've written a lot about politics, culture, Catholicism and law, as I originally intended to) and not-as-predictable results (I've apparently done multiple posts on Ewan McGregor and U2) have emerged. I'll probably need to break down my "law" category, since right now it's encompassing legal theory, rights, work and law school in general, but I'll get to it later. Also, most of the Notre Dame posts have been fun to go back to, but unfortunately as I found game notes from 2004 I've been forced to relive memories of the pre-Weis era that I'd just as soon forget. That PTSD can easily come back if one isn't careful . . .

Baby steps

2007-04-19T07:08:00.000-05:00

Yesterday the Supreme Court handed down the result in Gonzales v. Carhart. In an almost perfect switch from the last partial-birth abortion case (Stenberg v. Carhart), the result was 5-4 upholding the federal ban instead of 5-4 striking it. The key difference: Justice Alito, replacing Justice O'Connor. Justice Kennedy, who while he does support Roe did strongly dissent in Stenberg, wrote the majority here. It's not a reversal of Stenberg, since the federal statute in question was different than the Nebraska state law then challenged and it was written specifically to overcome objections in Stenberg, but it worked, and I'm relieved it did. Stenberg was one of the single worst decisions I've ever read - I wrote about it previously here and here. The idea that the Constitution prohibits a ban on a procedure in which scissors are jammed into the skull of a baby who's already half out of its mother's body is so ludicrous, it would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

To the liberal presidential candidates and interest groups currently outraged because, supposedly, women's lives are now in danger, and what if PBA is necessary to save a woman?, here's the thing about partial-birth abortion: the only reason it ever needs to be employed is if you specifically want to have a dead baby as the outcome. If a later-term baby is literally threatening its mother's life and the pregnancy needs to be ended, and the woman has already gone through medical dilation and the baby is partially delivered, then why not deliver the baby all the way and at least try to save its life too? There can be no possible situation in which the mother's life requires the baby be partially delivered, then killed before its head emerges. Again, if the object isn't to get a dead baby, but rather is to save a mother's life, then delivery can be completed with at least an attempt made to save the baby's life as well. Even if for some unimaginable reason it were necessary to save the mother's life, moreover (and the statute allows exceptions in the event), there is no case in which it could ever be necessary to save the mother's "health" (= age, familial, psychological, emotional, etc., according to case law). Congress went to great trouble to establish this in its fact-finding, but it ought to be clear by common sense alone. The point for partial-birth abortion advocates is abortion rather than saving lives - they don't want any restrictions on abortion, period (see Justice Ginsberg's outraged dissent) - so the argument that partial-birth abortion is necessary to save women's lives just can't be a good faith one. Partial birth abortion can only be "necessary" when the object is abortion itself.

Saving even the few babies that might have died this way is not a crazy right-winger cause, it's something most reasonable people believe is worth doing. (Even in Congress, where it had to be passed 3 separate times, it had significant bipartisan support.) The Constitutional point affirmed yesterday in Gonzales was that it is legitimately within Congress's right to pass a law banning this kind of abortion. It wasn't a strong affirmation of the point - the statute is still open to challenge on several fronts, including Commerce Clause grounds (which weren't raised in any of the arguments). Hadley Arkes, while still thinking that upholding the ban might mark the beginning of the end of Roe, wrote last October that with the Court's recent small scalebacks in the Commerce Clause's reach, matters like this federal ban will probably keep coming up again and again in front of the courts. In other words, there's a long way to go yet. Nevertheless, I'm very glad to see this new ruling as a small step in the right direction of recognizing that there is in fact no Constitutional right to abortion.

Gray hairs

2007-04-18T21:52:00.000-05:00

Things that officially make you feel "old," even though it's only a relative concept . . . Last week on The Office, when Michael decided to pretend to jump off a roof to demonstrate the seriousness of safety and depression in the workplace, he and Dwight acted out the "desperate" situation by performing a dialogue, key phrases including: "Dwight, you ignorant slut!" Which cracked me up, especially on the second run-through.

Come to discover on the TWP message boards the next day that a bunch of the - well, they must be kids - on there have no idea what this referenced. Comments were along the lines of, "OMG that was so funny. Was that from something?" Arrgghhh! How can these kids not know who Dan Aykroyd is? When someone answered the question and others asked it again later, the newly-informed experts chimed in with, "I think someone said it was from SNL like 30 years ago." *Sigh.* And that's how you begin to feel old.

(In fairness to these kids, it was pointed out to me that Lorne Michaels has been ruthlessly effective in keeping old skits off the Internet and even repeat specials, so today's YouTube fans wouldn't have had as much of a chance to see old skits unless, like my parents, they had taped 10- and 15-year anniversary specials when they originally aired to be watched repeatedly. In the early days of Internet video, I remember snl.jt.org used to post sketches, but was later forced to remove them all. Still.)

Stations of the Cross

2007-04-07T12:13:00.000-05:00

Last night I watched EWTN's broadcast of the 2007 Way of the Cross in Rome. I didn't realize that the Stations themselves could be changed, since I think I've seen the same 14 in every parish I've ever been to, but apparently this year a few different stations - specifically those from Tradition, not detailed in Scripture - were substituted for others. Christ's three falls were not marked, but Jesus in the Garden of Olives, Jesus scourged, Jesus promising his Kingdom to the good thief - all of these have been added and I thought the reflections were very well done. Instead of the normal "how have I wronged others? how have others wronged me?" kinds of reflections you often get at Stations, these were deeper reflections really focused on Christ's suffering and its meaning. As we look forward to Easter Sunday, it is always fitting to remember that we must first spend time focusing on the Passion that precedes it.

Homecoming

2007-03-31T09:56:00.000-05:00

Via Rod Dreher, go see this video of a U.S. soldier coming home from Iraq and surprising his little boy at school. It had me in tears pretty fast. God bless them.

Surveying the revival

2007-03-31T09:39:00.000-05:00

Fr. Martin Fox has been conducting an informal survey to find out what parishes are doing around the country:

Since my arrival in Piqua, one of the things I've asked parishioners to do is to include a bit of Latin in Mass; we've used the Latin Agnus Dei and Sanctus, and had an occasional hymn or other prayer in Latin. In conversations with the handful of parishioners who have expressed comments on this, I get the idea that they perceive this to be something very unusual; I suspect some may be saying, "but no one else is doing this."

In fact, quite a few parishes around the country are doing this sort of thing, and a lot more in this vein . . . Still, I got curious--just how many parishes are there, dabbling in this? Rather than wait for someone else to solicit the information, that's what I'm doing with this post...

Fr. Martin has around 250 responses of different churches so far, including one I've written about before (Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis) and a few in my diocese. I think it's incredibly encouraging to know that there are other parishes out there embracing a bit more of the beautiful traditional music instead of pop-rock OCP hymns. It's entirely possible to have a nice, reverent Novus Ordo Mass with proper music - it doesn't have to be a full old rite Mass, even if those are said occasionally in different churches as well - it just has to be approached with the right attitude. I hope we will continue to see more of this traditional revival.

Birds of paradise

2007-03-31T09:25:00.000-05:00

This new BBC/Discovery Channel series "Planet Earth" is fantastic (except that they changed out David Attenborough, who also narrated the fantastic "Blue Planet" series, in favor of "conservationist" Sigourney Weaver - she's way too dry). If you didn't know nature invented the neon blue smiley face before, well, now you do. You have to watch this to the end:

Crazy Birds Island :p - Click here for another funny movie.

Just Google it

2007-03-31T09:19:00.000-05:00

Interesting article in the Post the other day about how student research and writing are changing in an Internet world, with some of the negatives:

A few clicks on the computer and today's students find data that might have taken my 1980s college generation days or weeks to track down in a library. That may not necessarily be a good thing, because we may be developing the same kind of dependence that leads some to blame calculators for declining math skills . . . There is also the issue of plagiarism and cheating. When Duke University's Center for Academic Integrity (CAI) surveyed 12,000 college students and 18,000 high school students, roughly 40 percent of the college students and half the high school students indicated that they had cheated using online sources. This included such things as not citing those sources, purchasing exams and papers online, and cutting and pasting downloaded information. Exchanging e-mails about assignments that were not team projects was also cited as a less-than-kosher practice.

I feel like my generation is the last who will have grown up taught in school to do purely library-based research. Of course, people my age are young enough to have adapted seamlessly to the Internet as well as any teenager today, so we now do most personal and job research by Google (or Lexis, or Wikipedia) too, but we did used to know what card catalogs were, because that's all there was. Despite being completely comfortable with the Internet, people my age don't know how completely it has changed primary and secondary education, I think.

I do tend to believe that you have to know how to do at least some of the basics before you can use tools, as useful and practical as they may be. Kids ought to be drilled in basic math (times tables, etc.) before they're allowed to use calculators, even if they'll always have access to calculators in the corner of their computer screen, on the desk, or otherwise at hand. Likewise, I do think kids ought to know how to search for books in the library (computer card catalogs are fine here!) before they're allowed to Google their way to a paper. It teaches greater understanding of the underlying principles, helps you form good habits, and makes you not as dependent on the instant, pre-formulated answer. I think teachers are in a tough position today of figuring out how to truly evaluate kids' real research and composition skills. Is the timed writing the only way to go? But at least in my case, those weren't really introduced until junior and senior year AP classes. How are they being more broadly implemented?

There's a bit of obstinacy here, I suppose. My husband and I don't watch football games without the laptop out to keep track of real-time stats; we watch "The Office" and immediately log on to Television Without Pity to see instant reactions; we Google subjects we see on "Modern Marvels" or "Extreme Engineering" to read extra details; if we have a random historical question the Internet's a much quicker reference than any library books; and if we don't know what else we've seen an actor in, it's a quick check of IMDB. So we're as addicted to quick knowledge as anyone else, and I think for the better. But on the other hand, we still pull out the Bible or the Catechism if we're discussing this week's homily, and we know how to use the library. Non-virtual resources are worth hanging on to.