It's Hopeless

Ah, what a country. I get sentimental about it sometimes. Not for the country we live in - the one Obama's leading us "forward" to - but for the one I remember. It wasn't perfect, but it sure was different. And I've never given up on it. For a long time I have nurtured the vain hope, now forsaken, that the vast majority of the American populace cared, or could be persuaded to care, about the same things I do. They don't and they won't. I've known this for almost as long as I've nurtured the hope, but held on to the hope anyway in the face of all evidence. I had thought, for example, that, after Obama launched his attack against my church, my fellow Americans would finally say, "Oh. So that's what he's all about, pursuing incremental tyranny against our most cherished principles. That's un-American. Out with him." But in the wake of the attack, he has remained neck and neck with Romney in the polls, and the numbers haven't varied much since. After the Democratic convention, with the abortion, contraception and war-on-women mantras still ringing in the nation's ears, his numbers went up and Romney started to fade. After the other night's Presidential debate, in which one candidate appeared hopeful and the other hapless, Romney's bump has been slight. As of this moment, Obama has 235 electoral votes locked up. And even if Romney could win, a president Romney without a senate will get nowhere. His post-debate coattails are nonexistent. In Virginia, senate candidate George Allen has plummeted from 2 to 7 points behind. That's catastrophic. Republican senate candidates in Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida are still behind, and many other races are too close to call. The Democrats are all one big, pure, leftist labor union now and the Republicans impure, center-right liberals. True conservatives are in survivalist mode and exist in such diasporic numbers that they will have no effect on anything. At least half the country doesn't care about the assault on religious liberty. It's the faintest, outermost blip on the radar.

But why should I have thought they'd care? Other, graver, liberty interests were long ago chucked into the trash bin, yet how many really care? The right of an unborn baby, for example - millions of them, actually - not to be sliced and diced or poisoned to death or have his head crushed without due process of law was done away with forty years ago. Some will say Roe v. Wade was the due process, but it's really an execution warrant disguised as a blank check. Fill it out and you can cash it in. It's been almost thirty years since our Supreme Court gave us permission to kill severely mentally disabled people - or, if it makes it easier, 'vegetables' - and as far as I can tell most of the country agrees and all the Justices sleep well. The Supremes haven't had a shot at marriage yet, but they will soon. Much the same half of the country that doesn't care about religious liberty cares very much about marriage for homosexuals. If writers like Rod Dreher are correct - that no society, however depraved, in the history of the planet has ever institutionalized homosexual 'marriage' - then the generation in which we live right now really is comprised of the most audaciously gifted moral pioneers the world has ever known. This probably ought to be accompanied by a minor display of fear and trembling, out of respect for our ancestors if nothing else, or for the faint and flickering memory of the God who made us, but whose commandments have become so suddenly yesterday.

Which makes it all the more ironic that I felt sorry for Obama the other night. It was like watching Rick Perry forget which departments of government he wanted to abolish. I caught only the last half hour, but even in that span of time I could make out the kid in speech class who has forgotten what he wanted to say. He looked lost, aloof, forlorn, disdainful, vague, condescending (his governing trait), bumbling, bemused, embarrassed, intimidated, and altogether like someone who'd rather be sipping Dom Perignon in his hotel room with Michelle on their anniversary while watching MSNBC together. There he could have watched Chris Matthews rail in obsessive outrage at the betrayal of faith his own president had just inflicted upon him. Or Al Gore speculating that Mr. Obama had not had time to properly acclimate to the altitude. Of course, Mr. Gore was probably above sea level when he said this, but he always seems to be flying at an altitude known only to him. I sometimes wonder if any liberals out there furtively give thanks to God that he never ascended to the presidency. I have this vision of what the country would look like had he done so, and the first thing I see is Mr. Gore nationalizing not health care but the oil industry and turning all the refineries into flower beds. But this has such a horrifying effect on the economy (I see the streets teeming with people on bicycles, as in China) that the vision dissipates. Anyway, I know that Mr. Gore's theory is purely a consequence of the unnatural gas that propels him because I was in Denver once (beautiful place, with the Rockies looming over all) and found, if anything, my gift for witty repartee and ability to multiply six figure numbers in my head enhanced by the thinner air. Of course, it's possible I'm mistaking the effect of altitude for that of a constant diet of the various microbrewery beers for which that city is famous.

I'm sure Mr. Obama will return in the next debate flinging the fire he forgot this time, but in the meantime let the Democrats spin their excuses, wail in despair and call Romney a liar, while the Republicrats exult in a victory however fleeting. Meanwhile, the homosexual agenda marches on, religious liberty remains under assault, and the babies keep dying, no end in sight. I'm sorry I felt sorry for him. I guess it's human nature.

---

In other news, the California legislature passed a bill, signed by Governor Moonbeam, which prohibits "mental health practioners...from performing sexual orientation change efforts — known as reparative or conversion therapy — for anyone under 18. The therapies 'have no basis in science or medicine and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery,' Brown said in a statement."

I'm not sure what the ramifications might be, but it doesn't sound good. For example, if a kid actually wants the help, he can't get it? What if a Catholic organization, such as Courage, counsels a 17 year old because he has sought them out. I don't think Courage does conversion therapy, but they certainly try to help people resist their impulses. It sounds to me like the state of California is formally endorsing the Anderson Cooper approach: "It's nothing to be ashamed of." I guess that depends on what he means by "it."

From our Uh-Oh files comes word that "Scientists may have found the secret to a male birth control pill." It turns out that the experimental JQ1 compound doesn't do what it was supposed to - fight cancer - but it's quite good at blocking sperm production. And once you stop taking the compound, this ultimate feminist's emasculatory dream drug allows sperm production to return to normal. In mice, anyway. As for people, men-people, that is, "so far the outlook is good." If the outlook lives up to its promise, I figure most on the so-called Right will fall for it, as they have for the female pill. I also figure that in about 4 years, during the next presidential race, after the Right protests the funding of males into mules under the HHS mandate, we can look forward to Sandra Fluke's husband taking the podium at the Democratic convention to scream about the new Republican War on Men.

In our Et Tu, Brute? files, we find that a recently deceased prince of the Catholic Church, a Cardinal Martini, had unflattering things to say about it:

Our culture has aged, our churches are big and empty and the church bureaucracy rises up, our rituals and our cassocks are pompous...The Church must admit its mistakes and begin a radical change, starting from the pope and the bishops. The paedophilia scandals oblige us to take a journey of transformation...

The Cardinal also believed that condom use could be acceptable "in some cases," and that "the Church should open up to new kinds of families or risk losing its flock." Hmm. And finally, he was convinced that "The church is 200 years out of date. Why don't we rouse ourselves? Are we afraid?"

Whatever your opinion of him, his math is lousy. He's off by 1800 years. At least.

In other perfidy, there's a highly credentialed really smart guy at the Catholic University of America who can statistically prove that if you vote for Romney, you'll be voting to increase the number of abortions in America. He can prove it, that is, until his statistics are given a closer look, which Jonathan Last indeed gave them for the Weekly Standard. The smart guy's name is Stephen Schneck. He is, says Last

a Catholic who works for the Catholic University of America (CUA). But he’s involved with the group Catholics for Obama — despite the church hierarchy’s view that the president is attacking the religious freedom of Catholics. He’s pro-life. But he supports Democratic politicians universally — even though the party has become manifestly hostile to pro-lifers. Schneck’s most puzzling contradiction is this: He claims that while Democrats support abortion rights, it’s really Republicans who cause abortions.

The article's too good to summarize, but must be read to appreciate Last's demolition of Schneck's "data." It always makes me wonder, though, by what trick these traitors are able to rearrange their consciences so that they are able to call (and to believe) themselves Catholic while doing groundwork for the enemy. Or maybe they don't believe it. Maybe they really are, willfully and with malice aforethought, wolves in sheep's clothing. For it is interesting that, in the course of an email exchange during Last's investigation, "after my third attempt to get him to explain how he arrived at his '6 percent to 8 percent,' he stopped answering."

From our Candidate for Stupid Moron Article of the Year file comes one from The Daily Beast lauding the joys and trials of motherhood for porn star Stormy Daniels. "Just because you’re an adult-film actress doesn’t mean you can’t be a terrific mom," gushes authoress Kristin Battista-Frazee. Good grammar, Kristin, but lucky for you I'm off duty.

Remember as a little kid, when a hug from Mom made everything better? And the fear and sadness you felt when your mother was angry or disappointed with you? Mothers are a powerful influence in our lives and responsible for raising thriving, well-adjusted human beings. We have created a romanticized image that mothers are supposed to be sexless and epitomize the perfect homemaker. So when we hear about a porn star who is a mom, it shatters our expectations, and many draw conclusions that these moms can’t be good parents.

Well, there is at least one sense in which she can't be a good parent, because this mom hugs more than just her husband and kid. Does anyone really need me to paint a picture? Good. "I had to work really hard and prepare a lot to have a baby because I’m not like a normal mom. I can’t work while I’m pregnant. I did two years of work in one year," says Daniels. See how normal and "terrific" it all is? And what's Daniels going to tell her daughter about how she makes a living? "I’ll tell her Mommy has a job that some people don’t approve of, but Mommy’s proud of it and it’s for adults." The author continues:

Yet she also thinks it’s important to describe her career to her daughter in a filtered, age-appropriate way. Just like how police officers, bartenders, and emergency-room doctors wouldn’t share all the details of their job with their children, Daniels believes that discussing the adult industry should be no different.

Yeah, just like. Drug dealing's no different than a pharmacist's prescribing them. Leaving aside her junior high writing skills, is Ms. Battista-Frazee unintelligent, imperceptive or what? Well, let's just say that she has a bias. Turns out she's writing a book called The Pornographer's Daughter, because she is one. You can read about it at Porndaughter.com.

And I can't take any more. I shouldn't close, though, without mentioning that one of my female students is writing her research paper In Support of the Resurrection of Christ. So maybe it works like this: there is no reason to hope, and nobody cares very much, but miracles never cease.