Watch it and make up your own mind

A politician in the Netherlands named Geert Wilders has made a film entitled Fitna. It's basically a polemic against Islamization, playing the words of the Koran off against images of terrorist attacks and clips of radical imams ranting. Regardless of what you think about Islam, you should watch it so you can make up your own mind. Is Mr. Wilders nothing more than a xenophobic stooge? Or does he have a point?

FITNA.

The film is 15 minutes long. Warning, it's graphic in sections. No matter which side of the argument you're on, it will make you angry.

Stopping Vote Fraud

Want to have an impact on elections far beyond your one vote? Take an active role in stamping out vote fraud. Here's an excellent primer on common forms of voter fraud and what to do about them. Please read it and pass it on!

Vote Fraud and How to Combat It

One of the bravest public acts

Western politicians, Church leaders, and all of us could learn a thing or two from Magdi Allam, a high-profile Italian Muslim. Mr. Allam did one of the most courageous things I have ever seen on the Easter Vigil at St. Peter's Basilica. He was baptized into the Catholic Church--publicly--by the Pope. Then, he offered a mild criticism of the Church, saying that up to now, the Church has been "too prudent" when it comes to converting Muslims.

Wow.

In an article from the Catholic News Agency, Allam clearly recognizes the dangers inherent in what he has done. Writing to the editor-in-chief of an Italian newspaper, Allam said: "You have asked me if I fear for my life. You are right. I realize what I am going up against, but I will confront my fate with my head high, with my back straight and the interior strength of one who is certain about his faith."

Wow again.

Allam also indicates that there are thousands of Muslims who have secretly converted to Catholicism who live in hiding and fear, for in Islam, the punishment for apostasy is death. May God bless and protect all these brave souls whose sheer courage can be a great example to us comfortable Catholics in the West

Hope, Belief, and God's Existence

Here's a really good letter to the editor that I read in the Philadelphia Inquirer by a fellow I know fairly well, in response to an article by John Allen Paulos--another evangelical atheist trying to hook onto the Richard Dawkins gravy train:

Religion is founded in an observable fact that John Allen Paulos can't logically explain away - existence.

The most basic form of religion is not dogmatic but rational and doesn't involve God at all. We are faced with two possibilities of existence, that the universe stretches back endlessly in time or that it appeared out of nothing before time existed. These offer little problem to a mathematical model of reality, but to the human mind, these are not possibilities but impossibilities.

Once we see our very existence as impossible, supernatural, a kind of miracle, we have religion. And once we accept this one miracle, we concede the possibility of other miracles.

But why God? Because the unanswerable questions of when, where and how of our impossible existence lead naturally to why and then who. In their zeal to reject God, most atheists also reject any possibility of the supernatural. The universe refutes them.

Short. Concise. To the point. Hits the nail on the head.

Jerusalem rises again. A review of Victory on the Walls

Historical fiction retellings of Bible stories can be tricky propositions. It's no easy task for an author to create a new tale which weaves personages from salvation history in with fictional characters. Sometimes the results are highly unsatisfactory to the point where the original Scriptural passages are warped or wrongly interpreted. When done well, the new story can help elucidate the Scriptural passages and generate interest in them.

Victory on the Walls: A Story of Nehemiah by Frieda Clark Hyman is one of the latter variety. Mainly following the adventures of Bani, a fictional nephew of Nehemiah, the tale tells the story of how the Jewish people re-established themselves in Jerusalem after the Babylonian Captivity. It is based on the Biblical books 1 and 2 Ezra (Nehemiah) and the major events which occur in the story are drawn directly from Scripture.

On the whole, the story moves quickly and is well told. Nehemiah is presented as strong and focused, but at the same time compassionate and forgiving. The character of Bani is predominantly well drawn, although there are a few scenes where he appears too much like a petulant modern teen for my tastes. I found the writing a bit more simplistic than some of the other books in the genre. It can be easily read by a 10 year old, as the book is billed.

Victory on the Walls was interesting enough for me that a re-reading of the relevant Scriptural passages was warranted after I finished it. Hopefully the book will inspire others to do likewise.

McCain fundraising still lagging badly

Well, the February numbers are out for the Presidential sweepstakes. And the numbers for McCain are downright depressing compared to either of his potential Democrat rivals. (Source)

February 2008
McCain: $11 million
Clinton: $34.5 million
Obama: $55.4 million

And here are the totals through the end of February:

Total
McCain: $66.4 million
Clinton: $155.6 million
Obama: $197.3 million

And finally:

Cash-on-hand minus Campaign Debt
McCain: $3.7 million
Clinton: $24.5 million
Obama: $38.2 million

So both Democrats continue to easily outpace McCain in fundraising and cash-on-hand even though McCain is now free to focus on raising money while the Democrats are still fighting a bruising campaign battle. It seems that McCain/Feingold has succeeded in getting the money out of at least one presidential campaign. The campaigns of the Democrats, to this point, appear unaffected.

The next Chuck Jones?

My mother-in-law put together this animated short that I thought was pretty amusing. It's her first attempt at this, so don't expect Snow White.

Food Fight

Not bad for a young lady pushing 70!

Archbishop Burke excommunicates "priestesses"

Well, those wacky dames running around pretending to be priests have finally messed with the wrong prelate. His Excellency, Archbishop Burke of St. Louis, MO has handed down a formal sentence of excommunication against three of them. The formal declaration was made on March 12. Here's the meat of it:

Wherefore, in the most sincere hope and with the prayer that the application of the due canonical penalties will lead the guilty parties to seek the cure of their most grievous sins and canonical crimes, I declare and pronounce the following:

1.) Patricia Fresen, Rose Hudson, and Elsie McGrath have incurred latae sententiae the censure of excommunication by reason of the crime of schism, as established by the Code of Canon Law (cf. cann. 1331; and 1364, s. 1);

2) Upon Patricia Fresen, Rose Hudson, and Elsie McGrath is imposed the ferendae sententiae censure of interdict for the crime of pertinacious rejection of a truth of the faith after admonition by the Ordinary (cf. can. 1371, para. 1);

3) Upon Patricia Fresen is imposed the ferendae sententiae censure of excommunication for the crime of simulation of the sacrament of Holy Orders (cf. can. 1379).

What does this mean, effectively? It means, simply put, that these charlatans are not to set foot on any Church property in the Archdiocese of St. Louis until they make a public act of repentence. They are under interdict, which means they may not receive the sacraments--not even confession--until they have "formally and publicly withdrawn from their contumacy." They may not even receive a Christian burial.

This is a very strong statement from Archbishop Burke and I commend him for it as something that's long, long overdue. God be praised that some fearless and steadfast bishops are finally beginning to stand up here in America. Our prayers are being answered!

I also pray for these poor benighted women who have been led astray. Through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, may they return to their senses and make a public confession for their sins so that this act of excommunication may be wiped away.

Babies are now "pathological waste"...

A truly sickening article appeared on CNS News--Human Remains Found in Dumpster of Abortion Clinic. Here are some quotes:

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and the Lathrup Village (Mich.) Police Department are investigating the contents of a dumpster behind the WomanCare abortion clinic where body parts of aborted babies, bio-hazardous materials and patients' medical records were found earlier this month.

Did you catch the "new speak" here? A facility where mothers have their healthy, pre-natal children killed, ripped out, and thrown in a dumpster is called "WomanCare".

"I was aware of the reality of abortion, but it was unnerving," Police Sgt. Vincent Lynch said of viewing the evidence, adding that "intact fetuses" were among the debris.

More evidence that the "abortion is legal and therefore acceptable to a civilized society" brainwashing can be neutralized so easily by just being forced to see what abortion actually is.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) will decide if the improper disposal of "pathological waste" at the Lathrup Village clinic violates civil or administrative statues, according to Robert McCann, press secretary for the state agency.

This "doctor" sliced and diced healthy babies and threw them in the trash, and all the government can ring him up for is "improper disposal of "pathological waste." Truly pathetic.

Miller and other activists transported contents from dumpsters to her home where they sorted and videotaped the contents of black plastic bags, which included syringes, bloody suction canulas, condoms, plastic gloves and human arms, spinal columns and fully-formed hands the size of a ballpoint pen tip.

The debris of the Culture of Death laid out for all to see.

Since the late 1980s, Miller has helped bury thousands of aborted babies. She said she marks the tombstones of the common graves with the words, "Holy Innocents of God," includes the date the remains of the unborn were recovered, and includes a verse from the Bible from the book of Jeremiah, The Lord says, 'A sound is heard in Ramah, a sound of crying in bitter grief. It is the sound of Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are gone.'"

That about says it all. We live in a country where innocent babies are killed and stuffed in dumpsters--and it's legal.

"I tremble for my nation when I reflect that God is just: that His justice can not sleep forever." --Thomas Jefferson

Republicans in better mental health than Democrats?

I saw a recent article on World Net Daily that stated: Only 38% of Democrats Claim Excellent Mental Health. This is compared to 58% of Republicans. I must say, this stat doesn't surprise me in the least. In fact, I'd be willing to bet if someone did a study which further broke down the Republican segment into "moderates" versus "conservatives" the difference would be even more stark. Indeed, the article states that only 43% of self-described Independents consider themselves in excellent mental health, according to a Gallup poll.

On a related note, I've heard this quote on the relative mental health of practicing Catholics attributed to Carl Gustav Jung before, but I finally found a citation for it and wanted to record it here for future reference.

In his fifth and last lecture, the audience asked Jung to depart from his theory of dream analysis and explain instead how to put the transference to "practical use" within the process. Jung's explanation led to a discussion of the role religion served within the various psychotherapeutic systems, particularly his own. He told the audience that throughout thirty-plus years of analytic practice, he had made an informal statistical count of his patients' religious affiliations: most were either Jewish or Protestant; practicing Catholics numbered "about six." It proved to him that the Catholic Church's "rigorous system of confession" was indeed a "therapeutic institituion....

Taken from Jung: A Biography by Deirdre Bair

Ford caves. AFA boycott is a success!

So much for the know-it-alls who said that the American Family Association boycott of Ford was ineffective. Here's the official press release:

Ford meets conditions; AFA suspends boycott

I have some good news for you! AFA is suspending its two year boycott of Ford Motor Company. The conditions of the original agreement presented in fall 2005 have been met. We reached the conclusion that Ford had met the conditions of the agreement based on monitoring for several months. Individuals are free to purchase Ford vehicles again.

Your support of the boycott played a key role in convincing Ford to cease its significant support of the homosexual agenda. During the 24 months the boycott was in effect, Ford sales dropped an average of 8% per month. The boycott was not entirely responsible for the drop in sales, but it played a very significant role.

A total of 780,365 individuals signed AFA's Boycott Ford petition.

The original agreement contained four items:

1. Ford would not renew current promotions or create future incentives that give cash donations to homosexual organizations based on the purchase of a vehicle.

2. Ford would not make corporate donations to homosexual organizations that, as part of their activities, engage in political or social campaigns to promote civil unions or same-sex marriage.

3. Ford would stop giving cash and vehicle donations or endorsements to homosexual social activities such as Gay Pride parades.

4. Ford would cease all advertising on homosexual Web sites and through homosexual media outlets (magazines, television, radio) in the U.S. with the exception of $100,000 to be used by Volvo. The Volvo ads would be the same ads used in the general media and not aimed at the homosexual community specifically.

A few minor issues remain, and we will continue to bring these to the attention of Ford. But basically Ford has met the terms of the agreement. We are therefore suspending the boycott.

Thank you for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution? Click here to make a donation.

Sincerely,

Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman American Family Association

Great job, AFA!

Of course, Ford will need to be watched to make sure they're living up to their end of the bargain. But if they do, it means I can go out and look at Fords when I shop for a new car this fall!

Outlaws of Ravenhurst -- When simply being a Catholic was enough to get you killed

Since the days of Henry VIII, Great Britain has been generally hostile to Catholics. Over the past 100 years, this hostility has mainly been manifested as sneering conceit in mass market and academic publications and lampooning on comedy shows. Closer to Henry's time, it was white-hot hatred. Though practically everyone knows about the Spanish Inquisition (at least, a sensational notion of it), few people know that Catholic practice and belief was effectively outlawed in Britain and that priests could and did suffer capital punishment just for the crime of being a priest.

This ignorance of history is what makes a book like Outlaws of Ravenhurst so valuable. The title conjures up images of highland bandits—the scourge of the countryside—preying on all those unlucky enough to cross their paths. Who would think that the outlaws were, in fact, practicing Catholics and a "renegade" priest?

Outlaws of Ravenhurst is the story of a young boy and the Catholic Faith. At a tender age, "George" (as he his called at the beginning of the book) is spirited away by a mysterious stranger to colonial America—Maryland to be specific. There he is raised by the Abells, a pioneer family of the best Catholic tradition, with a dozen children. When he turns age 10, his Uncle Roger arrives from Scotland to take charge of the boy. It turns out that "George" is actually Gordon, the scion of a noble Scottish family. Roger, and his scheming cohort Godfrey, intend to make the boy into a "proper" heir, and that means teaching him to renounce the Catholic faith of his mother and father, as well as his foster parents.

But before Roger and Godfrey can put their plan in motion, Gordon meets his true mother and his Uncle Steven, a renegade Catholic priest. He also learns the true history of his family—a story of persecution, greed, bravery, cowardice, and perseverence. The ending is somewhat predictible, but getting there is certainly enjoyable and gives a good window into the hardships that British Catholics had to endure for the sake of their Faith.

This book is meant for older kids (perhaps 10 and up) but adults will enjoy it as well. The author did a nice job capturing the Scots accent of some of the more colorful characters and her prose flows easily throughout the book. Outlaws of Ravenhurst is an easy read which thrills and teaches a lesson at the same time. The edition published by Lepanto Press includes some amusing illustrations and I highly recommend it.

New McCain Banner

For the record, I made this up myself. The McCain campaign had nothing to do with it.

I'm not a huge fan of Senator McCain, but given the alternatives...

Fundraising -- An ill omen for the GOP

Now that John McCain is the nominee for the GOP, I hope someone at RNC has figured out that they're going to need to appeal to conservatives if this guy wants to have any chance at winning. A look at the fundrasing totals for the Democrats versus McCain is sobering. (Source)

January 2008
McCain: $12,614,907
Clinton: $18,884,127
Obama: $36,060,927

The numbers look even worse when you compare the totals through the end of January:

Total
McCain: $53,717,085
Clinton: $134,536,488
Obama: $138,231,595

And even worse when you compare the cash on hand and the amount of debt:

Cash-on-hand minus Campaign Debt
McCain: -$337,031
Clinton: $21,609,641
Obama: $23,835,466

The only good news for McCain is that the Clinton/Obama race goes on and they'll continue to have to spend big money. As a fellow who has decried the influence of money in politics for much of his career, it looks like McCain is going to find out the hard way what it's like to run a shoestring campaign against opponents with seemingly limitless sources of funding.

Exodus from the public schools long overdue

A crisis is brewing in California. First, the state made it law that all public school children would be given a "homo-positive" education. Now, they are trying to forbid you from getting around this insane mandate by making homeschooling illegal. The recent case in California is just another attempt by our run-away court system to force people to put their kids into the government run indoctrination-centers.

This fascist-like effort can and must be resisted. As Cal Thomas pointed out in a recent article, there is a group called Exodus which is working in California to convince people to pull their kids out of the public school system immediately. I fully support this effort and think that only good can come of it. My only worry is that in some places in southern California, the Catholic Church has been run into the ground to such an extent that the Catholic school system doesn't really provide a good alternative to the public schools for parents who are concerned about what their kids are learning on a moral level. For such parents, your choices are stark: either homeschool or move. If you care about your kids, you simply can't allow the State of California to pervert them.

The government schools have become dens of filth and ignorance and sinks where billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted every year. If enough people pulled their kids out of these corrupt institutions and put them in private schools (or homeschooled if they are able), not only would we have better-educated children, but we'd have a real grass-roots base for a full-fledged taxpayer revolt. And such a revolt is long overdue. As it is, we're paying billions of dollars for the state to educate the next generation of amoral secular activists who will further undermine the Christian ethics at the core of our once-great nation. This can not stand or we face a very grim future.

Barack Obama -- Messiah for the Culture of Death

Here are Barack Obama's own words on the subject of abortion:

"Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America. When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president."

There's more at the link, but this should tell you all you need to know.

No Catholic in good conscience can vote for Mr. Obama. His stance on abortion is truly an "obamination."

Justinian 31, Factionists 10: The Nika Rebellion of AD 532

A 5th century relief showing the emperor Theodosius II in the imperial Kathisma
at the Hippodrome, Constantinople.

It’s a safe bet that most of you reading these words have been to a professional football game. Many of you—particularly those who live in Philadelphia—have probably witnessed the occasional brawls between the home crowd and those foolish enough to wear an opposing team’s colors. A few of you, I dare say, have been involved in such altercations.

But how often have you witnessed football fans actually kill opposition partisans? Well, perhaps I should qualify that by saying American football fans. When was the last time you heard of agitated sports nuts rioting in the streets and burning down half their city? OK, again, Chicago and Detroit excluded.

In AD 532, the city of Constantinople, the capital of the Roman Empire, was also home to the most rabid sports fans in recorded history. Their sport of choice wasn’t three yards and a cloud of dust on the gridiron, but the old passion of the ancient Romans—four teams and a cloud of dust around the spina. Since the gladiatorial games had been banned nearly 150 years before, chariot races of the variety most memorably portrayed in the film Ben Hur became the singular mania of the Romans. Practically every city in the empire had its track. But Constantinople was the big leagues. Only the greatest charioteers got to race before the 80,000 raucous lunatics who packed into the sprawling Hippodrome.

So central were the races to Roman life in Constantinople that the Hippodrome directly abutted the palace complex, the seat of government. And the emperor’s box, the Kathisma, had a corridor linking it directly with the imperial residence itself. There had traditionally been four teams or factions in Roman chariot racing, each identified by a color: Red, Green, Blue, and White. By the 6th century AD, the Reds and Whites had become the equivalent of the Arizona Cardinals with the Blues and Greens achieving dominance.

But the Blue and Green factionists were more than just drinking buddies who got together to watch the races. They were combination sports clubs, political parties, street gangs, and organized crime syndicates whose goals were usually limited to beating the rival faction—literally.

The 6th century historian Procopius describes the factionists as barbarian wannabes, who let their beards grow long and shaggy. They apparently invented the “mullet” as well, cutting their hair short in the front but letting it grow long in the back. As to their dress, they favored tunics that were wide at the shoulders and narrow in the waist, designed to make them look Terrell Owens-esque. However, as Procopius reports, when they threw up their arms at the races, sunken chests and blubber guts abounded.

Until the ascendancy of Justinian in the 520s, the factionists generally spent most of their energy fighting with each other. Justinian, however, seemed to show an unusual favoritism toward the Blues, effectively making them immune from criminal prosecution. As a result, the Blues left off merely stomping on the Greens and started attacking the general public as well. Procopius describes a familiar scene for anyone who’s ever lived in a bad neighborhood: honest folks went around armed, wore shabby clothes so as not to draw attention to themselves, and scurried home before it got dark.

But eventually the depredations of the Blues went too far and Justinian was forced to take action. The city prefect, Eudaimon, began rounding up the ringleaders of both factions and convicted seven of them on charges of murder. All seven were condemned, but during the executions, the scaffold collapsed. Two of the factionists, a Blue and a Green, survived and were spirited away to sanctuary in a church by some monks. Not to be deterred, Eudaimon set guards around the place to seize the men if they tried to escape.

At the Hippodrome three days later, the Blues and Greens suddenly found a common cause not at all associated with the races—clemency for their brethren holed up in sanctuary. Throughout the day, the factions together appealed to the emperor to have mercy. But Justinian turned a deaf ear. By the 22nd race, the factionists were fed up. Their leaders took counsel—something as unheard of as Redskins and Cowboys fans planning a tailgate together—and the united factions marched out of the Hippodrome chanting “Long live the merciful Blue-Greens.” They were determined to take action, and to prevent imperial soldiers from infiltrating their ranks, they devised a watchword—“nika” or “conquer.”

The mob made its way to Eudaimon’s headquarters, and when their demands were rejected once again, proceeded to burn the place down. Unfortunately, fires in ancient cities were not easy to contain and this particular fire quickly consumed the nearby buildings, including the monumental great church of Hagia Sophia, originally built by Constantine, and rebuilt by Theodosius II. The rioters then began looting private homes and killing the soldiers sent out to suppress them.

Realizing that the situation was spiraling out of control, Justinian sent out the patricians Basilides and Constantiolus to address the mob. When asked why they were rioting, the factionists now gave a more ambitious response. They demanded the ouster of Eudaimon along with two of Justinian’s other top ministers: John the Cappadocian, the ruthlessly efficient head tax collector, and Tribonian, a legendary jurist who was also notorious for selling justice to the highest bidder. To their shock, Justinian gave in immediately, dismissing all three and appointing others in their places.

Far from quelling the riot, Justinian’s concessions had the same effect as failing to penalize illegal chop-blocks in the first quarter of a Raiders’ game—the bad behavior just got worse. Soldiers were again deployed to curb the mob, but the result was more fires and the destruction of part of the palace, the upper stands of the Hippodrome, the famous baths of Zeuxippus, and the Senate house. The emperor was now effectively besieged in the palace which was surrounded by charred and smoking ruins. The factionists ruled the rest of the city.

It was at about this point that the riots took an even more ominous turn for Justinian. The crowds descended on the house of a patrician named Probus, the nephew of the deceased emperor Anastasius, and the cry went up, “Probus for emperor of the Roman world!” In response, Probus fled—a credit to his foresight—and the mob expressed their disappointment by trying to burn his house down. But Anastasius had two other nephews, the patricians Hypatius and Pompeius, both of whom were now holed up inside the imperial palace with Justinian.

Justinian’s next move was more concessions, with the same predictable result. In an effort to placate the angry crowd, he entered the  Kathisma of the Hippodrome carrying the Gospels and pledged a general amnesty. “By this power, I forgive you this wrong-doing and order that none of you be arrested,” the emperor declared. “Be at peace, for the fault lies not with you, but with me. For my sins made me refuse what you asked of me.”

This speech invited the sympathy of a few of the Blues, who cried out, “Augustus Justinian, you conquer!”

But others began chanting for Hypatius. Justinian probably tried to rebuke them, but they yelled back, “You are breaking your oath, you donkey!” Justinian was silenced by this mockery and left the Hippodrome in what must have been a state of extreme agitation.

After this disquieting audience, the emperor likely feared that some of those trapped with him in the palace, to save their own hides from the mob, would kill him and put Hypatius or Pompeius on the throne. Therefore, upon his return from the Hippodrome, Justinian ordered the nephews of Anastasius to their homes. The two men protested, saying that it would be wrong for them to abandon their emperor during such a crisis. But their objections seemed to cement Justinian’s fears, and he remained adamant that they leave at once.

The two managed to escape in secret to their homes, but once word of this got around, the crowds immediately descended upon them and declared Hypatius emperor. The patrician’s wife, Mary, grabbed hold of her husband and urged him to refuse, crying out that the people were leading him on the road to death. But the mob would not be refused. Placing a gold chain on Hypatius’s head in lieu of the imperial diadem, they led him to the Hippodrome and there acclaimed him.

Inside the palace, Justinian, all-powerful emperor of the Roman world, was ready for drastic action--flight. Gathering up his treasure, he had a boat prepared to take him across the Bosphorus out of harms way. However, his wife, the Empress Theodora, stood up and barred the way, doing the Byzantine equivalent of “getting in his grill.” A hard woman who had survived a youth of grotesque debauchery among the same factionists who were now torching the city, Theodora was not about to climb down from the pinnacle of power without a fight. “If it is your wish to save yourself, O Emperor, there is no difficulty,” the empress declared, “As for me, I approve of a certain ancient saying that royalty makes a good burial shroud.”

Theodora’s pep talk fired up Justinian and his remaining loyalists. Among these were two of his best generals—Belisarius, a first-round draft pick fresh from campaigns against the Persians, and Mundus, a Gepid free-agent acquisition who had just returned from the province of Illyricum. Also present was the crafty offensive coordinator, Narses, Justinian’s head chamberlain. From him came the idea of dividing the factionists by means of bribes. And this he did, secretly distributing money to some of the Blues. When these began loudly acclaiming Justinian in the Hippodrome, the partisans of Hypatius bombarded them with rocks.

While Narses was busy sowing discord, Belisarius and Mundus set out with several hundred armed and battle-hardened soldiers in a desperate gamble to crush the rebellion. Out numbered fifty-to-one, their first attempts to force their way into the Hippodrome from the palace were rebuffed by imperial guardsmen who refused to take sides until one or the other was victorious. In desperation, Belisarius and Mundus led their men out of the palace through the dangerous smoldering ruins of the city to approach the Hippodrome from the outside. Entering through gates on opposite ends, the generals knew that they would have to hack their way through the vast multitude gathered inside to reach the conspirators in the imperial box.

And hack they did.

As soon as the mob realized that the fight was on, they attempted to resist. But since few of them were properly armed and their opponents were well-trained soldiers attacking in formation with shield, arrow, and sword, the battle soon turned into a massacre. Breaking away from the main fight, Belisarius and some of his bodyguards fought their way to the Kathisma and there arrested Hypatius and Pompeius. More soldiers poured into the Hippodrome via the passage from the palace and with no way to escape, the rioters were cut down without mercy. The death toll was estimated to be 30,000 or more.

The next day, Hypatius and Pompeius were executed and their bodies thrown into the sea. The body of Hypatius later washed up on shore and Justinian ordered it buried in a cemetery for criminals. Over top of it, he erected a stone which read, “Here lies the emperor of Louppa.”

Justinian I offers his Hagia Sophia to the Blessed Virgin
and Christ Child.

The one enduring result of the so-called Nika rebellion may be seen to this day towering above city of Istambul—Justinian’s magnificent Hagia Sophia, built over the ruins of the previous church destroyed by the rioters.

So the next time you hear someone say that they bleed Eagle Green or that they’re dying to see Eli lead Big Blue to the Super Bowl, just remember that 1,500 years ago, maniacs who made the ephemera of sport their religion and the stadium their cathedral did literally bleed and die for their misplaced passion.

Paolo Belzoni is the author of Belisarius: The First Shall Be Last, a novel of the early life of this Late Roman hero. A detailed description of the Nika Revolt is included in his follow-up novel, Belisarius: Glory of the Romans. He is also a long-suffering fan of the Philadelphia Eagles.

NB: This is article that I wrote several years ago for the sadly departed magazine, Catholic Men's Quarterly. There's also a detailed but novelized account of the Rebellion in my book, Belisarius: Glory of the Romans.

Why media conservatives hate John McCain

One of the most frustrating aspects of this election season has been the willingness of our allies in the conservative media to outsmart themselves by supporting liberal Republicans. Some of them latched on to one of these "moderates" from day one. The most egregious example of this tendency is Sean Hannity, who must feel a bit foolish for his slavish promotion of Giuliani, given Rudy's inglorious performance at the polls.

Hugh Hewitt also gets raspberries for becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of Romney, Inc. One wonders if the FEC will be investigating Hewitt for all the free advertising he has given the Republican version of John Kerry. Personally, I'm more than a little insulted by Hewitt's shameless pumping of liberal Mitt under a micro-thin pretense of impartiality. I hope his audience share has suffered accordingly.

Other hosts, not nearly so audacious in their error (Rush Limbaugh most predominant among them), withheld their support from good conservative candidates until it was too late to do much good.

So now three weak sisters remain, with John McCain appearing as the most likely to limp to the nomination. Yet somehow, someway, the media conservatives have decided to rally around Mitt Romney who is perhaps the most liberal of the remaining three in terms of his record. With the sole exception of Michael Medved who, after a worrisome start, has been a level-headed, equal-access paragon of Republican impartiality throughout this extended campaign, the vast majority of media conservatives are now going after McCain hammer and tongs.

Which brings me to a quesiton that's been haunting me for the past month: What's so bad about John McCain that the supposed lights of the conservative movement would rather support a pandering, phony, northeastern liberal like Mitt Romney? I'm no fan of McCain, myself. Indeed, I've called him just about every name in the book over the past eight years. But at least with McCain, you know what you're getting and we can gear up for a serious fight after he gets elected.

With Romney, the GOP base is likely to be lulled into a false sense of security--until he goes Arlen Specter on us. Mitt had a strange propensity in Massachusetts to allow liberalism to advance on all fronts--and help it from behind the scenes--while putting on a dog-and-pony show of opposition. A crypto-liberal like Romney in the White House would be infinitely more dangerous to conservative causes than a mushy moderate like McCain. And given what has happened to the GOP in Massachusetts post-Romney, conservatives could be looking at another 40 years in the wilderness following a Romney term.

So why are these intelligent, plugged-in media conservatives willing to get on board the Romney bandwagon and reject McCain with extreme prejudice? It has to be more than mere political differences. Here's a theory that popped into my head to explain this phenomenon: the animus displayed by media conservatives toward McCain comes not from any true ideological difference, but mainly from fear that McCain would threaten their livelihood.

Last night, I got a bit of confirmation of this theory. A talkshow host who frequents a major forum posted the following:

McCain is a disaster...This should concern all conservatives, in and out of talk radio....At least the best in talk radio, and most of talk radio’s audience, have tried to stop this day from coming....But you go ahead and attack talk radio. I am sure McCain, with his great regard for the First Amendment and the Constitution, will be working with Kennedy, et al, to punish it.

I'm not saying this statement is wrong. McCain has shown himself to be on the wrong side of this issue with his ludicrous campaign finance "reform" act. But let's remember, McCain & Feingold may have been the catalysts for this piece of legislation--but President Bush signed it. I don't recall too many media conservatives holding a similar long-standing grudge against the President for his part in limiting their speech.

What I want to know from our friends in conservative media is this:

1. Is your extreme negative position on McCain based predominantly on worries about your ability to continue to make a (very) comfortable living in a McCain administration?

2. Has Mitt Romney made any soto voce promises to leave talk-radio alone?

I think we, your audience, have a right to know. If that's the case--fine. Come out and say it publicly and make it clear that you are not simply making a political case for "anyone but McCain" but are also lobbying to preserve your livelihood. Otherwise, all this vitriol about how awful and liberal McCain is and how conservatives need to rally around an even bigger liberal like Mitt Romney makes no sense...

...unless you guys really have become more media than conservative.

Why is this book a classic?

I was one of the lucky ones who managed to make it through high school without having to read The Catcher in the Rye. However, I was recently challenged on J. D. Salinger's "magnum opus" and, having never read it, I could not respond other than to say, "Don't know." So in the interest of informing myself on the subject, I read it and as I did so, the first thing that popped into my head was this quote from the "Current Communist Goals", a list read into the Congressional Record in January of 1963 by Florida Democrat A. S. Herlong, Jr., based on the research of Cleon Skousen in The Naked Communist:

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

There is so much wrong with this book, that it can't possibly qualify as anything like a classic on the strength of Salinger's writing skills alone. In brief, The Catcher in the Rye is a tale of Holden Caulfield, a neurotic, narcissistic sixteen year-old from an upper crusty family who flunks out of prep school and spends a night of debauchery in New York City. Holden has a penchant for calling everyone a phony, yet it soon becomes obvious that he's the biggest phony of them all. The narrative style is first person, so the reader is forced to endure Holden's puerile blather throughout the entirety of the work. The fact that his younger brother died tragically is supposed to add a level of pathos to the story, and I suppose provide an excuse for why Holden acts and thinks the way he does. But in my opinion, the uninspired plot is totally coincidental to what made this book "special" and how it has become a "must read" for every high school student.

This book was (and is) a vehicle for introducing young people to obscenity and "alternative lifestyles"--and making them seem normal, at least in comparison to the occasionally judgmental but always hypocritical main character. The amount of pointless vulgarity and blasphemous language contained in The Catcher in the Rye is so overwhelming, even by today's standards, that the reader quickly becomes numb to it. It was apparently one of the first mass market books to incorporate the phrase "f--k you", and no doubt that made it immediately attractive to those with an agenda of breaking down societal standards.

Salinger is a sloppy writer, with stream-of-consciousness tangents flowing out in every direction. Some of these are meant to be profound, I suppose, but their profundity never reaches above frat-house-level philosophy. Some might say that this was Salinger's point--to recreate the ribald banter and egotistical musings of upper-class teenagers. But to what end? Such talk is trite and tiresome in person, let alone when encountered in the written word.

On the whole, there is nothing inspired or inspiring about The Catcher in the Rye. I can't imagine how anyone who reads it will come away with any positive insights into life, the world, or the human condition--negative ones abound, of course. Recalling how naïve I was as a teenager, I can readily imagine the kind of impact a book like this might have had on me, particularly in light of the false gravitas English professors are wont to bestow upon the works they select for study.

And that brings us back to the question of how this book achieved such status that seemingly every American high school student must be exposed to it. Again, a scanning of the Current Communist Goals may be instructive:

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

Old Uncle Joe knew what he was doing, apparently.

If you are a young person whose professor has selected The Catcher in the Rye as part of your course work, you should take it as an insult. Imagine as you read that this is how your professor views you and everyone in your age bracket--as moody, ill-spoken, amoral losers who awkwardly seek sexual encounters and intoxication at every turn without a second thought. If you don't view yourself that way, I would encourage you to read something better, more positive, and more uplifting--like the book that would have been my favorite as a teenager had it been available at that time: Angels in Iron.

El Cid: God's Own Champion

I'm embarrassed to admit that I have almost no knowledge of Rodrigo Diaz of Vivar, known to history as El Cid, the national hero of Spain. In this, sadly, I suspect I'm not alone among Americans. Thus, I was happy to receive El Cid, God's Own Champion: The True Story of the Knight of Vivar, a new book by James Fitzhenry.

The book is a historical narrative, meant specifically for older kids, perhaps ages 12 and up. It is well written and Fitzhenry's prose has an easy grace that flows well and keeps the reader's attention. Based mainly on Ramon Menendez Pidal's work, The Cid and His Spain, the text chronicles the amazing life of El Cid and gives a glimpse into a time when the threat of radical Islam was even more immediate and dangerous than it is today. The Iberian peninsula in the 11th century was rent with conflicts between the various petty Christian and Islamic principalities, and it was not uncommon for Christian nobles to ally with Islamic ones against other Christians--and vice-versa. Into this confusing morass enters El Cid, an unconquerable hero who accomplishes what seems impossible with the barest handful of men. In this he reminded me of the late Roman hero, Belisarius who found phenomenal military success against similarly daunting odds.

But El Cid's successes provoked the jealousy of his rivals who had the ear of King Alfonso of Castile. Time and again, Alfonso punished and exiled his greatest champion, but through all the injustice, El Cid remained unwaveringly loyal, ever seeking to win back the good graces of his sovereign. In this, too, El Cid's story echoes that of Belisarius who was also unjustly slandered by jealous rivals and who suffered, as a result, the suspicion and punishments of his master, the Emperor Justinian. Of course, the difference is that while Hollywood has made an epic version of the life of El Cid, it has not yet done so for Belisarius. Perhaps this is for the best, however, given what Hollyweird has become these days.

Fitzhenry also portrays El Cid as a paragon of Christian manhood. He is honest to a fault, pious, and humble before his king. He also shows mercy to his enemies and repeatedly tries to win the allegiance of the faithless Muslims of Valencia who repay his friendly overtures and honest justice with sedition and rebellion.

Overall, I enjoyed El Cid, God's Own Champion very much. Because it serves as both a history lesson and an inspiring tale of Catholic manhood, it is an ideal book for parents to read with their kids.

Five stars for this one.