So, my class on Medieval Women Mystics was GREAT today. Here are some of the highlights:

Student (in response to another student's suggestion that Hildegard of Bingen was a prophet): "I don't think Hildegard could be considered a prophet, because if you look at the Old Testament, all of the prophets were leaders. I think that a prophet really has to lead people."
Professor (looks at student incredulously): "Ah, she was an Abbess. It was a big deal. She corresponded with Bernard of Clairvaux and FOUR POPES."
Student: "Yea, but..."


Student: "...I regard the Quran as a mystical text."
Professor: "I think that is a hard argument to make. You would encounter, ah, many difficulties with that one..."

Student: "Hildegard's metaphors for explaining the Trinity were, well, dumb."
Professor: "Really? Have YOU ever tried explaining the doctrine of the Trinity to 12th century, illiterate peasants!?"
Me: falls off of chair laughing.

Student: "Well, why do we have to assume that she didn't just know this stuff. I mean, she grew up next to a monastery. She probably made all of this stuff about visions up."
(Sometimes people forget they are in a theology class...)

Something from Hildegard of Bingen

"Therefore the whirlwinds tell me lies in many voices, which rise up within me, saying, 'Who are you? and what are you doing? and what are these battles you are fighting? You are indeed unhappy, for you do not know whether your work is good or bad. Where will you go? and who wills save you? and what are these errors that are driving you to madness? Are you doing what delight you? Are you escaping what distresses you? Oh, what will you do when you know this are ignorant of that? For what delights you is not lawful for you, and what distresses you God's precept compels you to do. And how do you know whether these things are so? It would be better for you if you did not exist!' And after these whirlwinds have risen up thus within me, I begin to tread another path that is hard for my flesh to bear, for I begin to practice righteousness. But then I doubt as to whether or not the Holy Spirit has given this to me, and I say, 'This is useless.' And I wish to fly above the clouds. How? I wish to fly above the faculties and start things I cannot finish. But when I try to do these things, I only stir up great sadness in myself, so that I do no works, either on the heights of sanctity or on the plains of good will; but I bear within me the disquietude of doubt, desperation, sadness, and oppression in all things. And when the Devil's persuasion disturbs me, then, oh, how great a calamity overtakes me! For I am overcome in my unhappiness by all the evils that are or can be in blame, malediction, mortification of the body and soul and shameful words against the purity, healing and loftiness that are in God. And then wickedness suggests to me that all the felicity and all the good which is in Man as well as God will be to me harmful and oppressive, offering me death rather than life. Ach! How unhappy is this struggle, which forces me from labor to labor, from sorrow to sorrow, from discord to discord, depriving me of all happiness."

Book 1, Vision 4, Scivias

A Poem

Andrea introduced me to this poem today, and I am glad she did. Reading it, I had one of those rare and wonderful moments in which the words I read express what I feel better than I ever could myself. This is also the effect that reading C.S. Lewis and Chesterton has on me (which I think must mean that my unexpressed thoughts and feelings are really quite cliche, after all). Well, here is the poem:

Looking up at the stars, I know quite well
That, for all they care, I can go to hell,
But on earth indifference is the least
We have to dread from man or beast.

How should we like it were stars to burn
With a passion for us we could not return?
If equal affection cannot be,
Let the more loving one be me.

Admirer as I think I am
Of stars that do not give a damn,
I cannot, now I see them, say
I missed one terribly all day.

Were all stars to disappear or die,
I should learn to look at an empty sky
And feel its total dark sublime,
Though this might take me a little time.

Auden

Time and Tide Waits for Nun...

Apologies for the terrible pun.

Last night, I had a surprising and vivid dream. I had entered a convent, but had not taken my vows. The convent was situated in a beautiful area. It was in the countryside and was surrounded by rolling hills. The weather was always warm and pleasant, the grass was fresh and fragrant and flowers were always blooming. I went out to explore the town nearby. I was sitting at a table talking to a man I had just met. He asked me what I was doing in the town and I replied, "Well, I'm staying with the nuns. I only arrived here recently." He said, "Well I can see you're a nun." I then realized that I was wearing a habit, which surprised me. Time passed, and I got used to living in the convent, but I kept telling people I met that I had just arrived. Mother Superior continued to urge me to take my vows, but I kept putting it off - I couldn't decide if I really wanted to be a nun or not. Finally, my friend Lauren showed up. She was a cloistered nun (Sister Servant of the Holy Ghost of Perpetual Adoration, I think, judging by her pink habit) but had left the convent to come talk to me. She told me that I was being ridiculous and I needed to take my vows. I told her I had only just gotten there and I would do so soon. She said, "Caitlin, you've been here for over two years." I was amazed. I woke up before I was able to take my vows.

Now, I may be a superstitious person, but I don't think that dreams are visions of the future, or signs or anything like that. But I do think that we tend to dream about the things that are occupying our subconscious or deeply bothering us. For this reason, I was surprised by my dream. I have thought about becoming a nun before, in passing, but since I am not even a Catholic yet (Feb. 4!), it seems incredibly premature.

On the one hand, I am happiest on my mission trips, doing service work and the prospect of being able to devote my whole life and being to serving God through serving others sounds wonderful. On the other hand, I sometimes have deep-seated longings to someday have a family, and the thought of not having children saddens me. In some ways, I am better able to imagine life as a nun, because I already know the feelings of fulfillment that accompany prayer, worship and service work, but do not know what it is like to be married or have children (though having children is easier to imagine than being married because I have baby-sat for so many children).

In Nikos Kazantzakis' book, "St. Francis," Francis talks about having conflicting callings. He says that when he feels multiple callings within himself, he knows that the one that God truly wants him to follow is the one that is more difficult. God does not want him to take the easy way out. I'm not sure if I buy this 100%; I think that sometimes I know I am doing God's will because He gives me feelings of joy and peace, and even makes difficult tasks seem easy and pleasant. For example, when I am doing service work, I am very happy (despite lack of sleep, sleeping on the floor, etc.) and feel that I can take on anything, no matter how difficult it seems. But, I sometimes think about what Kazantzakis had St. Francis say and use it as a sort of exercise.

Unfortunately, it brings me to no conclusion. Both paths seem difficult, and both paths seem like taking the easy way out. On the one hand, getting married and having a family seems almost selfish. It seems like a choice that that is based on the goals of comfort and personal satisfaction. This, I know, is not true, but these are the ways in which family life seems easy. On the other hand, marriage is scary and hard to imagine. It seems like something impossible, something I don't deserve. In this way, the path of getting married and having children seems like the more difficult path by far.

Religious life, too, seems both easy and unbearably difficult. It seems easy because I already can imagine it, can imagine the happiness it would bring and because I wouldn't have to go through all the trials associated with marriage and raising children. It also seems easy because after making the initial decision to become a nun, my life would be completely in God's hands. Certainly I would struggle with temptation and sin as I do now, but I would not have to make the kinds of big decisions like where to live, what to do on a daily basis, whom to marry, how to raise my children, etc. On the other hand, religious life seems incredibly difficult. Devoting every second to God through service for three and a half months is one thing; the rest of my life is quite another. It would take extraordinary grace to be able to keep such a life up for 60, 70 years without becoming utterly exhausted and crushed.

Luckily, I don't think I have to make any kind of decision for at least a number of years. I should set my concerns aside and be open to whatever God has in store for me. For now, I will do those things that are, to me, quite obviously God's will (going back to Appalachia to serve the poor this summer) and pray for greater understanding of what His will is on a daily basis. Until one calling becomes so deafening that the other is drowned out, I don't think I can really make any plans. I suppose neither calling will ever be truly put to rest until the other is fulfilled. That is, religious life will always be a potential path until the day of my wedding and, conversely, marriage will always be a potential path until the day I do take vows as a nun. But until one of these happens, I have to be open to whatever God puts in my heart.

"When love beckons you, follow him,
though his ways are hard and steep.
And when his wings enfold you yield to him,
Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you.
And when he speaks to you believe in him,
Though his voice may shatter your dreams as the north wind lays waste the garden."

- The Prophet, Kahlil Gibran

"And I will lead the blind in a way that they know not,
in paths that they have not known I will guide them.
I will turn the darkness before them into light,
the rough places into level ground."

- Isaiah 42:16

"Homeward Bound"

See: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=10659

I recently came across a truly appalling article entitled “Homeward Bound.” The woman who wrote this article is Linda Hirshman, a “feminist philosopher.” She undertook a study of upper-class married women to look at how feminism had impacted their lives. She looked at all of the brides who had announced their weddings in Sunday Styles over the course of three weekends in the mid-nineties. She tracked about 80% of them down and discovered that, of thse 80%, 90% had babies, 85% of those with babies were not working full time. A good half of the women she tracked down were not working at all, but caring for their children.* The women she interviewed, she notes, were happy. Yet despite their happiness and apparent fulfillment, Hirshman claims that what they were doing, that is, staying home with their children, “is bad for them, is certainly bad for society and is widely imitated.” Wow.

So let me break down Ms. Hirshman’s claims really quickly.
1. Feminism has failed because women are choosing to stay at home with their children.
2. Having a “good job” is a fundamental part of human flourishing.
3. The marker of a good job is how well it pays.

1. Hirshman’s conception of feminism may very well have failed. And there also may be a very good reason for this failure: it was wrong.**

2. “Here's the feminist moral analysis that choice avoided: The family -- with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks -- is a necessary part of life, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government.” If “the family” means vacuuming, running the dishes and doing the laundry, then perhaps Hirshman is right. But raising children – especially lots of them – is anything but repetitious. The family is not only a necessary part of life, but the fundamental part of life. Without the family, public spheres like the market or the government would not even be able to function as they do. It is in the family that children learn the fundamentals of life and how to interact in society. It is their experience in the family that is one of the most important predictors of how successful they will be later in life. Further, activities like cooking and caring for children are valuable and enjoyable in their own right, not merely as means to another end. We do not just have children because we are obliged to keep society going; we have them because we want to share a life with them and experience the joy that only family can bring. Family life, far from being something separate from human flourishing, is actually the most basic element of human flourishing.

Hirshman also seems to think that it is only in a traditionally male career that women can wield “real social power.” Yet from time immemorial powerful men have been most influenced by women, usually their wives or their mothers. Women who raise their children are the most important influence on those children, and the values that they teach their children will shape them for life. It is a wonderful thing that today we have female voices in the business world and in the political world, but if gaining a greater voice in those spheres comes only at the expense of having an impact where it is actually most important, in the family, it isn’t worth it.

3. “The best way to treat work seriously is to find the money. Money is the marker of success in a market economy,” Hirshman claims. At first blush, her statement doesn’t seem entirely off-base. There is a lot of truth to it. Yet Hirshman goes on to blame women for choosing jobs that are more kind-hearted and less money-driven. “Yet somewhere along the way the women made decisions in the direction of less money. Part of the problem was idealism; idealism on the career trail usually leads to volunteer work, or indentured servitude in social-service jobs, which is nice but doesn't get you to money.” Since when did we start deriding people for choosing noble jobs that they personally find fulfilling? Since when did the amount of money one makes determine one’s value as a person? Hirshman’s argument is so twisted I hardly know where to begin to untangle it.

Hirshman seems to be arguing against tradition simply for the sake of overthrowing tradition. There seems to be an assumption, though Hirshman offers no evidence to back it up, that tradition is inherently bad. “But elite women aren't resisting tradition. None of the stay-at-home brides I interviewed saw the second shift as unjust; they agree that the household is women's work.” So, what is the problem here? Hirshman doesn’t consider that there may be a good basis for the tradition that women stay home and care for their children. After all, they have no choice but to intimately care for their children for the first nine months of the child’s life, and, after that, they should breastfeed their children.*** Children have distinct relationships with each of their parents and these relationships are not interchangeable. Children bond differently with their mothers than with their fathers. This is easy to see during pregnancy and breastfeeding, but remains true throughout the child’s life.

Some of Hirshman’s more choice pieces of advice include telling women not to clean the house, because even if their house is dirty, at least they won’t be cleaning it (as some one who prefers order to filth and even enjoys cleaning from time to time, I’m baffled) and “Have a baby. Just don’t have two.” I want at least six children and don’t really understand how not having children (that I want) so that I can work more would be good for my well-being and, assuming my future husband also wants a lot of children, for his. Or maybe Hirshman doesn’t want wives to consider their husbands’ well-being and wishes at all…because that would make for a GREAT relationship. Another great piece of advice is that women should “marry down,” or marry a man with far less money than they have. So that they can march off to work leaving their infant with a bottle of formula and a poor, starving artist of a father. Wow.

She also derides one woman for making apple pie with her children and another for taking her daughter to museums and dance lessons. These should, however, be commended. Taking the time to provide small children with productive activities and interacting with them, instead of leaving them to watch TV with a baby sitter, is actually incredibly beneficial for the children.

If Linda Hirshman had her way, women would be just like men – they would have the same jobs, make the same amount of money, etc. They would also live in filthy, unkempt houses, leave their children with babysitters instead of spending time with them, and generally be bad wives and mothers all around. Let’s hope that women retain their capacity for independent thought and follow what makes them happy, even if that means having 13 children, instead of taking Hirshman’s destructive advice.


*This statement, of course, is not entirely true. Being a mother is, of course, a LOT of work. My father once retorted to somebody who asked him, incredulously, if his mother really never worked in her life, “Like hell she didn’t work. She raised nine children! She worked harder than anyone else I’ve known.”

** See my last post on why (Hirshman’s type of) feminism is based on a mistaken idea of equality for explanation.

*** I don’t want to tackle the task of proving the merits of breastfeeding. Suffice it to say, there are incredible benefits, both physical and psychological, that a baby incurs from breastfeeding.

Proof of the Devil

About a month or so ago, I was perusing Father James V. Schall, S.J.’s articles on Ignatius Insight and decided to re-read his article on abortion. The article began with a poster that Fr. Schall had seen on a MetroBus here in D.C. The poster read, “Did you know that abortion is legal through all nine months of pregnancy?” or something of the like. Fr. Schall took this poster to be a pro-choice poster, reminding women of their “right” to procure an abortion at any time they would like to in their pregnancy. In fact, it is a poster put out by the USCCB as part of their campaign to improve knowledge about what Roe v. Wade really allows. When I told Fr. Schall this, he cited it as proof of the devil.

I am inclined to agree, and since that conversation with Schall have kept this claim in the back of my mind. All around me, I see people sincerely trying to do good, but in fact causing destruction and harm. Sometimes, their beliefs about what the good actually is are correct, and the goals they seek to achieve are good ones, as in the case of the US Bishops and their poster. Other times, they are mistaken about what constitutes good and evil and the goals they pursue are in fact evil.

Perhaps I have too much faith in the honesty of human beings, but I believe that most people do pursue what they believe to be good. Although I am as staunch a pro-lifer as you can find, I do believe that pro-choicers sincerely believe what they preach – that access to abortion is fundamentally good and necessary for women. It is precisely here that the devil dwells, and it is this phenomenon that gives him so much power. It would be far easier to dissuade humans from evil if they did not so stubbornly insist on believing the evils they commit to, in fact, be good.

I have been thinking about this whole phenomenon a lot recently, particularly as it relates to feminism. Feminism, or what that word has come to mean, I think, is the ultimate proof of the devil. In seeking to empower women, feminists actually degrade them, and actually move them further from the equality they deserve.

Feminism is based on a mistaken idea of what equality is. Equality is not homogeneity. Equality is recognizing the equivalent value of the distinctive roles that men and women play in society. Women will never achieve equality by acting like men and trying to achieve the standards of success that have been defined for and by males because, put simply, women just aren’t as good at being men as men are. The opposite, of course, is also true, and trying to make men more like women in certain ways also undermines the unique dignity of each sex. Feminism, based on a mistaken idea, condemns the noble goal of recognizing that women are as valuable to society as men are to failure, and thus the devil achieves his purpose.

Works like the Vagina Monologues and Linda Hirshman’s influential article “Homeward Bound” (post to follow) drive this point home. The Vagina Monologues seek to empower women and end violence against women and instead degrade and objectify them; Linda Hirshman also seeks to empower women and instead subordinates them to men by denying the value of uniquely female abilities and roles. Women (and men) need to take a step back and begin to base feminism not on the idea that men and women should be the same, but on recognition of the truth that men and women are incredibly different, yet equally valuable.

More on the Vagina Monologues

From Rev. Shanley, of Providence College, on why his school would not perform Eve Ensler's play. A beautiful statement on how the play is in complete contradiction with the Church's teaching on female sexuality and dignity.

http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/LoveResponsibilityProject/CampaigntoStoptheVMonologues/FatherShanleyStatementontheMonologues/tabid/90/Default.aspx

Critique of "The Vagina Monologues"

So, I finally made the effort to read “The Vagina Monologues” in their entirety. I expected to not agree with them, but after reading the script and seeing several of the monologues on YouTube, I wonder if I am missing something. Is this really supposed to be funny? And how, exactly, to they combat violence against women? Either there is something I don’t get, or our culture is even more sick and twisted than I realized. My primary concerns with the Monologues are four:

1.It promotes the view that a woman cannot be comfortable with her body unless she is willing to flaunt and talk about her individual body parts and talk about intimate and private topics pertaining to her own sexuality.
2.It degrades and objectifies women insofar as it equates them with their sexual organ and their happiness with sexual pleasure. Further, it degrades sex itself by equating good sex with sex that physically pleases the female.
3.Rather than fighting the existence of rape and sexual assault, The Vagina Monologues demonizes all men while simultaneously glorifying rape of women by women.
4.The Monologues are overwhelmingly one-sided, that is, pro-sex. Even the women who have been raped revel in their practice of pre-marital sex.

1) Eve Ensler began asking women about their sexual organs because she believed that order for women to truly be liberated and empowered, they needed to be comfortable talking about their bodies and, specifically, the parts of their bodies that made them uncomfortable. Ensler says, “women's empowerment is deeply connected to their sexuality.” Even if we concede this point to Ms. Ensler, why does a woman need to strut around on stage talking about her physical sexuality or, at least, listen to another woman do so to be comfortable with her sexuality? To me, the mark of a healthy sexuality is modesty. It is the girls who flaunt their bodies and their sexual conquests who are usually the most insecure and/or damaged. Do women need to talk about their vaginas? Yes, with their doctors. They do not need to describe their sexual organ in a graphic and obscene manner to large audiences.


2) The monologue by the lawyer-turned lesbian prostitute opens, “I love vaginas. I love women. And I don’t see them as separate.” Wow. Haven’t feminists been fighting for years and years for women to be respected for their intellect and personality? So, why is it wrong to believe that women’s only value lies in their physical beauty but OK to equate women with a single part of their body? Another character in the play says (to the girl he is having a one-night stand with), “I have to look…It’s who you are…I have to look.” He is, of course, talking about looking at her vagina. This line is not quite as distressing as the lesbian prostitute’s claim, but it nevertheless supports the same premise. Women essentially are their sexual organ. If my value had to be judged by a single one of my organs, I would rather choose my heart, or my brain.

Not only does the play equate women with their sexual organ, but it also equates female happiness with sexual pleasure. And sexual pleasure, apparently, should come before other needs and considerations. One woman says that her vagina would say, “use me,” and “stop thinking so much and have a good time.” The latter quote seems to be the hallmark of the modern pro-sex portion of the feminist movement. Stop thinking and just have sex. Right. Because women probably don’t need their brains anyhow.

The character who delivers the monologue called “The Angry Vagina” rants, "They hate, hate, hate, hate, hate to see a woman having pleasure. Particularly sexual pleasure. I say make a nice pair of white cotton underpants with a french tickler built in." She then describes how this would make women so much happier and their lives so much better because they would be released from the patriarchal and oppressive culture that invented thongs, tampons and speculums. (And about that, I'm sorry, but tampons and Gynecologists are not tools used to oppress women. What degrades women is the culture that makes a play like this OK, a culture that sees women and sex as inseparable, a culture that objectifies women, equates them with their sexual organ and calls it empowerment. That is degrading. Talking about something private and personal and making a joke out of it, that is degrading. Women will always be degraded until they are respected for truly being women and for fulfilling the roles that God by nature intended them to fulfill.) Anyhow, I really don’t think women can be liberated by masturbation. To suggest that they can is actually absurd. Women are not made truly happy by meaningless, disconnected sexual pleasure and it takes a heck of a lot more to make all humans, male and female, really happy than an orgasm.

The feminists have now one-upped the patriarchal society they sought to overthrow. Whereas women have traditionally been reduced to the status of inferior humans by equating their happiness with being a useful possession of their husband’s, The Vagina Monologues reduces women to the status of animals by equating their happiness with the satisfaction of their sexual urges.

When women who are trying to become liberated and empowered instead make themselves co-conspirators in their own degradation, there is some serious evil at work. The twisting of Ensler’s (admittedly good) intentions into something so sickening as this play is surely the work of the Devil himself.

3) One of The Monologues central claims to fame is the fact that it combats violence against women. The problem is, this is not so much a fact as a completely unfounded assertion. The play in fact suggests that heterosexual sex is inherently unhealthy by portraying all but one of the male characters as brutal rapists or otherwise unsavory characters (even the father who tries to save his daughter from rape is portrayed negatively). On the other hand, lesbian relationships are glorified, even when they are profoundly unhealthy.

The lesbian prostitute, er, “sex worker,” says that she “dominates” women, sometimes using ropes, whips or handcuffs. There are two things seriously wrong with this. First of all, prostitution, or sex work, is profoundly degrading, dehumanizing and damaging. It should not be lauded. I think that the attempt by modern feminists to ‘normalize’ prostitution is an attempt to humanize and thus help the prostitute herself, a noble goal indeed. Yet this is another trick of the Devil. When a person is deeply hurt and damaged, it does not help to tell her that she is not, in fact, hurt. It does not help her to support the behavior that continues to deepen her wound. When Jesus encountered prostitutes and adulteresses, he did not save them by telling them they had done no wrong. Rather, out of love for them, he forgave them their sins and bid them to sin no more. To normalize and even praise prostitution is not loving, but cruel and degrading.

Not only does the monologue by the prostitute, which is called “The Moaner,” praise prostitution, but also sado-masochism. How can a practice that physically puts women in bondage and causes them physical pain possibly be liberating?

What is even more disturbing than “The Moaner” is the monologue in which a women describes the memory of her rape by an older woman and calls it her “salvation.” Basically, a 16 year old girl meets a 24 year old woman. The 24 year old seduces her, getting her drunk and then engaging in intense sexual activity with her. In the original script, this woman says, “If it was rape, it was good rape.” How can a play that purports to fight all violence against women admit that rape can be good? Rape, and all forms of unhealthy sex, can never be good, but can only be damaging and hurtful.

4) Although Ensler claims to have interviewed hundreds of women, she selected only a few to include in her play. None of the interviews she selected are from the point of view of a girl who practiced chastity. This is not surprising, but it is nonetheless lamentable. Ensler is trying to tackle female sexuality, but she does not even attempt to engage the question of whether or not premarital sex is OK. Indeed, none of her monologues even talk about the loss of virginity.

In the one monologue in which a rape is described in graphic and horrifying detail, the rape is juxtaposed with the experiences that the same woman had of premarital sexual encounters, which are described as blissful. I am not trying to demonize Ensler’s point of view in the debate about premarital sex, I am only saying that a fair and balanced look at sexuality needs to engage both points of view.



One other thing that I found deeply disturbing was the fact that because Ensler’s play focuses only on the physical aspects of female sexuality, it makes it seem as if the most important consequences of sex and even rape are physical. The emotions connected to sexuality are never discussed. According to the play, sex is good when it produces pleasure and bad when it causes physical harm. This oversimplification leads to an impossibly warped moral code.

To those who would tell me that I am taking this all too seriously and that the play is just in good fun, I would respond, “impossible.” The play cannot claim to be a comedy and simultaneously claim to deal seriously with the mystery of human sexuality and the tragedies of rape and sexual violence. The two claims are not compatible.

And finally, does nobody else find this stuff simply bizarre? I mean, forget offensive, it is just weird. Almost cultlike. Ensler’s book has been described as the “bible” for the modern woman and Ensler herself used religious language when she said in an interview that vaginas deserve “awe” and “reverence.” Another one of Ensler’s more off the wall claims is, “A patriarchal culture is waging war on vaginas. You wouldn't come up with something like thong underwear if you started with a great love and appreciation of your vagina.” Even if the thong didn’t originate as a male article of clothing and even if the man credited with inventing the thong for women wasn’t a gay activist (hardly the typical representative of a traditional, patriarchical society), Ensler’s quote is downright weird. Far from being the visionary that modern feminists think she is, I have a suspicion that Eve Ensler may be patently insane.

"Nerdisms"

... when you go to purchase the books for your "Medieval Women Mystics" class and you already own two of the titles. (Julian of Norwich and Saint Angela de Foligno, in case you are wondering).

...when your best Christmas presents consist of an a New Testament with 8 translations, a movie about a saint, a book about the virtue of chastity and interlinear Septuagint.

On McGovern’s Article About Bush’s Impeachment

George McGovern's article can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404308_2.html

First of all, I would like to say that I never wanted to be an apologist for the Bush regime. I don’t think Bush is a particularly good president, and I disagree with many of the actions he has taken since being in office. However, I find that I am often thrust into this position by the obstinate exaggeration I find in attacks against him.

George McGovern recently wrote an article called, “Why I Believe Bush Must Go.” The article argues for Bush’s impeachment based on a number of examples of alleged contempt for the law on the part of our president. Mcovern cites Bush’s “questionable” election, the Iraq war, Guantanamo Bay, the most recent report on Iran’s nuclear development programs, the fact that Bush has less international support than did his father, and Bush’s alleged violation of FISA law.

McGovern opens his article by suggestion that Bush’s claim to the presidency is illegitimate. The primary argument against the legitimacy of the 2000 elections is the fact that Gore won the popular vote, but did not win the Electoral College. The 2000 elections were the third time in U.S. history that this phenomenon has occurred. Although the election may seem unfair to Bush’s opponents, it was nevertheless legal. McGovern argues that the election was so “questionable” that it warranted a congressional investigation. Yet Congress certified the result of the electoral vote.

McGovern has a number of arguments about why Bush’s handling of the Iraq war was illegal. While I think one would be hard-pressed to argue that Bush did not seriously bungle the occupation of Iraq, I think it would be equally difficult to legitimately argue that he acted illegally. McGovern’s first argument is that Bush never procured a declaration of war from Congress. True, Congress never issued an official declaration of war. But in October 2002, Congress passed the Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, which authorized the military to use the strategy that it in fact used in Iraq. Thus, what become known as the “Iraq War” was indeed sanctioned by Congress. Congress has approved the occupation or Iraq insofar as Congress holds the power of the purse and has had to approve budgetary allocations for the effort.

McGovern’s second argument is one that, although it was long ago discredited, continues to pop up amongst those who spend their time demonizing the administration. He claims that Bush “repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public” about Hussein’s possession of nuclear weapons. Most importantly, Bush did not ‘lie to’ or ‘deceive’ anyone; rather, he was acting on the basis of the best and most credible intelligence that was available to him. Even if no weapons of mass destruction had been found after the 2003 invasion, the distinction between lying and being mistaken remains an important one. But the fact of the matter is, weapons were found in Iraq after the invasion. Although no evidence of an ongoing program was found, hundreds of WMDs that Hussein had supposedly destroyed were found in Iraq.*

McGovern also harps on the massive number of deaths that the Iraqi population has sustained since the U.S. invasion. The carnage that has occurred in Iraq is tragic and completely unjustifiable. Yet the high death toll is not solely Bush’s fault. McGovern cites over 600,000 Iraqi deaths. Yet the study he cites includes both violent and non-violent deaths. That means that his figure includes those killed by coalition forces, those killed by Iraqi insurgency and those killed by general increased violence and lawlessness, decreased standards of healthcare, etc. Deaths of Iraqis, while tragic, do not constitute illegal behavior on the part of the President. I personally don’t think that we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, but impeaching the President will do nothing to stem the incredible violence in Iraq. (Troop surges apparently will).

Finally, McGovern calls the argument that the Iraqi government was connected with the terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks a “blatant lie.” The connection was certainly exaggerated by the administration, but it was not a blatant lie. Hussein’s connection to various terrorist groups is well documented and, in the case of Palestinian suicide bombers, very public knowledge. Hussein’s connection to terrorism and even to some of the men involved in the 9/11 attacks is documented in Stephen Hayes’ book, The Connection.**

McGovern laments the fact that “habeus corpus” was not extended to the prisoner’s in Guantanamo Bay. He seems to have forgotten that the right of habeus corpus as found in the Constitution does not apply to prisoners of war who are not even U.S. citizens. There have been a number of Supreme Court cases on Guantanamo Bay, and these cases, not impeachment, are necessary to ensure legality.

McGovern cites Bush’s recent behavior with regards to the report stating that Iran has stopped “weaponizing.” He claims that Bush received the report in August and has since then been lying to the American public. But to say that Iran still has a nuclear program and is capable of creating nuclear weapons is not a lie. What Iran has stopped doing, that is, weaponizing, is the easy part. The enrichment of uranium is the hard part, and Iran still refuses to stop enriching. Many countries do not enrich their own uranium, but receive enriched uranium from other, less dangerous countries. Because Iran enriches its own uranium, and has the capacity to enrich it to be weapons-grade, it could begin the weaponizing process at any time and have nuclear weapons within a negligible amount of time.

McGovern compares the international support that the first Bush had during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait with the lack of international support for the second Bush. Today, the international community won’t even support a resolution to intervene in Darfur. Intervention in Darfur is at least as obviously necessary as was the intervention expelling Iraq from Kuwait. So we must question the necessity of support from an international community so crippled that it cannot even agree to intervene to put an end to genocide.

Finally, McGovern ends with what is perhaps the most popular argument for Bush’s impeachment, his alleged violation of FISA law. Opponents of the regime, including McGovern, claim that Bush’s order for extensive wiretapping violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Yet five FISA judges testified before Congress that Bush’s actions did not, in fact, violate any law.

What is most disturbing about McGovern’s article is not his negligent bending of facts, but his portrayal of the Bush administration as something approaching Orwellian standards. McGovern and others repeatedly use the phrase, “climate of fear” and McGovern describes the U.S. situation as “a quagmire of killing, immorality and lawlessness.” This language represents a monstrous exaggeration. This tendency to exaggerate is prevalent in arguments against the current administration from all sources. A friend of mine with whom I was recently having a political debate described his life as “inhumanely degraded by the insidious grip of a fear mongering government.” Let’s be quite clear, this is a kid who attends a top university and has a very comfortable life. The situation being described here is Burma, is Sudan, is Stalin’s Russia. It is not the United States. Whatever the U.S.’ flaws, our government has not yet become a brutal dictatorship. To suggest that it has shows astounding ingratitude. I’m not sure if this point of view is a product of ignorance or of boredom. Have we become so bored with our own comfortable democracy that we need to find excitement by deluding ourselves into thinking we live in the world of Orwell’s 1984?


*http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
**Hayes’ articles on the subject can be found here: http://www.husseinandterror.com/hayes.htm