Polarization and Politics

A friend recently resigned from her teaching position at a public high school. The students were having intercourse in the classroom while she was teaching. I assume this is a rare and extreme case; at the local blue-ribbon, top-rated public high school, the students show restraint, saving sex until they can get to the restroom.

I live in a cave, but I am not naive. People of reproductive age will in fact reproduce. What alarms is that the public school administrators are both persuaded they are unable to enforce a no-copulation zone, and also that they do not feel any obligation to attempt it.

These are public schools, so there are facts that don’t apply to, say, your local bar or brothel:

We taxpayers are required by law to send our money to these schools, under pain of fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of assets.
Parents are required by law to send their children to these schools. If they do not do so, their children can be taken from them.

Most parents do not have an alternative public school available. Most parents cannot afford private school tuition. Homeschooling is daunting for most and impossible for many; appeasing the authorities is an on-going problem.

But what stands out most about this problem: No one really seems to care.

Why isn’t this in the news? Why isn’t this a hot topic at school board and superintendent elections? How can a school be top-ranked, or a county promote itself as “A Great Place For Families”, when this is the atmosphere in which students are expected to learn?

Apparently there is a vast gulf between those who feel these sorts of things are a serious problem, and those who feel they are no big deal*.

I keeping hearing all these complaints that American politics is so “polarized”. This is why.

*I don’t think this is a left-right divide. Not at all.

Rant-o-Rama: Trinkets of Death

Do you love the planet? Or the poor? Or low gas prices?

Boycott Dollar Tree*.

Okay, not specifically Dollar Tree. Just all cheap plastic trinkets. The adorable ones from Target. The bargain ones from Walmart. The pious ones from Oriental Trading Company. And especially the ones in your McDonald’s happy meal. Here’s why:

Plastic trinket are made from fossil fuels. Better to ship those barrels of oil straight to the strategic national fuel reserve.
More fuel is spent manufacturing the trinkets. At factories that might not be so zero emissions?
Using labor that could have been spent producing something a person actually needs, such as food, shelter, or clean water.
More fuel (and labor) is spent shipping the trinkets to your local trinket store.
Where you waste your time wandering around dazed and confused until your mind deforms under the glare of the flourescent lights.
When you could have been doing something wholesome and productive, like playing video games, or gambling.
And then the children who receive the trinkets will fight over them with their siblings.
If they have no siblings, they will find some.
The trinkets will end up lodged in some essential piece of household machinery.
And then you will put them in the landfill.

Trinkets do not build wealth. Trinkets do not help the economy. They are a transfer payment that wastes natural resources. If you want to do a good work with your $.97, invest in the production of a good or service people actually need.

End of rant.

*No bloggers darkened the door of Dollar Tree to ascertain what portion of the merchandise is trinkets. 100% of the Dollar Tree items purchased for the Fitz home happen to be trinkets. But no doubt Dollar Tree sells worthy items as well. Purchase those.

What use a Classics Degree?

Darwin answers the question:

This isn’t because a degree in the humanities is “useless”. I believe that learning Greek, Latin, history and philosophy was very useful to me. But it was useful to me in the sense that a liberal art is meant to be useful — in allowing one to think like a “free man”. It is not useful in the sense of providing instant and easy employment. I think that it would be helpful if colleges and departments were a little more honest about this. It would also be very, very helpful if people took it into account before blithely borrowing large amounts of money. (And if people were less blithe about borrowing so much money in order to fund college degrees, perhaps the absurd rate of tuition increase would slow down. You may be assured that one of the things allowing universities to make off like bandits is that people have the illusion that having a degree, any degree, is an automatic ticket to a “good job”.)

He also confirms that Rush Limbaugh is not a classicist. Apparently people were confused on that point.

***

Meanwhile, Archbishop Chaput demonstrates how to use such an education. From his “On Being Human in an Age of Unbelief”:

That leads to my fourth and final point. The pro-life movement needs to be understood and respected for what it is: part of a much larger, consistent, and morally worthy vision of the dignity of the human person. You don’t need to be Christian or even religious to be “pro-life.” Common sense alone is enough to make a reasonable person uneasy about what actually happens in an abortion. The natural reaction, the sane and healthy response, is repugnance.

The whole thing is excellent, and eminently readable. Print it out and read it on paper, because it merits sitting down and giving it your full attention. Great essay to discuss with your high school or college student.

Logic, Criticism, & the 99%

There are two critiques of the 99% movement that I’ve seen floating around, that I wanted to address. The first is this:

“You are criticizing capitalism, but you own a __[insert name of product manufactured by said capitalists]___”

There’s a little bit of truth in this criticism: Obviously someone who owns a smart phone isn’t secretly longing to run away and join the Amish. (Who are capitalists, by the way. They just aren’t no-holds-barred, if-I-can-than-it-is-good capitalists.)

But I think the criticism also points to a bigger problem: Consumers do not bear the primary responsibility for the behavior of their suppliers. It is the job of the supplier to be a responsible employer and manufacturer. A boycott is a useful tool, but it is one that only works at the extremes, when there is a known, egregious violation. I can’t possibly know the inner workings of every manufacturer whose products I consume. It is too big a task. And to simply Boycott Everything and go be Amish is not the solution (unless you just want to be Amish, a worthy pursuit but not a universal vocation); boycotting every manufactured good also hurts honest employers and employees.

And then there’s the question of how evil is too evil? Again, boycotting is a great tool for serious, longstanding, public offenses. But it would be entirely reasonable, say, for someone who hired me to both say, “Jen, you need to come to work on time and get your projects done by deadline,” and at the same time, not fire me because I was five minutes late. Or ten minutes. Or an hour. It’s up to the judgment of my employer to choose what combination of actions are the best way to deal with my transgression. Entirely reasonable to both reprimand me severely, and keep me in their employ a little longer. Public protest is the reprimand, boycott is the layoff.

–> In the case of the OWS, since protestors do not themselves have the authority to step in and oversee corporate operations, it is reasonable to insist that the proper authorities do what is necessary.

(We can agree or not on whether those demands have merit. No one claims the OWS people even agree on these matters. And I certainly don’t hold with violent protest of any kind. I only argue here that our criticism of the criticizers ought to stick to logical arguments.)

UPDATE: Darwin points out in the combox that some OWS protesters really do want to dismantle capitalism. So he is correct, to criticize that portion of the group for using the fruits of capitalism is a legitimate argument.

The second criticism I’m hearing:

“You aren’t poor. You have all this great stuff like running water and cell phones. Quit complaining.”

What is the logic behind this kind of accusation:

If you aren’t the victim, you aren’t allowed to protest injustice?
If the robber is leaving you with all the stuff you really need, it’s okay if he just slips in and takes off with a few trinkets?
If your pimp / master / feudal lord sees that your basic needs are met, therefore sex-trafficking / slavery / serfdom are acceptable social structures?
You aren’t being pimped / enslaved / bound to the land, quit griping that you can’t afford the surgery you need?

Again, this is not a defense of any particular item on the all-purpose protest agenda of the OWS folk. Only an observation that if you are going to critique someone’s arguments, critique their arguments. Is there nothing to protest? Then show that in fact our government is run fairly and efficiently, the needs of the poor are tended to adequately, workers are paid reasonable wages, and there is therefore no need for change of this or that type.

It is both fun and helpful to debate actual economic questions. So do that.

Health Insurance Regulations – Go Comment

The Impractical Catholic has a very practical link to how to submit your comments on the new health insurance regulations. Click on his link, it is very easy from there. You can scroll through the regulations to make sure you know what you are talking about, and then submit the comment of your choice.

Naturally I forgot to copy mine for posterity before it submitted, by my talking points were this:

I quoted the bit about how the goal of the religious exemption was to protect houses of worship.
I observed this was too narrow a view of “religious institution”, that did not represent the reality of religious institutions such as hospitals, schools, and other benevolent works.
I proposed a compromise, in which employees of such institutions could choose either to accept the employer-provided plan, or use a cash allowance of the same value to purchase the plan of their choice from another source.
In that way, the religious employer is not required to directly fund a health care plan that includes treatments contrary to its religious tenets, but employees remain free to choose some other plan as they see fit.

I didn’t say it, but it’s a bit like the difference between saying, “every employee shall be given a per-diem allowance to pay for travel expenses at a hotel or brothel”, versus specifying a per diem amount per day, and leaving it to the employee to decide where he wishes to lodge.

So that’s what I wrote. Go write something yourself. It is so easy and fast. Really, it is.

Okay, here’s the link directly to regulations.gov that I followed from Impractical Catholic’s post. Go. Now. Seriously.

***

Also: Reconsider giving your nine-year-old a blog on the same blogging program you yourself use. I almost posted this on a hot-pink ProudKittyCat blog. That woulda made the grandparents raise an eyebrow.

“But I am not that attractive . . .”

I was in a private conversation with a young woman a few years ago, and the topic was modesty. No, she told me, she didn’t think outfit she had shown me was a problem. Her reasoning?

I’m not that attractive.

She meant it.

Let me tell you, she was and is BEAUTIFUL. I don’t just mean “all young women have a special inner beauty of their own if they just let it shine blah blah blah.” I mean like, Wow! Gorgeous!

–> One thing Jon and I discovered when we quit watching TV many years ago, is that our sense of beauty readjusted. Our brains no longer held up some kind of fake, air-brushed perfect standard as the model to which all humans must be compared. It is a kind of freedom.

Girls today are not growing up in my little cave of normalcy. They are surrounded by images everywhere of Perfect People. Those people are pretend. They are fake. They are like the hamburger in the picture on the menu at the fast food restaurant.

But here’s the thing about modesty: Men are perfectly happy with regular hamburgers. They don’t need it all fluffed and shellacked and with lettuce and onions hanging out just right to show off what’s inside. Maybe you have to photograph a hamburger just right to sell it to a girl. But all you have to do is say, “Hey, hamburgers!” and the guys will line up.

Really.

Girls, even if you aren’t super gorgeous, guys are THAT interested in you, just because you are a girl. You! Yes, you! You don’t need to “sell” yourself. You don’t need to put your every asset on display. Be a kind, friendly person who cares about others. That’s what real men are looking for in a wife.

PS: Betty Beguiles comes well-recommended, if you are looking for fashion ideas that show off the best you, without showing off more of you than needs to be public. Thank you to the Dorian/Bearing blogging powerhouse for their regular reminders that I really need to subscribe.

[And if you make a point of not showing off your body, you’ll eliminate from the field all the jerky dogs who are only interested in that, and who will drop you in ten years if you don’t stay perfect enough. You don’t need that. Do you have ten years to waste, and no desire to find a guy who loves you for YOU? No. Use the power of clothing to cull the field of the losers.]

Be Modest at Church in Four Easy Steps

This topic has been in my head for a while, and I was waiting for fall so no one would be embarrassed. But this article here got my attention, courtesy of I think maybe Fr. Z or the Pulp.it or maybe both — primarily thanks to my being wound up late at night and goofing off.

What I see at Mass — and of course out in the wider world — is that a lot of really good Catholics don’t have a clue about modesty. These are super wonderful people. Kind, pious, regular mass-goers who are living out the Christian life day after day. And honestly? They are trying to be modest.

–> My experience is that the people who struggle most in the two-few-clothes department are the more pure among us. It doesn’t occur to them just how weak their fellows can be. It’s like putting out giant trays of brownies because it just never occurs to you that some people will be tempted to eat too many. (But some of us? Yes we will be.)

***

But our culture’s at the point where vendors of athletic clothing think nothing of mailing out catalogs with ladies in their bras on the cover. And not a sports bra. I mean, underwear-underwear, done pin-up style.

[Hint to businesses: If my son has to carry in a picture of a seductively-posed almost-naked lady from the mailbox, I am never buying your products again. Did I say that clearly enough?]

And that was the event today that made me decide it was time to share the Four Easy Steps. Because when you live in a world where everybody everywhere is forgetting to put their clothes on, it’s really hard to know what’s modest and what’s not. And all the great essays about “Put on your clothes! But it’s really about internal holiness and don’t be judgmental!” don’t really help, if no one will tell you which clothes you are missing.

So here you go, Four Easy Steps for Dressing Modestly at Mass:

Cover your shoulders.
Cover your knees.
Don’t show any cleavage.
Tailored is good, tight is bad.

And that’s it. Follow those rules, and you will have to really goof it up to not be wearing enough clothes.

Now for some clarifications. Consider this the advanced course:

1. Actually I don’t think bare shoulders are always and everywhere a near occasion to sin. Witness what I wore to my dad’s wedding, and what my own daughters wore last May for the crowning of the Blessed Mother. This can be done modestly, or modestly-enough. Lots of not-immodest sleeveless outfits at my church. But it is so, so easy to go wrong. And it’s just not worth agonizing over. Put on a little sweater and you know you’re good. Buy something with sleeves, you’re good. Why argue about strap thickness when it so, so easy to just be sure?

UPDATED to point you to a quote in the combox. A reader asked about sleeve length. I gave it my guess, and then asked the guys for an opinion. Christian LeBlanc came to the rescue with his usual no-nonsense analysis:

Short or long sleeves, either is ok.

No sleeves starts to distract. Thin straps/ bare shoulders/ bare backs distract more.

It has to do with the amount of skin, I think, even though the skin exposed is basically mundane.

–> So there you go. Not just me makin’ things up to repress the masses. Guys notice this stuff. Be kind to them. They are trying to pray.

(And anway, you know you are freezing at church. They set the A/C so that poor man saying Mass in all those vestments on a 105 degree day doesn’t fall over.)

2. Ditto for knees. I did a quick look-around the last couple weeks, and sure enough, there are tons of ladies at my parish wearing just-above-the-knee skirts that were perfectly modest. The trouble is this: It’s really hard for the modern-media-saturated brain to distinguish between the skirt that is long enough, and the one that is not. Who runs around with a ruler in hand, figuring out the perfect modesty formula? Knees, on the other hand . . . almost everyone has knees. They are easy to identify, so you can tell right away whether they are visible or not.

–> Once again, this is a rule I don’t always follow. (See “Dad’s wedding” above. Plus of course in regular outside-of-Mass life, I wear shorts. It’s summer. Shorts. Summer. Shorts. They go together.) But you know, I’d be willing to sacrifice an outfit or two, in my fictional world where parishes made dress codes, if it meant my son doesn’t have to look at swimsuit models at church. Cover the knees at Mass and it’s hard to go wrong.

3. Cleavage. Cover. The. Cleavage. Do you know what that part of your body is for? It is for feeding your baby. Do you know that when you walk into Mass with those girls on display, it makes nursing babies and toddlers hungry? And it attracts other attention as well. Do you honestly want people salivating at the sight of you? As in, actual drool? Are you ready to feed the masses to whom you are advertising? No. Save it for your own baby.

This is a rule for 100% of the time, everywhere you go. Fabric is your friend. Cover the cleavage.

[Perfectly fine to be actually feeding a person during Mass. If that person if your offspring, not yet to the age of reason. Good, holy, necessary thing to do. With the cleavage covered.]

4. Tailored yes, tight, no. This is another pretty firm rule. Okay, so my daughters were telling me today that my t-shirt was tight, and I promise it was not, but, you know there’s a few decades there where the ol’ body stockpiles emergency calories just in case, and so yeah, there is a certain subgroup for whom staying ahead of the fitted-versus-tight curve is kind of a challenge. I suppose we need to fast more. But even with that allowance made, yes there should be some measurable amount of air between your body and your outer garments.

These aren’t rules for all time. These are rules that work for 2011 in most parishes in the United States. They err on the conservative side, not because I think you need to be extra-conservative, but just to make things really silly easy.

If you are currently wearing not that many clothes to Mass, give them a try. You can say some lady on the internet dared you do it.

You’ll be more comfortable indoors when the A/C is set too high, but you won’t be too hot standing outside on the patio after Mass, chatting with your friends. You’ll attract the attention of the kinds of men and boys you actually want to meet. The ones who care about you, and see you as a real live person, not just as a pin-up model or an underwear catalog. Mothers of teenage sons will thank you.

Try it. What can it hurt?

Pagans & Tax Collectors

In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus gives instructions on how to handle sin in the Church. There’s a method, and it’s pretty simple: You give the guy multiple chances to understand that he has gone astray, starting with the most discreet options, but eventually bringing in the teaching authority of the Church herself if necessary.

And what if he refuses to listen even to the Church? Jesus says this:

“Treat him as you would a Pagan, or a tax collector”.

And that’s the process.

The first steps are pretty straightforward, though maybe not real popular. Since it involves you personally, refraining from gossip and instead pulling on the grown-up suit and figuring out how you are going to convince someone else what is right and wrong. With the actual goal of persuading the person to repent and reform, instead of the much more self-gratifying goal of venting your anger and maybe getting in a few good digs while you’re at it.

[Remember: If the guy doesn’t listen to you, then you’re supposed to go get other members of the church to come help persuade. And you know those other members are going to ask about how the first conversation went. So you better not have said something really mean and stupid. Yeah, I know. No one really likes this passage. I’m so much better at “mean and stupid” than “charitable and helpful”.]

But let’s skip ahead to the unrepentant sinner – which includes a subset, the unrepentant dissenter. This is the part hand-rubbing pundits love, because you get to pull out the big guns. You maintained composure through all those edifying discussions, and now, now!, finally!, you get to give the guy what he deserves and Treat Him Like A Pagan. Or a tax collector. Your choice.

When I see editorial on this passage, what I often see is the Freaked Out Jesus Method* of biblical interpretation. We, the readers, see words like “sinner” “Pagan” and “tax collector”, and we insert BAD, BAD, and BAD. And if Bad then Mad, right? So we picture Jesus: Impatient with sinners, ready to toss transgressor outta the church, and here’s how to get rid of ‘em, make sure you do the job thoroughly. Don’t be Mr. Nice Guy, apostles and disciples, or Jesus will be Mad at YOU too.

Except that Jesus doesn’t actually treat Pagans and tax collectors this way. What does Jesus do for Pagans and tax collectors? He invites them to dinner. He heals their sick. He praises what faith they have. He invites them take of the Living Water.

In summary: Jesus evangelizes.

That’s the method. If one of your brothers sins against you, and he won’t listen to the Church, try to win him back.

***

There is a sting, though, in this instruction. And here is where I think the courage of the Church fails most.

See, everybody wants to stay “catholic”.

It’s pretty funny, really. None of my Pagan or tax-collector friends are upset about not being Catholic. They don’t sit around stewing and accusing the Church of cruelty on account of how Pagans aren’t Catholic and Catholics aren’t Pagans. Everyone fully grasps the notion that there are things you have to be willing to believe and do if you want to be Catholic, and well, if you wanted to do and think such things, you wouldn’t be Pagan.

But unrepentant and dissenting Christians often are resentful of the notion that they have left the bounds of the fold of the Church.

Regular Pagans recognize the authority of the Church over its members, and choose not to be part of that Church. Dissenters want to be counted as part of the Church, but without recognizing that the Church has an authoritative teaching office that Christians need obey.

—-> For all the noise about ‘closed communion’, I’ve never once had a non-catholic friend be upset about it, after I explained why we did things how we do. No sane person wants to be publicly labeled as “believes in the Real Presence” and “accepts the teachings of the Church”, if they don’t actually believe such things. Catholic doctrine is, you know, a little crazy, huh? Would you want to have walked around New York in 1750 with a big stamp on your head that said “Thinks Humans Can Fly”??. Until you knew for sure that hot-air balloons worked, you wouldn’t want the crazy-label. Once you knew, you’d be proud of it. But until then, no.

In contrast, dissenting Catholics cling to their ‘rights’ with bitter furor. Try to tell a formerly-Catholic hospital** or college that they need to quit claiming Catholicism now that they’ve quit teaching and practicing Catholicism . . . and the drama . . . oh my goodness the drama.

The scandal isn’t that this or that person or institution is non-Catholic.

My local county hospital isn’t Catholic, my State U alma mater isn’t Catholic, and most of friends are not Catholic. Pagans and tax collectors all of them. For the longest time, I was even married to one of these people. (He seems to have come out of it. Yay!) No drama necessary.

Jesus isn’t freaking out. He wants every one back into the Church, and He’ll do any good thing to make that happen. Have you to dinner, heal your servant, die on the cross for you – there is no limit to His mercy.

But the Gospels do tell us this: Don’t be crazy.

Sane people know what they do and don’t believe.

If someone has ceased to believe and practice the Catholic faith, put your head on straight and acknowledge the fact. Non-Catholics and former-Catholics are no scandal. Open wide your arms and give whatever you legitimately can to help and befriend.

Bad Catholics? No surprise there, we announce our sinfulness at every Mass. Forgive us seventy-times-seven times, and remind us in no uncertain terms what the Church really teaches. Accept our repentance, over and over and over again.

But fake Catholics? That is scandal and madness.

Turn on your brain, and respectfully acknowledge the former Catholic has stepped outside the fold. You can’t welcome someone back into the house, if you are busy pretending they’ve never gone out.

* See two posts below for an explanation of the FOJM. WordPress refuses to let me make links today.

**Ack, I hate link failure. Here’s a great piece on the current round of Catholic hospital scandals: http://defend-us-in-battle.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-providence-hospital-situation-isnt.html

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: