So many things to discuss, and no idea where to start...
There's the China letter, though I have yet to see reaction and really have not given it an inordinate amount of thought. One sneaking suspicion, seconded at dinner the other night by someone who has long experience in HS-gov relations, is that the whole thing is choreographed. Not in a fake, conspiracy theory sort of way, mind you, just in a "Now, we're agreed regarding the material questions, and here's how it'll play out so that no one loses face," sort of way. More when I have something intelligent to say.
then, there's the brouhaha folks seem to want to stir up between Scalia and Roberts. I do not think it is going anywhere. Roberts has thick skin, and neither man has the kind of ego that would make for voting against professional judgment because of some real or imagined personal animosity. Those on the Court who see clearly, see clearly. Those who are ideologically committed will not be swayed by argument, however cogent, and regardless of the presence of trenchant remarks. This brings me to the point. I admire Scalia's intellect, and substantially agree with him on, well, most things. THis makes it all the more frustrating when he fails to restrain his pen, and in what seem to be veritable paroxysms of arrogant intellectual superiority, calls his fellow justices' opinions, "irrational," "not to be taken seriously," etc. I have never once come across such a statement of his that furthered the substance of his own arguments in any way. Ususally they simply served to impugn the competence of a colleague and insult the intelligence of his readership (I mean, of course the opinion was irrational, and for the reasons you have spelled out so nicely. Why, then, do you need to say it? Why, man? Why?).
There is a great deal more that I would discuss, from the sublime to the ridiculous. Another sign the Apocalypse is near is this Youtube video. You will laugh in spite of yourself.
We love disagreeing, and we would love to disagree with you, but we can only disagree with you if you write to us at:
Of course, there are other reasons for writing to us besides disagreement. Have something you want me to see or maybe treat on the blog? Send it in. Appreciate all the fine work we're doing? Let us know.
A caveat to potential stalkers: writing e-mails in one's own blood is an extremely messy and inefficient business.
A caveat to all would-be correspondents: If you do write, we can publish it. That does not mean we will, though. We are reasonable men. If you want anonymity, just ask for it, and you shall receive it. Just remember: sign with your real name. The first thing we do is check for a real name. We delete all unsigned e-mails.
LD & HP
"Chronicles from the Front" Copyright 2006-2012. All rights reserved.
Not too Shabby for a Tenderfoot
Chronicles from the Front Supports Fr. William Casey, CPM