Vodka pundit -- an actual engineer -- picks up the ball.

Andrew Sullivan publishes an odd email which A) celebrates Derb B) trashes NRO and C) offers some very backhanded compliments at me.

I don't care about the stuff about me. But this "NRO just runs talking points" meme is among the most annoying in the blogosphere, in my book. Anyone who's followed the debates in the Corner, for example, knows that there's very little unanimity on many of the classic talking-point issues. Ramesh, a senior editor of the magazine, is against the "nuclear option." He's also against tax reform. Rich wrote a courageous and definitive cover story on how things went wrong in Iraq -- right before the election. Kate O'Beirne has written powerfully against Bush's faith-based initiative, the Department of Homeland Security etc. I think everyone here opposed the Medicare bill. It's true most of us are in favor of Social Security reform (except for Derb) but why that should automatically be interpreted as talking-pointism is beyond me since the magazine was advocating such measures long before Bush was. David Frum, Ramesh, Rich and Kate have been critical to one degree or another of Bush's immigration policies. And the magazine still opposes the drug war (though I don't). I can't remember the last time I read a celebration of "compassionate conservatism" around here. I could go on and on.

And yes, constructive criticism notwithstanding, we strongly support the administration on the war. But, again, why this should be seen as us taking marching orders from the White House or the GOP is beyond me.

And, sure, we often run pieces from conservatives who support the White House and/or the mainstream conservative position. But, uh, we're a conservative magazine. That's how things work.

I like originality in writing a lot, but originality in the form of contrarianism is only admirable if it is principled and heartfelt. Contrarianism just to be different is sophomoric. Claiming that NRO isn't original when it's speaking from conviction is an asinine criticism.

Again, I wish that people who traffic in this sort of criticism would provide examples, evidence, quotes -- anything to back up such sweeping declarations. I hear this criticism once a week. I hear evidence to back it up almost never.

I'm not now, nor have I ever been, a candidate for student government at Boston University:

Boston University students running for Student Union offices highlighted a need for improved campus communication and unity during the Candidate's Debate Thursday in the George Sherman Union Conference Room.

The Student Union Elections Commission moderated the debate.

Vice-presidential candidate and current Towers Residence Hall President Jonah Goldberg said Union members need to initiate communication between the student government and the student body.

"You will never see me around campus wearing a suit," the College of Communication sophomore said as he stripped out of his formal down to a pair of jeans and a T-shirt.

"You will never see me hide in an office," he said.

Okay one more:

Jonah,

Just to let you know I'm a scientist/engineer
(environmental, no less), and I've got your back.
There are plenty of conservative engineers and
scientists, though they are definitely less prevalent
than they should be.

The main reasons engineers and scientists are often
lefties include:

- Engineers/scientists are rarely part of the popular
crowd growing up, shocking, I know. They see
conservatism as the home of the "normalcy", and thus
constitutionally oppose it.

- I've met several scientists who think anyone who
votes Republican is a snake-handling Jesus-freak.
This is garden variety ignorance, sadly not uncommon.

In academia, other factors also contribute:

- All the other faculty/grad students are raging
lefties. Large collections of stupidity exert a
powerful gravity of foolishness.

- Academics tend to live in the theoretical, rather
than the practical world. In science, in particular,
the theoretical is actually a vital component of
knowledge. In politics, the theoretical is the first
pebble in the rockslide.

- Academics get much of their funding from the
government. The left tends to like spending
government money. Scientists and engineers like to
eat just as much as everyone else, even if they rarely
eat well. :)

And finally, ask Brad where an economist gets off
lecturing you about what engineers and scientists
think. By his standards, he should just shut it until
he has a real degree (note to Brad: talking down to
people is bad enough, but you should at least try not
to condescend to people higher up on the food chain).
Honestly, it doesn't bother me that you or Brad want
to hypothesize about why scientists and engineers
aren't more conservative, but he should at least try
not to use the "I'm so much more versed in this
subject than you" card. It's intellectually lazy and
has not been empirically supported on his part
(science, evidence, and all that).

GOP consultant Arthur Finkelstein married his male partner, according to the New York Times. Someone else can dissect what all that means. But what I loved is this sentence:

Mr. Finkelstein, 59, who has made a practice of defeating Democrats by trying to demonize them as liberal, said in a brief interview that he had married his partner of 40 years to ensure that the couple had the same benefits available to married heterosexual couples.

I've heard this formulation about Finkelstein's (and Atwater's and others') tactics many times. It always fascinates me. Demonize them as liberal. This is a great example of how liberalism is in trouble. Why should it be bad -- never mind "demonizing"! -- to be called a liberal if being liberal is good? The first task for a political movement is to be proud of its own label. Second, is to make others think they might be proud to wear it too.

Relatedly, it really is remarkable how leading liberal politicians switch into a song-and-dance about how they don't believe in labels whenever they're asked the very simple question "Are you a liberal?" The Kerry-esque response is invariably "Oh, I don't believe in buzzwords and labels" or something like that.

From a scientist at a large university out west:

Jonah,

I just got around to reading your article about
Krugman's column. I think you hit the main reason for
a lack of conservatives in the sciences dead on.
Salary matters and leads to strong self-selection.
I'm a chemistry professor on the tenure-track and I
could be making triple what I do now if I'd simply
taken a job in the private sector. (Granted, there
would be cost-of-living considerations if I did this,
since the amount I spent on my 5-bedroom, 1/2 acre
house in my current location would only buy me a
1-bedroom straw hut if I moved to take some private
sector jobs.) Regardless, I want to teach, and I got
into this knowing I wouldn't be making "the big
bucks". Let's face it though, I'm not typical. Given
the choice between a) low salary but "freedom" to
research whatever you want and b) high salary but
research guidelines heavily dictated by your employer,
I think it's reasonable to believe that most liberals
would choose "a" and most conservatives "b".

I suspect that if anyone ever did a survey of all PhDs
in the sciences, you'd find the ones working in the
private sector are considerably more conservative than
the academics are. (I mean really, what liberals are
going to take jobs with the evil oil, energy, consumer
products, or pharmaceutical companies?) We have
plenty of anecdotal evidence now that university
faculties lean overwhelmingly liberal/Democrat (maybe
8:1 nationally, though we're outnumbered 10:1 in my
department, which is in one of the reddest states.)
Yet exit polls, even from 2004, show only ~55/45 split
for the Dems among people with graduate degrees. So
that pretty much means that there has to be a subset
of masters and doctoral people that lean conservative
to balance out all the academics. Are these solely
the MBAs? Maybe--I admit, I haven't crunched the
numbers, but I doubt it. The private sector
scientists I know ARE making the big bucks and don't
like losing 1/2 of it to the government after they've
worked all their lives to get to that spot. On the
other hand, academic scientists are required to beg
the government to provide us with as much money as
possible to do our research. It's part of our job
description and a requirement for tenure for goodness
sake! So of course most of my profession leans
liberal, we all want as much R&D spending as possible,
because the bigger the pie is the greater the
possibility we get more.

One other thing to keep in mind. Krugman points out
that the scientists and engineers in academia lean
left too, presumably to show that the logical,
methodological people are also liberal. But as I try
to point out to my students, scientists aren't special
from other disciplines. We're just as prone to
biases, agendas, and pre-conceived notions while
interpreting data as everyone else. Now, we've been
trained to use methods that are meant to overcome
those problems, if we do our experiments right. But
it doesn't always happen that way. One of my
co-workers likes to say that you go into science
expecting everyone to behave like Mr. Spock--logical
by the book. Only after you get in do you realize
that most everyone is like Dr. McCoy--good scientist,
yes, but usually with a lot of emotion-based
assumptions about how things are supposed to happen.

Well, this email was a lot longer and drifting off
topic than I intended (hey, I am an academic.) But I
wanted to say good job on the article.

[Name and University Withheld]

P.S. while I doubt you will print any of this
longwinded rant, if you do, please don't use my name.
I haven't experienced any political discrimination
during my time here, but I don't have tenure yet, so
no need in asking for it!

This guy does make a point you hear a lot from folks who won't toe the line on global warming etc:

Jonah:

I don't understand the stats on liberal engineers. I am on the faculty of an engineering dept. in a mid-sized Southern university. We have, I think, one Democrat on the faculty, and no real lefties.

Engineering is NOT a 'hard science'. It is in a separate college, and has little or nothing to do with the Arts and Sciences. Generally speaking, the liberals are in places like Physics and Biology. Chemists trend a bit more Republican.

You are wrong on why a professor would become a liberal/left wing nutjob. The answer is money, in particular grants. Liberals dispense them (i.e. our tax dollars) with a lavish hand. All that is needed is a product that backs the liberals up - no real (i.e. successful) output is required. Perfect for academics. Grants are the root of all promotion and tenure, all advances to more prestigious university positions, and all advances to rank of endowed chair, etc. In other words, it's the key to career advancement. It really has little to do with creativity or talent. Particularly in the hard sciences, where industry funding is scarce, getting on some government gravy train can be a career saver. Engineers have a wider variety of funding sources, including industry, and consequently have much less pressure to tow the party line. Ditto with Chemists, who in many cases have extensive industry contacts.

An NRO reader

From a reader:

As a practicing young engineer (30) who knows LOTS of other engineers from all around the country (my company's full of them), I can tell you the following:

1. I got my BS in Engineering at a private religious school in Eastern Washington (red country) where the great majority of the engineering faculty and the engineering students were NOT liberal by today's measures. Friends and acquaintances that attended public schools along the coasts tend to be substantially more liberal.
2. My company has roughly 200 engineers from all around the world, but mostly from the US. There are routine e-mail 'wars' between the left/right factions. especially leading up to the election. I can personally attest to the fact that being an engineer (scientifically/factually oriented) has NOTHING to do with one's political outlook, believe me. Most of my company's liberal engineers tend to be from the coasts, while most of the rest of us are either from fly-over country or, as in my case, attended school there.
3. In my previous job at Boeing (Seattle), the great bulk of the older engineers who made Boeing what it is, were predominantly highly patriotic, chain-smoking, bourbon-drinking, gun-toting, church-going, conservatives. Even the ones that would vote Democrat were more Zell Miller types than what passes for a Democrat these days. The trend toward more liberal engineers is definitely new and again (contrary to DeLong) has NOTHING to do with engineering being a seriously scientific and practical discipline.

Standing up for the conservative engineers,

From a reader:

Hi Jonah,

Full disclosure: I'm a Conservative, Republican, Catholic, Engineer. Many would find this evidence of fundamental internal contradictions. I pull it off seamlessly. This data point may be relevant: I'm over thirty-five (in fact I'm two days away from forty-one).

Not one of DeLong's reasons pass the smell test for me. In fact if anybody told me any one of those was his reason for being a Democrat I'd look around for the hidden camera. I have to concur with your other correspondent's anecdote about young engineers. I've been surprised how many bright young supposedly scientifically trained people are tree-spiking knuckleheads, immune to reason, theory, logic and evidence (or lack thereof) on more than a few issues of interest in contemporary political discourse (The look of wonder on their faces if one questions the fact of global warming is actually worth the price of admission.) I thought it was just because I was getting old and cantankerous.

Who knew?

From a reader:

Jonah, I am an engineer completing my masters degree right now.... I will not be getting a PHD. I just read the post and the thread and I am extremely angry. You are absolutely correct that it is harder for liberal professors to get private sector jobs. In fact it is harder for ANY PHD to get a private sector job. It works as follows:

If you get a PHD you are only going to be able to find work which is directly related to your PHD or Masters research (this is what they told me when I was an undergrad). You will not get a job designing engines if your research is in manufacturing. Also, an engineer with a masters can do pretty much everything that an engineer with a PHD can do. Knowing this, why in the hell would a company pay a PHD $100k/year when they could pay a Masters $70k/year for the exact same work? The only reason (outside of nepotism) is if they want to say "this was designed by so&so, PHD". If you complete a masters degree though, you still have many options. You do not have to go to work in your research field. You can work for almost any company in your discipline doing what ever that company does. I am not going to get a PHD because I don't want to be tied down to one small area of my discipline.

As for your data to back up your claim, I can offer this little gem:

I had a coop (internship) at a nuclear power plant for seven months. There were many employees there as you can imagine. Out of all of these employees there were around 200 engineers. Out of all of these there was only ONE PHD.

Those arrogant pr**ks over at DeLong's website are basically saying that I, and every other engineer out there are morons. I believe that the reason they are in academia is that they were too chicken shit to become real engineers and get liscensed. Because once you are liscensed, you are responsible for your work. Your job is on the line every time you sign off on some component, mechanisim, circuit. If what you worked on fails, than just like a doctor you can and will be sued, or at least your company will be. It is alot of pressure when you think about it. I suspect that those in academia just wanted a comfortable salary, easy summers, and enjoy teaching.

If you want anymore insight into undergrad engineers today I would be happy to tell you what I have observed. There are many reasons on why you shouldn't go to graduate school.

If you post anything from me, please don't put my name. I still have to defend my thesis.

Another:

Hi Jonah,

It is disappointing that you don't even bother to refute Delong's broad brush strokes. So I'll do it for you:

1) Republicans want to control people: Yeah right. It isn't the GOP that is coming up with college campus speech codes and trying to force private clubs (a la Augusta) to conform to their principles.

2) Republican politicians say they don't believe in evolution: What on earth is he talking about? Sure there are some "religious right" Republicans that fit this, but it certainly isn't the majority of the GOP (rank and file or leadership). Certainly most Republican pols will say they believe in God the Creator, but so do most Democrats. I can't recall ever hearing a mainstream Republican denying evolution. Note to Delong: Belief in God does not equal denial of evolution.

3) Man-made CO2 is different from natural CO2: Again, WTF is he talking about? Global warming deniers (of which I am one) believe that man-made greenhouse gases make up a tiny fraction of all greenhouse gases (naturally occurring water vapor is the biggest one by far). If global warming is occurring, 1) it ain't caused by man and 2) cutting CO2 emmissions back to 1990 (or for that matter 1890) levels would have a negligible effect on it. There are plenty of climatologists that will agree with those statements.

4) Republicans are tools of lobbyists and don't listen to evidence: Now he sounds like your good friend, Chait. C'mon...anyone who thinks the GOP is any more or less beholden to "special interests" than Democrats has his head buried deep within the the confins of his backside.

5) Republicans don't understand the importance of investment in education: I'm an engineer. I understand that spending more money on a failing system without fundamental reforms (like introducing competition) just makes it fail more spectacularly. When we are spending an average of $10K per student in the public school system and the average graduate can't do basic math or understand the scientific method at its simplest levels, it doesn't take a Bachelor's of Science in Computer Engineering from Penn State and a 3.7 GPA to realize that the public education system is failing. It doesn't take a 10 years of experience in software developement with companies like Raytheon and EDS to understand that our college campuses have become less centers of education and more centers of liberal indoctrination.

Delong's statements are completely ridiculous. Very few engineers that I know would agree with his 5 statements. Probably because all the ones I know left the campus and got real jobs. The ones he knows probably were too scared to enter the real world where one must produce something of value to earn one's bread...

I get the feeling from people like him that some people (both liberal and conservative) harbor misconceptions of their political opposites and base all their views on those absurd misconceptions.

I'm not going to post all of 'em. I have a lot of work to do this weekend and I doubt there'd be that much patience for that. Still i'll put up a few. The consensus, however, is that I shouldn't have ducked a fight with DeLong because most of the readers think DeLong's freelancing and full of it. Anyway, this guy responds toDeLong's five points:

Well I am getting a PhD in electrical engineering so I guess I count.

Possible discounting information: I call myself a conservative libertarian and participate in QandO's neolibertarian alliance. However, I voted for W in 04 and campaigned pretty hard among my friends for W and have never voted for a Democrat in my life (I voted for Browne twice). I did however seriously consider voting for Boucher in 04 before I learned he voted against the ban on partial birth abortions which just appalled me.

======================
1. From libertarians, because the Republicans are really hostile to individual freedom: they want to control people's lives and boss people around.
a) That's what government does. Reps do it; dems do it. The only way you can really avoid it is by limiting the size of government (which the Dems really don't want).
b) Also while I may still be in school, I do remember Tipper leading the charge against offensive lyrics.
c) I recognize that if I'm taxed at 50%, the government is effectively controlling half of my life. Which party wants to raise my taxes and thus gain a greater control of my life?
d) Along the lines of personal freedom (where it really matters), which party is telling me that I'm too incompetent to invest my own income (with an apparent disregard to the fact that I, like millions of Americans, have an IRA and a 401K)?

2. From biologists, because Republican politicians say they don't believe in evolution.

And Democrats don't believe in genetics (see Summers).

3. From chemists and physicists, because Republican politicians pretend to believe that CO2 molecules created by human action have a different radiation-absorption spectrum than other CO2 molecules.

I have no idea where Delong is getting this, but I will point out that Dems aren't able to make intelligent tradeoffs with respect to the environment. Cripple the economy for the possibility of saving a degree? Cripple the nuclear power industry for kicks? Cripple the domestic oil industry to keep from annoying a caribou? Oh and after doing all of this, bitch about the state of the energy economy while wondering where the problems came from.

4. From all corners, because Republican politicians are the tools of lobbyists and do not respect the evidence about anything.

All politicians are the tools of lobbyists. As to the respect for evidence, I'll let your opinion duel posts speak for themselves.

5. From all corners, because Republican politicians don't understand how important investment in education is for the future of America--they have no idea where our current wealth and health really comes from.

What the f*ck is Delong smoking? Our public schools are a mess. Throwing good money after bad is a recipe for disaster and that's the Democrat proposal on education. The best thing that's happened in the school system in years is the accountability that NCLB brought in - and that's a distinctly Republican idea. And even by the metric of money for education (which I think is what Delong is getting at with "investment"), Bush has thrown an insane amount of money at education. As for where current wealth comes from, most of the Dems in Congress are socialists in all but name and would destroy the source of our wealth (the free market) in a heart beat.

From one:

Jonah

I am an environmental engineer who has been teaching at the university level
for about 27 years. In that time, I have seen young engineers getting more
and more liberal. What is the reason? Certainly not the five that Delong
lists in his article. I doubt that ANY engineer older than about 35 would
give any of the 5 reasons he lists for being a Democrat. The reason is that
even engineers have to go through the liberal arts to get a degree. It is
hard even for a practical, level-headed person to resist the constant
propaganda that our students are subjected to. The English, history, and
political science professors at my University and elsewhere have cleverly
learned to deconstruct science and plant doubt in the minds of budding
engineers and scientists. I am appalled at the gullibility of these young
professionals. These people believe in global warming with a religious
intensity and will not trust science to prove or disprove it. It is not a
good sign for the future of our country.

Dear Peter,

It is gratifying that you have dozens of us capable Norskies reading National Review. The musician’s first name brings up an issue hardly obscure to us, but likely trivial to the extreme for you. Beyond the regional accents and spellings, Norway actually has two major forms of its language. The [first pronunciation]…you posted in the corner is from the form that was heavily influenced by the Danish rule of Norway for centuries after the Black Death crippled the Norwegian nobility. The version that rhymes with safe is from the version that attempts to restore the original language of the country before the centuries of Danish (and Swedish) domination. Old Norse, the language of the Vikings, would pronounce Leif as rhyming with safe.

The language form influenced by the Danes is actually farther away from what ancient Danes (also speakers of Old Norse) used as well, since the more modern Danish has been heavily influenced by German. There is a language schism in Norway, with the elderly still hanging on to the Danish-influenced variant the strongest. In this country, the version of Norwegian used largely is a function of what part of Norway one’s ancestors came from and what era they emigrated from Norway. Again, either pronunciation is acceptable, but hard core traditionalists have a definite preference. In Norway today, students are taught differing versions of the language, depending on where they live.

It is ironic that while I am ancient Norwegian in most of my lineage, I am intensely proud of my lines coming in from Denmark and still insistent on not using the form of the language so heavily influenced by those notable antecedents. I must close by thanking you for being thoughtful enough to be concerned over the proper pronunciation of a Norwegian’s name.

The Journal lashes out at some of its conservative critics. I have no major objection to that. But, again, as I asked before I don't understand why they think the Justice Department should be commended for treating Berger more leniently than it would a defense contractor or an American serving in uniform. I see Glenn Reynolds agrees.

The posting on the pronunciation of 'leif' and 'ove' is wrong. I'm a Norwegian-American and my best friend growing up had Ove as his middle name. Anyway, here's how the whole name should be pronounced:

Layf-oov-e-and-snes

In Norwegian, the letter 'o' is pronounced like the English 'oo' sound. So in Norwegian for example, the capital of Norway is pronounced 'oos-loo'. And Leif is not 'Leaf'. It's like the word 'lay' with an 'f' at the end. The 'e' in Ove is like the 'e' sound in 'end'. And Andsnes is basically pronounced the way it's spelled. The 'A' is pronounced like the 'a' in 'wand'.

Hope this helps!

If the poetry didn't do the trick, maybe we have to up the ante.

Something like this perhaps?

Do not click on this link. It involves a leech and a nostril.

Much has been said this week about the direction the Catholic Church needs to go. The MSM (like the Andrew Sullivans, Amanpours, etc.) as well disgruntled, former and current nuns seem to think that the Church is hemorrhaging membership because of its inflexible moral rigidity on sexual matters. ... They warn that more members will defect unless their issues are given prominent consideration and the Church reverses its' position. ... I can't recall any broadcasts exploring the possibilities that a number of former Catholics have been collecting into the Evangelical, Pentecostal and Non-Denominational movements. Moreover, these movements are very similar if not more restrictive in moral doctrine, to the Catholic Church. ... Why does the MSM have such an aversion toward an honest discussion about departures of former Catholics? "Quid est veritas"?

Meanwhile, Brad Delong makes with the Jonah-smacking about my last G-File. He makes a fair enough point about the inconsistency in my column. He exploits my honesty about not having the data to back up one of my points to maximum effect. Rather than get into a to and fro about it, I'm just going to chalk 'em up to the perils of writing a column within hours of the original column coming out. Occupational hazard of the blogosphere and all that. Frankly I'm too tired of these ping pong debates (I just wrote three-frickin'-thousand words about Chait, for pete's sake). And while I realize that union requirements demand that DeLong be as snarky to me as physically possible, truth be told, I've always kinda respected the guy and the stuff he writes (what I've seen of it), even if I don't always agree with him.

That said, he says I should talk to a lot of engineers and scientists. For the record, I do talk to a lot of engineers and scientists -- if by talk you mean email. I also know a few personally. As I've mentioned before, we have a huge readership among engineers in particular and academics in general. Obviously, there's a selection bias in that our readers are going to tend to be more conservative, but if DeLong thinks there aren't any engineers or scientists in academia who don't agree with my general points he's flat out wrong. Of course, this isn't the full extent of my exposure to academia. But since all he wants me to do is talk with engineers and scientists, I thought I'd mention it.

My almost-certain last reply is up.

After waiting 3 months for some grad-student or professor to turn it back in, I FINALLY got Home-Alone America from the BYU Library. I've been looking for it since that Q&A you did with Mrs. Eberstadt. INCREDIBLE BOOK. People who already read NR and the Corner probably don't need an extra plug, but I just wanted to say thanks for calling my attention to the book-- I never would have heard of it otherwise. It calls attention to things that should be common-sense, but I've never really thought of in that way. I've always wanted to be a stay-at-home Mom-- my mother was-- and this book has just given me more reasons. This is the perfect antidote to that horrific Newsweek article. I can't remember the title, but it was disgusting. Thanks again!

Mr. Robinson, Leif Ove Andsnes's name should be pronounced "Life (long 'i,' not short), OH-veh AWNDS-ness.

(Host) Senator Jim Jeffords says he won't be surprised if the Bush administration launches a war with Iran next year.

Speaking Tuesday night on VPR's Switchboard program, Jeffords says he remains convinced that president Bush went to war in Iraq in order to control that country's oil supply and to bolster the president's chances of winning re-election to a second term:

(Jeffords) "I think it was all done to get - all that's the end result is going to be some oil agreement and the loss of life that we had. And the cost of it, to many was just a re-election move and they're going to try to live off it and probably start another war. Wouldn't be surprised next year, probably in Iran."

(Host) Jeffords says he fears that President Bush will use the same tactics to invade Iran in the coming year:

(Jeffords) "I just feel so bitter about the thinking that's gone on behind them and the reasons they go to war, went to war. But I feel very strongly that they're looking ahead and there will be an opportunity to go into Iran."

National Review
stands athwart Atlanta
yelling Come! Meet! Help!

The U.S. involvement in Iraq remains precarious. Good news can evaporate in a flash. But the toppled Saddam statue hasn't yet lost its positive potency. Iraqis who chafe at the continued American presence still are grateful for the end of Saddam's cruel dictatorship. A little luck, determination to stay the course — and a clear-eyed grasp of the realities — can restore the promise of that moment.

Voting-rights groups and computer scientists, concluding that a tangible record is essential to any electronic voting system, are persuading a growing number of U.S. lawmakers and election officials either to reject paperless voting machines or to require fitting them with costly add-on printers to help verify results.

Attending today's funeral Mass for the Holy Father were reigning monarchs of 10 countries, 57 heads of State, 3 hereditary princes, 17 heads of government, the heads of 3 international organizations and representatives from 10 others, 3 spouses of heads of State, 8 vice heads of State, 6 vice prime ministers, 4 presidents of parliaments, 12 foreign ministers, 13 ministers, and ambassadors from 24 countries.

Religious delegations, numbering 140 people, included representatives from the Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Churches, Churches and ecclesial communions of the West, international Christian organizations, the National Association of Evangelicals, representatives of Judaism, Islam and delegations from non-Christian religions.

Communion just ended - sadly, they ran out of hosts. But no one really seems to mind. They will make a spiritual communion instead.

It is hard to believe that a crowd nearly this large is gathered a just across the river, at the Circus Maximus. Tens of thousands who were at a vigil service at St. John Lateran Church processed across town last night and camped out there. There are reports that there might be hundreds of thousands of people over there, too! No reports on crowd numbers at the other parks opened up for the 4 million people who came to Rome for this.

People are now clapping in unison and cheering for their papa!

It is amazing - Ratzinger looked a little chocked up.

HOMILY DELIVERED AT THE FUNERAL OF POPE JOHN PAUL II BY THE DEAN OF THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS, CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER 8 APRIL 2005

“Follow me. ” The Risen Lord says these words to Peter. They are his last words to this disciple, chosen to shepherd his flock. “Follow me” – this lapidary saying of Christ can be taken as the key to understanding the message which comes to us from the life of our late beloved Pope John Paul II. Today we bury his remains in the earth as a seed of immortality – our hearts are full of sadness, yet at the same time of joyful hope and profound gratitude.

These are the sentiments that inspire us, Brothers and Sisters in Christ, present here in Saint Peter’s Square, in neighbouring streets and in various other locations within the city of Rome, where an immense crowd, silently praying, has gathered over the last few days. I greet all of you from my heart. In the name of the College of Cardinals, I also wish to express my respects to Heads of State, Heads of Government and the delegations from various countries. I greet the Authorities and official representatives of other Churches and Christian Communities, and likewise those of different religions. Next I greet the Archbishop s, Bishops, priests, religious men and women and the faithful who have come here from every Continent; especially the young, whom John Paul II liked to call the future and the hope of the Church. My greeting is extended, moreover, to all those throughout the world who are united with us through radio and television in this solemn celebration of our beloved Holy Father’s funeral.

Follow me – as a young student Karol Wojty_a was thrilled by literature, the theatre, and poetry. Working in a chemical plant, surrounded and threatened by the Nazi terror, he heard the voice of the Lord: Follow me! In this extraordinary setting he began to read books of philosophy and theology, and then entered the clandestine seminary established by Cardinal Sapieha. After the war he was able to complete his studies in the faculty of theology of the Jagiellonian University of Kraków. How often, in his letters to priests and in his autobiographical books has he spoken to us about his priesthood, to which he was ordained on 1 November 1946. In these texts he interprets his priesthood with particular reference to three sayings of the Lord. First: “You did not choose me, but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last” (Jn 15:16). The second saying is: “The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (Jn 10:11). And then: “As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love” (Jn 15:9). In these three sayings we see the heart and soul of our Holy Father. He really went everywhere, untiringly, in order to bear fruit, fruit that lasts. “Rise, Let us be on our Way!” is the title of his next-to-last book. “Rise, let us be on our way!” – with these words he roused us from a lethargic faith, from the sleep of the disciples of both yesterday and today. “Rise, let us be on our way!” he continues to say to us even today. The Holy Father was a priest to the last, for he offered his life to God for his flock and for the entire human family, in a daily self-oblation for the service of the Church, especially amid the sufferings of his final months. And in this way he became one with Christ, the Good Shepherd who loves his sheep. Finally, “abide in my love:” the Pope who tried to meet everyone, who had an ability to forgive and to open his heart to all, tells us once again today, with these words of the Lord, that by abiding in the love of Christ we learn, at the school of Christ, the art of true love.

Follow me! In July 1958 the young priest Karol Wojty_a began a new stage in his journey with the Lord and in the footsteps of the Lord. Karol had gone to the Masuri lakes for his usual vacation, along with a group of young people who loved canoeing. But he brought with him a letter inviting him to call on the Primate of Poland, Cardinal Wyszy_ski. He could guess the purpose of the meeting: he was to be appointed as the auxiliary Bishop of Kraków. Leaving the academic world, leaving this challenging engagement with young people, leaving the great intellectual endeavour of striving to understand and interpret the mystery of th at creature which is man and of communicating to today’s world the Christian interpretation of our being – all this must have seemed to him like losing his very self, losing what had become the very human identity of this young priest. Follow me – Karol Wojty_a accepted the appointment, for he heard in the Church’s call the voice of Christ. And then he realized how true are the Lord’s words: “Those who try to make their life secure will lose it, but those who lose their life will keep it” (Lk 17:33). Our Pope – and we all know this – never wanted to make his own life secure, to keep it for himself; he wanted to give of himself unreservedly, to the very last moment, for Christ and thus also for us. And thus he came to experience how everything which he had given over into the Lord’s hands came b ack to him in a new way. His love of words, of poetry, of literature, became an essential part of his pastoral mission and gave new vitality, new urgency, new attractiveness to the preaching of the Gospel, even when it is a sign of contradiction.

Follow me! In October 1978 Cardinal Wojty_a once again heard the voice of the Lord. Once more there took place that dialogue with Peter reported in the Gospel of this Mass: “Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep!” To the Lord’s question, “Karol, do you love me?,” the Archbishop of Krakow answered from the depths of his heart: “Lord you know everything; you know that I love you.” The love of Christ was the dominant force in the life of our beloved Holy Father. Anyone who ever saw h im pray, who ever heard him preach, knows that. Thanks to his being profoundly rooted in Christ, he was able to bear a burden which transcends merely human abilities: that of being the shepherd of Christ’s flock, his universal Church. This is not the time to speak of the specific content of this rich pontificate. I would like only to read two passages of today’s liturgy which reflect central elements of his message. In the first reading, Saint Peter says – and with Saint Peter, the Pope himself – “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. You know the message he sent to the people of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ - he is Lord of all” (Acts 10:34-36). And in the second reading, Saint Paul – and with Saint Paul, our late Pope – exhorts us, crying out: “My brothers and sisters, whom I love and long for, my joy and my crown, stand firm in the Lord in this way, my beloved” (Phil 4:1).

Follow me! Together with the command to feed his flock, Christ proclaimed to Peter that he would die a martyr’s death. With those words, which conclude and sum up the dialogue on love and on the mandate of the universal shepherd, the Lord recalls another dialogue, which took place during the Last Supper. There Jesus had said: “Where I am going, you cannot come.” Peter said to him, “Lord, where are you going?” Jesus replied: “Where I am going, you cannot follow me now; but you will follow me afterward.” (Jn 13:33,36). Jesus from the Supper went towards the Cross, went toward s his resurrection – he entered into the paschal mystery; and Peter could not yet follow him. Now – after the resurrection – comes the time, comes this “afterward.” By shepherding the flock of Christ, Peter enters into the paschal mystery, he goes towards the cross and the resurrection. The Lord says this in these words: “... when you were younger, you used to fasten your own belt and to go wherever you wished. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go” (Jn 21:18). In the first years of his pontificate, still young and full of energy, the Holy Father went to the very ends of the earth, guided by Christ. But afterwards, he increasingly entered into the communion of Christ’s sufferings; increasingly he understood the truth of the words: “Someone else will fasten a belt around you.” And in this very communion with the suffering Lord, tirelessly and with renewed intensity, he proclaimed the Gospel, the mystery of that love which goes to the end (cf. Jn 13:1).

He interpreted for us the paschal mystery as a mystery of divine mercy. In his last book, he wrote: The limit imposed upon evil “is ultimately Divine Mercy” (Memory and Identity, pp. 60-61). And reflecting on the assassination attempt, he said: “In sacrificing himself for us all, Christ gave a new meaning to suffering, opening up a new dimension, a new order: the order of love ... It is this suffering which burns and consumes evil with the flame of love and draws forth even from sin a great flowering of good” (pp. 189-190). Impelled by this vision, the Pope suffered and loved in communion with Christ, and that is why the message of his suffering and his silence proved so eloquent and so fruitful.

Divine Mercy: the Holy Father found the purest reflection of God’s mercy in the Mother of God. He, who at an early age had lost his own mother, loved his divine mother all the more. He heard the words of the crucified Lord as addressed personally to him: “Behold your Mother.” And so he did as the beloved disciple did: he took her into his own home” (ε_ς τ_ _δια: Jn 19:27) – Totus tuus. And from t he mother he learned to conform himself to Christ.

None of us can ever forget how in that last Easter Sunday of his life, the Holy Father, marked by suffering, came once more to the window of the Apostolic Palace and one last time gave his blessing urbi et orbi. We can be sure that our beloved Pope is standing today at the window of the Father’s house, that he sees us and blesses us. Yes, bless us, Holy Father. We entrust your dear soul to the Mother of God, your Mother, who guided you each day and who will guide you now to the eternal glory of her Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

I am closer at the other tail-end of that crowd you see. It continues until it reaches Castel San Angelo, the fort which used to guard the Vatican.

Some people are in still in the tent city that was set up overnight. Sadly, I saw two people still alseep in their sleeping bags. They came all this way, and collapsed.

But back to the Mass...People do not realize how well respected Ratzinger is within the College of Cardinals. Even those who do not agree with him find him to be a soft-spoken, spiritual priest. Everyone knows that he would rather be teaching theology and writing books than be heading up a Vatican Congregation. But he stayed for the sake of the man being buried today. Their relationship was a special one. I am so glad that he was appointed Dean of the College a couple of year ago, if only for this moment.

I am at the end of Via della Conciliazione. They have set up speakers and television screens along the road. When the Pope came out, the applause were deafening (people applaud at funerals in Europe).

The police are doing a very good job of keeping order. I had a co-worker who was able to leave my office and go to the front of St. Peter's Square in 10 minutes...which means they have not lost control of the crowds.

It seemed a bit iffy when they first opened the gates around 6:30. People ran to the square from every direction - we thought they were going to suffocate each other at the intersections. This was nothing the authorities could have done, except use clubs...and I don't think that was going to happen.

They have done a good job with making sure everyone has water. There are crates of it all around.

It is very windy, which makes it seem colder than it really is. People are huddling, but happy.

Is it possible to dismiss Christ and everything which he brought into the annals of the human being? Of course it is possible. The human being is free. The human being can say to God, "No." The human being can say to Christ, "No." But the critical question is: Should he? And in the name of what "should" he? With what argument, what reasoning, what value held by the will or the heart does one bring oneself, one's loved ones, one's countrymen and nation to reject, to say "no" to Him with whom we have all lived for one thousand years? He who formed the basis of our identity and has Himself remained its basis ever since. . . .

As a bishop does in the sacrament of Confirmation so do I today extend my hands in that apostolic gesture over all who are gathered here today, my compatriots. And so I speak for Christ himself: "Receive the Holy Spirit!"

I speak too for St. Paul: "Do not quench the Spirit!"

I speak again for St. Paul: "Do not grieve the Spirit of God!"

You must be strong, my brothers and sisters! You must be strong with the strength that faith gives! You must be strong with the strength of faith! You must be faithful! You need this strength today more than any other period of our history. . . .
BR> You must be strong with love, which is stronger than death. . . . When we are strong with the Spirit of God, we are also strong with the faith of man. . . . There is therefore no need to fear. . . . So . . . I beg you: Never lose your trust, do not be defeated, do not be discouraged. . . . Always seek spiritual power from Him from whom countless generations of our fathers and mothers have found it. Never detach yourselves from Him. Never lose your spiritual freedom.

It's 5:30 am.

The police have blocked off Via della Conciliazione (the long avenue in front of St. Peter's Basilica).

Thousands of police officers are manning barricades. Behind the barricades are tens of thousands (at least) of singing, chanting, flag waving people. Mostly Poles and Spaniards, by the flags.

I had struggle to get into my office, which is at the end of Via della Conciliazione. There are scores of people asleep in front of the doorway.

Across the Tiber, you can see large groups of people making their way to the Vatican.

The City of Rome is trying to get people to go to alternative venues, where the ceremony will be broadcast. No one seems to be taking them up on the offer yet.

What is unusual, considering the mood earlier in the week, is the joy in the crowd.

Most of these people are under 30. When the Pope died, it seemed like they didn't know what to do. Like today, there was singing and chanting, but also many tears.

By Wednesday, it was as if a decision was made that the mourning period was over. Right now, it is exactly like a World Youth Day, down to the commemorative t-shirts and hats. I haven't seen anyone cry since Tuesday.

In line one of us talked to an 'embedded' NBC reporter who said, as if it were a reportorial observation rather than a fixed dogma of his mind, how extraordinary it was that so many people should turn out to see a man they didn't agree with on key issues. The one from our group said that everyone in our group of 9 professionals from NYC agreed with every teaching on personal morality ever taught by JP2, in many cases because of the arguments he made and because of him. 'would you like to speak with any of them?'. Not at all. And the reporter headed off to re-embed himself where there was better shelter from the facts.

Last night, I managed to speak with Bertie Ahern, the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of Ireland. He had just come from viewing the body of the Holy Father, and was giving an impromptu press conference outside the colonnade of the square.

He mentioned how he had seen the crowds on televison, but it didn't do full justice to the scene. Probably because while giving his comments, thousands of pilgrims were sacked out in sleeping bags all around him!

Think about it, more people than live in Ireland have come to Rome for this.

In the measure that the end of my earthly life approaches I return to the memory of the beginning, of my Parents, my Brother and my Sister (whom I did not know because she died before my birth), to the parish of Wadowice, where I was baptized, to that city of my love, of my contemporaries, girl and boy companions of elementary school, the junior high school, the university, until the times of the Occupation, when I worked as a laborer, and later on in the parish of Niegowic, Krakow's of St. Florian, to the pastoral care of academics, the environment ... to all environments ... to Krakow and to Rome ... to persons who in a special way were entrusted to me by the Lord.

An email: "I think you're perhaps forgetting an important aspect of the argument from error, regarding the death penalty. The state deliberatly ends the life of those convicted of murder. In the case of speed limits and other governmental decisions that may result in greater deaths (as in the example of your article you referenced), those outcomes are in part dicatated by the actions of the individuals themselves, in addition to the general decision of the state. In the case of a wrongly convicted person who is executed, they are not killed because of anything specific they have done, but because of legal or procedural error, and ultimately the deliberate action of the state. (Worst of all, there is no meaningful recompense for them under the law for this error.)

"I point this out because it is the same distinction you so wisely made in a recent post comparing medical abortion to spontaneous abortion. The deliberateness of the action adds to the moral quality of the outcome. Ignorance of the innocence of the accused is no more an excuse that ignorance of the law would be. The innocent person dies in such a case because of the deliberate act of the state upon that specific person."

My response: It is certainly true that in the hypothetical case of error we are discussing, the state would be directly killing an innocent person--in one sense of the word directly. But it would certainly not be deliberately acting to bring about the death of an innocent person.

It might be helpful to think about these issues in terms of war, where the possibility of error is much greater--you are almost guaranteed to have innocent civilian deaths--and where the state is acting directly in the same sense. I think the basic points I made apply to both cases. At some point, the number of innocent deaths from an otherwise just effort by the state--whether to conduct a war or (again assuming the death penalty is just when applied to guilty parties) to execute murderers--could rise to the level where that effort would have to be abandoned. But neither policy should be abandoned simply because there is some risk of such deaths as an undesired, though predictable, side-effect of the policy.

Re my post on the burning of the pope's private papers, a reader offers the perfect solution:

"Maybe we could assign Sandy Berger to do the burning?"

Can you imagine how grumpy, depressed and horrified various historians must be when they hear that the pope's private notes are going to be burned?

His wishes have to be respected, but the historians specializing in the papacy, the Cold War etc will be grumbling about the burned notes for generations, and I don't blame them.

Bill Schulz, former Washington Editor of the Reader's Digest, patriot, fair-minded conservative journalist, expert on things equine, buyer-of-lunches-for-wretches-like me and all around great guy has been appointed one of two special ombudsmen for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). The other's Ken Bode. They will monitor public radio and TV for fairness, balance etc.

Bang the gong of justice thrice!

The debate among devout Catholics about this calamity, so far as I can follow it, is not very enlightening. Conservatives blame it all on the reforms of the Vatican II Council (1962-5); liberals blame it on John Paul II himself, saying that his firm traditionalist approach to core doctrines turned off the more open-minded Catholic laity. Both surely know in their hearts that the real culprit is the irresistible appeal of secular hedonism to healthy, busy, well-educated populations.

There once was a man named Ponnuru
Who held a conservative worldview. Now Atlanta has got a new guru.
Points please; for rhyming Ponnoru, twice!

--Peter Rich

When Jonah and K-Lo and Rich
Get done with Atlanta, the pitch
To save NRO
Will be “How far will you go
To bail blue staters out?”—Who’s the snitch?

I saw the other day that the senator was rethinking his support for it. I thought that was a good thing, and wondered if it had something to do with the fact that the Democrats are running a pro-lifer against him. But I missed this bit from the March 24 Philadelphia Daily News: Santorum "cited as the reason for rethinking his stance the fact that DNA testing has shown that a number of Death Row inmates--119 so far--were innocent of the murder they were convicted for and were subsequently released. 'It's more DNA issues than anything else,' he said." This is a terrible reason to be against the death penalty.

For one thing, it isn't true that 119 innocents have been freed from Death Row. The source of the claim is the Death Penalty Information Center--and, as as I've tried to show here and here, it counts plenty of people as "innocent" who almost certainly committed the crimes for which they were charged but were released on technicalities. Second, not even DPIC claims that all 119 people released from death row were released because of DNA evidence.

Third, I don't think the argument from the possibility of error is all as strong as people appear to believe it is (a position I tried to explain toward the end of this piece).

You've missed the plotline through the primary season. How realistic is this scenario: An agnostic, pro-Choice Republican from California sweeps through the GOP primaries, and chooses a pro-life West Virginia governor for veep. Meanwhile, an Hispanic, former Marine, former mayor of Houston and Dem backbencher, known for his political acumen, falls into the Dem nomination while all the other Dem candidates self-destruct, due to scandals and incompetence. By the way, this Dem congressman is Catholic and pro-choice, and he ends up picking a divorced, pro-choice Catholic [and recovering alcoholic to boot] as his running mate. Only Larry O'Donnell could create a topsy-turvy universe like that. In your dreams, Larry.

At cocktail parties around Greenwood, S.C., where the Augusta National chairman, William Johnson, grew up, Bill Stevens sometimes poses a question for the table.

Does anyone believe Augusta's all-men's membership should admit a woman?

Stevens, the president of Capital Bank in Greenwood and a friend of Johnson's for more than 40 years, says he asks the question mostly for kicks.

"I do my own private survey on it," Stevens said in a telephone interview Monday. "It's pretty lopsided. Nobody even cares about the subject. In my unscientific survey, I found one person who didn't agree with the club."

He added, "I even sought out the most liberal-minded people I could find."

From yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Ghaleb put himself up for election last year. Then he joined the opposition to the elections and resolved to withdraw, but got kidnapped and missed the deadline to remove his name from the ballot. On election day, he found himself a reluctant winner.

From a reader:

You may be right about the effects of the memo being real....that it will serve as a caution to bloggers that some things may be real even if they hurt one's party, or views.

But I think the main point of the memo flap was how irresponsible the
reporting was on it. You had a memo with no names, incorrect labeling, and
no sources, and some media reported as fact that it was being pushed by
Republican party leaders.

Now, after seeing where the memo apparently came from, I think it shows that
some media were incorrect to portray the memo the way they did. Even if
Senator Martinez was handing out the memo on the steps of the Capitol to
every Senator and citizen that passed by, you could hardly say that the 3
month first time elected Senator equalled "republican leaders".

I don't really mind that the Journal has come to the defense of Sandy Berger. They seem to have done due dilligence and think their fact-finding supports that position. I may be unconvinced, but obviously the Journal isn't operating in bad faith or involved in any cover-up.

But what does bother me is their complete lack of outrage about the facts as they find them. They write:

Lesser officials have received harsher penalties for more minor transgressions, so a complete airing of the facts will show the public that justice is being done. But given the minimal damage from the crime, this looks to be a case where prosecutors have shown some commendable restraint against a high-powered political figure.

Isn't this bad? Why does the Journal concede that lesser officials have been treated more harshly and then in the same breath praise the plea deal? Why is the restraint "commendable" if it amounts to a lower standard for Berger when a much stronger argument could be made for a higher standard? Where is the concern that Berger's kid-glove treatment sends a terrible message to all of the folks who deal responsibly with classified materials (many of whom send me very angry emails). I am sure there are lots of decent, less-famous, folks who would love to bring classified documents home and work on them there so they can spend more time with their families. Even if the facts are exactly as the Journal contends, his behavior was outrageous. It would be nice to hear a bit more ackonowledgement of that fact.

"That man will use any opportunity to fly to Europe to promote himself. The man is shameless."

This is very interesting:

Two days before the Pope's death, Cardinal Godfried Daneels was ushered into the tightly guarded compound next to the Forbidden City, which houses China's top leaders.

The meeting in the Zhongnanhai compound last Thursday between the Belgian cardinal and Hui Liangyu, a Chinese vice-premier, was one of the highest-level face-to-face meetings on Chinese soil between a prominent Catholic churchman and Beijing in decades.

Relations have been effectively frozen since 1951, when Beijing expelled foreign priests. Since then, attempts to restore ties have foundered on two issues - Beijing's anger at the Holy See's diplomatic recognition of Taiwan and the Vatican's demand that it retain control over bishops, anathema in a system that genuflects to a higher authority, the Communist party.

Cardinal Daneels cut short his China trip once the Pope's condition began to deteriorate but his presence in Beijing is evidence of the Vatican's desire to build bridges with the mainland.

The Vatican's position - that it may consider cutting ties with Taiwan in return for greater freedom for the Church to operate inside China - was repeated by Bishop Joseph Zen, the head of the Hong Kong diocese, yesterday. "The Vatican is planning to give up Taiwan. There's no other way," Bishop Zen, a critic of Beijing, told Hong Kong media.

I think it's interesting that Martinez says he never read the memo but managed to pass it to Tom Harkin. That's possible, but it might be a bit of a lawyerly dodge given that when Chris Wallace asked him about the memo on March 20th, on Fox News Sunday, he said he'd never saw it before. The relevant excerpt:

WALLACE: Senator, how do you explain, then, these talking points, which have been circulated among Republican senators? And let's put them up on the screen, so our viewers can see them.

Among the talking points: This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited.

And this is another one of the Republican talking points: This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida -- who's a Democrat up for reelection next year -- has already refused to become a co-sponsor. And this is a tough issue for Democrats.

Senator Martinez, these talking points sure look political.

MARTINEZ: And I reject those. I've never seen them before today. And I'll tell you, they're not a part of what I think this case is about.

"Lord Ahmed, who has been a Labour life peer since 1998, is the first Muslim to have been so honoured. His presence in the House of Lords is symbolically important. His behaviour matters, both in the message it sends to his fellow Muslims and in what it represents to the rest of us. In May, Lord Ahmed called — at considerable personal risk — for Islamic militants such as Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri to be deported. The risk was real: a fatwa was immediately issued against him. But his behaviour has not always been so admirable. On February 23, Lord Ahmed hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for a man going by the name of Israel Shamir. “Israel Shamir” is, in fact, a Swedish-domiciled anti-Semite also known as Jöran Jermas. The gist of Shamir/Jermas’s speech at the meeting can be gleaned from its title, “Jews and the Empire”. It included observations such as: “All the (political) parties are Zionist-infiltrated.” “Your newspapers belong to Zionists . . . Jews indeed own, control and edit a big share of mass media, this mainstay of Imperial thinking.” “In the Middle East we have just one reason for wars, terror and trouble — and that is Jewish supremacy drive . . . in Iraq, the US and its British dependency continue the same old fight for ensuring Jewish supremacy in the Middle East.” “The Jews like an Empire . . . This love of Empire explains the easiness Jews change their allegiance . . . Simple minds call it ‘treacherous behaviour’, but it is actually love of Empire per se.” “Now, there is a large and thriving Muslim community in England . . . they are now on the side of freedom, against the Empire, and they are not afraid of enforcers of Judaic values, Jewish or Gentile. This community is very important in order to turn the tide.”

The response from Tony Blair, a man who usually misses no opportunity to proclaim his supposedly 'moral' superiority over everyone else?

Silence.

Could, I wonder, his pursuit of Muslim voters have anything to do with this most unaccustomed reticence?

"Beneath the veneer of an apparently democratic local election campaign the battle to control areas of Birmingham involved allegations of death threats, intimidation and bribery. In scenes more reminiscent of a gangster movie, party members used nefarious tactics to ensure a clean sweep of the six available seats in Aston and Bordesley Green, delivering a large and surprising swing towards Labour."

Interestingly, Blair and his party have been in the forefront of efforts of make postal voting even easier.

I wonder why that might be.

Does this sound a bit snippy? I don't mind the joke about the crowd. But why is the former president, formally representing the US at the pope's funeral, talking about the pope's "mixed legacy"?

From AP: Clinton said he recognized that John Paul "may have had a mixed legacy," but he called him a man with a great feel for human dignity.

And, Clinton said, noting the throngs the pope would consistently draw, said, "The man knows how to build a crowd."

But what’s good for the Big Four isn’t necessarily good for America. Other businesses, and ultimately the economy as a whole, are footing the bill for this regulation-driven auditing boom. Mounting evidence shows that the accounting-industry growth generated by Sarbanes-Oxley is coming at the expense of productivity, new jobs, and innovation in the general business world. A survey by Korn/Ferry International found that the law cost Fortune 1000 companies an average of $5.1 million in compliance expenses last year. For middle-market public companies, the law firm Foley & Lardner found that the act has increased the “cost of being public” — everything from audit fees to director insurance — by 130 percent. Substantial man-hours have also been diverted to Sarbanes-Oxley from other, more productive tasks. The industry group Financial Executives International found that the average firm was spending at least 30,700 man-hours a year on compliance with this law. As a result, a number of small U.S. and big foreign firms are rushing to deregister from U.S. stock exchanges — a blow to the U.S. capital markets, and, in turn, to the smaller U.S. companies that depend on these capital markets for financing.

To Atlanta the Corner's not been
They've haven't seen belles or suave gentlemen
Jonah will party all night
And by dawn's early light
Georgia will wish he was gone with the wind

Mr. President, the purpose for my rising is to follow up on some remarks that I made yesterday, Monday, on the floor of the Senate. A full transcript of those remarks, which has to do with judges and recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court, are available, of course in the Congressional Record, but are also available on my official website for anyone who would care to read them.

As a former judge myself for 13 years, who has a number of close personal friends who still serve on the bench today, I am outraged by recent acts of courthouse violence. I certainly hope that no one will construe my remarks on Monday otherwise. Considered in context, I don’t think a reasonable listener or reader could.

As I said on Monday, there's no possible justification for courthouse violence. Indeed, I met with a federal judge, a friend of mine, in Texas just this past week, to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to protect our judges and courthouse personnel against further acts of violence. And like my colleague from Illinois, I personally know judges and their families who have been victims of violence and have grieved with those families.

But I want to make one thing clear: I'm not aware of any evidence whatsoever linking recent acts of courthouse violence to the various controversial rulings that have captured the nation’s attention in recent years.

My point was, and is, simply this: We should all be concerned that the judiciary is losing the respect that it needs to serve the American people well. We should all want judges to interpret the law fairly – not impose their own personal views on the nation. We should all want to fix our broken judicial confirmation process. And we should all be disturbed by overheated rhetoric about the judiciary, from both sides of the aisle. I regret it that my remarks have been taken out of context to create a wrong impression about my position, and possibly be construed to contribute to the problem rather than to a solution.

Our judiciary must not be politicized. Rhetoric about the judiciary and about judicial nominees must be toned down. And our broken judicial confirmation process must be fixed, once and for all.

Hon. J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Speaker of the House
Hon. Tom DeLay (R-TX), House Majority Leader
Hon. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Democratic Leader
Hon. Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD), Democratic Whip
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
Hon. David R. Obey (D-WI)
Hon. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY)
Hon. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Hon. Jerry F. Costello (D-IL)
Hon. Christopher Cox (R-CA)
Hon. Michael R. McNulty (D-NY)
Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
Hon. John A. Boehner (R-OH)
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA)
Hon. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
Hon. Tim Holden (D-PA)
Hon. Peter T. King (R-NY)
Hon. Bart Stupak (D-MI)
Hon. Steve Chabot (R-OH)
Hon. Phil English (R-PA)
Hon. Mark Foley (R-FL)
Hon. Gil Gutknecht (R-MN)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
Hon. Ray LaHood (R-IL)
Hon. Robert W. Ney (R-OH)

I was distressed to hear you say on the Hugh Hewitt show that the priestly ordination of women was "theoretically possible." Although I was relieved to hear you are not a proponent of this, I must disagree with you that it is even a possibility. Like the abortion issue, the ordination of women is a closed issue. It has been dealt with twice, and most recently by John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Prior to this, Paul VI made the same statement in Inter Insigniores. Please don't give those wishy-washy parish priests any more ammunition with which they might deceive their well-intentioned parishioners.

Laura and Edmund Gerstein have declared a war of sorts on the state's citrus canker eradication program, invoking the Geneva Conventions in an effort to save a ruby red seedless grapefruit tree.

The Boca Raton couple cited an article in the 1949 worldwide agreement on the rules of war that focuses on protecting agriculture areas, crops, livestock and drinking water used for civilians' survival during a war.

"I know it has cast a shadow over all of us and you have no idea what a personal pain it has been for me as secretary-general and as a father having to deal with this situation," Annan said during Tuesday's meeting, according to video of the meeting.

"To see the institution you have devoted your life to being hammered and attacked, in most cases unfairly, was very difficult to digest, and I can imagine what impact it had on you and on staff morale."

He added: "It is also unfortunate that my own son seems to have been associated somehow with this program, and of course that investigation is going on."

Cornyn, while criticizing a different judicial decision, wondered Monday if frustration against perceived political decisions by judges "builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence, certainly without any justification."

A DeLay spokesman said he was merely referring to potential future action in Congress. And Cornyn said his remarks had nothing to do with the Schiavo case or with what DeLay said.

"I'm a former judge myself and I've made clear that attacks against judges are never justified," said Cornyn, who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Beldar (link below) and Junkyardblog offer defenses to one degree or another of Cornyn. I'm not persuaded -- much. they seem to boil down to the fact that Cornyn's speech was otherwise good except for that paragraph in question. Okay, so the speech was good except for the part in question. Fine. But that's why we're talking about the part in question and not the rest of the speech. I do think Josh Marshall and others could at least avoid dowdifying the quote for maximum impact. Marshall leaves out the bolded part in his version:

Finally, I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country -- certainly nothing new; we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that has been on the news. I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence, certainly without any justification, but that is a concern I have that I wanted to share.

I am moving increasingly to the camp that this was a dumb statement -- i.e. very ill thought-out and insupportable on the facts -- on Cornyn's part rather than sinister. It's certainly not a talking-point I've heard anywhere else which suggests to some extent it wasn't a political strategy.

Lots of email from folks noting that simply because a Pope was from Africa doesn't mean he was black. True enough. Some emailers say I misread Steyn on this point. Not true. He wrote:

We live in a present-tense culture where novelty is its own virtue: the Guardian, for example, has already been touting the Nigerian Francis Arinze as "candidate for first black pope". This would be news to Pope St Victor, an African and pontiff from 189 to 199. Among his legacies: the celebration of Easter on a Sunday.

I don't know how to read this except as Steyn strongly suggesting that Victor was "the first black pope" not the first African pope.

Sometimes it feels like 90% of our readers are military officers, engineers or lawyers. Write anything which directly deals with their expertise and you'd better stand back from the email in-box. Anyway, here's one:

Your father's explanation is correct. All the engineers in industry that I know viewed engineering as a way to live a dream. The dream was to have a fun, creative job (ie I get to brag that I invent computer chips) and get paid well for it.

But if all we cared about was big money, we would leave engineering and move into marketing/sales/management which makes lots more money.

I also teach part-time. Why? Because I really do love to teach. I love seeing a student with gang tatoos pondering a calculus problem so he can "move on up". (This example really happened to me). When I retire, I will continue teaching. But if I did it full-time, my pay would be about a third of what I make now and I would enjoy teaching less. I would also do less creative work since teaching leaves little time to make anything really new. I got into engineering to make things, not to talk about it.

I can also tell you that the engineering students prefer the part-time instructors. The students are busting their butts because they want a job and the part-timers are more likely to tell them what they actually need to work in industry.

Now if only I could meet some girls. Sigh.

Cocktail Party
There once was a writer named Jonah
Who gathered with friends in Atlanta
Announced Jonah with glee
"Hey, the minibar's free!"
The next day he woke up in Montana.

From a reader:

Having followed John Cornyn since his rise in Texas, I find it hard to believe he is either that stupid or that sinister. On the face of it though, its hard to draw another conclusion. I am hopeful that some reasonable (non-squirming) clarification is forthcoming

Kathryn de Borgia
Is headed to Georgia
Makes old Sherman Willy
Look quite willy nilly

But she's not a loner
Along comes Ole Jonah
And, as generous dowry
They bring you Rich Lowry.

If I were Ted Turner
I'd be a quick learner
And run for my life
From NRO strife !

Delivery man stuck in elevator for 3 days

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A Chinese food delivery man was found trapped in a broken elevator Tuesday, more than three days after he was reported missing, police said…

Folks seem to be getting really worked up about this statement from Sen. John Cornyn:

I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence.

I haven't seen the comments in their full context yet, but assuming Josh Marshall and Glenn Reynolds are being fair (and I have no reason to suspect they're not), it seems to me the outrage is well-deserved. This is almost exactly the same logic the left used to justify or explain away inner city riots. It seems to me there's no substantial difference. The judge in Atlanta was not murdered because he had an expansive view of the penumbra to the Bill of Rights. Neither was the murder of that judge's family in Chicago attributable to judicial activism. What other violence is Cornyn referring to? I leave some room for the possibility that Cornyn was being stupid rather than sinister. But this strikes me as an indefensible statement.

Young Jonah the NRO pundit
Whilst writing for fun and for profit
Said, "Our dear NRO
Should be rolling in dough.
Let's party in Georgia to fund it."

For wining and dining with K-Lo
Atlanta is the place to go
You'll lend your support
While drinking fine Port
And help the good folks at NRO

Atlanta is the place to be,
(if you've got money, 'cuz it ain't free)
NRO will arrive May five.
It's surely not too far to drive,
for warm hello's and teary goodbyes.
(And maybe some Starship Enterprise!!!)

For witty bons mots and banter
From your favorite starboardwise slanter
You could read NRO
For free, but you know,
A real man would go to Atlanter.

Atlanta Georgia
Jonah Rich Jay Kathryn John
Out of syllables

I still haven't read it (because if I do the compulsion to respond before I write my syndicated column will be too powerful). But I've received quite a few emails along these lines:

Dear Jonah,

Consider this part of the groundswell for you to respond to Chait. If
the swell isn't large enough, I can send this email 1,000 more times.

The first task of the U.S., and whatever coalition of the willing it can muster in the region, is to confront the dangerous alliance posed by Cuba and Venezuela. Chávez’s misappropriation of Venezuela’s extraordinary oil wealth, and his willingness to subordinate the nation’s sovereignty to Castro’s ambitions, is emboldening anti-American movements that only a few years ago were weak, broke, and demoralized.

Dear Mr. Robinson,

I don't disagree with you and Mgr. Lorenzo about the critical documents' use or lack thereof of the word "person".

But your closing paragraph is not specific enough, after all, skin cells and moles grown in a lab are also human life. What the combination of the sperm and egg produce is not merely human life, but a human life, indeed a complete though immature human being. As another noted Catholic thinker, Robert George (who you interviewed not so long ago) has written:

"With the fusion of sperm and ovum, or with the coming to be of a distinct and complete (though immature) human organism either by (identical) twinning or by cloning, there is present a distinct organism which will (unless prevented) actively develop himself or herself to a more mature stage as a member of the human species. This new organism directs its own growth, coordinating from within all of its elements and forces toward his or her own survival and maturation."

I don't think you disagree with this either, but I think it would clarify your critique of Linker's execrable piece (or, rather, it might help ward off misconceptions of the Church that are so easily adopted).

Re: Your query about Carter. I have a hunch...that since JPII could only make Carter's determination to follow detente more difficult, I guess that he was privately unenthusiastic about JPII. Carter was shrewd enough to conceal these views. Thank God for Brzezinski, the only ray of light in the entire Carter White House.

Kristen Scuderi, spokeswoman for the Iowa Republican Party, said embryonic stem cell research ''is definitely a charged issue, because it's a life issue." But Scuderi said Iowans would be hard-pressed to distinguish between the positions of Bush, Romney, and Hatch.

''If you went to the average Iowan on the street and asked them about it, I don't think they'd know the difference," she said.

Romney said Friday that he would support the Brownback bill. Though he lost in the Legislature, Romney predicts the Bay State debate will focus attention on cloning.

''I think there will be a view that Massachusetts, like California, is crossing into territory that our nation has never gone into before," the governor said, expressing concern about cloning and California's vote last fall for $3 billion to support stem cell research. ''That's something which I think will lead to the expression of concern, and perhaps a careful look at federal legislation to define what the boundaries of ethics and science might be."

The UN atomic agency is to meet on April 27 to decide on its next director general, with current chief Mohammad ElBaradei currently the only candidate, according to a confidential IAEA document obtained by AFP Tuesday .

Quite often people say to me, "Jonah, take human bites."



Almost as often they say, You know, NRO could use a lot more Haikus and Occidental poetry as well.



Meanwhile, other people -- mostly suits occupying the "nutcracker suite" at NRHQ -- say that we need to make readers aware of the upcoming Atlanta fundraiser or we'll have to start breaking our anti-malaria pills in half to make them last.



So I had this great idea. Let's have readers send haikus, poems, limmericks, and other forms of verse about what they might find at the Atlanta fundraiser, what they like about NR/O, whatever. Obviously, since this is a transparent promotional ploy, submissions containing references to Atlanta and which paint said fundraiser in a positive light will be better-received (read: will be the only ones considered). Also, as Rich Lowry tells me almost every week, "Nobody wants to read a bad epic poem."



The best ones will be posted in The Corner on occassion. Be as imaginative as possible and make sure you make it clear whether you want your name mentioned or not. Send submissions to thecorner@nationalreview.com.

Subject: Rick James

Rich

I live down the street from him, in the city council district in which he's running. Unfortunately, I won't have a chance to vote for the superfreak since he'll be in the democratic primary, but I'd be happy to permanently "borrow" a sign for anyone at NR World headquarters--especially if could get me an invite to Atlanta!!

Perhaps I could just "borrow" them myself and auction them off on EBay to fund the trip.

Welcome to my world. Though I confess I thought you were talking about Lou Ferrigno.

Turns out my snitches were wrong. Word on the street was that he was going to respond yesterday. Remind me to take back that five-spot from shoe-shine Willy for giving me a bum steer. Anyway, Chait responds here. I haven't read it yet. I gotta write my syndicated column and do some other stuff. My guess is that I will let it alone even though I believe ettiquette calls on me to go last -- barring some enormous pro-Opinion Duel groundswell from the masses. But I'll let ya know.

Conservatives have not triumphed because they have built a disciplined and efficient message machine. Conservatives have thrived because they are split into feuding factions that squabble incessantly. As these factions have multiplied, more people have come to call themselves conservatives because they've found one faction to agree with.

In the early days of National Review, many of the senior editors didn't even speak to one another. Whittaker Chambers declared that the writings of Ayn Rand, a hero of the more libertarian right, reeked of fascism and the gas chambers. Rand called National Review "the worst and most dangerous magazine in America."

From a reader:

Jonah--

Ninjas and pirates are useful to super-awesomeness, but not vital. "Mad
TV" once had an admirably super-awesome skit on a Hallmark Theatre
presentation of "To Kill a Mockingbird," as performed by The Legends of
Mexican Professional Wrestling. Sadly, I am unable to find a link to
this gem.

Regards,

Ron

Judges at the appellate level do not look to the "importance" of a law when deciding cases under that law. They don't do it generally, and they didn't do it here. In fact, deciding a case by making reference to some piece of legislation's "importance" is precisely what the Courts are NOT supposed to do. The job of the Appeals Court is to figure out whether a trial court abused its discretion or committed some other type of legal error when making its decision. . . . What that means, Shannen, is that Courts have certain procedures, and certain rules to follow, and certain standards to apply to the facts of a case. If the facts of a case don't fit the standard for, say, an injunction, a good opinion won't grant that injunction.

Heard a couple of times that as Ronald Reagan was watching the Pope travel through Poland in 1979 he immediately recognized that it was the fault line in Soviet Empire and actually teared up. My question to you or you learned brethen: It struck me that there has been no mention of Carter - who was only president at the time - when discussing this trip. What was his (or his administration's) reaction to the trip? Did he have any clue as to what it meant? I would think if he did the MSM would be all over it --- but the silence is deafening.

: please add a bunch of new posts to the Corner...

Draft people off the street, or cut and paste excerpts from the phone book, or just lean on the space bar for awhile...

Why? So that Jonah's "EMAIL FROM IRAQ" post is pushed way down the page, and the first thing I see when the page comes up is something, anything, other than "remote-control fart machine".

The world and I thank you. :)

The guy who sent me the remote-control fart machine email last week makes amends by forwarding me this email from a friend in Iraq:

Hello again from Iraq,

Things here have been pretty bust lately which is good - there is
nothing worse than being bored over here. Guarding the main FOB in a
tank continues to be a pain when I do it, for some reason every high ranking
person who passes by feels the need to come bother, which is distracting for us, not to mention making it impossible to actually fire when someone gets that close. Hopefully well take care of that mortarman soon so we can take down that OP. Things in our company sector have been pretty quiet as of late, just the usual small incidents.

The other night my roommate and I went out with my platoon to meet with an informer in the desert so he could turn over some rockets and that was pretty cool. Got to experience moving on foot through a mild sandstorm at night to find a big well dug into the ground. It was funny, we were prepared to pay him in US cash as usual, but he wanted was a soccer ball for his nephew or something.

On the first I had probably the most fun since Ive been here. In
response to that big insurgent camp that was found just south of us on
LakeThartar we went to go sweep our entire desert sector and our part
of the lake, which is the middle eastern equivalent of one of the great lakes.
The terrain was crazy, and we did some things in our humvees that I never
thought possible. Pretty scary at first, but wound out being a blast driving around after that. Later in the day while checking out a suspicious camp of nomads on the coast I managed to sink my humvee down to the doors.

One of my privates had his camera, and when I get the picture Ill send it
out. Pretty funny except a tank had to pull us out. Got to call some
mortar fire missions for training, and that was pretty fun too.

Well, Im sure that there was more I meant to include, but Im staying safe
and I have to go. Hope everyone is doing well back in the states.

The final legacy of this man will be the way he has died. The way he has fallen apart, disintegrated—physically, emotionally, mentally, embarrassingly—before the world, making a spectacle of himself.

Now [the documentary was filmed in 1999] he can barely say a word. He's drooling, the body is out of control, headed directly to the [final] moment, and still…he wants the world to see…[his] final encounter with the ultimate question.

For him I am sure this was the moment to embody everything he has said. [That] human life is worthwhile, no matter what—no matter how weak, no matter how insignificant it may look….To challenge the world, which is obsessed with image, with youth, with success, with power, with words. Forcing us to look at the aged, either in ourselves or in others. And in the end summing up his very first words to the world: "Be not afraid.” Be not afraid of even being afraid. The value of your life is worth infinity. It can not be destroyed by death.”

Rick - Fair point. I hadn't thought of Lions in literary terms.

Just read your article on what to say when meeting someone you admire. Are you sitting down? I thought you would enjoy knowing that I was directed to the article by a fellow postee on the duranduran.com fan forum. You just never know where you will turn up, do you??

I like the imagery of people actually talking about it on the street. Right away I pictured strangers passing each other on the sidewalk whispering to each other, "Did you hear? Chait's responding today!" The murmur of his impending response grows gradually to a roar and then cut to the paper boy on the corner: "Extra Extra!!! Read all about it! Chait Responding to Jonah!" And then there'd be a dance number.

I was very, very careful not to offer any editorial comment. But, for the record, I should say I think it the coverage is warranted. JP II was the second to last lion of the 20th century (Margaret Thatcher, technically a lioness) is the only one left. This Pope's life made him, second perhaps only to Reagan, a granite landmark of NR's worldview in the last three deacdes. Why not offer a fitting farewell?

I should also add, that during the Reagan farewell days, I would joke around with Kathryn: "Oh, man, can you imagine what your days will be like when JPII passes?"

She'd reply, "I don't want to think about it." She meant it in more ways than one, of course.

I have mixed feelings about The Huffington Report. On the one hand I have long thought a central clearinghouse blog site for different personalities might be the true form for internet magazines in the future. On the other hand, I think the folks contributing to the Huffington Report are making an enormous mistake, particularly Tina Brown and Harold Evans. You don't have to love Brown and Evans to recognize they have some credibility even with people who don't like them. Huffington doesn't. The only way you can care what Huffington has to say is if A) she's paid you serious money or B) you already agree with what she has to say. For Brown, Evans and others, subordinating their own personas to Huffington's is a silly branding mistake if nothing else.

Marlon Brando deeded his Polynesian retreat to Michael Jackson, just in case, perhaps.

The campaign ahead of the French referendum (May 29) on the proposed ‘constitution’ continues, with Jacques Chirac’s team beginning to look a little frantic as they try to win back the lead for the ‘yes’ camp. The French justice minister has just come out with this:

"At last we have obtained this 'Europe à la Française' that we have for so long awaited. This constitutional treaty … is an enlarged France."

I wonder what Dutch voters, who go to the polls on June 1, will think of that.

On the temporal level, this papacy was a profound disappointment for those who believe that Christ's message of liberation, human freedom and more democracy should apply not just to the world, but to the church itself. In the light of the pope's personal embrace of suffering, it is hard to reconcile his seeming lack of compassion for those in the church who have suffered so much at the hands of his administration: for married priests, for women who have lost their lives and fertility and health in botched abortions, for women who cannot feed the children they have, for theologians who struggle with many aspects of church teaching, for those who minister to people with AIDS, for gay Catholics who long to be welcomed at the altar, for those sexually abused by priests, for women who are called to ordination.... The list is almost endless.

These blind spots, where charity, compassion and justice are concerned, were not overshadowed by his public commitment to the transformation of unjust systems in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, nor by his episodic and selective commitments to human rights throughout the world...

I am not much of a believer, but I find it hard not to suspect some providential hand at play when the white smoke went up at the Vatican 27 years ago and the Polish cardinal was chosen to lead the Catholic Church. Precisely at the moment that the West most desperately needed it, we were sent a champion. It is hard to remember now how dark those days were. The 15 months following the pope's elevation marked the high tide of Soviet communism and the nadir of the free world's post-Vietnam collapse.

Under the benign and deeply humane vision of this pope, the power of faith led to the liberation of half a continent. Under the barbaric and nihilistic vision of Islam's jihadists, the power of faith has produced terror and chaos. That contrast alone, which has dawned upon us unmistakably ever since Sept. 11, should be reason enough to be grateful for John Paul II. But we mourn him for more than that. We mourn him for restoring strength to the Western idea of the free human spirit at a moment of deepest doubt and despair. And for seeing us through to today's great moment of possibility for both faith and freedom.

SUMMARY:
- POPE'S MESSAGE REMAINS ENGRAVED IN PEOPLES HEARTS
- DIVINE MERCY SUNDAY SHOWS GOD'S LOVE FOR MANKIND
- PROCEDURES UNDERWAY IN THE VATICAN UPON POPE'S DEATH
- DECLARATION ON DETENTION OF CATHOLIC CLERGY IN CHINA

___________________________________________________________

POPE'S MESSAGE REMAINS ENGRAVED IN PEOPLES HEARTS

VATICAN CITY, APR 3, 2005 (VIS) - At 10.30 today, Divine Mercy Sunday, before hundreds of thousands of people who filled St Peter's Square, Via della Conciliazione and adjacent streets, Cardinal Angelo Sodano presided at a Eucharistic concelebration for the repose of the soul of John Paul II, who died yesterday evening at 9.37.

In his homily, Cardinal Sodano spoke of the pain over the loss of "our father and pastor, John Paul II," but emphasized that for 26 years he had "always called us to look to Christ, the only reason for our hope."

"For more than a quarter of a century he has taken the Gospel of Christian hope to all the squares of the world, teaching everyone that our death is nothing more than a passage to our homeland in heaven. There our eternal destiny lies, where God our Father awaits us."

The cardinal indicated how "this is our faith, this is the faith of Christians. Our pain is immediately transformed into an attitude of profound serenity. I too was a witness to such serenity, standing in prayer before the Holy Father's bed in his final moments, the serenity of the saints, the serenity that comes from God."

"As today we weep for the death of the Pope who has left us, we open our hearts to the vision of our eternal destiny. ... We know that, though we are sinners, we are accompanied by the mercy of God the Father who awaits us. This is the sense of today's Feast of Divine Mercy, established by the dear departed Pope John Paul II himself, as one of the legacies of his pontificate, to underline this most consoling aspect of the Christian mystery."

"This Sunday, it would be moving to re-read one of the most beautiful Encyclicals, 'Dives in misericordia', written in 1980, the third year of his pontificate." In that document, said the cardinal, John Paul II "invites us to look to the Father Who is 'merciful and is God of all comfort, who consoles us in all our afflictions'," and to "Mary, Mother of Mercy."

Cardinal Sodano highlighted the many times the Pope has repeated over the years "that mutual relations between men and between peoples cannot be based only on justice, but must be perfected by merciful love which is typical of the Christian message. For this reason John Paul II led the Church of the third Christian millennium to be a new Good Samaritan on the paths of the world, on the roads of a world still shaken by fratricidal wars. In this way, the Pope became the cantor of the civilization of love, seeing in that term one of the most beautiful definitions of 'Christian civilization.' Yes, Christian civilization is the civilization of love, radically different from those civilizations of hatred which, in the 20th century, were the consequence of so many ideologies."

May the Pope, "from heaven, watch over us always and help us to 'cross that threshold of hope' about which he spoke to us so much. May this his message always remain engraved in the hearts of the men and women of today. John Paul II repeats once more the words of Christ: 'the Son of Man came into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him'."

Cardinal Sodano recalled that John Paul II "spread this Gospel of hope in the world, calling all the Church to embrace the men and women of today, to raise them up with redeeming love. Let it be our task to take up the message of he who has left us and bring it to fruit for the salvation of the world."

"And to our unforgettable Father," he concluded, "we say with the words of the liturgy: 'May the angels lead you to Paradise! In Paradisum deducant te Angeli!' May a joyous chorus welcome you and lead you to the Holy City, the heavenly Jerusalem, that you may find eternal rest. Amen!" .../MASS REPOSE SOUL POPE/SODANO VIS 050403 (690)

DIVINE MERCY SUNDAY SHOWS GOD'S LOVE FOR MANKIND

VATICAN CITY, APR 3, 2005 (VIS) - At the end of the Mass this morning in St. Peter's Square for the repose of the soul of Pope John Paul II, presided over by Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the substitute of the Secretariat of State, Archbishop Leonardo Sandri, before reciting the Easter time prayer, the Regina Coeli, read a text that the Holy Father had previously prepared for the occasion of the solemnity of Divine Mercy which is celebrated on the Second Sunday of Easter.

In that text, John Paul II highlighted today's celebration of Divine Mercy Sunday, underlining the Gospel story where the Risen Christ appeared to the Apostles "'and showed them His hands and His side', that is, the signs of the painful passion impressed in an indelible way on His body even after the Resurrection. Those glorious wounds, that He made an incredulous Thomas touch eight days later, reveal God's mercy Who 'so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son'."

"To all of mankind," continued the text, "who so often seems lost and dominated by the power of evil, egoism and fear, the Risen Lord offers as a gift His love which pardons, reconciles and opens the soul again to hope. It is a love that converts hearts and gives peace. How the world needs to understand and welcome Divine Mercy!

"Lord, Who with Your death and Resurrection revealed the Father's love, we believe in You and with trust we repeat today: Jesus, I trust in You, have mercy on us and on the entire world."

"May the liturgical solemnity of the Annunciation, which we will celebrate tomorrow," the Holy Father's reflections concluded, "encourage us to contemplate with the eyes of Mary the immense mystery of this merciful love that bursts forth from the heart of Christ." ANG/DIVINE MERCY/SANDRI VIS 050403 (280)

PROCEDURES UNDERWAY IN THE VATICAN UPON POPE'S DEATH

VATICAN CITY, APR 3, 2005 (VIS) - This morning Holy See Press Office Director Joaquin Navarro-Valls released the following statement to journalists:

"The procedures foreseen by the Apostolic Constitution "Universi Dominici gregis" by John Paul II on the occasion of the death of a Supreme Pontiff, are underway in the Vatican.

"Ascertainment of Death. This morning at 9.30, the rite of ascertainment of the death of John Paul II (Universi Dominici gregis, 17) took place. Cardinal Eduardo Martinez Somalo, Cardinal Camerlengo and Archbishop Paolo Sardi, vice Camerlengo, Archbishop Piero Marini, master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations, and the Cleric Prelates of the Apostolic Camera went into the apartment of the deceased pontiff with Dr. Renato Buzzonetti, the Pope's personal physician, to proceed with the ascertainment of death, according to the rite of "Ordo Exsequiarum Romani Pontifici."

"The Chancellor Secretary of the Apostolic Camera, Enrico Serafini, then prepared the official death certificate, attached to the medical certificate of Dr. Renato Buzzonetti.

"Exposition of the Body in the Apostolic Palace. At 12:30 the Cardinal Camerlengo will preside at a celebration to start the visits to the body of John Paul laid out in the Clementine Hall for the homage and prayers of members of the Roman Curia, civil and religious authorities and members of the Diplomatic Corps. Visits will end at 4 p.m.

"Transfer of the body to the Vatican Basilica for homage by all the faithful. The hour of the transfer of the body will be decided by the first congregation of Cardinals which will be held tomorrow morning at 10:30 in the Bologna Hall. As previously announced, it is expected that the transfer will take place about 5 p.m."

Click here for "Universi Dominici gregis": http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis_en.html

OP/PROCEDURES:DEATH POPE/NAVARRO-VALLS VIS 050403 (290)

DECLARATION ON DETENTION OF CATHOLIC CLERGY IN CHINA

VATICAN CITY, APR 3, 2005 (VIS) - The following statement was released yesterday by Joaquin Navarro-Valls, Holy See Press Office Director, on the arrest and detention of Catholic clergy in China:

"News is arriving that on Wednesday March 30, 2005, Fr. Thomas Zhao Kexiun of the diocese of Xuanhua in the province of Hebei, China, was detained by the police as he returned from a funeral. His whereabouts are not known, nor is the reason for his detention.

"The bishop of the same diocese, the 85-year-old Philip Peter Zhao Zhendong was arrested on January 3, 2005, and is being held in the city of Jiangjiakou.

"On Palm Sunday March 20, 2005, the national security forces took the 86-year-old Bishop Giacomo Lin Xili of Wenzhou in the province of Zhejiang. The reason for his arrest is unknown.

"Also in the diocese of Wenzhou, two days later, Mr. Gao Xinyou, a collaborator in the pastoral care of the laity in the area of Longgang, was arrested." OP/ARRESTS:CLERGY:CHINA/NAVARRO-VALLS VIS 050403 (170)