Breaking news as of Feb. 9, 2006: the celebrated evangelical church historian, Mark Noll (pictured left), one of Wheaton College's most beloved professors, has accepted a position at the University of Notre Dame where he will replace the retiring -- and equally celebrated evangelical church historian -- George Marsden (pictured right) this fall. Read the story HERE. See my review of Noll's excellent book, The Scandal of the Evanelical Mind HERE. Order his book HERE
.
I never thought I would make many friends by defending the New Oxford Review or its editor, Dale Vree, on this blog, but I honestly did not expect quite the flood of objections that filled the comment box to my post of February 4, 2006: "Dale Vree, God's Faithful Pit Bull: Show Some Respect!" I did not call Vree "irreproachable," as one of my commentators seemed to misquote me as saying. I granted possible "indiscretions of tact." I did call him a "Pit Bull," after all. I granted that I disagreed with some of his positions, but thought it a good thing to allow myself to be challenged on those positions by Vree, especially where he (and not I) agreed with the late Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. For I grant that I could be mistaken and he could be right on, say, the Iraq War, or the Bush administration's position on abortion. I also did suggested, however, that as to intent and substance, Vree is God's faithful Pit Bull, and therein lay the bone of contention.
Let me begin my discussion of NOR ads with an analogy from abortion. What do you do when you're surrounded by the Culture of Death, and nobody seems to care? What do you do when you see in your own town or city one of those neatly manicured abortion "clinics" (better: abortuaries) that dot the country where over 4000 lives are snuffed out daily in these United States, and nobody seems to care? I wonder if any of you remember that news story -- probably over a decade ago now -- when a garbage truck was rounding a corner (was it in Boston?) and spilled out several burst bagfulls of baby parts from an abortion clinic in an intersection, leaving horrified passersby staring in nauseated disbelief, clasping their hands to their mouths, several of them vomiting on the sidewalks. When reality breaks through, it's not nice. Reality isn't pretty sometimes. Despite this -- or because of this, depending on your point of view -- some pro-lifers have taken to producing large posters of aborted and dis-membered infants to show the world the reality of abortion for what it is. Many of these signs were in evidence at the national March for Life in 
Washington, DC, earlier this January. There is even a group of pro-life truckers who pull rigs with large images of aborted infants on the sides of their trucks.Liberal opinion has long regarded the Catholic Church as something like the Whore of Babylon. But nowadays liberals feel compassion for whores, would love to see prostitution legalized and whores unionized from sea to shining sea, with the Department of Health and Human Services running the whorehouses. So there's a little problem: How can liberals continue to hate the Church when they themselves embrace whoredom -- indeed, would love to make every woman a whore? Consider the rest of the liberal utopia: rauncy sex ed, titillating TV shows and movies, free condoms for every teenager, free abortions in case the condoms fail, full rights and benefits for shack-ups, same-sex 'marriage' (helps devalue the currency of real marriage, you know), and adultery a matter of privacy not character. So yes, the liberal vision is: Every gal a slut.Step 2. One could imagine the palpable gasps emanating from the readership of say, the New York Times, or at least that part of it that shared the presuppositions of those who write that parish magazine of affluent and self-congratulatory liberal enlightenment, had they read such language (pace Alasdair MacIntyre). Good respectable liberal folk just don't say such things. But these ads were not carried by the New York Times. These ads were carried, among other journals, by First Things in its November 1998 issue. In the subsequent (December) issue, First Things editor, Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus, wrote:
The [NOR] ad that ran in our November [1998] issue was simply beyond the pale. Whatever the derelictions of liberalism, and they are many, it is simply not true, as the ad claimed, that 'liberals ... would make every woman a whore' and embrace the goal of 'Every gal a slut.' I did not see the ad in advance and I apologize for its appearance.Now my bet is that many of my readers -- if previous comment boxes are any indication -- feel the same way as Neuhaus about the NOR ad -- that it's simply "beyond the pale." Yet again, in the November 2005 issues of First Things, Neuhaus says that NOR ads are "repugnant," and that "those advertisements, like much that appears in the magazine [the NOR], are mean-spirited, malicious, in violation of good taste, and seriously false." (p. 75) Now, hold your applause. We're not done yet.
I make a point of reading the New Oxford Review ads because I find them entertaining and enjoy their deliberate outrageousness.... Even so, I too was taken aback at first by the statements to which he [Neuhaus] objects so strenuously -- 'liberals ... would love to make every woman a whore' and embrace the goal of 'Every gal a slut.' However, upon consideration, I decided that this shocking language reflected a reality that needs to be confronted. Father Neuhaus' pained reaction can eve be considered a symptom of the disease the New Oxford Review is attacking in its ad.... The point the New Oxford Review is making in the ad is that liberals have consistently and successfully pressed for changes in our society that transform conduct that once caused women to be condemned as 'whores' and 'sluts' into behavior to be accepted and even encouraged as healthy. Poisonous liberal maxims permeate our culture: ... 'Women must be free to explore their sexuality' offers women unbounded sexual license.... Armed with sex education, contraception, and abortion, liberals have encouraged women not only to be 'sluts' and 'whores,' but baby-killers as well.... Virgins must defend their virginity against accusations of being sexual freaks. The assumption is that healthy adolescents and adults will be sexually active. Homosexuals ask why they should be chaste when no one else is expected to be. These are the fruits of the liberal agenda.... The rest of us are to be understanding and not 'judgmental,' much less condemnatory. So much so that the very use of the terms 'slut' and 'whore,' even in hyperbolic advertisement, is [considered by Neuhaus to be] 'mean-spirited, malicious,' and 'violative of good taste.' ... But to accuse it [the ad] of being 'seriously false' is to fail to come to terms with the very real truth behind its hyperbole and, innocently or not, to pander to the liberal sensiblities.The second letter was from Leland D. Peterson from Norfolk, Virginia, who writes:
Is there no place for hyperbole in advertising copy? I was led to subscribe to the New Oxford Review by the wit and hyperbole of the ads, which I thought was amusing. I still find them so. Truth through exaggeration is a time-hallowed rhetorical device.So ... why does Vree have to call prostitutes "whores"? Well, perhaps because that's what they really are? I know in The Netherlands they're trying to make a respectable career of prostitution, where it's not only legalized but state regulated and controlled by the department of public health. I've heard stories of husbands dropping off their wives in Amsterdam's red light district and kissing them goodbye before they begin their day's work. But how does that change the fact that a woman who sells her body for money is a "whore"? Why should we want to dress up the profession as something dignified and respectable. It's not. It goes without saying this is raunchy language. But go back and read what the NOR ad says. It describes the world we've come to inhabit -- a world, indeed, of "rauncy sex ed, titillating TV shows and movies, free condoms for every teenager, free abortions in case the condoms fail, full rights and benefits for shack-ups, same-sex 'marriage,' and adultery a matter of privacy, not character." Have we grown so complacent with the illusion that these things are acceptable that we find it offensive and shocking when someone calls a thing by its proper name?
Washington -- The usual suspects swept the top places in an online poll sponsored by the National Association of Pastoral Musicians (NAPM). The poll asked which "liturgical songs" (is that an oxymoron?) most fostered and nourished the respondent's life, reported Mark Pattison for the Catholic News Service (Jan. 25, 2006), in his article "'On Eagle's Wings' tops all songs in online liturgical music survey.", Thomas Day carefully analyzes many of the "liturgical songs" of contemporary Catholic parish liturgies, both for musical quality and theological quality, and finds them seriously wanting. I cannot recommend the book strongly enough. On the musical side, the problem is not simply a relativism of taste (some like pop tarts, while others like chef salads). The problem is that there are objective criteria for aesthetic excellence and little of this popular post-Vatican II fare is more than slipshod. Furthermore, not only is this a matter capable of being dismissed as a mere quarrel over preferences of taste, it has a direct bearing on the honor, respect, and reverence that is due to God.
Bloomington, Minnesota -- In less time than it took him to order a Whopper with fries, Marty Haugen wrote the lyrics and melody yesterday for a new hymn he says is his best yet.
That's the only explanation I can think of for this new song," he said.
Haugen's new hymn features all those subjects his fans have grown to love over the years: banquets, acceptance, stars, flowers and, of course, the moon. He even managed to work in a couple of lines about his new puppy, Sparky. "This song is about me, you, God and creation. It reminds us that God really regards his entire creation, and especially us, with wonder." 
Back in January, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (January 20, 2006) ran an article by Ann Rodgers with the following headline:
There are many reasons why some people do not like the New Oxford Review (NOR). For one thing, NOR tends to be ineluctably right-wing in its theological drift. In fact, it seems to lean so far right, at times, as to be nearly horizontal. For another thing, it can be highly irritating, depending on one's sympathies. For more years than some highly irritable individuals care to remember, NOR has been running ads in national Catholic periodicals that have come to enjoy a broad reputation as ... well, anything but Catholic-lite. NOR is -- what can one say? -- brazenly Catholic. It is not merely provocative, but pugnacious -- even piquish.
And they're getting puffy and flabby, just like their hero Ted Kennedy..." Yet another reads: "As long as sodomite priests are winked, and certain seminaries remain hothouses for flamers and promote dissent that justifies immorality, sexual license in the priesthood will continue..." Still another, picturing a crusader in chain mail, states: "If you want a militant Catholicism -- as in 'the Church Militant' -- do subscribe to New Oxford Review. But don't subscribe if you're a bozo or a sissy, for we hereby forewarn you: Doing so will give you a hissy fit..." Still another ad for the magazine once pictured St. Peter's Basilica with the banner headline above it reading, simply: "Rome Will Win!" Like a Pit Bull, he attacks, bites, latches on, and holds on. Like a Pitt Bull, he is tenacious. Like a well-trained Catholic attack dog, he goes after anything that smells of theological compromise. Liberals hate him. Dissidents despise him. Moderates fear him. Neoconservatives are annoyed by him. The trouble is, he unleashes his reserves of adrenalin against his targets at the first, faintest whiff of anything that smells remotely like heterodoxy, even if his target is a widely celebrated champion of Catholic neoconservatives like Richard John Neuhaus or Scott Hahn. In fact, the offending odor doesn't have to even be remotely related to heterodoxy: if he catches the least scent of inconsistency or compromise, this dog of war will unleash himself upon your allegedly hypocritical derriere even if you are Fr. Joseph Fessio, George Weigel, Deal Hudson, Legionaries of Christ founder Fr. Marcial Maciel, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, or even Catholic-And-Loving-It blog magnate, Mark Shea. Needless to say, this has not made him many fast friends.
I was a reader back when readers watched as the whole staff of NOR, in the words of Anne Roche Muggeridge, "argued and agonized itself into the Catholic Church over the issues of the ordination of women and homosexuals." I have followed in detail the progress and changes of the magazine over the years, the passing of some of her Titans listed on her masthead of contributing editors over the years (Christopher Lasch, Sheldon Vanauken, William D. Miller, L. Brent Bozell ...), as well as the various debates engaging the energies of the editor. With very few and comparatively minor exceptions -- generally constituting, at worst, indiscretions of tact -- my judgment is that Vree's editorial performance has been utterly irreproachable. This isn't to say that his biting style or satirical humor is to everybody's taste. Nor is it to say that he hasn't been offensive to some; but this offensiveness has never, to my knowledge involved malice, slander, libel, or deliberate misinformation, but only the singular tanacity of a Pit Bull -- or, perhaps better here, bloodhound -- to get to the bottom of the facts where he smells (or at least thinks he smells) a rat. Nor is this to claim that he has always interpreted the facts right or even gotten all of the facts. Who has? But even at his most "offensive" -- as in his socio-etymological analysis of the term "fag" -- I have found Vree's arguments nearly always carefully reasoned. I may not always agree -- particularly in the tact and diplomacy department -- but then, tact and diplomacy, as lofty as they may be, are probably also more often a cloak for cowardice than we'd like to admit.
everything and knew nothing, whereas he, at least, knew that he knew nothing. Plato's Apology, of course, is an account of the trial of Socrates on trumped-up charges against him of religious impiety and corrupting the youth, and a large dose of guilt-by-association with a student of his who turned traitor to Athens. But what animates his enemies is their hatred of Socrates for his constant needling truth, his exposure of their hypocrisy, ignorance, and moral compromise. After the inevitable verdict, when Socrates is given a chance to propose an alternative to the death penalty proposed by his accusers, Socrates suggests that a fitting return for his services would be free meals and a pension so that he might continue instructing his fellow Athenians in the care of their souls -- a reward he deserves, he says, far more than a winner of a chariot race at the Olympiad. This, of course, seals his fate, even though there is nothing untrue or malicious in anything Socrates has said.
My contention here, in the first place, is not so much that Vree is either great or misunderstood -- although he may be both -- but that he is simply disliked because he rankles. Like Socrates, he rankles those who do not welcome his observations that they think they know when they do not, and -- especially -- that they have been hypocritical, inconsistent, duplicitious, or self-serving, while being pampered in public for their philanthropic largesse, theological insight, doctrinal orthodoxy, or spiritual depth. People just do not want to hear this -- even if it's true -- especially if it's true. We would all prefer to circle the wagons and lambaste the obvious enemies -- Roe v Wade, Al Qaeda, Modernism, Dissent, Cafeteria Catholicism, or perhaps the Lefebvrites -- rather than see the finger pointed at -- heaven forbid! -- one of our own, even if it involves sexual predation, administrative misfeasance, or theological confusions.
and perhaps others. In some cases, no reasons were offered for these refusals, though they are not hard to guess. NOR hasn't been an easy "team player," where being a team player has required not pointing the finger at other team members who haven't played by the rules. As I've said, Vree's blunt finger-pointing has made NOR many enemies, not altogether unlike the blunt outspokenness of Socrates among his fellow Athenians. In some cases, NOR ads seem to have been pulled purely as an act of personal spite -- although I underline the word seem: I do not ultimately know. What I do know is that NOR itself has been unjustly attacked, marginalized, cold shouldered, edged out. The NOR crowd have become pricks. Also one of their writers (I forget his name)accused Scott Hahn of promoting Lesbianism teaches [sic] the Holy Spirit had sex with the BVM (for some reason THAT'S ok to teach but not that the Holy Spirit is associated with the feminine). Go figure. (Source)Scott Hahn is a very dear personal friend of mine, and I generally repose a near absolute trust in his theological judgments. Whatever may be said of his views concerning the Holy Spirit, however, the broadside derisive dismissal of NOR's discussion of Hahn's Pneumatology represented by such witless folderol is simply embarrassing, for NOR published no such nonsense as this.
In fact Karl Keating, one of NOR's contributing editors, argues on Shea's blog that even if Vree's editorials were to be criticized as hyperbolic, the same charge could not be leveled against articles such as the one that appeared in the June 2004 issue entitled "Scott Hahn's Novelties," by Edward O'Neill. Keating writes: "I read that article more than once and saw no hyperbolic language or uncharity in it. It was a low-key look at some of the positions Scott has taken (some of which I hadn't been aware of), and I thought it brought up fair questions." (Source) I read the same article and drew much the same conclusion myself. Most of the emotional rants against the NOR that I have seen have not been based on first-hand acquaintance the journal, but with secondhand hype and balderdash.They are a bunch of pricks and their rantings are nuts. Dale Vree is a former Communist party official (no kidding) who worked in East Berlin and then graduated from the leftist Berkeley University in California. Michael Rose isn't much better. He graduated from the leftist Brown University in Rhoad [sic] Island. Both men and their wives (I am told from a knowledgeable source) are Opus Dei, and I know for a fact that they were paid well to do hit pieces on the Legionaries. [Ibid.]Vree replies:
No, Dale Vree is not "a former Communist party official," not even a member of the Party. Yes, he lived in East Berlin in 1966, where he found Jesus Christ.Aside from the pity that they aren't members of Opus Dei, the gaping discrepancies between such opinions and the reality about NOR leads me to the following conclusion: Do not believe hearsay or what you read secondhand.
Yes, Rose graduated from Brown and Vree from Berkeley (and, by the way, our Managing Editor, our Deputy Editor, and others on the masthead also graduated from Berkeley).... But the big question is: Since Rose graduated from the leftist Brown and Vree graduated from the leftist Berkeley, then how did both of them become rightists? How could they have resisted the leftist indoctrination?
As for both men and their wives being Opus Dei operatives who are paid well to do hit pieces on the Legionaries: How do you prove a negative from an unknown source? We solemnly swear that none of us belongs to Opus Dei and nobody paid us anything.
Do not join the rush to judgment, caricature, slander, and condemnation. Do not let yourself be deceived or become an unwitting participant in the deception of others. Read NOR for yourself. It may not be a slick, glossy production. It may not always be of an even quality. What is? But it's one periodical I have always read through cover-to-cover with profit. Why? Because I invariably find there information I have not find anywhere else -- like Tom Bethell's excellent article, "Archbishop Levada: Advancing on the Chessboard" in the January, 2006, issue, which traces Levada's career from his arrival in San Francisco to his current Vatican post on as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (Read it and see for yourself.) NOR often publishes pieces other journals might hesitate to publish for reasons of diplomacy, if you see what I mean. Furthermore, I invariably find there editorials that challenge my perspective, such as Vree's constant drumbeat against the Neuhaus-Weigel, Crisis-First Things consensus on the war in Iraq, Bush Presidency, or capital punishment. These make me uncomfortable. But then I have to remember that both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI opposed the war in Iraq from its beginning, and have taken positions unpopular with the Republican administration and American neoconservative Catholics on certain issues. I do not consider the discomfort inflicted upon me by Vree an evil, but a reminder that I, too, must constantly keep myself open to possible correction. NOR also has great book reviews and guest columns. Finally, perhaps this will only appeal to those of you with a slightly wonky sense of humor, but there are times I simply find myself enjoying Vree's sense of humor. But then, I guess that explains why my buddy John T. Bell and I founded the fraternal order called the Sons of Tomas de Torquemada (subsequently expanded -- oh, so politcally correctly and inclusively -- to Sons and Daughters of Torquemada).
Jesus Christ (see his book, From Berkeley to East Berlin and Back [Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1985]), and a period of sojourn in the Anglican tradition as an Episcopalian. His spiritual journey is recorded in "A Less Traveled Road to Rome," in The New Catholics, ed. Dan O'Neill (New York: Crossroad, 1989), pp. 49-62. I remember the ads of the magazine being pugnacious back then, although the target was usually American Fundamentalism and nationalistic civil religion. The hybrid signature alignment of NOR, forged amidst the civil rights movement of the sixties and Vietnam War of the seventies, was theologically conservative and socio-politically liberal. Alignments may have shifted a bit, but you still see NOR coming out against the war in Iraq and against much of the current Bush administration policy. Malcolm Muggeridge's Canadian-born daughter-in-law, Anne Roche Muggeridge, witnessed Dale Vree's (and NOR's) journey to Catholicism. As a traditional Catholic, distraught over the disastrous aftermath of Vatican II, she wrote: Catholics watched with a mixture of pity and amusement as the whole staff of the excellent Anglo-Catholic New Oxford Review argued and agonized itself into the Catholic Church over the issues of the ordination of women and homosexuals. I now know a substantial number of recent converts like this (in counter-revolutionary groups they usually outnumber "cradle Catholics") and am much edified by their purity and ardour. Seven of them are my godchildren, and I must confess that some of us, to our shame, earnestly tried to delay them, on the grounds of the growing disorder in the Catholic Church. They forced their way past us anyway, thank God; though the priest I brought them to for instruction and I could not resist saying, when they had their first shocking confrontation with revolutionary priests and nuns over their children's education: "Well, you can't say we didn't warn you!" The point is, these converts remind one of what one asks of the Church of God, as the old baptism question went; the answer being, "Faith!" They come, like St. Peter, because they have found that for them there is nowhere else to go to hear "the words of eternal life." They come because at the highest level of Catholic teaching, the doctrine of the faith, though much embattled, remains uncompromised and is as fearlessly proclaimed by John Paul II as by Peter, Paul, Ignatius, or Augustine. (The Desolate City: Revolution in the Catholic Church"To be great is to be misunderstood," said Emerson. I do not know whether Vree is great. He may be. I do think he has been misunderstood by many because of the misinformation at the hands of those whom he has rankled and offended. I do think that Socrates was both great and misunderstood. Long after his own generation, having spurned and executed him, has passed into oblivion, we remember Socrates for his courage to speak the truth, bluntly, even sometimes rudely, in the face of untruth and adversity. I rather doubt that Vree will have the luxury of dying a martyr's death, though I suspect there are some who might wish that fate upon him. Yet long after the dust of the chaos and confusion of this generation has settled, and long after some of those now feted as brighter lights have passed from the scene, it would not surprise me if San Francisco's feisty little non-profit Catholic journal and its pugnacious editor are remembered -- even celebrated. The New Oxford Review is an indispensable Catholic publication in the present crisis: subscribe to it and read it. Think of Dale Vree, its editor, as God's very own faithful Pit Bull, and show some respect.
Pope Benedict is considering lifting the excommunication of the heads of an ultra-traditionalist group that broke with the Vatican 18 years ago, according to reports yesterday.Read more here. What remains to be seen is whether, and then how many of, the traditionalists will be willing to be mainstreamed into the hierarchical authority structure of the post Vatican II Catholic Church.
The Pope is said to be planning to meet top advisers later this month to discuss more ways of bringing the traditionalists, known as the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), back into the mainstream Catholic fold.
... The Pope reportedly wants to hold a meeting with cardinals in mid-February "to discuss the possibility of lifting the excommunication of the bishops" Archbishop Lefebvre ordained.
Q. What has influenced your thinking with regard to the sacred liturgy?Read more here.
Bishop Bruskewitz: I think Msgr. [Klaus] Gamber's books about the reform of the liturgy and what the Holy Father himself has written, as Cardinal Ratzinger, about the liturgy, are extremely important.
The link to this the following Reuters article by Carey Gillam at Yahoo News came to me from my son, Jonathan, in Knoxville, who writes: "I like the comment about women being able to see the 4-d x-rays of the baby, showing them that the 'collection of cells' is complete with a face, heartbeat, etc., making it HUMAN." According to Gillam's article, the champion of kill-your-own-baby rights seem to be in something of a panic: KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) -- In Wichita, Kansas, abortion rights supporters held a "chili for choice" fund-raising dinner. In Pierre, South Dakota, they plotted strategy in the "Back Alley" meeting hall. And in Minneapolis, volunteers led women past protesters into an abortion clinic.I did sense something different in the air at this year's March for Life in Washington, DC, this January 23rd. After three decades of killing 4000 babies/day in these United States alone, there was a sense -- just a personal sense ... something I picked up from things I read in the papers -- that something else might actually be possible. What ... sanity? ... In this country??? I'm not holding my breath, but I'm far from saying anything is hopeless.
It was just a typical week in Middle America where the decades-old debate over abortion rights has become a full-blown battle. But even as they continue to raise money and march around state capitols, the view from the pro-choice side is this is a fight they are losing.
... The pro-choice groups find themselves facing a virtual avalanche of state legislation that ranges from laws banning abortions in almost all circumstances to laws limiting the disbursement of birth control and restricting sex education.
... "I think Roe in the short term will be dismantled," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "We have an anti-choice president, an anti-choice Congress and now ... with the confirmation of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court, we are seeing the potential for a very right-leaning, anti-choice Supreme Court."
Anti-abortion groups say much has changed in the 33 years since the famed U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe V. Wade cleared the way for legalized abortion. They acknowledge the increased power of religious conservatives in public policy, but say other factors are central to the rise of anti-abortion legislation and what they say is waning public support for abortion.
Among the key factors is enhanced technology, such as 4-D ultra-sound, that allows pregnant women to clearly view the features of the fetus they might abort.
"The technology has allowed someone who before had no face and no voice to become an actual child," said Mary Spaulding Balch, director of state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee. "In the 70s and 80s whenever you debated abortion you talked about the mother. Now the baby is being brought into the debate."
(Read the whole article HERE.)
[Anonymous: Hat tip to J.L.Y.]History began some 12,000 years ago. Humans existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers.
They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast to live on fish and lobster in winter.
The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups: Liberals and Conservatives.
Once beer was discovered it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early human ancestors were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as "the Conservative movement."
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ and doing the sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as 'girleymen.'
Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't "fair" to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, fighter pilots, athletes and generally anyone who works productively outside government.
Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to "govern" the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.
Here ends today's lesson in world history. It should be noted that a Liberal will have an uncontrollable urge to respond to the above instead of simply laughing and deleting or forwarding it.
In remembrance of National Right To Life Day, celebrated every January 22nd on the annual anniversary of the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, Roe vs. Wade (1973), and in honor of the tens thousands of protestors who annually drive to Washington, D.C., to march from the Washington Monument to the Supreme Court, lobby senators, and get themselves ignored by the media in favor of the eight or nine abortion-rights activists who manage to come out and get themselves interviewed on national television, it seemed only decent and proper to come up with a "thought for the day" of some kind before stepping on the bus for D.C. tomorrow morning. Accordingly, I've retrieved from my files the following annual quotation from Princeton professor, Robert P. George: I am personally opposed to killing abortionists. However, inasmuch as my personal opposition to this practice is rooted in sectarian (Catholic) religious belief in the sanctity of human life, I am unwilling to impose it on others who may, as a matter of conscience, take a different view. Of course, I am entirely in favor of policies aimed at removing the root causes of violence against abortionists. Indeed, I would go as far as supporting mandatory one-week waiting periods, and even non-judgmental counseling, for people who are contemplating the choice of killing an abortionist. I believe in policies that reduce the urgent need some people feel to kill abortionists while, at the same time, respecting the rights of conscience of my fellow citizens who believe that the killing of abortionists is sometimes a tragic necessity--not a good, but a lesser evil. In short, I am moderately 'pro-choice.'"
[Dr. Robert P. George is George McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, a graduate of Harvard Law School, and earned his doctorate in philosophy of law at Oxford University. He currently sits on the President's Council of Bioethics and is author of numerous books on constitutional law and jurisprudence. Just in case anyone is still wondering, the foregoing statement is not intended to be taken at face value, but as a parody and reductio ad absurdum refutation of the fallacious reasoning employed pervasively by proponents of a "pro-choice" position favoring "abortion rights." I offer this explanation not to insult your intelligence, but only because of having learned the hard way to cover my bases: several years ago, I sent George's quotation out by email to all faculty, staff, and students at Lenoir-Rhyne College, only to hear that a President's cabinet meeting was called to address the issue, and, the dean of students, frantic to ensure the institution's political correctness, sent out a follow-up message indicating that the views of my email did not reflect the views of the institution and that the college did not endorse the killing of abortionists! Well guess what? Neither do I or Bobby George!]