Augustine on His Own Wickedness

St. Augustine has an interesting reflection on his "wicked" acts in his youth:

I had no motive for my wickedness except for wickedness itself. It was foul, and I loved it. I loved the self-destruction, I loved my fall, not the objecto for which I had fallen but my fall itself. My depraved soul leaped down from your firmament to ruin. I was seeking not to gain anything by shameful means, but shame for its own sake. (Augustine, Confessions 2.4(9); trans. Henry Chadwick).

What was Augustine's great depravity in his soul? What great sin had he committed for the sake of wickedness and shame itself? A fall that he enjoyed not for the end, but for the fall itself? He stole a pear. Can you think of a more wicked and evil act?

(An extra note: sadly, the translator of these lines, Henry Chadwick, died last year. He will be sorely missed.)

Quote of the Day: Cervantes

"They can dress me up as they please," said Sancho. "Whatever clothes they put me in I'll still be Sancho Panza." (Cervantes, Don Quixote II, XLII; trans. John Rutherford)

I like Sancho. He says some ridiculous things, mixes his proverbs up, and, at times, comes out as extraordinarily profound without realizing it. He reminds me of another sidekick character of Samwise or Sam in the Lord of the Rings: loyal, naive, folksy, and occasionally profound.

Sancho, here, says that not matter how he is dressed up, as a peasant or as a governor, he will still be himself. The dress, in fact, reflects such stations or classes in life. One's station is like clothing: it can come and go and change, but the self endures and remains. It is almost Platonic, but clothed in everyday situations.

The House of Rumour

Picture a space at the heart of the world, between the earth,
the sea and teh sky, on the frontiers of all three parts of the universe.
Here there are eyes for whatever goes on, no matter how distant;
and here there are ears whose hollows no voice can fail to penetrate.
This is the kingdom of Rumour, who chose to live on a mountain,
with numberless entrances into her house and a thousand additional
holes, though none of her thresholds are barred with a gate or a door.
Open by night and by day, constructed entirely of sounding
brass, the whole place hums and echoes, repeating whatever
it hears. Not one of the rooms is silent or quiet, but none
is disturbed by shouting. The noise is merely a murmuring babble,
low like the waves of the sea which you hear from afar, or the last faint
rumble of thunder, when storm-black clouds have clashed in the sky.
The hall is filled by a crowd which is constantly coming and going,
a flimsy throng of a thousand rumours, true and fictitious,
wandering far and wide in a turbulent tangle of language.
They chatter in empty ears or pass on stories to others;
the fiction grows and detail is added by each new teller.
This is the haunt of credulity, irresponsible errorr,
groundless joy, unreasoning panic, impulsive sedition
and whispering gossip. Rumour herself spies every occurrence
on earth, at sea, in the sky; and her scrutiny ranges the universe.
(Ovid, Metamorphoses 12.38-62)

Gay Penguins Marry in China

Huh? Penguins? In China?

From Weird News at About.com:

Who says China isn't a bastion for Civil Liberties? At least their gay penguins can marry.

Two besotted male birds at China's Polarland wildlife park have just waddled down the isle to icy nuptial bliss. And, of course, both partners wore tuxedoes.

But like any marriage, behind the live music, revelry and sumptuous servings of herring, there lurked adversity. I'm not just talking about cold feet. Both grooms are, after all, South Pole natives.

As Britain's Sun reported, zookeepers once tried to isolate the gay lovebirds because they were stealing heterosexual couples' eggs for their own nest.

Finally, officials let them to care for eggs rejected by other mothers. The gays are now considered the zoo's best penguin parents.

As a newlywed myself, I say to them, "L'Chaim!" I call on gay zoo animals of the world to take the plunge. You don't need an opposable thumb to tie this kind of knot!

....

C'mon gay zoo creatures! Let's plan your wedding.

Here's to the groom and groom! How sweet!

The Swine is Divine

If you are a vegetarian or kosher, this is not for you. This is about bacon, and more bacon, lots and lots of bacon...and some sausage.

I am speaking of a recipe posted on a blog that is getting so many hits on the web, that the NYTimes took notice.

It is the Bacon Explosion. Please take a look, write down the recipe, and then, if I am coming over, try the recipe out. ;)

All I can say is it looks absolutely beautiful, and it is making me hungry. Mmmmmmmm.....baaaaacooooon.

What does Legalizing Marijuana Have to do with Holocaust Survivors?

I have to say, I have never even thought of that question before Rebecca Lesses brought attention to this political ad by the Israeli Green Leaf Party whose primary platform is the legalization of marijuana. They are trying to garner support for this platform through Holocaust survivors:



Weird!

Dante's World

I just stumbled onto a University of Texas site, Dante's World.

It is very cool. You can enter either the Inferno, Purgatorio, or Paradiso. Every few cantos have options to view famous artistic renderings of those scenes, such as those by Blake. It also gives key images, explains some lines, gives an audio line or two in Italian, and offers study questions.

All in all, a worthwhile site, even for the artistic renderings alone!

Rest in Peace, John Updike

One of America's most gifted writers, one who made the ordinary shine, died today. I just saw an interview he gave to Charlie Rose not too long ago.

Here is NYTime's Obituary.

January 28, 2009
John Updike, a Lyrical Writer of the Ordinary, Is Dead at 76
By CHRISTOPHER LEHMANN-HAUPT

John Updike, the kaleidoscopically gifted writer whose quartet of Rabbit Angstrom novels highlighted so vast and protean a body of fiction, verse, essays and criticism as to place him in the first rank of among American men of letters, died on Tuesday. He was 76 and lived in Beverly Farms, Mass.

....

Of Mr. Updike’s 61 books, perhaps none captured the imagination of the book-reading public as those about ordinary citizens in small-town and urban settings. His best-known protagonist, Harry (Rabbit) Angstrom, first appears as a former high-school basketball star trapped in a loveless marriage and a sales job he hates. Through the four novels whose titles bear his nickname — “Rabbit, Run,” “Rabbit Redux,” “Rabbit Is Rich” and “Rabbit at Rest” — the author traces the sad life of this undistinguished middle-American against the background of the last half-century’s major events.

“My subject is the American Protestant small town middle class,” Mr. Updike told Jane Howard in a 1966 interview for Life magazine. “I like middles,” he continued. “It is in middles that extremes clash, where ambiguity restlessly rules.”

From his earliest short stories, set in the fictional town of Olinger, Pa., which he once described as “a square mile of middle-class homes physically distinguished by a bend in the central avenue that compels some side streets to deviate from the grid,” Mr. Updike sought the clash of extremes in everyday dramas of marriage, sex and divorce. The only wealth he bestowed on his subjects lay in the richness of his descriptive language, the detailed fineness of which won him comparisons with painters like Vermeer and Andrew Wyeth.

This detail was often so rich that it inspired two schools of thought on Mr. Updike’s fiction — those who responded to his descriptive prose as to a kind of poetry, a sensuous engagement with the world, and those who argued that he wasted beautiful language on nothing. The latter position was perhaps most acutely defined by James Wood in an essay, “John Updike’s Complacent God,” in his collection “The Broken Estate: Essays on Literature and Belief” (Random House, 1999).

Mr. Wood attributed the author’s “lyric capacities” to his “particular loyalty to the Protestant theologian Karl Barth.” He argued that for Mr. Updike, because he accepts Barth’s belief that God confers grace through the gift of creation, description alone of that creation is sufficient to affirm his faith.

He is also quite famous for his "Witches of Eastwick" and his numerous collections of essays.

He also was a believer in 3 pages a day: 3 pages a day means a book a year means several books in a lifetime. I have tried that...and it is amazing how fast your writing builds. It is also good just to keep in the practice.

Obama and the "Muslim World"

Most people probably realize by now that President Obama gave his first televised interview as President to a major Arabic television network, Al Arabiya.

Here is an article from NYTimes:

January 28, 2009
Obama Signals New Tone in Relations With Islamic World
By ALAN COWELL

PARIS — In an interview with one of the Middle East’s major broadcasters, President Barack Obama struck a conciliatory tone toward the Islamic world, saying he wanted to persuade Muslims that “the Americans are not your enemy.” He also said “the moment is ripe” for negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

The interview with Al Arabiya, an Arabic-language news channel based in Dubai, signaled a shift — in style and manner at least — from the Bush administration, offering what he depicted as a new readiness to listen rather than dictate.

It was Mr. Obama’s first televised interview from the White House and the first with any foreign news outlet.

In a transcript published on Al Arabiya’s English language Web site, Mr. Obama said it is his job “to communicate to the Muslim world that the Americans are not your enemy.”

He added that “we sometimes make mistakes,” but said that America was not born as a colonial power and that he hoped for a restoration of “the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.”

Mr. Obama spoke as his special Middle East envoy, George J. Mitchell, arrived in Egypt to begin an eight-day tour that will include stops in Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, France and Britain. In Egypt, Mr. Mitchell planned to meet President Hosni Mubarak.

In discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mr. Obama told Al Arabiya that “the most important thing is for the United States to get engaged right away.” He said that he told Mr. Mitchell to “start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating.”

“Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what’s best for them. They’re going to have to make some decisions,” Mr. Obama said. “But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that, instead, it’s time to return to the negotiating table.”

Several hours after he spoke on Monday night, an explosion on the Israel-Gaza border killed an Israeli soldier and threatened new violence. The war in Gaza, which lasted three weeks, had stopped 10 days ago when both sides declared unilateral cease fires.

Mr. Obama said Israel “will not stop being a strong ally of the United States and I will continue to believe that Israel’s security is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side.”

He also said that although he would not put a time frame on it, he believed it was “possible for us to see a Palestinian state.” He described the state as one “that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life.”

But he also said the Israel-Palestine conflict should not be seen in isolation. “I do think it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what’s happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan,” Mr. Obama said.

He spoke at length about America’s future relationship with the Muslim world, saying his “job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives.”

He drew a distinction between “extremist organizations” committed to violence and “people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop.”

“We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down,” he said. “But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship.”

He also said it was “important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress.”

“As I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us,” he said.

He was not asked whether he would continue the policy of former President George Bush in refusing to exclude military action in the dispute over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

It is a welcome shift in policy, but there is a nagging problem--his assumption that the "Muslim world" and the "American people" are different things. Where or what or who exactly is the "Muslim world"? Is it just the various groups of Muslims around the world? That would include a sizeable number of Americans, in fact. Or does he exclude Muslims living in Europe and America in this articulation? He is right that negotiations in Israel and Palestine is a pressing issue. But, then again, we should recall that a good portion and increasing percentage of its population is Muslim, and, soon, may be the majority. Moreover, there have traditionally been occasional pockets of large numbers of Christians throughout the Middle East, such as Syrian and Chaldean Christians. So, the facts on the ground complicate setting the American people and the Muslim world in opposition, even as a hand will be extended from one to the other. Perhaps "Muslim world" means the several countries in which Muslims constitute the majority, like Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. This may be the assumption, but there is an ideological distancing between Americans and Muslim that remains problematic.

More Morton Smith and Secret Mark

I recently discussed or really just brought attention to the Smith-Scholem correspondence discussed in the Nation, in which Guy Stroumsa thinks there is proof that Morton Smith could not have forged Secret Mark.

Peter Jeffrey, I believe from the department of music at Princeton (correct me if I'm wrong), wrote a book on Secret Mark called The Secret Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals of Sex, Death, and Madness in a Biblical Forgery. He obviously thinks Smith did forge it. He has posted a whole slew of reactions to his book here.

Vatican Issues Statement on Holocaust-Denying Bishop

I recently commented on the reinstatement of a Holocaust- (and 9/11-) denying bishop by the Vatican.

Now the Vatican has issued a statement that says that the reinstatement does not mean that it agrees with the bishop's views.

For text and commentary, see Rebecca Lesses at Mystical Politics.

University Economics

A depressing article from the NYTimes:

January 27, 2009

Data Show College Endowments Loss is Worst Drop Since ’70s
By KATIE ZEZIMA

The value of university endowments fell about 23 percent on average in the five months ended Nov. 30, according to two newly released reports.

The steep declines are forcing colleges and universities across the country to contemplate wage freezes, layoffs and a halt to construction projects.

The drop found by the reports is the biggest in the value of college and university endowments since the mid-1970s, said John S. Griswold Jr., executive director of the Commonfund Institute, which manages money for educational institutions and other nonprofits.

“It’s been very sudden in some ways,” Mr. Griswold said. “There were people predicting the decline a year ago or more, but I don’t think anyone could claim to see the extent of this. These are unprecedented numbers.”

The reports, prepared by the Commonfund Institute and the National Association of College and University Business Officers, drew on data from 796 institutions for the 2008 fiscal year, which ended June 30, and on additional statistics gleaned from a follow-up survey with 435 for the period from July 1 to Nov. 30.

They found that while endowments gained in value by about 0.5 percent in the old fiscal year, they lost nearly a quarter of their worth in the subsequent five months, a period in which the financial markets sank.

“It’s a rolling contagion that hit us,” Mr. Griswold said.

The pain was spread among institutions large and small, private and public. When endowments were categorized by size, even the least affected — those worth more than $1 billion — were found to have lost an average of 20 percent. Those of $500 million to $1 billion saw the biggest decline, about 25 percent. Public institutions lost an average of 24 percent, private institutions 22 percent.

“Both public and private institutions are going to be very challenged, just in different directions,” said P. Brett Hammond, chief investment strategist of the financial services company TIAA-CREF, which helped the business officers association with its study. “States are in trouble themselves, and the downturn in state support comes along with declines in investments. In the private sector, at the same time endowments have declined students need more help than ever.”

Cornell is facing a 10 percent budget shortfall for the current fiscal year because of a 27 percent decline in its endowment over the last six months, a drop in state financing and alumni giving, and students’ need for more financial aid, according to a report issued this week by the university’s president, David J. Skorton. To close the gap, the university plans to freeze campus construction and draw on $150 million in reserve cash and $35 million more from the endowment than was planned.

Syracuse University has already announced layoffs, and Dartmouth, whose endowment lost 18 percent of its value from July 1 to Dec. 31, has said they are inevitable.

“We continue to fund approximately 35 percent of the college-only operating budget through endowment distributions, and we do not have additional revenue sources that can replace this level of support,” Barry P. Scherr, Dartmouth’s provost, and Adam Keller, executive vice president, said in statement issued last week.

“We anticipate that some of our endowment investments will continue to show losses,” they added, “and that many of our generous donors will be unable to give at the same levels for some time to come.”

Charles L. Schearer, president of the private Transylvania University in Lexington, Ky., said its endowment, which finances about a quarter of the operating budget, had declined in value by 28 percent since June 2007. As a result, Transylvania has cut back on staff travel, declined to fill job vacancies, frozen overtime and halted all construction projects. The university is planning a major fund-raising push in the next year to help make up for the endowment losses.

“We’re going to have to capture some of that money back,” Dr. Schearer said in an interview. “We’re not looking at this as if there will be a rapid recovery. We’re anticipating a slow and gradual recovery.”

Sixty percent of the institutions responding to the follow-up survey said they did not expect to change the amount they draw from their endowments in the current fiscal year.

Mr. Griswold thinks that wise.

“People aren’t making snap decisions, decisions that seem based on a panic reaction,” he said. “That’s terrific. They should keep a steady hand on the helm.”

With hiring freezes and even layoffs, it is not the best time to be on the job market in academia. In my field, many job openings have disappeared in these freezes, even in the nation's top institutions with the highest endowments.

Happy Birthday Edgar Allen Poe!

Sententiae et Clamores draws attention that last week was Poe's 200th birthday. I am sorry I missed it. He posts a nice clip that I will repeat here of Christopher Walken reading the Raven:



Although I am a big fan of this version by the Simpsons, as read by James Earl Jones:



Unfortunately, the picture and sound aren't seeming to sync up on the Simpsons version.

Quote of the Day: Amy-Jill Levine on Public Prayer

I have been reading Amy-Jill Levine's, The Misunderstood Jew, and toward the end where she gives some ideas of Jewish-Christian dialogue, she talks about public prayer. I thought it would be appropriate given the recent discussions of prayer, especially Rick Warren's prayer, at Obama's inauguration:

A similar situation prevails with public prayer. Some Christian ministers resort to a watered-down, generic invocation that satisfies few. Some insist on praying in the "name of Jesus," which prevents Jews and other non-Christians from saying "Amen." Atheists are ignored in any case. More cynical biblical readers, finding dissatisfactory public prayer from high-school students gathered around flagpoles to senators representing the American people in Washington, might cite the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus states: "Whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners [and around flagpoles, and at legislative assembles, and on television broadcasts...], so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they ahve received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you" (Matt. 6:5-6). But since public religiosity is not going to go away, then the person offering the prayer needs to find a way of invoking the deity in a way that both affirms distinct confessions and recognizes the existence of alternative truth claims. Ending a prayer "in the name of Jesus" keeps the prayer parochial. Ending it "as I pray in the name of Jesus" is a bit of an improvement. "As I pray in the name of Jesus, and we all pray to the God who has many names and many children" is even better. The fundamentalist Christian should ahve little objection, since the God of the Bible does have many names: El Shaddai, El Elyon, YHWH, Elohim. In turn, Jews may choose to pray in Hebrew, but then they should provide a translation so the people in attendance know to what, exatly they are saying "Amen." Atheists, of course, are still left out, but at least the theists in the group are all included. (Amy-Jill Levin, Misunderstood Jew, 222-3)

Still...the "cynical" view has a point...

Judaism and the Vatican

It seems the Vatican is making a lot of news waves lately. The Pope's baffling and absurd statements about homosexuality about a month ago, and then the Pope establishing his own channel on YouTube to control his image yesterday.

Then there are two recent stories relating to Judaism and the Vatican. One relating to antiquity and medieval issues and the other much more modern; the first regarding the many Hebrew manuscripts the Vatican houses and preserves, and the other, the Holocaust or the Shoah.

Let's take the MSS first:

Vatican catalogs its Hebrew manuscripts
January 21, 2009

ROME (JTA) -- With the help of Israeli scholars, the Vatican has published a catalog of the Hebrew manuscripts kept in its library.

Publication of the work, a Vatican communique said, "represents a significant example of co-operation between the cultural institutions of the Holy See and of Israel."

The book, edited by the technical staff of the National Library of Israel, will be formally presented at an event Jan. 30 that will feature the Israeli ambassador to the Holy See as well as the Vatican librarian and former director of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts of the Jewish National and University Library.

The book includes all Vatican manuscripts in Hebrew script -- a total of approximately 800 items distributed over 11 collections.

Yet in the midst of this cooperation, there is more sinister activities going on relating to the reinstatement of a Holocaust-denying bishop:

January 25, 2009
Pope Reinstates Four Bishops, Including Holocaust Denier
By RACHEL DONADIO
VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI, acceding to the far-right of the Roman Catholic Church, revoked the excommunications of four schismatic bishops on Saturday, including one whose comments denying the Holocaust have provoked outrage.

The decision provided fresh fuel for critics who charge that Benedict’s four-year-old papacy has proven increasingly hostile to moderates and to the sweeping reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s that sought to create a more modern and open church.

Most contentious was the inclusion of Richard Williamson, a British-born cleric who in an interview last week said he did not believe that Jews died in the Nazi gas chambers. He has also given interviews saying that the United States government staged the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan.

The four reinstated men are members of the Society of St. Pius X, which was founded by a French archbishop, Marcel Lefebvre, in 1970 as a protest against the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Archbishop Lefebvre made the four bishops in unsanctioned consecrations in Switzerland in 1988, prompting the immediate excommunication of all five by Pope John Paul II.

There is something unsettling here. All of these bishops want to roll back Vatican II. One is a Holocaust and, now, a 9/11 denier. And their initial consecrations were unsanctioned anyway. So, to (re)instate bishops who had questionable consecrations who were for a Latin mass that calls for the conversion of the Jews with a Holocaust denier seems suggests some larger motive from Benedict XVI. He has been rolling back Vatican II since he got there, especially in the infamous statement the Vatican made a year or so ago on "Questions & Answers on Vatican II," in which it explained Vatican II rulings in the opposite manner that the plain reading of those rulings state. With these questionable bishops, he has found some like-minded individuals...and that is troubling that they are like-minded...especially joining a Holocaust denier with an ex-Hitler Jugend.

Here is the end of the article:

In welcoming the cleric back into the church, Benedict is “making a mockery of John Paul II, who called anti-Semitism ‘a sin against God and man,’ ” Rabbi Rosen added.In revoking the excommunications, the Vatican said it was responding to a letter sent in December by the director of the Society of Pius X, in which the bishops said they were “firmly determined to remain Catholic and to put all our efforts to the service of the church.”

The letter appeared to stop short of saying that the society would embrace, or even accept, the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

“This is certainly a major concession to the traditionalists, part of a long effort by Rome to heal the only formal schism after Vatican II,” said John L. Allen Jr., a columnist for the National Catholic Reporter.

“Politically, this certainly emboldens the conservative reading of the council and emphasizes what Benedict XVI has repeatedly called the ‘continuity’ of Vatican II with earlier periods of church history,” he added.

Pope John Paul II had some problems--we can recognize that. But he seemed to recognize the need to reach out to many different peoples, including non-Catholics and people of other religions. Benedict XVI, by seeking "reconciliation" with this schismatic group or by this "inclusionary" measure, will be alienating many Catholics, as he has already alienated many Christians in his statement on the relative positions of different Christian groups, and alienating Jews...while, at the same time, the Vatican controls 800 Hebrew manuscripts, and not just biblical, but Rabbinic as well: cooperation conjoined with alienation.

VaticanTube

According to Newsweek, the Pope is following in Barack Obama's footsteps and is launching his own channel on YouTube.

B16 is entering the digital world...a world without boundaries. It has actually proven effective for a great deal of people: politicians and religious leaders. Evangelicals love YouTube--decentralized information networks as a means to disseminate their religious views, a tool of proselytization. But, ironically, it is also a tool of control:

The Vatican said it was launching the channel to broaden Benedict's audience while also giving the Holy See better control over the papal image online.

Why do they need to control his image? You might think they need to do spin control on the Papal or Vatican positions and how they are taken by the rest of the world: on birth control, homosexuality, etc. But they mean this quite literally: the actual visual image of the pope:

"It's undeniable that certain images are already circulating," Celli said. While there is little the Vatican can do legally to shut down blasphemous or pornographic sites that use the papal or other Church images, he said it can at least control the content of what it puts up on its own channel.

Pornographic sites with pictures of Benedict XVI? I'm sorry...I just don't see how an 81-year-old pope would be that...exciting.

The internet is, indeed, a mixed bag of treats, sort of like the everything jelly beans from Harry Potter. The Pope, in fact, recognizes this, and not just in terms of image control:

The site, http://www.youtube.com/vaticanit, was launched the same day the pontiff praised as a "gift to humanity" the benefits of social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace in forging friendships and understanding.

But Benedict also warned that virtual socializing had its risks, saying "obsessive" online networking could isolate people from real social interaction and broaden the digital divide by further marginalizing people.

You can see the Pope at www.youtube.com/vaticanit.

Comic of the Day: Ph.D. Madlibs!

Yay! Madlibs for Ph.D.s!

Erasing Bush

From Newsweek:

Erasing Bush
With a call for 'relentless' diplomacy, Hillary further obliterates W's legacy.

Michael Hirsh
Newsweek Web Exclusive

After Inauguration Day, departed presidents usually become footnotes pretty quickly. What we are witnessing now is far more dramatic. It's closer to a liquidation, or a cauterization. George W. Bush is being turned into an unperson, like a character out of Orwell. It's been only two days, and there is scarcely a trace of not only his personal presence, but of his policies. Or at least that is the impression Barack Obama would like to convey.

The process of erasing the last eight years from American history began with President Obama's inaugural address on Tuesday. Between condemning torture and expressing a willingness to talk with enemies, the new president began eliminating Bush even as the former president sat listening behind him. Then, on his first work day, Obama signed executive orders reversing the Bush administration's emphasis on secrecy and reliance on revolving-door lobbyists, to be followed by three more orders: closing Guantanamo Bay (within a year), forbidding torture and suspending military tribunals for foreign terror suspects. Meanwhile Treasury Secretary-nominee Timothy Geithner (whose nomination was finally approved by the Senate Finance Committee) said brand-new strictures would also be applied to financial bailouts.

Then, on Wednesday, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the appointment of two permanent envoys to major trouble spots—George Mitchell to the Mideast and Richard Holbrooke to Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was perhaps the surest sign of all that Obama intends a 180-degree reversal from the ultimatum-heavy approach of the Bush administration, which saw diplomacy mainly as an exercise in stating terms for surrender, whether to Iran, Hamas or North Korea (except over the last couple of years). "Anything short of relentless diplomatic efforts will fail," Clinton said, making it clear that Holbrooke and Mitchell would each be spending much of the next four years away from home. Both men, Holbrooke and Mitchell, gained fame by ending what seemed to be intractable conflicts, Bosnia (Holbrooke) and Northern Ireland (Mitchell). "There is no such thing as a conflict that can't be ended," Mitchell said.

Obama himself, in his remarks, signaled strongly that his approach to the Mideast would immediately move from unswerving and unquestioning support of Israel, as seen in the last eight years, to more of a broker's role. While making the requisite commitment to Israel's security—and its right to respond to rocket fire from Gaza—he also said it was unacceptable to permit "a future without hope for the Palestinians." He called for an immediate opening of the Gaza border, which must have come to a surprise to those Israelis lulled to sleep by Bush's permanent endorsement of Israel's every action over the last eight years.

So grim is the reality, of course, especially in the Mideast and Afghanistan, that no amount of shuttling by envoys may make much of a difference in the end. Indeed, it may not be long before Obama finds himself compared to Bush, at least when it comes to results. Something similar happened to W, who upon taking office in 2001 tried to erase Bill Clinton's policies from the map only to gradually adopt his approach in his second term. But it's only been three days, and as far as the Obama administration is concerned, its predecessor no longer exists in policy or even memory.