Marriage Vows

I know it is common for couples today to compose their own wedding vows. When my wife and I married 63 years ago, we never thought of writing our own vows. In our innocence we accepted the traditional words. In turn we said:

I take you for my lawful wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

I take you for my lawful husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

That was all we said. I then placed a ring on my bride’s finger “as a sign of our marriage vows.” Although it was followed by a Mass, the actual wedding was a brief ceremony taking no more than five minutes. I still have the little wedding pamphlet from that day, and I notice that the priest did not even say, “I now pronounce you man and wife.” It was our brief vows that made us man and wife.

The pamphlet included an introduction that provided the basis for the simple vows. Reading it today I can honestly say that I was not aware at the time of the awesome significance of the words.  I realize now that the words represented an ideal that would not be easy to attain. 

This union then is most serious, because it will bind you together for life in a relationship so close and so intimate, that it will profoundly influence your whole future. That future, with its hopes and disappointments, its successes, and its failures, its pleasures and its pains, its joys and its sorrows, is hidden from your eyes. You know that these elements are mingled in every life, and are to be expected in your own. And so, not knowing what is before you, you take each other for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death.

Truly, then, these words are most serious. It is a beautiful tribute to your undoubted faith in each other, that, recognizing their full import, you are nevertheless so willing and ready to pronounce them. And because these words involve such solemn obligations, it is most fitting that you rest the security of your wedded life upon the great principle of self-sacrifice. And so you begin your married life by the voluntary and complete surrender of your individual lives in the interest of that deeper and wider life which you are to have in common. Henceforth you belong entirely to each other; you will be one in mind, one in heart, and one in affections. And whatever sacrifices you may be required to make to preserve this common life, always make them generously. Sacrifice is usually difficult and irksome. Only love can make it easy; and perfect love can make it a joy. We are willing to give in proportion as we love.

No greater blessing can come to your married life than pure conjugal love, loyal and true to the end. May, then, this love with which you join your hands and hearts today, never fail, but grow deeper and stronger as the years go on.

I doubt that I read those words back then, or even that I would have understood their full significance if I had read them. It would take a lifetime. 

Maybe the best depiction of the exchange of vows can be found in the final scene of the award winning 1946 film, The Best Years of Our Lives. It ends with the simple wedding ceremony of a sailor who after losing both his hands in the war, returned home to find that his childhood sweetheart was still in love with him. Click on this link for the brief video. 

### 

Who Was Shakespeare?

The recent visit of King Charles III  of Great Britain brought to mind one of my favorite subjects:  the authorship of the plays and poems of William Shakespeare, the greatest author in the English language.  I confess that I am a Shakespeare denier. I believe that the great plays and poems attributed to William Shakespeare, the man of that name from Stratford on Avon, were not written by him, but by an aristocratic contemporary, Edward de Vere, the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, one of the most prominent, best educated, and notorious noblemen in Elizabethan England. Below is an essay on the subject that originally appeared on The Weekly Bystander on April 6, 2016.

 

Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, 1575

 I am an advocate of the theory that the true identity of the greatest writer in the English language has been hidden for more than 400 years. I am not alone. Great writers like Walt Whitman, Mark Twain, and Henry James, as well as great Shakespearean actors like Orson Welles and Derek Jacobi believed that the plays and poems were written by someone other than the simple commoner from Stratford. Even Sigmund Freud agreed. 

While many names have been put forward as the true author, I believe that the aristocratic background, unique education, and life experience of the Earl of Oxford makes him the prime candidate for the true author of the Shakesperean canon. When it comes to Shakespeare, I agree with those who are called by scholars, with a certain degree of contempt, “Oxfordians”. These would include the unfortunately named J. Thomas Looney, an English high school teacher whose groundbreaking 1919 book, Shakespeare Identified in Edward de Vere, the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, has never received the attention it deserves.

Oddly enough, it was on my first trip to Italy back in 1997 that I saw the light. My wife and I attended a little symposium on the Renaissance held that year in Gardone Riviera, a resort town on the coast of beautiful Lake Garda. We stayed in an old pensione up the hill from Gardone that had a spectacular view of the lake. 

Before the trip I had happened to read a book by Joseph Sobran* that also questioned the authorship of the man from Stratford, and promoted the cause of the Earl of Oxford, but I found it hard to believe given the overwhelming scholarly tradition. Italy changed my mind. Many of the plays are set in Italy, and the playwright seems to have a first hand knowledge of the customs, language, and geography of the country.

The man from Stratford never traveled outside of England. Scholars are reduced to saying that he got his extensive knowledge of things Italian by listening to Italian seamen in London pubs. On the other hand, shortly after he turned 21 and took his seat in the House of Lords, the young Earl of Oxford left England to spend a year and a half traveling on a kind of grand tour, most of which was spent in Italy. Is it a coincidence that practically every town he visited in Italy is featured or at least mentioned in the plays? Venice, Verona, and Padua come immediately to mind. Places he did not visit, like Turin and Bologna, receive no mention in the plays. 

Moreover, my own brief first visit to Italy convinced me that it would be impossible to describe the beautiful countryside, and the fabled cities without having actually seen them. Even today, after many subsequent visits, I find it almost impossible to describe the breathtaking scene of the Tuscan countryside, or a ride in a water taxi down Venice’s Grand Canal.

The young Edward de Vere spent a fortune on his Italian journey and had to borrow heavily to pay his enormous bills. He arrived back in England deeply in debt and even stark naked, having been stripped of his clothes by pirates in the English Channel, in the same manner as Prince Hamlet in the famous play. This incident is just one of many where the life of the Earl of Oxford is mirrored in the plays and poems of Shakespeare.**

Edward de Vere was born in 1550, fourteen years before the man from Avon.  The de Vere’s were one of England’s great aristocratic families, and could trace their lineage back over 400 years. After the death of his father, when Edward was only twelve, he was taken from his mother and made a ward of the Crown. His property and wealth were managed by Queen Elizabeth’s favorite, Sir Robert Dudley, and his education and upbringing were put into the hands of Sir Robert Cecil the Queen’s chief minister, who even non-Oxfordians believe to be the prototype of Polonius in Hamlet. Edward de Vere grew up in the highest circles of English society, and studied under some of the greatest scholars of his time.

On the other hand, it would appear that the man from Stratford on Avon received no more than the barest elementary education. His father was a butcher and his family was illiterate. Scholars are hard pressed to find any evidence that he received even an elementary education. He left no books or manuscripts behind but only a handful of copies of his signature on legal documents that indicate that he could hardly write his own name.

Throughout his life Edward de Vere was associated with the theater. He sponsored and promoted plays and companies of players. However, at the time it was considered disgraceful for someone of his status to associate with plays and players. For this reason Oxfordians believe that he used the name of the man from Avon to cover his tracks. There is evidence that the young man from Avon was amply compensated. After all, what’s in a name?

The greatest objection to the authorship of de Vere is the fact that he died in 1604. Although it is difficult to date the plays, the traditional belief has been that some, like the Tempest, were written between 1604 and 1616, the date of the death of the man from Stratford. However, in recent years scholars have reduced the number of post-1604 plays to one or two and even their dates are questionable. One recent author has even argued that the whole “Shakespeare project” seems to shut down after 1604. 

The other objection involves a kind of reverse snobbery. We live in the age of the underdog and people like to believe that the greatest author in the English language was a common man possessed with great natural genius. We do not like aristocrats and shows like Downton Abbey make us aware of their follies and weaknesses. Nevertheless, greatness in any field still requires education and life experience. Every author writes himself. The plays of Shakespeare are all about Kings, Queens, and other aristocrats. In those plays Edward de Vere wrote about a world of which he was intimately acquainted and in which he played a major role. 

Written around 1604, Hamlet was one of the last plays. The dying words of Hamlet could well apply to Edward de Vere.

O God, Horatio, what a wounded name,
Things standing thus unknown, shall live behind me!
If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart
Absent thee from felicity a while,
And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain
To tell my story.

### 

* Joseph Sobran, Alias Shakespeare, 1997.

**Mark Anderson, Shakespeare by Another Name, 2005, provides an exhaustive account of the similarities between the life of Edward de Vere and the characters in both the plays and poems of Shakespeare.  

Assassins

 

The recent attempt by a self-proclaimed assassin to enter the White House Correspondents dinner and possibly kill President Trump and other members of his administration marked the third attempt on Donald Trump’s life in the last twelve months. 

It makes you wonder why Donald Trump is such a target. The question was put to the President in the brief press conference held right after the incident. He replied that he had studied assassinations and claimed that the Presidency has always been a high-risk job, especially if the President has achieved much.  According to him there is little reason to target an inconsequential President like his predecessor.

I suspect that there is some truth in his remarks, but I think there is something more involved in the attacks aimed at him. I do not agree with those who think the problem will be solved by toning down the “rhetoric.” The rhetoric itself stems from something deeper. I do not believe that the people who claim that Trump is a dictator, a fascist, or another Hitler are lying or hypocritical. They really believe it. In a way, they can’t help themselves. It is as if they have been programmed. Let me give an example.

An incident occurred in our home during President Trump’s first administration that was strange. For years a window cleaner had been coming to our home to clean our windows. He was a nice guy who always did a good job, and my wife really liked him. While chatting with him on one occasion, she mentioned that she liked Trump. Immediately, he picked up his equipment and walked out of the house leaving the job half done. It was as if his psychological immune system had sprung into action and he could not help reacting. 

I thought of this trivial incident while trying to understand why three attempts have been made on the life of President Trump so far. What are the assassins like, and what do they believe?

The case of Luigi Mangione provides some clues. This young man deliberately shot a man in the back in broad daylight, a killing that in former times would have been considered craven cowardice. Yet, Mangione apparently thought he was doing a good deed in shooting the CEO of a large health care insurance company. Moreover, instead of being vilified, he is regarded by many as a kind of hero, even a saint. The CEO he killed was a successful Businessman who somehow deserved to die.  

In the eyes of his haters Donald Trump is the epitome of the Big Bad Businessman. He is rich and flaunts it. He is arrogant and self-assured. He brooks no criticism or insult. He is the personification of the villains of innumerable movies and TV series that I have witnessed over my long lifetime. For years, Law and Order, to name one, has been among TV’s most popular shows. Inevitably, the original murder suspect is usually a poor young Black or Puerto Rican, but then the murderer turns out to be a wealthy businessman.

The pandemic alerted us to the workings of our immune system: how it is programmed to immediately spring into action against harmful invaders. We also learned that sometimes the immune system can overreact and cause even more damage.

I have come to believe that we also have a psychological immune system that has largely been conditioned by what we have been watching over our lifetimes. Any rational person must admit that from the age of the robber barons to our current tech tycoons, the cultural bias has been largely left wing and anti- business.

The opinion page of my local newspaper has no conservative commentators. It cannot afford to offend the sensibilities of its readers or remaining advertisers. The mainstream news media is notoriously biased. The staff at NPR is overwhelmingly Democratic. It’s not much different online. It turns out that over 70% of Wikipedia sources are left wing, and only 1% come from the right. For every conservative on the Yale faculty, there are 36 liberals.  

I admit that I have my own psychological immune system, but I have never hated anyone or thought of killing anybody even if it would benefit humanity.  I can’t bear to watch or read left leaning news but do not hate the Democrats who for years have dominated politics here in Connecticut. I disagreed with many of the things that former Democratic Presidents Biden and Obama did, but I never hated them. 

In thinking about it, I believe that there were some institutions that kept my psychological immune system from over-reacting even when I was a young man. First, there was my marriage. My wife certainly would not have allowed me to be an assassin. Our shared beliefs, background, and values also helped. There were our children. We had to raise them, and I had to work to support them. There were our extended families who supported us and who we had to support in turn. There was our Church whose teaching, culture, and long history were in our blood.

I certainly don’t think that I am unique. On the contrary, I believe that most people still are supported by institutions like these that keep them from doing harm. Unfortunately, over my long lifetime I have seen most of these institutions ridiculed, bitterly attacked, or just regarded as irrelevant. Marriage, children, family, and religion are no longer the ideal. Young men especially are on their own.

###

Anti--Catholicism

  HistoriaFamed 

Famous American historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr.  once claimed that anti-Catholicism is "the deepest held bias in American history." It began in the days of the Puritan colonial founders, continued through the era of massive Catholic immigration of over a hundred years ago, and persists today in Protestant evangelicals, Progressive atheists, and even lapsed Catholics.

One of its signs is the animus, sometimes comical but often venomous, directed against Catholic nuns. Just last week an editorial in the Wall Street Journal decried the efforts of New York State officials to force the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne to comply with State LGBTQ rules. This religious order, whose founder was Rose Hawthorne, the daughter of the famed American novelist, is noted for its work in caring for the dying in its hospice at Rosary Hill in New York. It is an exemplary institution not only because the sisters accept no payment but also because they do the work themselves even to the point of scrubbing the floors on their hands and knees.

I personally know people whose parents spent their last days there in peace and dignity. They have nothing but praise for these self sacrificing nuns and their work. Unfortunately, the idea of self sacrifice seems to have gone our of favor today. 

The incident at Rosary Hill brought to mind my review of the film adaptation of Somerset Maugham's novel, The Painted Veil, that also dealt with the idea or ideal of self sacrifice. See below. 

The Painted Veil is a 2006 American film adaptation of a novel written in 1925 by W. Somerset Maugham, one of the most popular novelists of the first half of the twentieth century. Although an atheist, Maugham’s novel expressed his deep interest in religion. The book’s protagonist is Kitty, a young English socialite who enters into a marriage of convenience with a man she doesn't love. Things get worse when her husband's work takes her from England to the British colony of Hong Kong where she has an affair with a married British official. Upon discovery, the husband insists she accompany him to an inland Chinese city where he intends to study and deal with a raging cholera epidemic. She suspects that he is taking her there in hopes that she will catch the dreaded disease.

 

I will not divulge much more of the story but just introduce what I consider to be a very significant detail. In the stricken city, Kitty is left largely alone while her husband does his medical research among the sick and dying. To pass the time she visits a Catholic orphanage run by a handful of French nuns who care for children abandoned by their parents. Irreligious herself, she is impressed by the nuns and their work.

 

Maugham’s novel is all about the transformation of the selfish heroine during the cholera epidemic by her encounter with true self-sacrifice: first on the part of the small group of French nuns who have left their homes forever to care for the needy in China, and second, on the part of her unloved husband who ultimately succumbs to cholera himself in trying to help fight the disease. 

 

The modern film version, starring Naomi Watts and Edward Norton, tries to remain faithful to the novel. You can’t blame them for turning it into a love story and altering Maugham’s convoluted ending. Such changes, I believe, alter the letter but not the spirit of the original. Nevertheless, in one respect the filmmakers do violate the spirit of the novel with a gratuitous injection of modern sensibilities. 

 

At one point in the film, Kitty tells her husband how impressed she is with the nuns. Her husband, who in the book has real respect for the nuns and their work, snidely replies that they are merely buying children from their impoverished parents in order to make them little Catholics. This insert of modern cant and prejudice is entirely gratuitous. 

 

The filmmakers go even further. The Mother Superior, played by Diana Rigg, is portrayed as having a kind of crisis of faith. Her initial ardor, that made her give up home and family, has waned and she admits to a kind of spiritual burn out. Again, this is an injection of modern prejudice that totally violates the spirit of Maugham’s novel.

 

Here is an excerpt from the novel that expresses both Kitty’s and Maugham’s real feelings.

 

“Your first thought when looking at the Mother Superior was that as a girl she must have been beautiful, but in a moment you realized that this was a woman whose beauty, depending on character, had grown with advancing years. … But the most striking thing about her was the air she had of authority tempered by Christian charity: you felt in her the habit of command. To be obeyed was natural to her, but she accepted obedience with humility. You could not fail to see that she was deeply conscious of the authority of the church which upheld her. But Kitty had a surmise that notwithstanding her austere demeanor she had for human frailty a human tolerance; and it was impossible to look at her grave smile when she listened to Waddington, unabashed, talking nonsense, without being sure that she  had a lively sense of the ridiculous.”

Later, Kitty relates her feelings to Waddington, a skeptical and agnostic British official who has been stationed in China for many years.

“I can’t tell you how deeply moved I’ve been by all I’ve seen at the convent. They’re wonderful, those nuns, they make me feel utterly worthless. They gave up everything, their home, their country, love, children, freedom; and all the little things which I sometimes think must be harder still to give up, flowers and green fields, going for a walk on an autumn day, books and music, comfort, everything they give up, everything. And they do it so that they may devote themselves to a life of sacrifice, poverty, obedience, killing work, and prayer. To all of them this world is really and truly a place of exile. Life is a cross which they willingly bear, but in their hearts all the time is the desire—oh, it’s so much stronger than desire, it’s a longing, an eager and passionate longing for the death which shall lead them to life everlasting. …

Supposing there is no life everlasting? Think what it means if death is really the end of all things. They’ve given up all for nothing. They’ve been cheated. They’re dupes.”

Waddington reflected for a little while.

“I wonder. I wonder if it matters that what they have aimed at is an illusion. Their lives are in themselves beautiful. I have an idea that the only thing which makes it possible to regard this world we live in without disgust is the beauty which now and then men create out of chaos. The pictures they paint, the music they compose, the books they write, and the lives they lead. Of all these the richest in beauty is the beautiful life. That is the perfect work of art.”

Kitty sighed. What he said seemed hard. She wanted more.

“Have you ever been to a symphony concert?” he continued,

Every member of the orchestra plays his own little instrument, and what do you think he knows of the complicated harmonies which enroll themselves on the indifferent air? He is concerned only with his own small share. But he knows that the symphony is lovely, and though there’s none to hear it, it is lovely still, and he is content to play his part.”

Toward the end, as the widowed and pregnant Kitty plans to return to England, the Mother Superior bids her adieu. 

 “Good-bye, God bless you, my dear child.” She held her for a moment in her arms. “Remember that it is nothing to do your duty, that is demanded of you and is no more meritorious than to wash your hands when they are dirty; the only thing that counts is the love of duty; when love and duty are one, then grace is in you and you will enjoy a happiness which passes all understanding.” 

Despite my caveats, The Painted Veil is a serious film with a compelling story. the acting and cinematography are excellent. A 1934 adaptation is also worth watching especially since it stars Greta Garbo in one of her magnificent performances. Interestingly, this version, coming so soon after the publication of the novel, gives little notice to the nuns and the orphanage.

 ###

Today's Quote: When people cease to believe in God, they will believe in anything. G.K. Chesterton.

Just War Theory and Practice

  

 

The recent disagreement between Pope Leo and President Trump over the war in Iran is unfortunate, mainly because I think they could and should be on the same side. Let me explain.

Pope Leo is an Augustinian, a member of that famous religious order that traces its origins to St. Augustine, a fifth century bishop generally regarded as one of the two most influential philosopher/theologians of Christianity. He lived during the time of the barbarian incursions into the Roman Empire that led to the famous sack of the city of Rome in 410 A.D, and his famous book, The City of God, attempted to demonstrate that the supplanting of the ancient Roman gods by the God of Christianity did not cause Rome’s military disasters. In doing so, Augustine created what is still known as the “just war theory” to explain under what circumstances Christians could depart from pacifism. 

Coincidentally, I have been slowly working my way through Augustine’s lengthy book and found the following description of what Augustine obviously considered a just war. He told the story of Radagaisus, king of the Goths, a conspicuous worshipper of pagan gods, who had led his army into the Italian peninsula and was besieging the city of Fiorentia in the year 406 until a Roman relieving force won an overwhelming victory. Here is an excerpt from Augustine’s account.

 

"When Radagaisus, king of the Goths, having taken up his position very near to the city, with a vast and savage army, was already close upon the Romans, he was in one day so speedily and so thoroughly beaten, that, whilst not even one Roman was wounded, much less slain, far more than a hundred thousand of his army were prostrated, and he himself and his sons, having been captured, were forthwith put to death, suffering the punishment they deserved. For had so impious a man, with so great and so impious a host, entered the city, whom would he have spared? what tombs of the martyrs would he have respected? in his treatment of what person would he have manifested the fear of God? whose blood would he have refrained from shedding? whose chastity would he have wished to preserve inviolate?"

Warfare has changed since the time of Augustine. It is no longer possible to wait until the enemy is at the gates now that missiles can cross oceans and destroy whole cities. Nevertheless, just war principles can still be applicable and despite his critics I believe President Trump actions qualify on a number of counts. 

In the first place, he has shown a remarkable concern for human life not only American but also Iranian lives. From the first he has refrained from attacking civilian targets, and advanced technology has enabled our forces to strike only military targets with pinpoint accuracy. This achievement is truly remarkable and praiseworthy. We would do well to compare his policy with that of the Iranian regime that recently killed more than 30,000 Iranian protestors.

Second, he has shown an incredible desire to negotiate a settlement before the attack began and still continues to the present day. No one can say the Iranian regime was not warned, but a combination of foolishness, and fanaticism led them to think President Trump would back down as other Presidents have done.

Finally, the President’s repeatedly stated goal is peace, and not destruction or conquest. He has expressed no desire to occupy Iran, as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, or even change its regime. He does not need or want Iran’s oil reserves. He just wants Iran to be a normal nation with no ability to attack us or its neighbors now and in the future. Remember that Iranian negotiators had claimed that they had enough enriched uranian to make not one but eleven nuclear bombs.

###

Today's Quote: The urge to save humanity is almost always a face for the urge to rule it. H.L. Mencken

 

The Problem of Pain

  

Camille Paglia

This post about an interview with author Camille Paglia that appeared in the Wall Street Journal back in 2019 was reprised here in 2023 after a personal family tragedy.  I still think it is relevant today. 

****************************

The Wall Street Journal weekend edition regularly features interviews with  prominent personalities on its op-ed pages. Last weekend the interview was with Camille Paglia, the well-known feminist author, lecturer, and professor. At the age of 72 Paglia has come under fire from students at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia who are demanding that she be fired. Despite her feminist credentials, some of Paglia’s positions, like her praise of Capitalism, are no longer in favor. *

I do not wish to get involved in feminist debates but would just like to discuss a seemingly unrelated incident in Paglia’s life that she remembered quite vividly. In fact, she regarded it as a turning point. At the age of fifteen she was in religious education class when she had the nerve to ask the teacher, an Irish Catholic nun, a very challenging and provocative question. In those days we would have called it a smart-ass question. Naturally, the nun reacted and condemned Paglia roundly in front of the class for even asking such a question. That was it for Paglia. From that day on she would have nothing to do with Catholicism. 

Coincidentally, over the weekend a friend told me of an acquaintance who left the Church because of another seemingly trivial incident. The woman had invited a soloist to sing at her wedding but after the Mass was over, the priest chided her for taking business away from the church’s own soloist. Boom! That was it. She has never gone to church again. Reactions like these are not unusual. In my lifetime I have heard of many such incidents or personal confrontations that led people to stop attending church. It is usually not a question of belief or doctrine, nor does it mean that they become bad people.  

There are more serious reasons for losing one’s faith in God or ceasing to practice the faith of your fathers. Perhaps the greatest is the problem of pain and suffering. In an email exchange, also over this weekend, an old friend told me that he had trouble believing in God and that he no longer attended church. He wrote, “If God is so good, how do you explain little children suffering from cancer?” He also asked me to explain all the pain and suffering that will result from natural disasters like hurricane Dorian.

The problem of pain and suffering, some call it the problem of evil, has been around since the dawn of recorded history. My wife and I sat down over the weekend to watch a National Geographic documentary on great animal migrations. After ten minutes we had to shut it off. The carnage and killing were horrific.  The crocodiles, leopards, and other predators did not seem concerned with the problem of pain. Human beings are obviously just as capable of inflicting pain and suffering but I believe that we are the only animals who think or worry about it.

Philosophers, theologians, and scientists have grappled with it and no one has yet come up with a completely satisfactory answer. Certainly, I haven’t. In ancient times personal suffering and natural disasters were attributed to the gods. The gods were either punishing people for their misdeeds, or were merely malevolent, playing with humans like a cat with a mouse.

In thinking about my friend’s question, I wondered if the answer could be found by considering the example of Jesus, the founder of Christianity.  No matter what you think of Jesus, his approach to the problem of pain and suffering was revolutionary. Even a cursory reading of the gospels indicates that Jesus was a healer. When confronted with pain and suffering, he healed the pain and did not blame God or anyone else. 

He gave sight to a man who had been blind from birth. Ordinary people claimed that the blindness was the result of the sins of the man’s parents. Jesus would have none of it, and just restored his sight. When a man suffering from paralysis was brought before him, rather than blaming him for his sins, he forgave them and then cured his illness.

When he heard that people had been killed when a tower collapsed in a nearby city, he told his hearers that the people who died were no more sinful than anyone else. I’m sure he would have said the same about the victims of hurricanes and earthquakes. His response to the problem of pain and suffering was to heal and minister to the suffering. He instructed his followers to do the same.

In the teaching of Jesus, God is not the cause of suffering but the cure. Those who believe in Nature believe in a cruel god who never forgives. We speak of Mother Nature but she is not the kind of mother any of us would like to have. Scientists may tell us that many must be sacrificed to cleanse the herd in the interests of survival and progress but something inside of us tells us to deplore pain and suffering and do our best to prevent and heal. That something inside of us is as much a sign of the existence of a loving God as anything else the philosophers and theologians have ever thought of. 

Camille Paglia’s wise-ass question to the poor nun, who was giving her life to educate children like her, was: “If God is infinitely forgiving, is it possible that at some point in the future He will forgive Satan?” It is true that the nun should not have blown up, especially since she only had to turn to her catechism for the simple answer. In the catechism Catholics are told that God must forgive those who repent and ask for forgiveness, and so He certainly would forgive if Satan repents and asks for forgiveness. Unfortunately, Satan, like many wise fifteen-year-olds, will have none of it.

###

* Note: Students failed to convince the University of the Arts to fire Professor Paglia back in 2019, but the school closed its doors in 2024. She now functions as an independent scholar.

###

Quote of the Day: "I would not want to be a member of any club that would have me as a member." Groucho Marx

Easter Hope

 

Easter Bombing in Pakistan

Today, I reproduce a post written ten years ago about attacks on Christians at Easter time. Ten years later I still find it difficult to understand why so many hate Christians and Easter.

*************************

 Reputed members of the Islamic State murdered four nuns of the Missionaries of Charity working in an elder care facility in Aden, Yemen on March 4, 2016. The only crime of these nuns, like some many thousands of others brutally persecuted in recent years, was that they were Christians. What is so bad about Christianity? 

Personally, I like practically everything about it, especially the belief in, and hope in the resurrection from the dead. 

It is clear from Scripture that, even after the Resurrection of Jesus on Easter Sunday, his subsequent Ascension forty days later, and the incredible events of Pentecost, St. Peter did not fully understand the implications of the Resurrection. Only after a personal vision convinced him that Jesus died and rose for all, did Peter see the light. He said,

“Now I really understand that God is not a respecter of persons, but in every nation he who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. He sent his word to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (who is Lord of all). You know what took place throughout Judea: for he began in Galilee after the baptism preached by John: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, and he went about doing good and healing all who were in the power of the devil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all that he did in the country of the Jews and Jerusalem; and yet they killed him, hanging him on a tree. But God raised him on the third day and caused him to be plainly seen, not by all the people, but by witnesses designated beforehand by God, that is, by us, who ate and drank with him after he had risen from the dead. And he charged us to preach to the people and to testify that he it is who has been appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness, that through his name all who believe in him may receive forgiveness of sins.” *

I have come to believe with Peter that “God is not a respecter of persons, but in every nation he who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” Nevertheless, I like being a Christian, especially a Catholic.  As I said, I like a religion that believes in and holds out hope for resurrection, for a life after death. 

I like to think that the four nuns murdered in Yemen by Moslem fanatics earlier this month are living a new life, and that they are not just rotting bodies being picked apart by vultures. It also strikes me that those four nuns, like tens of thousands of other Christians who have also been brutally persecuted in our own time, had already given up their lives in the service of others when they took their initial vows. Like Jesus, they went about doing good and healing.

Even today, the day after Easter, there is the terrible news that Taliban suicide bombers murdered at least 65 people and wounded over 300 in Pakistan just because they were Christians celebrating Easter.

###

*Acts of the Apostles 10: 25-37.

Silver Mania

 

For years I’ve held 500 shares of ishares Silver trust (SLV) in my investment portfolio. During that time it usually hovered around $20 a share and did little else. I’m not sure why I held on to it. It never paid a dividend or provided any income. Perhaps I thought it would be a haven if all else went to hell.

But in the last 12 months things changed. I checked one day and found that last October, the share price had jumped to around $50, a gain of about 150%. I have always believed that when any asset goes up that far and that fast, it is time to sell and take profits. I don’t like to be greedy. So, I sold 400 shares and netted about $20,000. But for some reason I held on to 100 shares.

Incredibly, the price of metals like gold and silver continued to soar, and by January of 2026, my SLV shares had jumped to $105 per share. I sold my remaining shares at what now looks like a top and netted over $10,000. 

I don’t know who bought my shares that day. Millions of SLV shares were being traded every day in January. The volume indicates that major investment firms were involved. Many of these entities use sophisticated computer programs in decision making.

Then, weeks before the USA attacked Iranian military sites on February 28, gold and silver prices started to drop causing speculative buyers to take big losses. On March 24, SLV closed around $64 a share, down about 40% from the January high. That’s big money. Of course, the shares are still considerably higher than they were last March, but if you bought in January, you took a big loss.

I’m trying to understand what this precious metal mania meant for ordinary people. As the price of gold and silver soared, it obviously took more dollars to buy an ounce of each metal. That means that as gold and silver prices rose, the dollar weakened and had an inflationary effect. It just took more pieces of paper to buy an ounce of gold and silver, or anything else. Now that metal prices have dropped, does that mean the dollar is stronger, and will that impact inflation figures?

Unfortunately, I could find little information or interest in the movement of gold and silver prices in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, or various media outlets over the past year. So, I can only guess about what happened. I certainly don’t want to try to predict what will happen going forward.

Was it just a speculative mania or “bubble” that finally burst in January? Or perhaps the meteoric rise was caused by investors who feared that President Trump was not bluffing about Venezuela and Iran and who were seeking what is normally a safe haven for their money. 

Despite the rise in precious metal prices, inflation moderated and oil prices stayed relatively stable. Only after the attack on the Iranian military sites on February 28 did oil prices spike.  Even though energy prices are not included in official inflation figures, ordinary people are feeling the effect at the pump.

During the past year major stock indices continued to rise to record levels, and people would have seen substantial increases in their 401k and other investment accounts.  The Dow Jones Average and other market averages hit all-time highs in early February but began to drop a few weeks before the attack on Iran.

Everyone knows that real estate prices have risen over the past year. A quick check on Zillow indicates that my modest home has reached an all-time high value. But like most people, if my wife and I wanted to cash in, where would we go?

Most people don’t consider that their homes fluctuate in value like stocks and precious metals but maybe it doesn’t matter. At least we can live in our homes no matter what the value.

### 

Bogart and Bacall

  

 

Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall are among the most celebrated couples in movie history both on-screen and off. They first met on the set of To Have and Have Not in 1944. Bogart, age 44, was a star and Bacall a 19-year-old newcomer recruited by film director Howard Hawks after a brief New York modeling career. They immediately clicked. The four films in which they appeared are among my favorites. Here are brief notices.

 

To Have and Have Not.  Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall co-star in this 1944 wartime drama loosely based on an Ernest Hemingway story. It seems obvious that the filmmakers attempted to cash in on the success of Casablanca, the very popular 1942 war time drama that established Bogart as a huge star.

Both films are set after the fall of France in colonies under the control of the French Vichy government, a puppet of the German conquerors. Casablanca is in Morocco, and To Have and Have Not takes place in the French Caribbean colony of Martinique. 

As in Casablanca Bogart plays a tough, jaded American who just wants to go about his business without any involvement in the war or politics. In Casablanca he ran a popular night club but in To Have and Have Not Bogart is a charter fishing boat captain barely eking out a living. Still, much of the action takes place in a saloon/night club which even has its own likeable piano player, this time played by Hoagy Carmichael.

I suppose the greatest difference in the two films is the female lead. In To Have and Have Not the nineteen-year-old Bacall made a spectacular film debut. Instead of the sophisticated Ingrid Bergman of Casablanca fame, Bacall is a sexy and sassy young woman just passing through. The on-screen chemistry between her and Bogart makes this film a joy to watch.

The dialogue between them, written by Jules Furthman and William Faulkner, the renowned novelist, pushes the envelope of Hollywood’s Production Code. Although condemned by modern critics, the Code forced writers to be really creative in expressing sexuality without becoming offensive to their 1940s audiences. The scene in which Bacall teaches Bogart how to whistle is the highlight of the film. 100 minutes. CC.

The Big Sleep.  The successful pairing of Bogart and Bacall led to three other films in very short order. They next starred in a 1946 adaptation of famed crime novelist Raymond Chandler’s novel, The Big Sleep.  Bogart plays Chandler’s legendary private eye, Philip Marlowe, on the trail of killers, pornographers, gamblers, and a bevy of beautiful young women. In this film and in the earlier Maltese Falcon Bogart created the private eye. No one else ever came close. 

Despite a convoluted plot, once again director Howard Hawks brought out the chemistry between the now famous couple who had actually fallen in love on the set of To Have and Have Not, and married soon after. This time Bacall plays a wealthy sophisticated woman but the dialogue, especially between the two stars is discreetly sexually charged. 

Interestingly, there is an added feature on my DVD that sheds light on the creative process in Hollywood in those days. Before the film’s release Bacall’s agent saw a preview and thought it would destroy his client’s budding career. He wrote a long letter to the studio head asking that some scenes be re-shot to improve Bacall’s role. The studio agreed and the result is a classic film noir. 114 minutes. CC.

Dark Passage. Bogart and Bacall star in this 1947 film about a man who breaks out of prison after being falsely convicted of murdering his wife. Based on a novel by crime writer David Goodis, Bogart plays the escaped con, and Bacall plays another sophisticated woman who, for reasons of her own, provides a hideout for him in her lavish apartment.  

Nevertheless, to escape the law, he takes the advice of a friendly cabbie who in the middle of the night arranges an appointment for him with an outlaw plastic surgeon who claims he can make him look like anything, even a monkey, in 90 minutes, no more no less. Sure enough, the doctor, played hilariously by character actor Houseley Stevenson, turns him into Humphrey Bogart once the bandages are removed.

Next to the scene with the plastic surgeon, my favorite part of this film is the ending with the couple meeting to the tune of “You’re Just Too Marvelous.” 106 minutes. CC. 

Key Largo. John Huston directed this 1948 drama that would be the last film in which the famous couple appear together, but their roles are strangely subdued. Bacall plays a war widow who runs a small hotel in the Florida Keys with her wheelchair bound father, played by Lionel Barrymore. Bogart's character had served with her husband during the war, and though he survived, the war has had its effect on him.  He is not the tough self-assured guy of the earlier films.  

Bogart’s character wants to meet his deceased friend’s family, but arrives at the hotel in the midst of a hurricane warning only to find that there is danger within. Edward G. Robinson practically steals the show playing an over the hill gangster on the lam from police. His gang has taken over the hotel until they can find passage to Cuba.  Claire Trevor won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress playing the gangster’s mistress, an ex-nightclub singer turned alcoholic. 101 minutes. CC.

I prefer to watch on DVD with no annoying commercials. In addition, the DVDs sometimes include informative features.

###

Finish the Job, Sir

 

                                           

 

Although the attack on Iran has been an unqualified military success, commentators wonder about the so-called endgame.  What will happen in future weeks and months? Does anyone know? 

Actually, the overwhelming destruction of Iran’s military capabilities means that we are now in the endgame. Let’s consider the condition of the 90 million people in Iran, a country twice the size of Texas. Although USA and Israeli bombing has so far been pin-pointing military targets with remarkable accuracy, the impact on the civilian population could be catastrophic.

Food supplies must be scarce. There must be widespread hunger, even starvation in some areas.

Their water supply system must have been severely impacted. Drinking water availability and quality must have been compromised. Waste removal and sewage systems may not be functioning.

Electricity must be out in many parts of the country with not only loss of light but also heat. Communications networks must be impaired if working at all. 

Needed medical services for the sick, injured, and elderly must be almost non-existent.

Just imagine your own neighborhood without food, water, light, heat and phone communication during a winter storm. Inevitably, we can expect crime and looting as people struggle to survive.

We have won the war, but we will find ourselves responsible for avoiding a human tragedy of enormous dimensions. Look what Israel had to do after the war in Gaza. Iran will require a much greater humanitarian response. What can we do?

This Monday, March 9, President Trump provided a relatively short report on the status of the war, and on its potential aftermath. Anyone who dislikes the President for the things he says should take the time to view the 30-minute report as well as the questions he handled afterwards.

He claimed that the attack on Iran had been an unqualified success, and that our military had achieved in three days what planners had thought would take weeks, even months to achieve. 

He did spend much time on what might come next. He did not sound like a belligerent conqueror out to impose his will on the Iranian people, or even the remnants of the current regime.

The President indicated that he does not intend to repeat the mistakes of the war in Iraq. He intends that Iran’s oil be used to finance the rebuilding of the country and not fall into the hands of terrorists. He also believes that when the supporters of the regime in Iraq lost their jobs, they joined ISIS. He hopes that the policy of accommodation working in Venezuela can work in Iran.

He also stated that shipping lanes in the area will be protected so that the flow of oil will continue to the rest of the world. He pointed out that using our naval resources to keep the Straits of Hormuz open is not for our benefit since we are now energy independent. In particular, this policy will especially benefit China, a country largely dependent on oil imports. Wisely, he does not intend to use success in Iran to drive the Chinese back to the wall. 

He then took questions from the assembled reporters. It is amazing that Trump haters cannot credit Trump’s willingness to take questions. He seems to be out there every day taking questions. Have his opponents forgotten that President Biden rarely held a press conference, and that former President Obama always used a teleprompter?

Anyway, he took about 18 questions from the assembled reporters, and I don’t believe there was one that asked about the astonishing military success we achieved. Today’s media seems no longer interested in reporting what has actually happened, but they focus on what they fear will happen in the future especially with President Trump in command.

Despite the success of the mission, most of the questions were designed to find fault. The extraordinary precision of our bombing in striking only military targets in contrast to most modern war, or the terrorist tactics of the Iranian regime and its proxies went unmentioned. 

Questioners tried to drive a wedge between the President and Vice-President Vance and even suggested that Secretary of State Marco Rubio was unfit to conduct negotiations with Cuba. 

The last question was especially telling. The reporter asked how many casualties President Trump was willing to accept in this war.  In three days, we had destroyed Iran’s Russia and China supplied air defense system, neutralized its 1000 plus ballistic missile arsenal, sunk its entire navy, and decapitated its leadership, and we had taken only eight casualties. 

The question was insulting but the President, as usual, handled it well. He mentioned that he had already met with the families of the eight soldiers, and that despite their grief, they urged him to “Finish the job, Sir, finish the job.”

### 

War in Iran

  

                                           

 

Since first hearing the news of the joint US and Israeli bombing of military targets in Iran, I have been seeking out news of what is actually happening. It has not been easy. News sites that I watch or read provide very little information of what is going on.

Talking heads on cable stations usually focus on what they think or fear will happen and not what has actually happened. Often their opinions are accompanied by continually repeated videos of sites being blown to bits but with no indication of what sites are being destroyed. 

 

Here are some bits and pieces of what I have discovered so far. 

 

President Trump has declared that the attack on Iran has four objectives. He claims that the success of the initial attacks, especially the destruction of the Iranian high command, have put us far ahead of achieving these goals.

Ensure that Iran will never have a nuclear bomb. Iran’s refusal to accept this demand led to the breakdown of the most recent diplomatic efforts.*

Destroy Iran’s ballistic missile capability. The response to our attack showed how extensive the Iranian missile and drone system was. Even though most were intercepted, some did get through and cause death and destruction. Many seemed to have been aimed at non-military targets in nearby Arab states. 

Destroy the Iranian navy and its threat to shipping lanes in the Gulf of Hormuz. So far, it appears that we have sunk 17 Iranian naval vessels in the Gulf of Oman.

Ensure that the Iranian regime will no longer be able to arm terrorist proxies in the area. 

 

Rather than shooting from the hip, the President seems to have been very careful in making his decision. One former aide described the President’s decision-making process in some detail. He claimed that Trump listens to and encourage different opinions before coming to a significant decision. Contrary to popular opinion, he does not shoot from the hip in matters of such importance.

Nevertheless, the President took an incredible risk in this venture. Anything can go wrong in war, and one misstep could wreck his Presidency. So far, even military commentators on left-leaning cable shows have had to admit that the military operation has been extraordinarily well planned and executed. 

He also took a great political risk. Democrats who want the President to fail on anything he does were quick to distance themselves from the Iranian operation. Very striking were the remarks of Hakeem Jeffries, the House Minority leader, who opined that the military attack would fail. How could he know that at this point? What he really meant was that he hoped it would fail. 

My own representatives here in Connecticut are apparently of the same mind. Both Senators Murphy and Blumenthal, as well as Representative Himes, have decried the Iran attack, and argued that Congress should have been consulted. Commentators have pointed out that when President Obama bombed Libya for 7 months, Congressional Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi did not insist on Congressional approval. 

It does appear that the President has acted within his authority, and early this week high ranking members of the Administration appeared before Congress in closed session, and answered questions for two hours. Even so, the Democrats could not offer any support. 

It used to be the custom of the party in Opposition to support the President when it came to foreign policy, especially when it came to war. But no more. When American service men and women are in harm’s way, no politician should dare to hope that they might fail.

###

*Note: Steve Witcoff, the President's chief Iran negotiator claimed that the  Iranian negotiators were intransigent, and bragged that they would soon have enough processed uranium to make 11 nuclear bombs. Is it too much to speculate that they might have been more reasonable if they felt that the USA was united behind President Trump in these negotiations? 

State of the Union 2026

I stayed up late last night to watch President Trump's State of the Union Speech. In curiosity, I even stayed tuned for the rebuttal by Democratic Governor Abigail Spanberger of Virginia. I would have to say that rather than giving a speech, Trump put on a performance, a performance that unlike most State of the Union addresses was hard not to watch despite its length. 

Thinking about it this morning, I looked back on old Weekly Bystander posts and found that I had forgotten that Trump had given a spectacular performance in his first State of the Union address back in 2017. Then, even liberal opponents had to give him credit. I wrote,

Donald Trump and his political advisors put together a brilliant speech Tuesday night in his address to the Congress. David Brooks on PBS gave him an “A”, and even liberal commentator Mark Shields had to grudgingly give him a  “C+”. Trump touched all the high points of his familiar message but did it in such a fashion as to make even liberal commentators say that he appeared “Presidential.” 

He also used with great effect the touching stories of some ordinary Americans who had been invited to attend, a practice used by many previous Presidents in State of the Union messages. Their stories were heart-warming and even heart wrenching.

 If anything, the stories in 2026 were even more heart wrenching. Who will ever forget the Marine standing at attention despite his wounded legs, and receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor for his role in leading the Maduro raid.

Today, I do worry, just as I did in 2017, that Trump’s promises may have set the bar too high. If he can deliver on his promises and fulfill his lofty vision for America, he will be one of the greatest Presidents in history. I know it is good to set goals and aim high but now President Trump will have to deliver. I do not think it will be an easy task given the state of the Union today.

There will be vicious battles in many of our states as the mid-term elections approach. Governor Spanberger's speech was practically a declaration of war. We have a fleet prepared to attack Iran if negotiations fail, but it seems that the Democratic opposition rather than supporting the President's foreign policies  would like them to fail. 

I think my conclusion in 2017 is still appropriate today. I wrote,

I have to admit that when I hear a brilliant speech delivered by a real pro like Trump, I have mixed feelings. It was hard not to be inspired by his message but at the same time, I had to wonder. Could Trump just be, as some suspect, a con man? I don’t think so. It is more likely that he could be a con man who has been converted by his own message or cause in the manner of film characters such as  Professor Harold Hill in “The Music Man," or Gary Cooper in Frank Capra’s masterpiece, “Meet John Doe." However, both these fictional characters were down and out drifters before they rose to prominence. Trump was a billionaire businessman as well as a celebrity already.

I like to think that Trump is more in the line of a wealthy Renaissance merchant who realizes that he must attain political power not only to preserve and protect what he and his family have gained over a lifetime, but also to preserve and protect the city or country that have done so much for him and his family.

The true test of the Trump administration will be on how much it can deliver. If President Trump can just deliver on a third of his promises, it will be a successful Presidency. Batting .333 is good in any league. I hope commentators will begin to focus on what the Trump administration is actually doing, and not on what they fear he will do.*

###

*Note: I do think the President could have done a better job last night in his discussion of fraud in Minnesota. Instead of blaming the whole Somali community in Minneapolis, he could have explained that the fraudsters did not just defraud taxpayers, but they kept aid from reaching people in need. Money intended for hungry children, for education, and for those suffering from autism was diverted and often sent abroad. Their Governor, their Attorney General, their representatives in Congress all failed to protect the needy in Minnesota.