text:
She who would be president--or not!
Palin: 'We Need to Find Out Who Was Behind' Egypt Protests, and other amazing commentsShould we send a copy of Crane Brinton's The Anatomy of Revolution or a subscription to the NYTimes?
About the Author
Margaret O'Brien Steinfels, a former editor of Commonweal, writes frequently in these pages and blogs at dotCommonweal.
59 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Since Sarah Palin raised it, I wonder how well she would do with the 3 a.m. phone call. In the Obama administration, it may be that Hillary Clinton picked up the 3 a.m. phone call after all.
I don't get it. Just what are we supposed to be mocking here? That Palin would like to know more about exactly which groups are involved in the Egyptian protests? That she said, "trust but verify. We want to be able to trust those who are screaming for democracy there in Egypt, that it is a true sincere desire for freedoms"? Is that what we are supposed to snicker at?Because, I got to tell you, that sentiment sounds awfully like the person who also wanted more information, writing, "Some of my underlying questions are: Is this an uprising like Czechoslovakis in 1989or Iran in 2009? I suspect neither. But I dont know. In all of these newly roused countries, I would guess that the outcome in part depends on what kind of opposition infrastructure is in place."So, why is it an occasion for riducule when Palin says it, but it is fine when you, Ms. Steinfels, say essentially the same thing?
If Ms Palin still has any aspirations for national office, this interview shows her knowledge gap around foreign policy has not narrowed at all since the last campaign. And, unfortunately for her, what's happening in the Middle East certainly highlights that our leaders better have some expertise in this area.
If you read through the entire text of her comments, it is obvious that her main point was to criticize Obama without regard to any specific critique of what he did or failed to do because she has no idea, other than to seize on it as an opportunity to make the joke about the 3:00 am call and the answering machine and then fill in with a bunch of word slurry that includes at least one obligatory reference to Ronald Reagan, i.e., the statement "trust but verify," which, of course, is what Reagan said when he was dealing with the Soviet Union in negotiating one of many arms treaties. Somebody please tell me how that applies to a popular uprising over the wholly domestic policies of a foreign nation? Does Palin think that we have veto power over Egypt's internal political arrangements?
Brian, I don't know what your problem is, but you're not going to be working it out here anymore.
The Bender comments (I hate to say) as usual are just defending his right wing pets.The situation on the ground in Cairo is less than clear for sure -if you watched CNN last night, the distrust of the VP led "transition" and its military arm should inspire caution.The continued clamor about the Muslim Brotherhood from some on the right reminded me of Kristof's Sunday NYT colum (he was on the ground in Cairo.)Talking to a woman he asked if she thought the Muslim Brotherhood was a danger to peace; she replied your Repubklican party is the danger to piece.I think Palin's simplicities wil only emphasize the "ugly American" view held by many on the ground in Arab states and complicate our efforts there further.
Palin talks as if she's the president-in-waiting expecting to be briefed by Secretary Clinton. She could know as much as the rest of us by reading the newspapers--not that that means we know what's going on behind the scenes. If she knew about the uprisings in Czechoslovakia or Iran, she too could speculate about the path Egypt will follow--so far it doesn't look like Czechoslovakia, but it doesn't look like Iran either. Her remarks are a gratuitous slap at the Obama administration. IMO they demonstrate how little she understands about good governance and due dilligence.Diplomat, intelligence officers, and admin officials should know more about what's going on in Egypt than the rest of us...or at least I hope they do.
"It's a difficult situation. This is that 3 a.m. White House phone call and it seems for many of us trying to get that information from our leader in the White House, it seems that that call went right to the answering machine."Her hero famously slept through the 3:00 am phone call. I don't know if Palin is aware of this but there are crisis manangemnt centers throughout the federal goverment that deal with emergency domestic and foreign matters and capably respond to those matters 24 hours a day 7 days a week. A "slow event" like an unfolding two week uprising would not normally require a 3 am phone call because the organizations of government can routinely handle such events by the authority delegated to them. The Persident can be briefed when he wakes up. Palin may be surprised to learn that the Executive Branch is not a one man operation. Please reserve the 3 am phone calls for those situations requiring immediate presidential decision.
I'm with Bender - I don't get the mocking tone.She's a commentator, that's how she's earning a living. You can agree or disagree with her, but what's wrong with the questions she's asking?It isn't all together clear to me that the Obama administration does understand what's happening. You talk about understanding revolutions. In his interview with O'Reilly Obama minimized the risk of the Muslim Brotherhood saying, "they don't have majority support in Egypt." Crack open a history book Mr. President. That didn't stop Robespierre, or Lenin, or Mao. Heck, it didn't stop Adams and Washington either.So, when Obama took "gratuitous slaps" at Bush's detainee policy without all the facts (as is now abundantly clear) was he demonstrating his little he understood about good governance and due dilligence?
To be fair, I am sure President Palin would have been awake and alert to take that 3 a.m. call. After all, that's the time when someone might post something critical about her on her Facebook page, which would require and immediate full scale response. She has developed very keen crisis response reflexes.
As for the quote cited by Bender (Is this an uprising like Czechoslovakia in 1989or Iran in 2009?): Roger Cohen asks a different but related question in his op ed in todays N.Y. Times: Tehran 1979 or Berlin 1989? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/opinion/08iht-edcohen08.html?hp
Why are we giving her this air time? All she craves is oxygen. And the "liberal" media seems more than happy to be of service. Why is that?
I don't care what she thinks. I am waiting for Bristol's opinion in the book she has coming out.
Anthony, I empathize with the idea of ignoring Palin, but I think the fact that she is a leading candidate to be the GOP 2012 nominee, and is a leading voice in conservative politics today, makes it incumbent on the media to cover her. Not to cover her would be a dereliction, and it would also be skewing against a politician because the media doesn't like her -- no? That said, noting every Palin sighting is a bit much. But such is the SEO world in which the media now operates. Also, she is not alone. Check out this Fox News clip of GOP voters in Iowa:http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/02/understandi...
So much for the success of the Iowa public education system over the past 40 years or so.Ignorance knows no geographic, racial or age bounds.Of course, they ARE Republicans, so that does explain a log.
What Jimy Mac said!
Anthony,Air time? Seriously?Interviewer: "Governor Palin, what is your reaction to wghat they are saying about you on Commonweal?"Palin: "Common what?"
Sean, why are you wasting your time on dotCommonweal when it's so obvious that you should be writing comedy?
Sean, my problem with Palin's comments is that, of course, we would all like more information -- I bet the president would like more information, along with Mubarak and the protesters. The reality is that there are a range of possible outcomes here and it just seems intuitively correct that your priorities given the high degree of volatility and uncertainty are, first, not to do something that would inflame the situation or push it in a potentially undesirable direction, and second, to quietly use whatever tools you have to nudge it towards a more desirable outcome, if such an outcome can be predicted. ISTM if you are the U.S. the last thing you would want to do is jump up and down and demand the outcome that seems to suit you best, a la Palin ("We won't stand for the Muslim Brotherhood!"). In fact, unless we plan to invade Egypt, we *will* stand for the Muslim Brotherhood if it steps into the vacuum, and saying we won't is about as good a way as I can think of to guarantee that we will actually get the Muslim brotherhood. You don't need a lot of knowledge to divine this much about the situation, and if Palin really can't open her mouth without criticizing the president, maybe, in this case, it would have been better to stay mum.
The idea of Sarah Palin becoming president is so preposterous I tend to dismiss it as just another media self-satisfying orgasm.Then, I remember that Americans have elected both Ronald Reagan and W. president. It could happen again.I think we need to be vigilant until someone, or something, probably of her own doing, drives a stake through Palin's political heart.
If anybody is still pondering Margaret's earlier thread on revolution in Egypt you should read todays (February 8) issue of the Washington Post on the warnings on Egypt that the administration ignored: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/the_egypt_warnings... pattern of ignoring such warnings is not new in American history, unfortunately. Why?
Diehl's piece strikes me as pretty lame. The administration was working behind the scenes, but options were limited, as they are now. What were the options? Invade? That really worked out well with Iraq. Jim Jenkins, I always remind myself of that very thing -- Reagan and W. Anything can happen!
David-I hear your point. And maybe if actually turns out to be a viable candidate in 2012, I will live to eat my words. Of course the press has to cover her, but how to decide how much oxygen to give her? The devil is of course in the details.AA
Gabriel, what Diehl describes has been happening in Egypt almost from the time that Mubarak became president, in the early 1980s. To one degree or another, every U.S. administration since has expressed a combination of support for him along with pressure to liberalize, and he has mostly ignored the pressure except in high profile cases. The Bush administration's use of Egypt for secret renditions has no doubt clouded the relationship, in addition to the fact that U.S. posture towards Egypt is always influenced by a desire to protect Israel. Anyone who watched what happened in Iran after the Shah brutally suppressed civil dissent could have predicted that something similar would happen in Egypt, but the date, the trigger, the form -- and of course, how to react -- these are not so easy. Unlike Palin, however, Diehl actually makes a policy suggestion based on some evidence. But his suggestion strikes me as no more likely to be successful than the path actually taken by the U.S.
"Anthony, I empathize with the idea of ignoring Palin, but I think the fact that she is a leading candidate to be the GOP 2012 nominee, and is a leading voice in conservative politics today, makes it incumbent on the media to cover her."Number one, her stats keep dropping, and I don't think she's going to be a serious contender in two years; she certainly isn't now.Number two, the only reason she SEEMS viable is because people keep talking about her as if her opinions matter.The protestors in Cairo seem to be motivated by a variety of grievances and represent a variety of points of view. Rather than ask who THEY are, it makes more sense to monitor who might emerge to replace Mubarek so we can formulate sensible foreign policy.I hope all my fellow Commonwhat-ers will agree that whomever is installed in the seat of power in Egypt, we will ought not be running in there with guns a-blazin' or with our pocketbooks open. Brief squib this morning on NPR noted that the $4 billion we've given to Pakistan to shore up infrastructure and improve things generally in order to get them to like us more has pretty much gone down a rathole.
Seems to me that mention of Sarah Palin brings more of us out of silence than mention of Egypt. Gotta face it. She has a pulpit, perhaps a private one, a pulpit nonetheless. And she talks out loud.
So Anthony, why did I post this inane statement of SP? All of the hoopla around the Ronald Reagan anniversary reminds me that I never understood how he got elected. Furthermore, I didn't know anyone who voted for him--or admitted voting for him. Thus the post is an inoculation for anyone tempted to think she cannot get nominated, and if nominated cannot get elected.
Peggy,I know a lot of people who voted for RR (including both my parents), and some of them are very good friends of mine. I am happy to introduce some of them to you. :) I was too young to vote for him but I did vote for George HW Bush in 1988. I still wonder how much our reaction to her has helped to make her who she is. I think that is a valid question. AA
I suppose it's possible that the GOP could nominate her; the field is still pretty wide open. She would then get steamrolled in the general. If Republicans want to give President Obama an electoral mandate in the wake of the '12 election, it's difficult to think of a better way to go about it.
The reason Reagan, W Bush and now Palin, get elected is they are someone that the Republican group can wield power behind. Meese and Baker controlled Reagan while Chaney dominated Bush. Chaney was controlled by big businees. He was a champion of Enron until it went bust. Of course both candidates were immensely helped by a bungling Carter and Gore. Carter didn't realize that people did not care how good a person he was when interest rates were sky rocketing and people were out of work. He also made a major mistake by appearing to be intimidated by Iran. Gore didn't realize that people were not concerned about Clinton's sex life as long as they were working. Gore tried to disassociate himself from Clinton who was twice as popular. So the truth is Palin can get elected if people are not working. Her problem will be mostly that she is a woman rather than how incompetent she is.
@ Margaret Steinfels:How did RR get elected?There were a lot of factors that lead to the election of Reagan as governor and president not the least of which is the "low information voter" that all politics, left and right, cultivate.Part of Reagan's charm was that he understood that politics in media-crazed America is essentially "Hollywood for ugly people." In that universe, he and Nancy represented glamour. (If you think I exaggerating, how else can you explain the fawning bloviation commemorating "Dutch Reagan's" centenary now occupying FOX News?)Remember Reagan greatest political skill was making Americans comfortable with our prejudices. We all allowed ourselves, especially Catholics, to be seduced by fictions like "morning in America."The most inclusive and comprehensive reason for Reagan's political triumph is that Reagan was the affable, media-telegenic front man for some of the darkest reactionary corporate interests in this country. To a large extent, this corporate cabal still dominates American politics (i.e., Wall Street and banking bailouts; defeat of Obama's alternative energy initiatives; Republican takeover of the House after months of corporate lies about health care reform - the list could go on).The pernicious influence of Reagan on our politics will continue until Americans reverse decades of Reaganomics: revitalize the decimated American middle class (health care reform was a start); re-industrialize the economy; end disastrous trade policies that send our jobs and futures overseas; revive the labor movement; rebuild American infrastructure; end the era of "the-corporation-is-a-person" which pollutes our politics; deconstruct the military-industrial complex.That's quite an agenda. There's more. But, we have to begin somewhere!Obama's re-election is crucial if Americans are to move the ball forward: The majority of the Supreme Court's conservative political hacks hangs in the balance with the next presidential appointment (Bush v. Gore, really?). An Obama re-election could swing the House back to Democratic control and maintain a small majority in the Senate. All American combat troops need to come home.Only with re-election could Obama achieve the meaningful realignment in American politics which he foresaw in his recent State of the Union address.Progressive political forces need to begin to plan for what comes after Obama: an age of renewal and enlightenment or a return to the greedy kelptocracy and perpetual wars of Bush & Cheney.
Margaret, Michigan was full of "Reagan Democrats" dealing with an economy just slightly better than it is now. Signs saying, "Last one out of Michigan, turn out the lights." The middle-class was being squeezed by Big Labor (UAW, MEA) and Big Entitlements, and many Democrats felt we'd come to the end of what we could contribute to the Great Society.Also, Carter was president, and, while I find much to admire about him, he was like a nagging gramma (turn down the heat, put on a sweater, stop driving those expensive cars, the world is a mess and you better face up to it). Americans were in the mood for simple-minded optimism, and Reagan's "morning in America" and "shining city on a hill" resonated with people. He made them (not me) feel cheerful and gave them permission to ignore a lot of problems.I think that's why Palin does NOT resonate with people in the way Reagan did. She gripes, she complains, she raises fears. In bad times, that doesn't play with wide swaths of people.
"I didnt know anyone who voted for himor admitted voting for him."This is hyperbole, right? I can't imagine anyone living such a sheltered life. Though I do agree with the larger point that there are noteworthy similarities between SP and RR.
MP: Hyperbole? not really. I did say "admitted voting for him." Perhaps people were afraid to say so. Yes, Jean, we've heard about paranoid politics, but it seems to me delusional politics was what was on offer in the Reagan campaign. And we still live with the after-life of trickle down economics and the anti-ballistic missile (Star Wars), and of course the view that everything is right and good about what is going on at home and abroad!
Margaret, I think Reagan offered familiar and comfortable delusions--America, proud, free, unfettered by big gummint vs. the USSR, an old reliable enemy around which you could spend a lot of money on nutty military R&D like the neutron bomb and Star Wars to protect you against nuclear attacks from an adversary that, in reality, was already crumbling from the inside. People rejected Carter and his bogeymen--want in the Third World, energy shortages, and instability in the Middle East--because they were the reals ones, and Americans can't handle those. That's why our markets are flooded with Chinese crap, why we're paying over $3 per gallon for gas, and why the Middle East is a big tinderbox.For Palin, EVERYthing is a potential bogeyman, and when she finally turns out to be right about one of these things--you can't flip a coin without its coming up tails at least once in awhile--she'll claim that as a victory and try to parley that into political currency.Her tactics remind me of that story about William Randolph Hearst, who used to run through his news rooms periodically yelling, "Get excited, everybody!" Ultimately, he was too weird to succeed in American politics (and, takes a pretty high level of weird), and so is Palin. Palin is great burlesque, but I prefer Judge Judy.
More gently thenSo long as progressives persist in categorizing the people who disagree with them into:The StupidThe IgnorantThe GullibleThe GreedyandThe Evilthey will continue to be a small minority of the population. The fact that progressive politics is overly influential (if not outright dominant) in almost every one of the opinion leading institutions - press, academia, entertainment, the legal profession - and still can't get a lasting foothold ought to send a strong signal. People don't buy what you are selling. All of this facile explanation of Ronald Reagan's appeal proves the point. Most of the people who voted for him simply wanted a different approach - their values, not their intelligence or mood, were different than yours.
As an Obama supporter I have to say that Gov. Huntsman worries me more than Gov. Palin. The silver lining is that Huntsman is probably too intelligent to survive the GOP primary. I say this with some sadness since I have been a registered Republican since 1978. Never voted for Reagan but I did choose McCain 1.0 in the 1999 primary.
DCD: Can we conclude that you live in Utah? Then what would you make of a Hunstman-Romney contest?
Sean, I agree with you about mischaracterizing one's opponents as evil and all the rest. But I believe Ms. Palin (Don't retreat, reload) is at least as guilty as anyone of doing exactly that.
@ Jean Raber:Your ragging on Jimmy Carter for being a messenger of peril in the world reminds me that research reveals that more depressive, negative people have a better grasp on reality than do happy, positive people, with positive(s) higher on delusional indices.Kinda supports my view that Ronnie and Nancy just made us more comfortable with our fictions about American life, and more willing to vote against our better interests.
P.S. I never voted for Reagan, never supported him, have always believe that he was a disaster for America. I diagnosed his Alzheimer's from afar while he was still in office when I encountered a Alzheimer's patient during my first clinical residency.Despite all my distaste for his politics, I could always take Ronnie more than I could stomach Nancy - what an aging Barbie doll!
Nancy has looked a bit blanked-out in the few current shots I've seen of her in the Reagan centennial fest. The few minutes of Reagan on the Newshour earlier this week being interviewed by a much younger Jim Lehrer just reminded me that he was always scarey. The nonchalant, I-just-woke-up and now-that-you-bring-it-up, response reminded me that I always feared he didn't have the foggiest idea of what was going on (that is, Reagan, not Lehrer!).
Irene,I am not talking about mischaracterization. I am saying that it seems that progressives actually believe this.Maybe a better way to put it is this. When I listen to progressives they seem to be saying the progressive point of view is reality. People that don't agree, are ignoring reality, ignorant of reality, fooled by someone about reality, intentionally distortorting reality because of avarice or greed or ill motives - or they are just to stupid to understand it.What I am saying is that this can never lead to political success and is a very bad way to convince people. A political point of view or ideology isn't reality it's a set of values that we bring to reality.For example, progressives love to say conservatives don't care about poverty, or alternatively and frequently, don't recognize or understand the reality of poverty.Since he's what brought this up, I will use Reagan as an example. In the first instance, it is silly to claim that he, for example, understood the reality of poverty less than someone like Ted Kennedy, since he actually lived it as a child. As for caring about poverty, it's well known that he felt most of the great society programs were detrimental, but by the same token, he was well known for writing pretty sizeable personal checks to individuals in financial difficulty. Contrast this with the current president who advocates for more poverty programs while members of his own family live in poverty.It's not a question of knowing or caring about poverty, but about what to do about it and what social, moral, and ethical values will should prevail in the process. People you disagree with don't have to be sinister, ignorant, or stupid, they can just be wrong or not share your values.As for Palin, I don't endeavor to defend her. I don't like her much, and hope she doesn't run for president. However. I don't think the phrase you mention is meant to vilify anyone - i.e. that her political opponents deserved to be shot - it's a metaphor for continuing to be on the offensive, nothing more.
"Your ragging on Jimmy Carter for being a messenger of peril in the world reminds me that research reveals that more depressive, negative people have a better grasp on reality than do happy, positive people, with positive(s) higher on delusional indices."Hmm, then I must be extremely well-grounded in reality. I've been depressed and pessimistic since I was about six.However, negativity, I hope, does not mean I can't tell the difference between criticism of ideas and personal insults directed at Nancy Reagan, now a frail-looking private citizen dealing with a sad rift in her family at the end of her life. Leave her alone.@ others: I tire of equation of criticism of Sarah Palin with with demonizing her, and of unsubstantiated, paranoid and senseless statements about how "progressives" control every influential aspect of life, even though nobody's buying their party line. If progressives DO control all these spheres of influence--which has yet to be proved by some means other than fevered imagination--SOMEbody must be buying it.
Jean, I will take your words to heart about NR, but the idea that she is a "private citizen," is hard to credit--the madonna of Reaganism!
Margaret, Nancy Reagan was a loyal wife, and she believed in Reagan's ideas. is it so surprising that she became the spokesperson for the pair of them for a time? I wasn't a Reaganite, and I certainly never found any kind of inspiring about Nancy Reagan. Certainly, her efforts to promote stem cell research put her at odds with many Catholics on that issue.But I can't see making catty remarks about an elderly lady or dragging her into the same arena with Sarah Palin. It just strikes me as kind of sad.
Jean,I don't think people equate criticism with demonization of Palin. Most equate demonization of Palin with demonization of Palin.Like I say, I don't care for the woman and I don't think she is presidential material, but a lot of the "criticism" is personal and nasty. It's not enough to say she's unqualified to be president, her "critics" mock her and say she's to stupid too be president based on almost nothing.As for your concern over my "paranoia" about progressives controlling "every aspect" of life. I don't say the control "every aspect." I said they dominate many of the opinion leading institutions. Besides my own observations, which you think are fevered imagingings, I point to independent poll after independent poll that shows these institutions are dominated by self-identified liberals. We can look at political contributions if you like, where the money flow is extraordinarily one sided.As for paranoia, I think you missed my point. I'm not paranoid, I don't fear this too much. It's just that it is striking that self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals by 2 to 1 despite this influence. Why?I think it is because the progressive way of thinking and world view is not terribly persuasive when it bumps up against people's experience. It's hard to convince people that what will solve their problems is more state control of things after they've made a few visits to the DMV, tried to get a zoning variance, or spent a couple hours on the phone with an IRS agent.That's why Reagan's message was successful. It comported with people's experience and it spoke to their aspirations.
"Her 'critics' mock her and say shes to stupid too be president based on almost nothing."I wouldn't call Palin's inability to answer simple questions in the Katie Couric interview "almost nothing." There's actually a reason people make fun of her, and to pretend there isn't, is ludicrous.I have never had a bad experience at the DMV, with the bureaucrats who helped us get Medicaid for our kid, or the local health department. I've gotten far more headaches from dealing with insurance companies, my DSL tech help (who barely speak English), and the cardiologist who gouged us $500 for an ECG--all agencies of your beloved private sector free enterprise.I wish I could rave on, but I gotta get my kid to a jazz concert. I continue to hope your boys are well and hope if they will be home soon.
FYI, NR was born on July 6, 1921 - that's close enough to 90 in my book.I'm not defending her politics but just providing one wee bit of information that helps explain why she looks a "bit blanked-out." God forbid I should live to that age but, if I do, I hope I can present myself reasonably close to how she does generally.
Oh you Nancy R. Lovers!!! Whoever said Barbie above has it right. Jimmy Mac: you hanker after the flawless skin? the flaming red lipstick? the perfect coiffure. We should strive to look approximately our ages so as not to confuse people!
"We should strive to look approximately our ages so as not to confuse people!"I don't really have to strive to look my age. I have been mistaken for my kid's grandmother since he was born. Since I turned 50, I've had to use a cane occasionally, and I get the senior rate on everything without anyone even bothering to card me.I miss being cute and skinny sometimes. But I'm so darn much smarter, that I hardly miss it most days.
Jean Raber: an example to all of us...how did you manage the smarter part?
Peggy: flaming red is not my color. Neither is blushing pink. Wrinkled and blotchy is. But thanks for thinking that I may still consider myself able to use lipstick.
Happy Valentine's Day!
"Smarter," is, of course, relative, and I make no presumptions about HOW smart.I presume I got smarter in the way most very stubborn and somewhat thick-headed people do--through dint of repeated failure from doing dumb things.Happy V-Day to you, too. Raber has already given me his speech about VD being a scam by the card and chocolate companies, but my phone company offered me 60 free minutes!
Jean R: I take it that no sympathy should be shown for the Raber view of Valentine's Day, but I want to report that yesterday passing Godiva Chocolates I noticed that the line was out the door and half way down the block--when a Hershey bar would have done just as well.
I didn't marry Raber for his romance quotient. I married him because he was kind, reliable, and not inclined to squander money or take Sunday naps on the sofa.Raber fixes plumbing, makes built-in cabinets, totes the boy to his 7 a.m. jazz band practice, makes the coffee before I get up, cleans out the cat boxes, and does the laundry. He brags to people about my cooking and accepts homemade knitwear with gratitude. That makes everyday Valentine's Day, Christmas, and Thanksgiving, so I can easily overlook his somewhat churlish attitude to these calendar observances.If I want chocolate, I buy my own. (I found dollar bags on sale at the drug store.)
Everyday Valentine's Day--must be paradise!
Living with Raber sounds a lot like the first 2 lines in this this old fundie hymn: "Every day with Jesus is sweeter than the day before. Every day with Jesus, I love Him more and more."(http://my.homewithgod.com/heavenlymidis2/everyday.html)Lucky you, Jean; lucky you!!!


text:
520 8th Street
Directions Monroe, WI 53566
You Always Get Your Money's Worth at Dearth!
The staff members here at Dearth Motors are more then ready to help you find a new Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, RAM truck, car or SUV in Monroe. When visiting our car dealership, expect the most excellent customer service that you deserve. Our team is member have years of experience and training and are sure to find the perfect vehicle that was built for you. Get the new or used car by Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge or RAM in Monroe that you have been dreaming of by calling us at the number above or by visiting Dearth Motors today. Our Chrysler Dodge Jeep dealership is located only a stone's throw from Madison WI, Beloit, Rockford IL, and Freeport IL.
Let an expert from our sales team go over all of the features of your favorite Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge or RAM. Monroe customers choose Dearth Motors because we are committed to leaving you 100% satisfied with your purchase. With everyday low prices and a huge selection of new and used Chrysler, Jeep, and Dodge cars, save time and money by visiting Dearth Motors first. We feature all of the most popular Chrysler, Jeep, and Dodge models including the new Challenger, Avenger, Town & Country, 200, Grand Cherokee and Patriot. We also feature a full model line up of new RAM Trucks for sale at competitive price. Contact our knowledgeable sales team right now by calling our sales line.
When it comes to high-quality and competitively-priced used cars in Monroe, Dearth Motors is your destination. At Dearth Motors we strive to maintain a huge selection of used cars by today's top auto manufacturers. Get a used car in Monroe that has been through a detailed inspection by our auto technicians and will run like new for many years to come. If you are looking for a used Chrysler, Jeep, or Dodge in Monroe and need assistance, complete our CarFinder form and we will track down the used car you are interested in.
Dearth Motors' car financing staff work hard in getting you an affordable car loan in Monroe. How? It's simple. We reach out to various lenders in the area to find the lowest interest rates for you. This way you can browse for a new or used car and purchase it all in one day without having to search all over for a finance option. We even have an online financing application for quicker service.
Get the repair and parts your Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge or RAM needs from the industry experts at Dearth Motors. Our mechanics will make sure your car is fixed right the first time, and our professional parts department has a large inventory of auto parts to fill orders quickly. For car repairs, auto body repairs in Monroe and original Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge and RAM car parts, visit Dearth Motors located at 520 8th Street.
We hope to have the opportunity to meet you soon at our greater Monroe Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge and RAM dealership. Our helpful staff is always available to answer any question you may have about purchasing a new or used car, financing, repair or car parts. Additional cities we serve include: Fitchburg, Verona, Stoughton, Janesville, Middleton, Machesney Park IL, Loves Park IL, Waunakee, Platteville, Sun Prairie, and Fort Atkinson, WI. Call Dearth Motors today or stop by our dealership:

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A special monomial is a monomial of the form $C\cdot x_{i_1} \cdot \ldots \cdot x_{i_n}$, where C is an integer and no variable is repeated more than once in the monomial. For instance, $x\cdot y\cdot z\cdot u\cdot w$ is special while $x\cdot y\cdot z\cdot u\cdot w\cdot z$ is not since z is repeated. A special polynomial is a sum of special monomials. The question is the following. Is there an algorithm, that given a system of finite set of in-equations with special polynomials, decides if the system has integer solution?
ADDED: As Mark Sapir and other are pointing out, if you only have $\neq$'s, no $=$'s, $<$'s or $>$'s, then there is always a solution. That is to say, if $u_1$, $u_2$, ..., $u_N$ are nonzero polynomials, then there is always a lattice point where all the $u_i$ are nonzero. I assume you are asking the nontrivial question and allowing $<$'s and $>$'s:
No. Any set of equations can be turned into a set of special equations. For example, if you have the equation $x^3 y^2 z + x^2 = 7$, just introduce new variables $x_1$, $x_2$, $x_3$, $y_1$, $y_2$ and $z_1$, and write down the special equations $x_1=x_2$, $x_2=x_3$, $y_1=y_2$ and $x_1 x_2 x_3 y_1 y_2 z + x_1 x_2 =7$. This is often called the polarization trick.
So special equations are no simpler than ordinary equations and, as I imagine you know, there is no algorithm to solve Diophantine equations.
I just noticed that you said "inequalities" not equalities. But any Diophantine equation can be rewritten as an inequality: $f(x,y,z)=0$ is the same as $-1 < f(x,y,z) < 1$, and any inequality as an equality: $z \geq 0$ is equivalent to $\exists (p,q,r,s) : z=p^2+q^2+r^2+s^2$. So this doesn't gain or lose you any generality.
In fact any systems of inequations $u\ne 0$ where $u$ is a non-zero polynomial with integer coefficients has an integer solution. So the problem about inequations is obviously decidable.
By the way, does anybody have an intuition on the following refinement of the question: Is there an algorithm, that given one equation (and the same question for in-equation) with special polynomials, decides if this equation has integer solution?
The argument given by David Speyer does not seem to solve the problem for this other question.


text:
Aetna cutting 160 jobs, half in Conn.
Not a subscriber? You can purchase a single-day subscription for only $0.75 to read this and access all of our content and our E-Edition. CLICK HERE purchase a single day subscription.
Become an electronic subscriber to the Republican-American for only $8 a month. CLICK HERE.


text:
You are a fan of scrapbook made ? Come to discover the best forums scrapbook made on the internet and share your experience with a community fan of scrapbook made . You can also build a forum scrapbook made and create your online discussion.
A group to have fun with PSP.
sinful, pleasures, photoshop, graphics, group, signatures, taggers, #scrapbook
The definitive site for independent discussion, advice, sales, information & fun for owners & enthusiasts of the VW T2 Kombi made in Brazil until 2013; imported, converted & enjoyed as campervans in the UK.
brazilian, camper, kombi, danbury, brazil, volkswagen, campervan, window, late
Free forum : A website of roleplaying and fun where great friendships can be made.
warriors, night, website, roleplaying, great, friendships, aquastar
PC Game Modding Community
tycoon, wildlife, park, hearts, iron, rollercoaster, europa, universalis, civilization, victoria, crusader, kings, jurassic, space, empires, galactic, civilizations, simcity, caesar
C. R. E. W is a Dayz Standalone community made of good friends and family that enjoy the zombie apocalyptic video game genre.
dayz, standalone, community, zombie, apocalyptic, video, game, genre, games
A Roleplay Schema made by EUPRP set in the Mass Effect universe.
A forum about digital monsters (digimon) that was made to be friends with to those who also like digimon and share their own ideas and collections of photos and layouts of Digimon!
A Forza Grassroots forum
forza, #made, manufactured, grassroots, drift, race
This can hopefully be made private
The Order is a Herosmash clan made up of the most skilled PvPers. We're dedicated to staying on top, while being team players and a good example to others. Check the Joining topic if you want to apply.
clan, order, herosmash, #made, most, skilled, pvpers, we're, dedicated, staying, while, being, team, players, good, example
Please visit our 2-D graphical chat known as Levulose, a candy theme based chat that incorporates many kinds of animals made up of different kinds of sweets.
levulose, visit, graphical, chat, candy, theme, based, incorporates, kinds, animals, sweets
Sick and tired of having to look to the ends of the earth to roleplay? Me too! That's why I made this forum-free roleplay for one and all!
sick, tired, having, look, ends, earth, roleplay?, too!, that's, #made, this, forum-free, roleplay, all!
The E. P. T. C. pokemon forum is your destination for a dedicated community made of members just like you!
pokemon, forum, forums, friend, code, exhange, friendcodes, safaris, friendcode
Our Fellowship Forum
fellowship, takes, place, 8pm-11pm, every, friday, this, #made, hangout, discuss, word, well, daily
This forum is for fans of Sandlot Games and the games they made.
free, forum, sandloter's, sandlot, games, westward, cake, mania, tradewinds, granny, super
This is where you can discuss all things Gen 0, a fan made pokemon game.
The movies we missed.
bionicle, next, generation, movies, project, lego, bionextgen, b:ng, series, episodes, saga, legacy
A forum made for Zidocraft - Minecraft Server Community!
zidocraft, minecraft, cracked, server, free, hamachi, whitelist, paying, donator, perks, mcmmo, vanish, disguise, craft, logblock, griefing, multiverse, premium, survival, 24/7


text:
Document Actions
Welcome and congratulations on your decision to become part of the Hunter College community! You are about to embark on an educational journey that will be filled with many learning experiences, new friendships and information about accomplishing your future goals.
As a first-year freshman student, we understand that making the transition from high school to college is often challenging. To learn more about getting started at Hunter College, visit the Freshman Advising & Orientation website. You will be able to schedule an orientation and registration appointment, review information about testing, find out about immunization requirements, and more. Hunter's orientation for first-year students offers an overview of everything you need to know before your first day of class.
As a transfer student, we are aware of your need to understand the academic structure of your new college. Your decision to attend Hunter College may have been made by your desire to pursue a special program we offer, by a change in your work location or by your own personal intellectual goals. To learn more about getting started at Hunter, visit the Transfer Students website. The advising sessions will get you started on understanding the applicability of your previous credits to the Hunter requirements as well as acquaint you with information about your prospective major area of interest.
On behalf of the Office of Student Services, we welcome you and look forward to meeting with you during our orientation and advising programs.


text:
11 Feb 2013 6:45 AM #1
Unanswered: modal panel not centered when draggable
when I use the following code from the examples for floating components
Ext.application({ name: "Modal-Test", icon: 'icon.png', launch: function () { Ext.Viewport.add({ xtype: 'panel', html: 'This is a centered and modal panel', modal: true, //hideOnMaskTap: true, centered: true, draggable: true }); } });
draggable: true
I've searched the forums but didn't find a solution and my last thread on this topic wasn't answered. So, can please anybody help me with this!?
12 Feb 2013 2:19 AM #2
Anyone!? What am I doing wrong? Can anybody proof that these few lines of code aren't working correct? Or does anybody have a working example for a draggable modal panel for me? Support!?
12 Feb 2013 8:55 PM #3
13 Feb 2013 7:30 AM #4
Hi Kurt, thanks for your reply but this is not my problem.
As I tried to explain before: The problem is the line "draggable: true".
If I leave it away, my modal panel is centered. If I add it, it isn't! It is positioned at the left and can't be dragged to the top.
And again, these lines of code are my only application! Just take a blank project, insert this code and you should see what I mean. And if not I'm doing something wrong which I'm not aware of but could then correct it. So, please, could anyone proof this for me - support!?
Thx in advance!


text:
Apostolic nuncio to USCCB: be pastoral, not ideological.
As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops prepares to elect its next president, the apostolic nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, delivered a remarkably pointed address urging bishops to be "pastoral," not ideological.
Pope Francis, Vigano said, "wants bishops in tune with their people." The pope
is giving us by, his own witness, an example of how to live a life attuned to the values of the gospel. While each of us must take into consideration our adaptability to the many different circumstances and cultures in which we live and the people whom we serve, there has to be a noticeable life style characterized by simplicity and holiness of life. This is a sure way to bring our people to an awareness of the truth of our message.
Vigano quoted liberally from Pope Paul VI's Evangelii Nuntiandi, which, he noted, Francis has called "the greatest pastoral document written to date." It was promulgated in 1975.
"The first means of evangelization," Paul VI wrote,
is the witness of an authentically Christian life, given over to God in a communion that nothing should destroy and at the same time given to one's neighbor with limitless zeal. As we said recently to a group of lay people, 'Modern man listens more willingly to witnesses than to teachers. and if it does listen to teachers, it is because they are witnesses.'"
That witness, Vigano suggested, is what's required in order to carry on the work of Vatican II.
Vigano also cited John Paul II and John XXIII to highlight the constant "call to attentiveness, watchfulness, and preparedness for whatever proclaiming the gospel may mean for us as successors of the Apostles, who were called to give radical witness to their faith in Jesus Christ."
Noting that American culture is marked by a diversity of views, Vigano observed that "this is also true of the church." But, he warned, "we must take care that, for us as a church, this diversity does not grow into division through misinterpretation or misunderstanding, and that division does not deteriorate into fragmentation."
In conclusion, Vigano mentioned an article describing the past half-centuray of U.S. politics. Its subtitle: "The era of polarization began as Americans lost confidence in their leaders."
"Well said," Vigano continued, "since the Catholic Church will preserve her unity and strength as long as its people have trust in their bishops."
About the Author
82 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Pope Francis, Vigano said, "wants bishops in tune with their people."
This is great! Someone please point out to the bishops that the majority of US Catholics are for same-sex marriage, married priests, women's ordination, and the use of contraceptives :) And someone fire those bishops who covered up sex abuse, please.
In the United States, being "in tune with their people" raises the question: Which of their people? Are we to have red-state bishops and blue-state bishops and eggplant bishops, the last, also called "Christian," being the rarest?
The single act or gesture of any US bishop that has impressed me the most in recent years is when Cardinal O'Malley sold his mansion in Boston.
Jim P - but he had little to no choice given the legacy of abuse settlements and debt left by Bernie Law. This is unfortunate - he might have done this as a sign and outreach but the Boston sexual abuse and parish/school closings puts this gesture in a completely different context.
Mr. Gallicho - noted that after retired bishop Fiorenza called for a focus on poverty and linked it to the call and example of Francis, Sartrain proceeded to say: yes, we are all aware of Francis" and business went on as usual.
Sorry, actions speak louder than words and, in general, have seen little positive Francis effect on US bishops as a group.
I was struck by these paragraphs and wonder how they are to be related (reconciled) with the comments praised here:
At this point, I would like to call your attention to the words the then-Cardinal Wojtyla is reported to have given in an address during the Eucharistic Congress in 1976 for the Bicentennial celebration of the signing of the Declaration of independence. it seems to be so profoundly prophetic:
"We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has ever experienced. I do not think that the wide circle of the American Society, or the whole wide circle of the Christian Community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-church, between the gospel and the anti-gospel, between Christ and the antichrist. The confrontation lies within the plans of Divine Providence. It is, therefore, in God's Plan, and it must be a trial which the Church must take up, and face courageously..."
These words that the then-Cardinal Wojtyla made his own appear to be inspired from the Diary of Saint Faustina Kowalska, who greatly influenced his spirituality. As Pope John Paul ll, he proclaimed this Religious Sister a saint during the Jubilee Year of 2000. He died during Vespers of the feast of Divine Mercy, the feast which was inspired by Saint Faustina.
JAK(+) said, "I was struck by these paragraphs and wonder how they are to be related (reconciled) with the comments praised here ... "We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-church, between the gospel and the anti-gospel, between Christ and the antichrist...."
If we're in the final confrontation between the church and the anti-church, having some bishops living out a christian witness will be a useful thing.
"We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-church, between the gospel and the anti-gospel, between Christ and the antichrist. The confrontation lies within the plans of Divine Providence. It is, therefore, in God's Plan, and it must be a trial which the Church must take up, and face courageously..."
I suspect that the same kinds of sentiments may have been stated at the time of the Protestant Reformation, the collapse of the Papal States, the was in Spain, and any number of other times when this church felt her hegemony threatened.
Modern man only accepts witness because s/he is not intimidated by clergy who act as if they are direct oracles of God. Francis is simply speaking the gospel. After centuries of world leaders dictating church policy we have a pope who is more spiritual than political. Washing the feet is in. Parading as peacocks is out. Bishops will have to let their example define them rather than their "sacred hands" etc.
As far as O'Malley is concerned he deserves full credit for selling the Cardinal's residence. As far as I know he never lived there. Let's give credit where credit is due.
With Jim McCrea and even as a sometimes admirer of +Wojtyla/John Paul, this Miltonesque narrative about a drama between Church and anti-Church is not something I can take very seriously. Yes, the Reformation and the collapse of the Papal States. But why not the persecution of the early Church? Why not the Inquisition? The high drama's set pieces and locales change, but the facts of our historically conditioned existence remain the same: we're sinners in an imperfect world. (And, if we knew the moment when the climax of salvation's drama would draw near, we would be God.) As a result, this narrative, really, is only the expression of a particular skepticism about secular modernity that I don't/can't share. And one, I think, that time has proved was more the product of +Wojtyla's own historical experiences (and those others like him) than an objective reading of the signs of the times.
One suspects +Vigano quoted +Wojtyla to make the rallying cry to unity with Francis a bit more appealing, to say with too much veiled subtlety that perhaps some of the anti-Church forces can be found in the pride of the bishops, themselves. Myself, I think a compelling case exists that the more overtly political American bishops betray a greater debt to modern political ideas than the tradition of the Church, so perhaps it's not too far to stretch when we credit +Vigano in that way.
Would we could all manage to take the pope's advice and be more pastoral and less political in our dealings with each other.
but he had little to no choice given the legacy of abuse settlements and debt left by Bernie Law. This is unfortunate - he might have done this as a sign and outreach but the Boston sexual abuse and parish/school closings puts this gesture in a completely different context
Bill deH - I don't remember all the circumstances, but I don't think he was literally forced to sell it, e.g. as a legal settlement. I suspect that more than one prelate might have closed a few more parishes and schools and preserved the mansion.
Being a Philadelphia Catholic, I attended parts of the Eucahrtitic Congress in Philadelphia in 1976. If anyone wonders how relatively unknown in the U.S. cardinal from Poland would be a principal speaker, the answer is Cardinal Krol was archbishop of Philadelphia at the time.
correction: Eucharistic Congress
Given Pope Francis's homilies (St. Peter's and Santa Marta), Angelus and Wednesday audience talks, conversations/interviews, etc. over the past eight months, I don't find the Nuncio's talk particularly hard-hitting or chiding. Would something else now have been expected from the Pope's representarive in addressing the bishops' 2013 plenary? Interestingly, John Paul II seems to get the pride of place, followed by Paul VI. Pope Francis is more alluded to than quoted.
And aren't "Eminences" bishops? As well, why the distinction between "Archbishops" and "Bishops"? So, simply "My brother bishops."
--- -- --
Many US bishops over the past four decades have sold off the traditional episcopal mansion in favor of fairly modest neighborhood homes or apartments in rectories or other diocesan-owned properties. In Washington, Cardinal Wuerl lives in an apartment in an urban building that was initially a child care insitution run by the great Daughters of Charity (now at another site), then a minor seminary, and now the diocesan Hispanic Center.
The single act or gesture of any US bishop that has impressed me the most in recent years is when Cardinal O'Malley sold his mansion in Boston.
Cardinal Chaput is doing the same in Philadelphia. Hard to believe it's a coincidence that the bishops who are living the nuncio's words are right of center. What can we conclude other than the "particular ideology" the pope warns the bishops from following is liberalism?
should have been "the WAR in Spain"
This CNS story shows that the sale of the Cardinal's residence in Boston was directly related to the settlement costs of the sex abuse scandal: http://bit.ly/180JzZq
In general, the title "Your Eminence" or "His Eminence" refers to a bishop who has been made a cardinal. Bishops that are not cardinals are referred to as "Your Excellency" or "His Excellency."
Similarly, the archbishop is the bishop of a metropolitan diocese. Examples are the Archbishop of Philadelphia, the Archbishop of New York, etc. There are 35 active archbishops, five of whom have been made cardinals. In addition to being the bishop for the area in their archdiocese, they have certain responsibilities in neighboring dioceses.
The Archbishop of Philadelphia just sold his mansion to my college, so this is becoming a fairly common practice.
JP II wrote that text in 1976 when the Soviet Union was still in power. The Soviets shut down thousands of Orthodox churches in Russia and persecuted Catholics and others who were anti=Communists in the many European satellite states including Poland. The Stalinists were explicitly anti-religion and did their best to stamp it out without destroying it completely. (They didn't dare try to eliminate it all at once.) It was the explicit Marxist intention to rule the whole world. The West wasn't being paranoid about the religious persecution -- Marx had declared the elimination of religion to be a goal of the world-wide Communist movement.
So I strongly suspect that when Woytila wrote about "the anti-Christ" he was thinking of the Stalinist Communists. (Stalin died in 1978). At that time the American bishops were just as anti-Communist as anyone else, and I suspect that their lingering paranoia about anything "socialist" or "anti-relition" today is a result of their formerly justified fear of Stalin and his cronies.
But that particular dragon is dead. Stalin died two years after JP II wrote that text, and the Soviet Union has also fallen, with even their current President Putin flirting with the Orthodox Church! Too bad our bishops don't seem to realize that Stalinist dragon has been eliminated. Yes, there are some "new atheists" who explicitly say they want religion distroyed, but they aren't our government nor any other government. All this apocalyptic talk is unjustified.
Alan, from the Jerry Filteau piece you referenced:
One of [O'Malley's] earliest decisions after he arrived in Boston was to move into the cathedral rectory, forgoing the magnificent mansion in Brighton that had housed the four previous archbishops. As a priest in Washington he had lived in a small apartment in a rundown building in a crime-ridden neighborhood. As a bishop in St. Thomas and in Palm Beach he had also chosen simpler housing than the homes of his predecessors.
Jim P.
I take your point. Whether he would have lived in the mansion or not, its sale was directly linked to the debt created by the sex abuse scandal by Filteau. I don't think the issues are easily separable.
That should read "according to Filteau" not "y Filteau."
"...the majority of US Catholics are for same-sex marriage, married priests, women's ordination, and the use of contraceptives..."
Crystal: The Catholic faith is not a democratically determined theology. The Faith is not driven by polls and focus group analyses, nor should it be. Christ Himself said:
"I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. Because of me, father will turn against son, wife against husband..."
And He said the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Any attempt to alter the Faith will inevitably end in failure. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
As an historical matter, before Cdl. O'Malley went to Boston, he spent a few months warming up in the bullpen. The bullpen was the diocese of Palm Beach. One of the first things he did here was to sell the large, but not pretentious, house his predecessor had bought. He moved into a small house formerly occupied by some sisters on the grounds of the cathledral. I've never been inside but there does not appear to be enough room to swing a censer.
His predecessor's idea was that he would have space for entertaining and fund-raising at home. Since Cdl. O'Malley sold the big house, the diocese has its events and affairs where it used to -- in the posh grounds of private clubs among the people of wealth and quality on the island. The valets over there don't like my car. Win some, lose some.
Alan - I agree.
Ann: Then why do you suppose did Vigano unearth that 1976 statement of Wojtyla and why did he think the bishops needed to hear it? Should they, when considering whom to elect as their president, think first of an apocalyptic warrior? Perhpas that's the pastoral (and non-ideological) leadership they will need for the great Battle?
Whenever I hear " end of days" threats, my first thought is, "Maybe I should move?"
If there is this great coming battle, what is the best way to avoid the worst of it?
If there is this great coming battle, what is the best way to avoid the worst of it?
Good question, Irene. Here's some literature that could be useful:
I had been thinking of Wyoming or the Magdalen islands, but being eaten first could be an option.
I'm not sure of why you ask that. It seems to me that Vigano is another alarmist who is reminding the bishops of a supposed threat to religious freedom that many of them already think is here.
Thanks to John Page, who has reminded me that Stalin died in 1953, not 78, as I wrote. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that -- must have been confusing him with one of the other Soviet dictators. But I think my basic point still holds -- the followers of JP II are quite paranoid about the threat of religious persecution in this country and in the West generally. And Vigano stands with them on the matter.
Ann: I asked the question because that part of his speech seemed to fit uneasily with the parts to which Grant drew attention. The rest of the speech is neither alarmist nor apocalyptical, and I wondered if you had any ideas as to why he suddenly took that turn in his speech. I didn't think he had a reputation of a culture-warrior....
Fr. Komonchak,
I agree that the wider question as this article espouses cannot be reconciled with Cardinal Wojtyla's comments. Such comments, as well as his beliefs and underlying philosophy, had the effect of dividing the church further. Notice that his comments inadvertantly or perhaps unintentionally, pitted a Church against the World, Assenters against Dissenters, Faithful against Unfaithful, a Culture of Life against a Culture of Death.
An understanding of the root of his philosophy and theology provides some illuminaion.
Consider, tha the young Karol Wojtyla was highly influenced by the culture of 1930s-1950s Poland, where under Nazism and Communism there was no respect for human life and dignity; both abortion and contraception were legal and prevalent. The horrific acts of genocide in Poland during World War (WW) II and the extreme oppression of post-WW II communism, where public expression of religious belief was forbidden, profoundly shaped his worldview. This worldview, and as a consequence his philosophy and theology, was also highly influenced by the Romanticism of 19th century Poland with its emphasis on Polish moral superiority and nationalism, all focused on the struggle against oppressive foreign powers. This mindset was infused into the very fabric of Polish citizens by the authority of mostly male, patriotic poets and writers, fighters for independence and male religious leaders.
Wojtyla became convinced that America was a "continent marked by competition and aggressiveness, unbridled consumerism and corruption, and he saw Americans as deeply unhappy despite their material wealth." Under the influence of his advisors (e.g., Dr. Poltawska) Karol Wojtyla believed that if contraception were allowed, this would lead spouses to using each other merely as objects for sexual pleasure, to forms of 'sexual slavery', to neurosis on the part of the woman, and to the tendency for couples to choose abortion if contraception failed.
The focus for the past 40-50 years has been on an extreme view of human sexuality and marriage, and the absolute authority of the pope against a runaway Western culture that was proported to infect Catholics and clergy with some kind of diabolic cancer that prevented them from recoginizing, understanding and living the truth, per the Magisterium.
For the past 40=50 years, there was no room for any opinion that disagreed with his worldview. Unfortunately, most Catholics find many teachings regarding marital ethics both unreasonable and irrational, and not reflective of human experience. They lack a convincing theology that rings true to the deepest levels of one's heart, mind and soul.
To paraphrase Pope Francis: there is too much focus on small-minded rules and norms, and not enough on the person, fundamentally and adequately considered. The poor and the disenfrancized, those who suffer, and those in moral dilemma, deserve mercy and understanding and should be welcomed as faithful Catholics. They are all not dissenters and sinners.
Who knew that an H.P. Lovecraft reader lurked on the Commonweal blog? What next, a blog analysis of The Colour Out Of Space?
I found the papal nuncio's unmistakable message to US bishops - many, if not most, of these hold-over hierarchs appointed by JP2 and/or B16 - to be rather blunt: Get with the new regime inaugurated by the new Jesuit pope from Argentina, or you will be pushed aside!
What is perhaps even more remarkable is the messenger to US bishopsto get in line: Carlo Maria Vigano who was himself sent into Vatican political exile - as nuncio to the US - after he lost his job as the administrator of Vatican City in internal political knife-fight over the Vatican bank scandals with other papal courtiers which only became public when a couple of his complaint letters to B16 about his sacking wound-up in the Italian press during the Vatileaks scandal.
I wish I could have had a picture of the faces of US bishops when they got the word from Francesco's nuncio about how they need to make the trappings of their princely lives all disappear. It is moments like this that make me believe that God really does have a sense of humor - and Hers can be really twisted!
Of course, the best revenge is living well. However, the Italians have an expression that really captures what Vigano did to US hierarchs: Revenge is a dish best eaten cold!
Sounds like his namesake, St. Francis who is quoted as saying, "Preach the Gospel always, and when necessary, use words." The first gospel is by example and by loving reactions and gestures. Only later will people ask, why did you do that?
I remember the widespread admiration of Bishop Francis Quinn of Sacramento who elected to choose the Janitor's room in the basement as his quarters with only a bed, chair and night stand. But his fellow clergy who were actively remodelling their rectories were not amused. Bishop Quinn then took to his sleeping bag among the homeless on the state capitol steps. A lot of Catholics were not amused and thence came the moves to ultimately replace him with a less pastoral more strict ordinary.
With respect to the US bishops, I think that Cdl Vigano's and the pope's thoughts in this matter are, at best, wishful thinking until retirements are accepted and replacements in key sees (Chicago for a start) reflect the kind of men who mirror being pastoral, not ideological.
I'm not holding my breath until I see the new appointments happen, but I still have (diminishing) hope that Francis will actually prove with actions what his words imply or categorically state.
Snip from Bob Schwartz:
--- "...the majority of US Catholics are for same-sex marriage, married priests, women's ordination, and the use of contraceptives..."
Crystal: The Catholic faith is not a democratically determined theology. The Faith is not driven by polls and focus group analyses, nor should it be. ---
Discussing Vatican II, Benedictine Bishop B.C. Butler acknowledged that if a teaching "failed in the end to enjoy reception on the part of the church, this would prove it had not met the requirements" for enforcement. And in 1969, the theologian Joseph Ratzinger (currently Pope Benedict XVI) spoke about even infallibly proposed teachings: "Where there is neither consensus on the part of the universal church nor clear testimony in the sources, no binding decision is possible. If such a decision were formally made, it would lack the necessary conditions and the question of the decision's legitimacy would have to be examined." What Butler and Benedict are getting at is the very real possibility of legitimate non-reception.
While the pursuit of truth requires making presuppositions – there's no way of pursuing truth from nowhere – these presuppositions may be an aid to the exploration or they may be an obstacle. Or they may be both. If we pursue the truth earnestly and responsibly, then no presupposition should achieve an untouchable status, a position where we hold it as unquestionable and beyond critique and contestation. To do so is to cease the pursuit of truth, and at most to pursue a particular way of thinking about it.
It should be obvious that, as time goes on, the lack of consensus on matters such as same-sex marriage, married priests, women's ordination, and the use of contraceptives is becoming more prominent, not less.
Well written Jim.
Non-reception does not mean the teaching is wrong per se, rather that the teaching does not possess any power to change behavior rendering the teaching a subject of serious reflection as the absolute truth. There cannot be any contradiction between truth and teaching and non-reception is contradictory unless the church is not teaching the complete truth or most Catholics are diabolically misguided. In my opinion, the Holy Spirit moves us to the truth in agreement and disagreement. Hence, a need for reflection and responsible reform of certain teachings.
But Jim, moral truths are of a completely different species than, say scientific and mathematics truths, that may be proved by the appropriate logical methodology. Moral precepts may be verified as to provenance, but not by logic. If the moral truths asserted by the Church are shown to be the moral truths taught by Christ, then there is no "search for truth" that could upend them.
I see what you mean now. Maybe he was misquoted -- something he said was left out? All I've read about him is that he blew the whistle at some unsavory financial deals at the Vatican, and his enemies were powerful enough -- or unscrupulous enough -- to get him shipped out of the Vatican and off to Washington. Here's what John Allen has to say about him:
"New nuncio is no stranger to politics"
Maybe Vatican politics turned him abnormally suspicious.
If the moral truths asserted by the Church are shown to be the moral truths taught by Christ, then there is no "search for truth" that could upend them.
That's a big "if" ... I don't recall Jesus mentioning contraception, same-sex marriage, or the priesthood.
Bob --
Where did you get the idea that morality is "outside" of logic? How do you think we reach ethical knowledge -- by hunches?
Ann - I suspect what Bob meant is that divine revelation, which does not depend on logic, is another source of moral truth for Christians. For two issues that spring to mind immediately, same-sex marriage and divorce and remarriage, revelation (as interpreted by those with teaching authority) is the source of the church's prohibitions. That this revealed morality seems illogical to many people today is almost certainly the proximate cause of the disagreements that come up over and over (and over) again.
So if we're to be less ideological, does that apply equally to progressive ideology as well as conservative ideology? So far, the Pope has pointedly de-emphasized the Church's response to issues like homosexuality, abortion, etc., but he has said little in regard to the ideological activism of those who advocate women's ordination, reproductive rights, same sex "marriage". Personally, I find Pope Francis' public talks to be vague and confusing. Before the final syllable finishes echoing, an army of interpreters (including writers in this magazine/website, among many others, both official and unofficial) are out in force to "spin" for us what the Pope "really" meant. While so many Catholics and non-Catholics find PF to be a welcome change, I am not quite so persuaded that his style is a positive. When abortion clinics use the Pope's own words to defend their work, it's clear that his messaging may not be having the desired effect.
Voluntarism has corrupted the Church from the inside. The idea that the "yardstick" for measuring Truth (I decide for myself what the Truth is) is located in the individual denies the idea of objective Truth. Whenever I hear anyone cite a poll as a justification for abandoning this or that teaching, I automatically switch them off. Sadly, most lay Catholics, a whole lot of clergy and Religious, not a few theologians, and even some bishops adhere to this "reasoning". That many laity have not accepted ("received") Church doctrine says more about them than about the teaching. After all, polls indicate that most American Catholics don't "really" accepted the idea of the Real Presence of the Eucharist, so by the logic of voluntarists, that teaching should not be "imposed". It's the curse of the lemmings.
M P - there is such a thing as the sensus fidelium. Everything we've seen from Pope Francis leads me to think that he would have a tremendous, even reverential respect for it. How one would go about discerning it doesn't seem that straightforward to me.
Imho, it's better to follow your own instincts/conscience than to wait for the sensus fidelium to ermerge on a given issue. That takes time, and our lives are short.
What one pope or one generation regards as important (fighting Saracens, e.g., or avoiding praying for the souls of our Pagan ancestors) is forgotten as times goes by. The rule is never rescinded, just ignored. Religious fads fade, just as secular fads do.
All these notions of the sensus fidelium are really at the heart of what I have written many times on these blogs: Let the People Decide!
The pastoral trick for Papa Francesco and his hierarchs will be to hopefully relocate and refocus the most of the decision-making, discernment [in clerical speak] processes of the Church within and among the People, rather than continuing the feudal oligarchy with all the discredited, anti-feminine, patriarchal ideologies of our corrupt hierarchs.
The changes and reforms that many are fostering here on this blog will only be possible once the People SEPARATE the MONEY from MINISTRY. Once the People have control of the clerics' and hierarchs' living stipends, the mountains of money in their investment portfolios, retirement funds and health care savings, we can bet the farm that their hearts and minds will soon follow.
If we Catholics don't take the hierarchs' mad money away, there is no hope of reform and renewal for them. They are just too corrupted, too seduced by political power.
The evangelist does quote Jesus: "No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and espise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." (Matthew 6:24) That bit of 1st century Jewish wisdom is as true today as it was for Jesus' time.
The alleged quote from Wojlyta is interesting. Putting it into the context of the Soviet threat as some have done might explain it.
But I am curious about the source of the quote itself. Googling turns it up everywhere, but nobody provides a verifiable citation (perhaps from a journal or news article from 1976 or shortly following). Wikiquotes has it on the JPII page, but of all the quotes provided there, it is the only one that is called "unsourced".
Does anyone have a primary source for this quote? Is it real or is it an urban legend?
I found a copy of the address given by Wojtyla at the Eucharistic Congress in 1976 in Philadelphia. The document can be found at the EWTN website and carries this information - " Taken from:
L'Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
26 October 1978, page 8
This address does not include the quote cited by the papal nuncio. So where did this quote come from? Is it a real quote at all? It has gone viral in Catholic cyberspace.
The four sources of morality are: Scripture, Revelation, Reason and Human Experience.
If you want to claim "authority" as your ultimate source, as the Magisterium and their interpretation of Scripture and Revelation, Reason and Human Experience, then this is the weakest of moral methods. The Church does not profess to adhere to a particular moral method to determine the morality of voluntary human action, but most would agree that they mostly follow the ethics of Thomas Aquinas, where there is no concensus of interpretations. Each school believes they are right.
In the end, a person has to use their God-given reason and faith, continuing education, prayer, sacrament, and the advice of their spiritual advisor to arrive at "moral" decisions. This is expecially relevant today because the Catholic Church is divided across the entire sensus fidelium (clergy, theologians/religous, non-theologian laity), and we live in a crisis of truth. We are divided as to abortion (e.g, to save the life of the mother when the fetus is not viable), contraception (e.g., NFP is not the only licit means of fertility regulation pleasing to God), reconcilation and Eucharistic reception for the divorced and remarried, same-sex unions that reflect a committed, faithful and long-term loving relationship, and the use of reproductive technologies for couples that have serious fertilty problems and can conceive a child of their own genes by modern methods.
As for Polls, they are only important to determine reception and problems. These problems must be adequately addressed and only a convincing theology that rings true to the deepest levels of one's mind, heart and soul will increase reception and illuminate truth. For the vast majority of Catholics the fundamentals of our faith is not in dispute. What is in dispute is certain moral teachings, in particular marital sexual ethics.
Thanks, Anne, I have been trying to run that down and have not had any luck. Probably worth a post.
The statement attributed to Cardinal Karol Wojtyla was not solely influenced by the mystic Ann Katherine Emmerich.
One of Karol Wojtyla's great spiritual role models as a young man was Jan Tryranowski, and accountant who finished high school but, for reasons of health, worked as a simple tailor at his father's shop. Tyranowski was a mystic who with the Church authorities devoted his spare time to working with young boys at the Krakow parish of St. Stanislaus Kostka. Tyranowski invited Karol into a religuous study group focused on building faith and character among young men. He introduced Wojtyla to mysticism and to a program of daily self-improvement and spiritual care. He taught Wojtyla self control and responsibility for his thoughts and actions. It was the spirituality of Tyranowski that Wojtyla as a young man made a choice between theather and the priesthood. By 2008, Jan Tyranowski was being considered for beatification and eventual sainthood in the Catholic Church.
There were many other people that influenced Cardinal Wojtyla/JP II. However, I cannot emphasize the importance of polish natiionalism, et al, during the 1930s-1950s, as I have explained earlier.
Later in life, as Cardinal and Pope, Karol Wojtyla was greatly influenced by Dr. Wanda Poltawska, a psychiatrist and survivor of the Ravensbrook Concentration Medical Experiments, and the source of much of his misinformation about human sexuality, Western Culure and women, as well as Dr. Ann-Teresa Tymieniecka, a Polish born aristocratic woman and philosopher.
It seems that the quote is supposed to come from "Notable and Quotable," The Wall Street Journal, November 9, 1978, page 30 (editorial page), which I was unable to access. I read that that source indicates that the then-Cardinal Wojtylamade this statement in his last speech during his visit to the U.S., in September 1976.
Anne Chapman:
The quote is not from the Eucharistic Congress but from the time when Wojtyla came to Philadelphia as Pope Oct 3,4 1979. It may have been at the outdoor Mass on the Parkway.
Anne C. --
Thanks for the research. I'm wondering now whether JP II ever said it at all. It does sound like a stronger statement than I'd expect from him. In my opinion some of the devotion to him is downright cultish, and members of cults are often not the best balanced people. Perhaps one of the screwyer JP II cultists misconstrued what he actually said in '76 and then repeated it "from memory" somewhere as a quotation. That sounds more likely to me than a direct quote.
Anne Chapman:
I want to correct my assumption that the quote came from Pope John Paul II's visit to Philadelphia as pope in 1979. I was influenced by a website (Children of Mary, an Emerging Semi-Contemplative Community of Sisters) that I visited that came up when I searched for the quote.
I got carried away, since I have a memory of that event, although I don't have a clue what he said in his homily. or any other address that he gave at that time. I was working in the archdiocesan office for religious education and was given two complimentary tickets to the Mass in one of the front seats. I gave then to my best friend and her mother who were thrilled to death. To be honest, it was not that big a deal for me. But...
I got myself a place in front of the statue of Kosciuszko near the Cathedral, since I figured he would pass there after the Mass and I could give him a wave. (Truth be told, he didn't look my way.)
"I read that that source indicates that the then-Cardinal Wojtyla made this statement in his last speech during his visit to the U.S., in September 1976."
Not all the references to the quote (and there are more thatn I would ever have expected) are specific as to the date in 1976. One source I read puts the quote on November 9, 1976. Could it be that he adressed the bishops at the annual November meeting of the USCCB? Perhaps that is why Vigano quoted it even though he was not correct that it was said at the Eucharistic Congress, which was August 1-8, 1976.
"If the moral truths asserted by the Church are shown to be the moral truths taught by Christ, then there is no "search for truth" that could upend them."
The big "if" is wherein lies a rather large rub.
Completely off topic, but anyone living in NYC, I just got an interesting e-mail about a Talking Transiton event this Saturday:
"Hi friends, maybe you've heard of this interesting project in Manhattan in which people are gathering to discuss what they want the future of the city to look like under a new mayor. Different constiuencies (housing advocates, senior citizens, pedestrians) are getting together to envision a different future. It's all happening in an open to the public, come by and speak your mind space downtown. There's a Catholic one on Saturday at 4.
Title: A Faithful Discourse – NYC Catholics Discern the Next Administration
Sponsor: The Jesuit Collaborative
One sentence description: Opening with a prayerful reflection, the session will consist of small group discussions on Catholic Social Justice teachings. Tables will focus on policy issues including: homelessness, housing, education, health, and workforce development using the recent messages from our current Pope on those in the margins of society.
When: The date for the session is November 16th beginning at 4:30
Where: The Transition Tent (a structure created just for these events) is located at the corner of 6th Ave and Canal Street.
In their own words: "TALKING TRANSITION will pioneer the first "open" transition in New York City. It will transform the usual closed-door process between Election Day and Inauguration into an opportunity for broad public engagement. Thousands of New Yorkers will join public conversations about policy issues, ideas, and questions that affect their communities."
Ann O, I find the quote to be slightly off - the kind of thing that flies around the web, but turns out to be a misquote of some kind. That's why I am looking for an original source.
Here is a link to all of John Paul II's talks/speeches/homilies in the 1979 visit to the US.
The quote is not found in the address to the bishops in 1976, either.
I have tried to find the reference to the Wall Street Journal quote and can't find it in the Nov 9, 1979 nor in the Nov 9, 1978 issue -both dates are referenced by third party sources.
I will keep looking when I have time. Finding the source of this quote seems too elusive - if it is an accurate quote.
John Paul II needs a website, like the one for Mother Teresa, to combat false quotes.
What a hoot if the nuncio is quoting something JPII never said!
I've been puzzling about how and why the apocalyptic note was sounded here. I suspect the reason is political, because it's certainly not logical. There are people who take an extreme view of the dangers we face as a church. The party of extreme anxiety about President Obama for instance takes an apocalyptic view of this presidency. Hasn't Cardinal George predicted that he will die in jail for his faith? We are mounting "fortnights for freedom" because some bishops are deeply anxious, and feel desperately threatened. Anyway, the point is that the prophets of doom are alive and well and right there among the bishops. So, after praising Pope Paul VI, whose role in implementing Vatican II has made him a villian among traditionalists and their natural allies, Vigano probably felt he had to throw them a bone.
I find the JPII quote, if authentic, appalling. We'll all die of the sea rising before we'll see the sort of thing he purportedly warned us about. Fear mongering legitimates a more inflexible use of authority, and suppresses dialogue. It also leaves us with "the boy who cried wolf" when the wolf actually shows up at our door.
Nothing could be more different from fear-mongering than Paul VI's brilliant post-synodal exhortation, Evangelii nuntiandi. It breathes an entirely different spirit.
With a little help from my friends, I've tracked down the quote. It appeared in the "Notable & Quotable" section of the Wall Street Journal on November 9, 1978. But the Journal itself cites another source, an "interim strike newspaper" called the New York City News. The speech is identified as "his last speech in the United States in September 1976."
Grant, you beat me to it. I was just going to provide that information. So far I have looked in vain for both the "interim strike newspaper" (New York City News) and for Wojtyla's "final speech" in September 1976. Was he really still in the USA in September, given that he gave the speech at the Eucharistic Congress which was held during the first week of August, 1976. According to the document on the EWTN site, he gave the speech on August 3 and the Congress ended on the 8th. Perhaps he continued to travel in the US for another month, but I can't find information about it.
Curiouser and curiouser.
FYI: Anne and Grant:
July 23-Sept.5 Visit to the United States and Canada.
I bet the archives of the Catholic Standard and Times under editor John Foley has a lot of information.
"Before becoming pope in 1978, Cardinal Karol Wojtyla visited the United States twice. In 1969 he traveled to 12 cities in 12 days. He spent six weeks in the United States in 1976, visiting 13 cities, lecturing at universities and attending the 41st International Eucharistic Congress in Philadelphia."
"Although toiling in the shadow of the more prestigious daily newspapers, Hagedorn has had a fling as a big-time publisher. During the three-month newspaper strike in 1978, the City News expanded to a daily paper with a circulation of over 300,000, the largest interim paper in New York."
Anne: the communist who dies in September 1976 was Mao Zedong.
I never doubted the quote attributed to Cardinal Wojtyla/JP II for it reflected his thinking.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that Karol Wojtyla-John Paul II was not an extreme liberal or conservative, not an enemy of feminism nor a supporter of it, and not a blind advocate of democracy nor someone who entirely rejected it. He was a liberal Catholic bishop during Vatican II, liberal in terms of social ethics and ecumenism, but a strong conservative in terms of sexual ethics.
As bishop and cardinal there is much to admire in Karol Wojtyla. He helped free Poland from communism and his theology offered Catholics a way to act reverently with respect to their bodies and relationships. Nevertheless, his philosophy and theology were not free from serious misunderstandings about the world, especially Western societies, women and human sexuality.
Helen and Claire, we're getting there.
Does whoever finds an original source giving the date, place, and audience of the talk win a prize?
Michael, I'm sure you are right, because you know more about John Paul II than anyone I know of, including, probably, the professional bloggers on this website. But, it's still a strange quote and I would love to read it in context of whatever talk he gave.
On Monday, November 18, a vial of the blood of John Paul II will go on display at Saint Mary's Cathedral in Peoria, IL. I hope this does not mean that he is the new San Gennaro, and that the festival in Little Italy in NYC will be discontinued.
As hard as it is to believe, wonders never cease!
Anne and Helen and Grant -- thanks for all the sleuthing
Claire -- thanks for the Mao Tse-Tung date. I was really muddled on that one.
Alan -- let's hope the blood and all the sainly left-over corpses eveentually all get buried. Ugh!!!
US bishops again reaffirm health care mandate opposition
From NCR. See also Whispers in the Loggia.
A statement unanimously approved by the US bishops at their meeting in Baltimore, but with a fleeting reference to each bishop's being free to grapple with the best approach in his diocese. Recipe for confusion, if not chaos? And the statement clearly evidences a hope for a solution to the bishops' continuing objections to the HHS mandate either in the Congess or the judiciary, religious freedom, including for individual Catholic business owners, being the paramount claim.
Perhaps this deserves a separate thread.
@Alan Mitchell. It can be a highlight at the annual fair at the shrine to Our Lady of Czestochowa in Doylestown
(and the Feast of St Anthony in the Bronx is way better anyway)
As a student at Fordham, I always enjoyed the feast for Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. Could not get enough of those zeppoli.
@ Alan C. Mitchell: A totally personal reference: Back in the Jurassic period, I taught at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel School right there on Bathgate Avenue. Some days if I close my eyes I can still smell the zeppoli and bread baking somewhere in the neighborhood.
"You can take the boy outta the Bronx, but you can't take the Bronx outta the boy!"
Found this short video about the Mt. Carmel School, which is just one block across from Fordham University on Fordham Road, right next to George Washington High School. The school facilities look almost unchanged from when I was there. I noticed that students are much more ethnically diverse now than it was then dominated by Italian American kids.
As Brother John DeLucer would have said, this is for your edification: http://vimeo.com/62307497
Jim Jenkins,
Thanks for the video. Brought back memories.
In those days I lived at Murray-Weigel Hall on the corner of Bathgate and East Fordham Road. It was just a short trek to Arthur Avenue.
I remember the high school as Thomas Jefferson.
Jim Jenkins,
Strike that last sentence. I meant Theodore Roosevelt High S


text:
Come See for Yourself, Our Selection of New Subaru Models including Forester, BRZ, Impreza, Legacy, Outback and Tribeca in the Haverhill, Lowell and Danvers MA Areas
If you're in the market for a new Subaru, explore our extensive inventory below. You'll quickly see you're in the right spot! Updated daily, our inventory is always current. See a Subaru vehicle you like? Maybe the BRZ, Forester, Impreza, Legacy, Outback or Tribeca? Swing by Ira Subaru, located at 97 Andover St, Danvers, Massachusetts for a test drive. Here, you'll experience service to match. It will not only impress you, but stand out as the most pleasurable interaction you've ever had at a dealership.


text:
5 Famous People Who Succeeded Long After They Should've Quit
Picking a career is pretty hard, it turns out. Not only do you have to choose something you could see yourself doing for the rest of your life, but you also have to be somewhat competent at it. Most of us will just fall into something and go with it.
After all, if you haven't found your calling by, say, age 30, it's pretty much hopeless, right? If you were going to make it, you'd have made it by now.
Well ... maybe not. After all ...
#5. Alan Rickman Got His First Movie Role at 42
If you are an aspiring movie actor, how long would you plug away at it before deciding it's not for you? Like, if you've made it to your 40s without ever appearing in a movie, that's probably a sign that you're never going to have an action figure made from you, right?
Mid-Life Crisis Man! Gets drunk, chats up the college-age waitress and crashes his Harley into a Dumpster!
The Rock Bottom Moment:
So there was this guy named Alan who had gotten an art degree (because enrolling in drama classes "wasn't considered the sensible thing to do"), and by his late 20s was doing as well as you'd expect anyone with a degree to do. He was running his own graphic design business ... and that's when he decided to drop absolutely everything and sign up for acting classes. He even left his own company to concentrate full-time on acting, which doesn't do a lot for your financial security, it turns out.
While studying at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts, Rickman was pushing 30 and supporting himself by working as a dresser for other actors (and we mean literally helping them put their clothes on). He did get to meet stage actors like Sir Nigel Hawthorne, but their interaction at this point was probably limited to "fetch me my leotards, boy."
"Now put them on, very slowly. Yes. Yes."
And this went on for years. Rickman farted around the theater scene for over a decade.
Then finally Rickman was cast as one of the leads in the stage version of the book Les Liaisons Dangereuses. The play was a hit and was soon adapted by Hollywood as Dangerous Liaisons. Boom! Success! Everyone involved in it became internationally famous!
Except Rickman, because they replaced him with John Malkovich.
Everyone knows Alan Rickman is famously terrible at playing creepy, evil characters.
The Success:
However, Rickman's performance did catch the attention of producer Joel Silver, who two years later asked him to star as the villain in some action movie with some TV actor named Bruce Willis. Something about a bunch of terrorists taking over a skyscraper.
Yep, Alan Rickman, the best bad-guy actor maybe ever, the man behind Hans Gruber and Professor Snape from the Harry Potter series, started his film career at age 42.
Above: Proof that you're never too pale or skeevy for greatness.
#4. Roget Invented the Thesaurus at Age 73
It's not that Peter Roget went through life broke. By age 61, he was an accomplished doctor, lecturer and inventor. He was a respected man of science. He was also, however, pretty insane and most definitely miserable.
Which is standard for people who spend their days studying kaleidoscopes, we guess.
The Rock Bottom Moment:
Being nuts, it turns out, was in his blood: His grandmother was mentally unstable, his mother was nearly psychotic and his sister and daughter had suffered severe mental breakdowns. As if that wasn't enough, his father and wife died young, and one time his uncle slit his throat in front of him. Peter was actually the sane one in the family, or as it was known to people who weren't in his family, "still crazier than a shit house rat."
Roget himself was described as "humorless and judgmental" and a little bit paranoid. His obsessive personality slowly took over his life and led him to, for example, count his steps every day. He was also obsessed with cleanliness ... which was unfortunate, because he lived in 19th century London, which had no clean water or toilets.
Civilization didn't beat out nomadic tribalism with the invention of the British accent.
The only thing that seemed to calm him was making lists, a somewhat creepy hobby he'd had since childhood. When he retired from medicine at 61, he realized he might as well spend all day making one huge, all-encompassing list of all the things ever -- so that's exactly what he did.
The Success:
Twelve years later, at age 73, Peter Roget published his giant list of words as a book, Roget's Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases ... otherwise known as "the thesaurus."
Or "wordbook" or "phrasehouse" or "table-leg prop."
Back in 1805, he had compiled a small indexed catalog of words for personal use, presumably to help him cheat in crossword puzzles. Roget kept building on his initial list over the years, but only as a pointless hobby, because as we explained before, he was pretty much insane. It wasn't until he retired that he decided to devote himself seriously to creating a collection of synonyms and antonyms that writers could use as an easy reference.
The thesaurus was an instant success and made Roget's name synonymous with, well, synonyms. He kept working on it until his death at age 90, and in the meantime managed to not kill himself or anyone else. Pretty impressive, we think.
Look out! He's going to off, rub-out, liquidate or slay somebody!
#3. The Author of the Book Behind Apocalypse Now Was a Sailor, Drifter and Part-Time Criminal Until Age 37
Now it's true that a lot of writers don't publish their big novel until after a lot of years of trying. In the days before everybody had a blog, you'd maybe you get your English degree and then write some short stories that get published in some magazine, or take work writing greeting cards -- whatever pays the bills.
"I don't know what this is. It just makes me look unattainable and interesting."
But others, well, they take a more roundabout approach.
The Rock Bottom Moment:
In 1878, Jozef Teodor Konrad Nalecz Korzeniowski, a young Polish sailor working for the French marine service, tried to commit suicide by shooting himself in the chest. The reason? Pick one: His family was exiled from his country, he was orphaned by age 11, he was involved in a gun smuggling plot, he had just gone through a disastrous love affair that apparently ended in a duel and his gambling had left him riddled by debt.
So he tried to shoot himself. The bullet didn't seem to hit anything important, though, so Jozef shrugged it off and kept working. In the same year, he joined the British Merchant Marines, even though he was already in his 20s and didn't know a word of English. Over the following decade, Jozef slowly picked up on the language during his many voyages around the world -- which, by the way, he barely survived.
English is a notoriously dangerous language.
A trip to Congo in 1890, for example, left him physically and psychologically drained. During his tour of Africa, Jozef witnessed enough horror and evil to shatter anyone's faith in humanity. It was almost like in Apocalypse Now.
The Success:
No, wait, it was exactly like Apocalypse Now -- he wrote it. All that shit Martin Sheen's character goes through in the movie is based on Jozef's own experiences as a merchant sailor in the Congo, which Francis Ford Coppola updated to the Vietnam War for the film.
The book's surfing scene was left unchanged.
You see, after 20 years of being a full-time sailor, one day Jozef decided to switch careers and become a novelist. He published his first novel in 1894, at age 37, under a name you are slightly more likely to recognize: "Joseph Conrad." This didn't exactly come out of nowhere: His father had tried to instill in him a love of literature before, you know, dying, and Conrad's life going to shit for the next 30 years gave him some material to work with.
In 1899, Conrad began publishing Heart of Darkness, the novel that Apocalypse Now is based on, and by the early 20th century he was recognized as one of the most important writers in the English language -- a language he didn't even speak until adulthood and that, perhaps most impressively, he apparently taught himself while listening to sailors.
Which explains why Marlon Brando's character is pretty much incomprehensible.