Stephen Bainbridge succinctly states the case for the return of the Tridentine Mass to common use. I agree completely with his case and have only one thing to add to it. Arguably the biggest substantive objection to the Tridentine Mass has been the fact that most people are not familiar enough with Latin to understand the words being spoken during the Mass. In this day and age I think this objection has been rendered largely irrelevant by the ability to make written translations of the Mass readily available to the congeration. Furthermore, these translations can by juxtaposed with copies of the actual Latin used in the Tridentine Mass. I know this because I have provided for myself a copy of the Rosary in Latin accompanied by an English translation of the prayers, both of which I obtained here.
On the whole, I think the introduction of a vernacular rite was a good thing, but something was lost when the Tridentine Rite was abandoned. The two Rites should exist alongside each other as equals serving different purposes. The resurgence in demand for the practice of the Tridentine Rite is evidence that it possesses something of value that is at best under-emphasized in the Vernacular Rite. The two Rites should exist alongside each other as equals serving different purposes, at least until the Vernacular Rite can be modified to adequately address its shortcomings.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Vietnam: Rising Capitalist Power
The New York Times has a fascinating profile of Vietnam's current economic climate. Currently, the economy of Vietnam is growing faster than almost any other economy in the world. It's standard of living is rising rapidly, especially for skilled laborers; the stock market is booming; and their tax code will soon be superior to the United States' tax code in some ways. Not bad for a Communist country that was on the verge of starvation fifteen years ago.
And who deserves a good chunk of the credit for this? Certainly Vietnam's leaders do (more on them in a bit), but I'm thinking of a particular American president with a not-so-stellar reputation, namely Richard Nixon. His decision to engage China in an attempt move it away from the Soviet Union politically hastened the end of the Cold War and laid the groundwork for China's embrace of something like capitalism. If this had not happened, I don't believe either China or other states in Southeast Asia, such as Vietnam, would have had the wherewithal to look to Western capitalism as a cure for the ills of their economic systems.
On thing omitted from the profile (not surprisingly, as the piece was about Vietnam's economy), is the question of whether the increase of economic liberty in Vietnam has been accompanied by an increase in political liberty. Has Vietnam made progress in granting its citizens rights such as freedom of religion and freedom of speech, or is it following the Chinese model of vibrant economic growth accompanied by large-scale supression of religious and political freedom? WIll Vietnam become a free and open society as it continues to grow economically, or will the Vietnamese state exploit new technologies and expend great energies to keep its people under its thumb?
And who deserves a good chunk of the credit for this? Certainly Vietnam's leaders do (more on them in a bit), but I'm thinking of a particular American president with a not-so-stellar reputation, namely Richard Nixon. His decision to engage China in an attempt move it away from the Soviet Union politically hastened the end of the Cold War and laid the groundwork for China's embrace of something like capitalism. If this had not happened, I don't believe either China or other states in Southeast Asia, such as Vietnam, would have had the wherewithal to look to Western capitalism as a cure for the ills of their economic systems.
On thing omitted from the profile (not surprisingly, as the piece was about Vietnam's economy), is the question of whether the increase of economic liberty in Vietnam has been accompanied by an increase in political liberty. Has Vietnam made progress in granting its citizens rights such as freedom of religion and freedom of speech, or is it following the Chinese model of vibrant economic growth accompanied by large-scale supression of religious and political freedom? WIll Vietnam become a free and open society as it continues to grow economically, or will the Vietnamese state exploit new technologies and expend great energies to keep its people under its thumb?
Where's Adam Gobetti When You Need Him?
Adam Gobetti, your friendly, neighborhood anarchist would be thrilled to learn that the Czech Republic is currently getting along just fine without a government. Indeed, it hasn't had one since June. Granted, it's not as though the entire government has ceased to be, but there is no party or coalition of parties controlling it at the moment, and things seem to be going swimmingly.
One thing I would be interested in knowing is whether or not the executive branch continues to function, collecting and spending tax revenue. If so, the lack of a governing coalition in the Czech Parliament isn't that big a deal, but if the gears of the central government have simply ground to a halt, then this demonstrates the maxim that government which governs least governs best. Indeed, it would show that in a well-ordered society where the rule of law is well established, it is best to leave well-enough alone, even to the point of temporarily doing away with the central government (an unintended consequence in this situation, to be sure). Now, this all changes if there is a threat to domestic order, be it internal or external, but short of that, the central government need not intrude into the lives of its citizens.
One thing I would be interested in knowing is whether or not the executive branch continues to function, collecting and spending tax revenue. If so, the lack of a governing coalition in the Czech Parliament isn't that big a deal, but if the gears of the central government have simply ground to a halt, then this demonstrates the maxim that government which governs least governs best. Indeed, it would show that in a well-ordered society where the rule of law is well established, it is best to leave well-enough alone, even to the point of temporarily doing away with the central government (an unintended consequence in this situation, to be sure). Now, this all changes if there is a threat to domestic order, be it internal or external, but short of that, the central government need not intrude into the lives of its citizens.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Multiculturalists Are in a State of Shock
Apparently Colonialism wasn't all bad. Who'd'a thunk it?
Now that's not to say it was an unadulterated good (What human endeavor is?), but clearly many Western colonizers did something right.
Interestingly enough, the study found that the country that had the greatest positive impact on its colonies was the United States.
Now that's not to say it was an unadulterated good (What human endeavor is?), but clearly many Western colonizers did something right.
Interestingly enough, the study found that the country that had the greatest positive impact on its colonies was the United States.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Good News
The Supreme Court has upheld, at least temporarily, Arizona's law requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls in order to be able to vote.
Frankly, that anyone would challenge such a law strikes me as absurd on its face. As citizens in a democratic society we have the obligation to participate in our own governance, and the most crucial manner in which we, the people participate in our own governance is through the exercise of the vote. To this end, voting should be as easy as is reasonably possible. However, voting should not be so easy that the vote of those responsible for determining who fills elected positions in our government can be diluted or even undermined by those who have neither the duty to determine how we are to be governed, nor the right to vote. To prevent this happening, it is only common sense to expect that those attempting to vote be able to establish that they are indeed eligible to do so. In order to do this, the state of Arizona has required all eligible voters provide photo ID proving they are who they say they are. I can see no good-faith reason to oppose this on principle.
Of course, there are nefarious reasons for opposing such a measure. Allowing people to vote without proper identification opens the door to massive voter fraud. Illegal immigrants can vote. People can vote multiple times. Those not registered to vote are able to vote.
Who has derived the most benefit from this? Those who are opposed to the measure, namely Democrats. They oppose this measure because it undermines their electoral prospects, and it's a shame. Instead of moderating their positions to better appeal to the public (without sacrifricing their principles, of course), the Democrats have tried to win elections by hook or by crook, all the while maintaining many of the far-left positions that have caused them to lose so much power has turned one the great American political parties into a joke. Given the current political climate, there is no reason the Republicans should have the slightest hope of holding either house of Congress. Yet, the Republicans are likely to hold the Senate and still have an outside shot at holding the House of Representatives. The war in Iraq is not going well (largely because we have done little to nothing to address Iranian and Syrian influence in Iraq), and the economy is perceived as being in much worse shape than it is. Republicans have been rocked with scandal after scandal, including two Representatives pleading guilty to charges of bribery. Then there's the Mark Foley mess, the issue of border security and runaway federal spending.
The Democrats should take back both houses of Congress with majorities that should take ten years for Republicans to whittle away, but the Republicans have a chance to retain control of the House and Senate. That this is the case is a testament to just how devoid of a coherent philosophy the Democrats are.
Frankly, that anyone would challenge such a law strikes me as absurd on its face. As citizens in a democratic society we have the obligation to participate in our own governance, and the most crucial manner in which we, the people participate in our own governance is through the exercise of the vote. To this end, voting should be as easy as is reasonably possible. However, voting should not be so easy that the vote of those responsible for determining who fills elected positions in our government can be diluted or even undermined by those who have neither the duty to determine how we are to be governed, nor the right to vote. To prevent this happening, it is only common sense to expect that those attempting to vote be able to establish that they are indeed eligible to do so. In order to do this, the state of Arizona has required all eligible voters provide photo ID proving they are who they say they are. I can see no good-faith reason to oppose this on principle.
Of course, there are nefarious reasons for opposing such a measure. Allowing people to vote without proper identification opens the door to massive voter fraud. Illegal immigrants can vote. People can vote multiple times. Those not registered to vote are able to vote.
Who has derived the most benefit from this? Those who are opposed to the measure, namely Democrats. They oppose this measure because it undermines their electoral prospects, and it's a shame. Instead of moderating their positions to better appeal to the public (without sacrifricing their principles, of course), the Democrats have tried to win elections by hook or by crook, all the while maintaining many of the far-left positions that have caused them to lose so much power has turned one the great American political parties into a joke. Given the current political climate, there is no reason the Republicans should have the slightest hope of holding either house of Congress. Yet, the Republicans are likely to hold the Senate and still have an outside shot at holding the House of Representatives. The war in Iraq is not going well (largely because we have done little to nothing to address Iranian and Syrian influence in Iraq), and the economy is perceived as being in much worse shape than it is. Republicans have been rocked with scandal after scandal, including two Representatives pleading guilty to charges of bribery. Then there's the Mark Foley mess, the issue of border security and runaway federal spending.
The Democrats should take back both houses of Congress with majorities that should take ten years for Republicans to whittle away, but the Republicans have a chance to retain control of the House and Senate. That this is the case is a testament to just how devoid of a coherent philosophy the Democrats are.
Monday, October 09, 2006
North Korean Test
North Korea has reportedly tested a nuclear weapon. For my part, I'm skeptical. According to both the French and the South Koreans, the explosion was the equivalent of 550 tons of TNT*, and there has been no radiation detected at the site of the explosion as yet.
North Korea has claimed to have nuclear weapons since 2002, but there has never been any hard evidence to support this claim. It has also seen a significant portion of its income dry up as the United States has taken measures to disrupt its distribution of counterfeit American dollars. It seems possible that North Korea staged a phony nuclear test either to extort economic aid from the United States, South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia, or to advertize their nuclear wares to the Iranians. It is also possible that the "test" is motivated more by domestic politics than international politics. Either way, North Korea gains as much by a fake test everyone else believes is legitimate as by an actual nuclear test, especially after its failed missile test on 4 July.
In short, the most likely scenario at this point is that North Korea buried a few hundred tons of TNT, set it off and claimed it had conducted a nuclear test (and that the radiation had been perfectly contained). Until I see any hard evidence to the contrary (e.g. radiation being emitted from the test site), I see no reason to belive North Korea has conducted an actual nuclear test.
*Russia claims the explosion was equivalent to 5,000-15,000 tons of TNT, which would make it similar in size to the Hiroshima bomb. If this is correct, I'd be more inclined to believe that North Korea did indeed carry out a nuclear test.
Update: Apparently I'm not the only skeptic.
North Korea has claimed to have nuclear weapons since 2002, but there has never been any hard evidence to support this claim. It has also seen a significant portion of its income dry up as the United States has taken measures to disrupt its distribution of counterfeit American dollars. It seems possible that North Korea staged a phony nuclear test either to extort economic aid from the United States, South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia, or to advertize their nuclear wares to the Iranians. It is also possible that the "test" is motivated more by domestic politics than international politics. Either way, North Korea gains as much by a fake test everyone else believes is legitimate as by an actual nuclear test, especially after its failed missile test on 4 July.
In short, the most likely scenario at this point is that North Korea buried a few hundred tons of TNT, set it off and claimed it had conducted a nuclear test (and that the radiation had been perfectly contained). Until I see any hard evidence to the contrary (e.g. radiation being emitted from the test site), I see no reason to belive North Korea has conducted an actual nuclear test.
*Russia claims the explosion was equivalent to 5,000-15,000 tons of TNT, which would make it similar in size to the Hiroshima bomb. If this is correct, I'd be more inclined to believe that North Korea did indeed carry out a nuclear test.
Update: Apparently I'm not the only skeptic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)