They Came And They Took Without Giving

In a move likely inspired by the First Earth Battalion, a mall in Christchurch, New Zealand has decided that if Hannah Montana is successful in drawing unruly youth to their premises, perhaps "Copacabana" may be successful in driving them away. In order to stem the problem of loitering teens, mall officials have decided that playing the songs of Barry Manilow (or, as my father-in-law refers to him, "Barely Manenough") overhead in their common areas could be useful in either pacifying the miscreants, or perhaps driving them away:

"The intention is to change the environment in a positive way ... so nobody feels threatened or intimidated," Central City Business Association manager Paul Lonsdale told The Associated Press. "I did not say Barry Manilow is a weapon of mass destruction."

A group of several dozen young people regularly spread rubbish, spray graffiti, get intoxicated, use drugs, swear and intimidate patrons at the outdoor mall, he said.

The city council, police and local property owners covering 410 businesses agree that "nice, easy listening" music like Manilow's "Can't Smile Without You,""Mandy" and other hits might change the behavior of loitering teens.

Hot Topic, prepare to watch your sales plummet. Fluff of the fro to Red Cardigan.

And while we're on the subject, here's one of my all-time favorite renditions of a Manilow classic:

Why Fish On Fridays?

Here's an excerpt from Eegahinc's latest catechetical effort. For the rest, check out his consistently amusing site.

Ubermensch: T Minus Six Months And Counting

Fertility technology has existed for years that allows parents to select the gender of their offspring, typically by mixing sperm and egg in a petri dish and killing all the fertilized embryos that don't meet the criteria of the highly discerning parents' taste in offspring.

However, new technology is on the rise that will allow Frankenparents to select things like eye and hair color for their progeny, much in the way they might edit their Mii profile. Fortunately, at least a few people have noticed this disturbing trend and are saying something about it:

Dr. Jeff Steinberg has already let thousands decide their kids' gender. Now he says that within the next six months, the Manhattan and L.A. offices of his Fertility Institutes will let would-be moms and dads pick whether junior has blue or brown eyes or black or blond hair.

"In the process of doing gender selection ... we've also uncovered the technology [to] characterize things like eye and hair color," said Steinberg, 54.

The idea of a Build-A-Bear style baby was slammed Monday by bioethicists and right-to-life groups - and Pope Benedict has warned against it for years.

The Pope railed against the "obsessive search for the perfect child" just two weekends ago. "A new mentality is creeping in that tends to justify a different consideration of life and personal dignity," he said.

Steinberg countered that reproductive technologies aren't about to go away.

"Genetic health is the wave of the future," he said. "It's already happening and it's not going to go away. It's going to expand. So if they've got major problems with it, they need to sit down and really examine their own consciences because there's nothing that's going to stop it."

(snip)

Steinberg, one of the doctors who helped produce the first test-tube baby, admits the technology isn't 100% - and says for now the best results are with couples of Scandinavian heritage, whose gene pools are the least diluted. (Aryan emphasis mine).

"Say you made seven embryos, and one of them has got the highest chance of green eyes, and that chance is 80%. It's not perfect science because eye and hair color are not perfect genetics," said Steinberg, who opened an office on E. 40th St. two months ago.

Speaking of 80%, that's 11 points below the figure on children diagnosed with Down's Syndrome who never get born. Looks like humanity is willing to put no limits on its self-imposed survival of the fittest.

Reminds us of this gem by pioneering eugenicist and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger:

"Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste...

We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."

Farewell, human weeds.

Marjoe, Watch Your Back

These kids might give the famous boy preacher a run for his money...

Upon The Feast Of St. Chad

The saint whose feast we observe today holds the unique distinction of being the only saint to have his own entry on Snopes. The mythbusting is connected with the fiasco surrounding the electoral dispute of 2000, when the word "chad" instantly evoked images of little pieces of paper that didn't punch out right:

Somewhere in the furor, someone noticed there had once been a Catholic saint of this name, and a hasty perusal of the details of his life appeared to link him to a disputed election. This link kicked in the irony afterburners. It didn't take long for statements of "St. Chad would be the perfect patron saint for disputed elections" to "St. Chad is the patron saint of disputed elections.

The "hasty perusal" referred to above was likely a reference to the fact that the liturgical norms of Chad's consecration as bishop were not observed, and that he was sent to fill the seat of a dead bishop who wasn't dead yet. Technically speaking, the Church doesn't recognize St. Chad as the patron saint of disputed elections, but I'm sure next time you find yourself in that kind of a situation, St. Chad wouldn't mind hearing from you.

"Those Who Know Don't Talk, And Those Who Talk Don't Know."

Phil Lawler has an insightful column at USA Today about the woefully inadequate handling of the public relations disaster surrounding the lifting of the excommunication of SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson:

(Many) do not realize that Benedict XVI (has) not restored Williamson and the other SSPX bishops to regular status. Those four bishops are still suspended from public ministry; the lifting of their excommunications was only one step in a process of reconciliation. But the media message that carried the day: Williamson, an anti-Semite, was back in business.

Yet the story has even more depth and context that the Vatican failed effectively to correct: Neither Williamson's original excommunication in 1988 nor the pope's decision to revoke it were related in any way to his extreme political views. Under the canon law that governs church affairs, excommunication is a rare disciplinary action, used only for certain specific offenses (such as, in this case, ordaining a bishop without approval from the Holy See). The church does not formally excommunicate members for their political views, even when those views are repugnant to Catholic teachings — as, for example, in the case of Catholic politicians who favor unrestricted legal abortion."

One of the most significant aspects of this story that has been vastly overlooked is the fact that fellow SSPX Bishop Bernard Fellay has renounced the anti-semitic views of Williamson, something that would have never happened unless the excommunications had been lifted.

And for the record, the only place that Rich Williamson is a bishop is in the (still) schismatic Society of St. Pius X. I just wish that someone from the Vatican would make that a little clearer.

Good Day

Paul Harvey: 9/4/1918-2/28/09.

He's currently getting the rest of the story.