Hmm. I was able to get at it. But just in case, I've cut-and-paste it at the end
of this post. Formatting may be a bit out of whack, but at least you'll have the

George Cobabe wrote:

> story no longer available - if you want us to read it you almost need to
> copy and paste.
> George
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marc A. Schindler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "zion-l" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 9:55 PM
> Subject: [ZION] Going, Going, Gone
> A rare column by Canada's funniest conservative [tm] which is deadpan
> serious and with which I agree (that combination being what's "rare," I
> mean), on Henry Kissinger, Cardinal Law, and Trent Lott
> 177632CD}

Thursday » December 19 » 2002

Kissinger, Law, Lott: gone, gone, going

 Mark Steyn
 National Post

Monday, December 16, 2002

Friday was an odd day in America. It began with an announcement that there would
be a late afternoon press
conference by Trent Lott, the Senate Majority Leader under fire for waxing
nostalgic about Strom Thurmond's
segregationist candidacy in the 1948 Presidential election. Initially, everyone
assumed he'd be resigning. But he
didn't. Instead, all kinds of other folks did. Henry Kissinger resigned as
chairman of the panel looking into "what
really happened" on September 11th, and Bernard Cardinal Law resigned as
Archbishop of Boston, the Catholic
archdiocese most deeply mired in the priestly sex abuse pandemic. Dr. Kissinger's
resignation was highly
premature, Cardinal Law's extremely belated and the timing of Senator Lott's is
still being worked out.

Dr. Strangelove's decision to bail has deprived the left of a lot of fun. Even
those of us who are partial to the old
boy like him precisely because he's sinister, ruthless, a master of realpolitik,
etc. These may be fine qualities but
not exactly the ones you're looking for on a commission meant to ferret out the
truth from murky spooks and lay
it before the people. Various lefties denounced Bush's appointment as "deeply
cynical," but it seems to me
exactly the opposite. Putting Kissinger in charge of the 9/11 truth squad
virtually guaranteed no one would believ
e a word of what the final report said. Only someone indifferent to cynicism would
do that. Unless, of course,
Bush knows that what's likely to be uncovered is so damaging the only thing to do
is release the information via
a channel that guarantees your opponents will dismiss it out of hand as the one
scenario that can't possibly be
true. If so, it's "deeply cynical" mainly in the sense that it's deeply cynical
about public cynicism. And I don't
believe Bush is that cynical.

More likely, the appointment of Kissinger is confirmation of how Bush is almost
endearingly detached from the
world of spin, image, perception and their muddy cross-currents. This shouldn't
surprise us: Nobody preoccupied
with how he'll "look" would have picked Cheney as Veep, Rummy for Defence or John
Ashcroft as
Attorney-General. Whatever one feels about these appointments, they're not the
acts of a President who's the
creature of focus groups. In the end, Dr. Kissinger ankled because he didn't want
to reveal the "client list" of his
international consultancy. It supposedly includes many foreign governments. It
would be interesting to know
which ones. The good doctor has taken, for example, a more benign view of the
House of Saud than many of us
have. But he's back in private practice now and it's strictly his business.

Cardinal Law, by contrast, clung on month after month, long after it became clear
how much his stewardship had
damaged the Church. I cannot agree with Hugo Gurdon's conclusion that the
Archbishop's "past actions were,
surely, due to shortcomings and mistakes rather than to malignancy or indifference
to the plight of children."
Indeed, I'm staggered Hugo could write such a sentence. The overwhelming weight of
evidence is that Law was
at the pinnacle of an elaborate racket set up to protect those he knew to be
compulsive child rapists. In 1997,
the Archbishop went out of the way to give fulsome thanks for the "priestly care
and ministry to all" of Paul
Shanley, a man Law had been aware for two decades was a serial sodomizer of those
in his care and who had
given public lectures on the benefits of "man-boy love." It was Law who
re-assigned and re-re-assigned and
re-re-re-assigned the now defrocked Father Geoghan, in full knowledge of what had
happened in the last parish
and of what would certainly happen in the next. "Shortcomings" won't cover it, nor
will "indifference": In essence,
Cardinal Law was a supplier of fresh meat to Geoghan and others. He is a
profoundly wicked man who presided
over an almost unfathomable swamp of institutional depravity.

None of the above means that I'm one of those who think priests labour under the
intolerable burden of
mandatory celibacy. Despite the best efforts of a highly sexualized culture,
plenty of people get along just fine
without sex. I wouldn't particularly want to live under a regime of celibacy
myself, but if I did and human
weakness came a-knocking I'd put on a dark coat, pull my hat down over the brow,
go to the cathouse round the
back of the bus station a couple of towns away and feel bad about it afterwards. I
would not bugger the hell out
of six-year old choirboys. Whatever that's about, it's not the burdens of
celibacy. The problem, as Hugo Gurdon
noted, is that once a bandwagon gets rolling all kinds of people jump on. Few of
those kicking the contemptible
bishops around have the church's interests at heart. They have feminist agendas,
gay agendas, but not often
Catholic agendas. But the church has so degraded its own moral authority you can
hardly blame opportunists for
stepping in to finish the job.

Which is where poor pathetic Trent Lott comes in. What the Senator did was appear
to endorse retrospectively
ole Strom's 1948 Presidential campaign, when he ran as a "Dixiecrat" - that's to
say, the flagbearer of southern
racist Democrats who'd walked out of the party's convention because they were
steamed about a proposed
Federal anti-lynching law and various other affronts. Thanks to Lott's stupidity,
the prize here for the Dems is the
chance to remove the segregationist albatross from their own past and hang it
round the Republicans' neck.

But, as with Cardinal Law, the difficulty is keeping control of your own scandal.
The National Organization for
Women is now joining in demands that Lott resign for remarks he made at Strom's
party -- not the racist ones,
the sexist ones. Bob Dole had apparently offered to introduce Strom to Britney
Spears. You may remember Dole
starred in a recent Pepsi commercial with Britney, which ends with the former
Presidential candidate and his dog
watching the scantily-clad chanteuse cavorting on TV. Bob says, "Easy, boy" - the
joke resting on the ambiguity
of whether the old Viagra pitchman is addressing the pooch or himself. So Trent
Lott chipped in a crack about
how Bob should replace the mutt with Thurmond and end the commercial by saying,
"Down, Strom." There was
also a joke about the centenarian sex fiend attending the opening of Hooter's.

The National Organization for Women was not amused. "Lott not only insulted
millions of African-Americans last
week, but he also offended women," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "Lott clearly
yearns for a time before
women and people of colour crashed the party." If I were one of the aggrieved
members of the Congressional
Black Caucus I'd resent this attempt to appropriate my scandal. Most Americans are
anti-segregation but
pro-Britney. For once, the PC bores have a case. It would be silly to let their
usual lack of proportion assert

Lott, for his part, is refusing to resign as Senate Majority Leader. He's
threatened to quit the Senate as a whole,
a move which, for various reasons, could precipitate a chain of events that would
return control of the chamber
to the Democrats. In other words, Strom Thurmond's birthday party would
singlehandedly reverse the results of
last month's election. Wow. Talk about chaos theory.

The one to watch here is the President. As the appointment of Kissinger
demonstrated, Bush doesn't care about
"perception" if he personally believes in someone. But that's not how he feels
about Lott. On Thursday, he said
the Senator's remarks were "not in the spirit of America," which, when you think
about it, is pretty damning. It is
far harsher, let it be said, than anything the Pope has said about his vile,
abuse-enabling American bishops.
Effective institutions clean house on their own terms, not their opponents'. My
bet is that Bush will get his way
and Lott will go, soon. Resignation-wise, the Rule of Three will eventually apply:
Kissinger, Law, Lott. Gone, gone,

                         © Copyright  2002 National Post
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

“Knowledge may give weight, but accomplishments give lustre, and many more people
see than weigh.” – Lord Chesterfield

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///

This email was sent to:

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to