February 2012

In the March 2012 edition of The Catholic Telegraph new editor Steve Trosley makes some bold and at times refreshing statements about “what kind of publication” is The Catholic Telegraph:

   The Catholic Telegraph represents the archdiocesan community to itself and the public by reporting on the lives and activities of the members of that community in the context of the magisterium – the teaching authority of the church.  That authority has been handed down from Jesus Christ through His apostles and their successors, the bishops, who in turn may choose to delegate it to qualified individuals.

This makes our publication and its companion website a teaching arm of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati and its leader, Archbishop Dennis M. Schnurr.

Archbishop Schnurr may and should use all channels of mass media to spread the Gospel but  The Catholic Telegraph represents the official channel for the transmission of those messages, whether they involve the example of our faith shown through the lives and activities of our community or involve a letter or essay from the archbishop or someone he has qualified.

To protect the credibility of The Catholic Telegraph and to remain true to the teaching mission of the church, we must remember that we are not a traditional newspaper and are not guided by the same imperatives.

The publication must be viewed as a whole.  We strive to observe most American journalism conventions such as a commitment to accuracy and accountability, but in every other way, we are dedicated and devoted to an unadulterated, unchallenged and inspiring  presentation of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

That will help explain some of the policies and features we will be deploying in the months ahead as we evolve this publication from the foundation built by former editors and staffers.

What policies and features will the Telegraph be deploying in the coming months?  Will the Telegraph be turning from its old days, such as when letters to the editor contradicting Catholic teaching going completely unchallenged were routinely printed?  Only time will tell.  And what about the statement that the Telegraph represents a teaching arm of the Archdiocese and its Archbishop?  What do OTRITT readers think of this claim?

Later in the column Trosley mentions:

I am painfully  aware that I am a stranger in a town that places a high value on its hometown heroes.

I sort of wonder if Mr. Trosley is alluding to OTRITT’s posting when he was introduced in December 2011.  While my posting was completely neutral as to whether his announced hire was a good thing or a bad thing (Honestly my attitude was and is still to take a wait and see approach.  The guy is just getting started at his new position and I have no reason to think he doesn’t need a fair shot at making things better.) OTRITT readers certainly had critiques for a column he wrote for his previous, secular gig in 2011 on the subject of illegal immigration.

From The Catholic Thing

A Sea Change

In a sailing ship, a change in the direction of the wind and waves is occasion for all hands on deck to adjust the rigging and trim the sails. To appreciate the sea change in the Church’s presence in the United States after the HHS ruling, we have to go back for a look at the 1950s. Since then, a series of self-inflicted blows have left the U. S. Church weakened and confused about its identity in American society.

In the fifties, the Church was a comfortable pillar of the community compromising all along the way with the prevailing culture and craving the legitimacy that it imagined the U. S. culture could bestow. Obviously, this depiction is a little simplistic. But the fact is that the Church does not need legitimization from American culture. But for some time, many in the Church have read from the culture how they are supposed to behave and what the Church herself can say and do – and how.

At that point, going along with a largely conservative culture presented no real challenge. So bishops had mansions resembling the homes of the well to do in the secular culture. Religious became increasingly middle-class, clergy aimed to be upper-middle-class, and laity led more and more compartmentalized lives, to name just a few trends. Nobody did this to us. We did it to ourselves.

ah yes the “Spirit of Vatican II”

Then in the sixties, the sexual revolution and the overturning of obedience to authority far outweighed the teaching of Vatican II in their impact on the U. S. Church’s self-understanding. Indeed, the Church understood the Council through the lenses of American culture rather than vice versa.

The Church did not directly have problems with the government, but internally it denied its own integrity by practically caving in to the culture and by not implementing Vatican II, except in its more cosmetic aspects. So the Catholic population largely ended up out of step with the Universal Church despite the mammoth event of the council.

Vatican II reiterated the teaching of the Church. But the U. S. Catholic community did not retread and confirm Catholics in their faith. To this day Vatican II teaching is still not actively known by most Catholics in detail, despite John Paul II’s strenuous efforts to get people to take the Council seriously.

The love affair between Catholics and the Democratic Party has long and tangled origins, and it continued in the fifties. But then this alliance of clergy and laity with the party remained largely unshaken – even as the party adopted more and more fringe positions out of line with Church teaching.

            Holy card for the North American Martyrs, c. 1930

During the sixties there developed what Benedict XVI refers to as the “well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situations.”

The next great upheaval – again totally self-inflicted – occurred in the late eighties and nineties and right into the new millennium, with the abuse scandals. This onslaught had to be borne by a largely uninformed and poorly motivated community. And the community’s generosity is being diverted to cover payouts to victims, uses for which contributions were never intended.

And now, the Obama Administration is taking on the Church over exercising its conscience on payment for contraception, etc. The Church is in the reverse situation from the fifties. From prevailing acceptance and mutual tolerance, it is now facing separation from its own civil institutions by a hostile government, much like what Napoleon did to the Church in France in the nineteenth century.

The terrible irony is that the largely unformed – and uninformed—Catholic populace produced in the seventies and eighties actually helped put this government in place. Talk about a self-inflicted wound. And this year there is a good chance that they will do it again.

The sea change in the Church involves finally being forced to recognize that culture, even American culture, is never all that it is cracked up to be. The Church in fact is supposed to follow the Holy Spirit and not the culture. Actually:  “It is not a matter of preaching a word of consolation, but rather a word which disrupts, which calls to conversion and which opens the way to an encounter with the one through whom a new humanity flowers.” (Benedict XVI)

Because of its recent history, the Church in the United States finally finds herself – alongside other faith groups that cannot swallow the culture – in a highly hostile environment. This is actually a good thing. Traditionally Churches in this situation – we are not far from actual persecution – pull themselves together, raise up saints, and get serious about what it means to be active Christians in society.

Bishops become leaders not simply quiet managers. Clergy become the poor men who help others to find God. Religious let go of their middle-class aspirations and take their vow of poverty seriously. People take to following rather than making it up as they go along.

Most important of all the history of desperate compromise with U. S. culture might actually stop as it becomes painfully clear that there are higher principles at stake than simply not giving offense. Christ himself will show us what that means.

If we follow Him, the tide will indeed have changed!
Bevil Bramwell, priest of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, teaches theology at Catholic Distance University. He holds a Ph.D. from Boston College and works in the area of ecclesiology.

Cardinal George: no Catholic hospitals in 2 years unless HHS mandate is rescinded

Warning that the Church is being “despoiled of her institutions” as “freedom of conscience and of religion become a memory from a happier past,” Cardinal Francis George of Chicago observes that “the Catholic Church in the United States is being told she must ‘give up’ her health care institutions, her universities and many of her social service organizations.”

“So far in American history, our government has respected the freedom of individual conscience and of institutional integrity for all the many religious groups that shape our society,” he continues. “The government has not compelled them to perform or pay for what their faith tells them is immoral. That’s what we’ve meant by freedom of religion. That’s what we had believed was protected by the U.S. Constitution. Maybe we were foolish to believe so.”

Cardinal George adds:

What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the Church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the Church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down …

(Obama has used this phrase over and over, and we were told it was just a slip up, bullshud.)

Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship-no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and the works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. All of these were co-opted by the government. We fought a long cold war to defeat that vision of society.

The strangest accusation in this manipulated public discussion has the bishops not respecting the separation between church and state. The bishops would love to have the separation between church and state we thought we enjoyed just a few months ago, when we were free to run Catholic institutions in conformity with the demands of the Catholic faith, when the government couldn’t tell us which of our ministries are Catholic and which not, when the law protected rather than crushed conscience. The state is making itself into a church.

“If you haven’t already purchased the Archdiocesan Directory for 2012, I would suggest you get one as a souvenir,” he continued. “On page L-3, there is a complete list of Catholic hospitals and health care institutions in Cook and Lake counties. Each entry represents much sacrifice on the part of medical personnel, administrators and religious sponsors. Each name signifies the love of Christ to people of all classes and races and religions. Two Lents from now, unless something changes, that page will be blank.”

Often he reminds me of a certain Muppet but  sometimes the Archbishop of Canterbury hits on a gem, he sure did in this interview

The Egyptian

Richard Dawkins: I can’t be sure God does not exist

He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.

( I tried to embed the video and it won’t work so use the LINK to see video )

He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.

The two men were taking part in a public “dialogue” at Oxford University at the end of a week which has seen bitter debate about the role of religion in public life in Britain.

Last week Baroness Warsi, the Tory party chairman, warned of a tide of “militant secularism” challenging the religious foundations of British society.

The discussion, in Sir Christopher Wren’s Sheldonian Theatre, attracted attention from around the world.

As well as being relayed to two other theatres, it was streamed live on the internet and promoted fierce debate on the Twitter social network.

For an hour and 20 minutes the two men politely discussed “The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin” touching on the meaning of consciousness, the evolution of human language – and Dr Williams’s beard.

For much of the discussion the Archbishop sat quietly listening to Prof Dawkins’s explanations of human evolution.

At one point he told the professor that he was “inspired” by “elegance” of the professor’s explanation for the origins of life – and agreed with much of it.

Prof Dawkins told him: “What I can’t understand is why you can’t see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing – that is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God?”

Dr Williams replied that he “entirely agreed” with the “beauty” of Prof Dawkins’s argument but added: “I’m not talking about God as an extra who you shoehorn on to that.”

There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.

An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.”

Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs.

“I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.

He also said that he believed it was highly likely that there was life on other planets.

At one point he discussion strayed onto the theoretical question of whether a traditional cut throat razor could be described as a more complicated thing than an electric shaver.

There was laughter as the Archbishop said he would attempt an answer before adding: “Not that I know much about razors.”

During a wide-ranging discussion the Archbishop also said that he believed that human beings had evolved from non-human ancestors but were nevertheless “in the image of God”.

He also said that the explanation for the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis could not be taken literally.

“The writers of the Bible, inspired as I believe they were, they were nonetheless not inspired to do 21st Century physics,” he said.

When Prof Dawkins suggested that he believed the Pope took a rather more literal interpretation of the origins of humans, the Archbishop joked: “I will ask him some time.”

My son asked me at dinner.

“What would have happened if Eve ate the apple but Adam didn’t?”


Had to post this, applies to a lot of “adults” too. been a fan of  Klavan for a long time, see the video it is so good, love that dad,

The Egyptian

The Tyranny of Hip

 By Andrew Klavan

Desperately racing to catch up with the conservative sociologist Charles Murray whom they so despise, the leftist New York Times front-paged a story [1] Saturday that basically bore out the central findings of Murray’s new book Coming Apart [2].

More than half of births to American women under 30 occur outside marriage. … The fastest growth in the last two decades has occurred among white women in their 20s. … One group still largely resists the trend: college graduates, who overwhelmingly marry before having children. That is turning family structure into a new class divide, with the economic and social rewards of marriage increasingly reserved for people with the most education.

The leftist Times adds:

The shift is affecting children’s lives. Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems.

In other words, educated people do better because they marry more. They’re also, according to Murray, more religious and industrious, which further improves their lives.

The leftist Times, of course — and many of Murray’s leftist reviewers — try to slant these findings to suggest poor people are somehow being made to suffer by society’s unfair privileging of the marriage state. We can soon expect to hear a good deal about how a more tolerant Europe does illegitimacy better. It is frustrating to know we will have to wait at least a decade before the Times and its leftist camp followers are proven — as they are always ultimately proven in these social matters — wrong yet again.

Those unwilling to wait that long can turn directly to Murray, who tends to go blithely about getting things right even as the left excoriates him. Murray understands that the debilitating shifts of poorer people away from marriage and religion are culturally induced and that the prescriptions to reverse them must be cultural as well. Among those fixes, as he said in a recent article in the paper of record (the Wall Street Journal [3]):

The best thing that the new upper class can do… is to drop its condescending “non-judgmentalism.” Married, educated people who work hard and conscientiously raise their kids shouldn’t hesitate to voice their disapproval of those who defy these norms. When it comes to marriage and the work ethic, the new upper class must start preaching what it practices.

This is so clearly true that the only real question is: why don’t they? If marriage and religion give smart people joy and improve their living standards, why don’t they spread the word?

I believe one reason is the Tyranny of Hip: the unwillingness of grownups to be thought of as uncool. We seem to have a horror of shedding the mantles of the heroes of romance in order to take on the roles of the crusty but wise chaperones. Even when Red State’s Erick Erickson [4] and cultural blogger Dr. Melissa Clouthier [5] among others courageously grasped the nettle recently and took the girls and boys of CPAC to task for dressing like hookers and acting like johns, they were at pains to explain that they were talking about time and place appropriateness not morals — which still didn’t protect them from the usual hail of superior-sounding irony that followed.

No one wants to be the butt of the cool kids’ jokes like that. No critic who values his relevance wants to point out that Bridesmaids [6]soiling themselves while in wedding regalia is not really funny; or that Katy Perry’s hummable hit tunes [7] peddling alcohol abuse and cheap sex to 12-year-olds are reprehensible; or that Sacha Baron Cohen mocking ordinary people for their non-ironic faith, manners or dedication can be at once hilarious and morally wrong — like laughing at a slapstick accident that leaves someone dead. No one wants to turn into the old man waving his cane from the porch rocking chair shouting at the young folks to stop all their goldarned canoodling and quit parading around with their hoo-has and what-nots hanging out, for the love of Mike.

And yet the nation hungers for just such behavior. Witness the recent YouTube video [8] of a father punishing his spoiled daughter for a snarky Facebook post by plugging her laptop with a .45. The thing went viral to the tune of tens of millions of viewers. Why? Because it was wonderful to see someone finally step up and be Daddy.

Being Daddy, no matter what people say, is not primarily a matter of telling people what not to do, nor is it a matter, in my opinion, of scaring them with the consequences of poor behavior. Family leaders rather model, proclaim and support the way people behave when they treat themselves like people instead of meat puppets: i.e. when they make their flesh serve their dignity, love and joy, which sometimes means delaying and even denying more immediate and strictly physical pleasures.

Only (by which I mean only) this essentially spiritual approach to life supports self-governance and justifies liberty. That, if no other reason, is why it’s the responsibility of American grown-ups to teach it to the young. No one wants to be uncool, but the end result of the Tyranny of Hip is tyranny.

George strips this whole thing bare, Liberal Catholicism has been hijacked by progressives and socialists, Like I said eorlier, words mean things, Obama has been using the freedom of worship line since he was immaculated, even the eggheads at Notre Shame didn’t catch it, Oh well just a slip of the tongue, or worse yet they approved

The Catholic Betrayal of Religious Freedom

from the National Review Online

by By George Weigel


Thus “liberal Catholics” who refuse to grasp the threats to religious freedom posed by the Obama administration on so many fronts — the HHS mandate, the EEOC’s recently rejected attempt to strip the “ministerial exemption” from employment law, the State Department’s dumbing-down of religious freedom to a mere “freedom of worship — are betraying the best of their own heritage. And some are doing it in a particularly nasty way, trying to recruit the memory of John Courtney Murray as an ally in their attempts to cover for the Obama administration’s turning its de facto secularist bias into de jure policy, regulations, and mandates. More than 50 years ago, Murray warned of the dangers deracinated secularism posed to the American democratic experiment: a warning that seems quite prescient in the light of the Leviathan-like politics of this administration, aided and abetted by baptized secularists who insist that they are “liberal Catholics.” I daresay Murray, who did not suffer fools gladly, would not be amused by those who now try to use his work to shore up their own hollow arguments on behalf of the establishment of secularism.


The Cincinnati Enquirer gives us a glimpse of tomorrow’s coverage of Ash Wednesday tonight:

When the cross is made on a person’s forehead, the priest or minister will typically say: “Remember that thou art dust, and to dust thou shalt return.”

John Barber, a Xavier senior, will get his ashes this morning, if his schedule allows. He will get them later this evening if he must. But he will get them.

“It’s so simple and so humbling,” Barber said. “It reminds us that we are connected, and of our humility. We will all be dust.”

Christine Naderer, 21 and a graduate student, said that when she was a child growing up in West Liberty, she did not like to wear the ashes all day, and would sometimes try to rub them off.

“It was kind of embarrassing having the ashes,” Naderer said. “But now I like them. There is a sense of community. I wear them all day.”

There is also a story from Dan Horn, the Enquirer‘s answer to John Allen of the National Catholic Register, on Archbishop Schnurr’s call for a lenten “fasting protest” of the Obama administration’s assault on religious liberty:

Schnurr and his fellow American bishops have been outspoken critics of new Health and Human Services rules regarding contraception, arguing Catholic institutions will be forced to pay for services that violate Catholic teaching.

President Barack Obama revised the rules two weeks ago after a storm of controversy erupted over the first version. But the bishops and some other religious leaders say the changes don’t go far enough.

“We would still be forced to indirectly pay for services that we find morally unacceptable,” Schnurr said Tuesday. “Please join me in praying and fasting this Lent that wisdom and justice may prevail and religious liberty may be restored in our country.”

Twenty years ago, when I was a student in law school, my hero was Thomas Jefferson. They say that to know a man’s view of the world, one should review the events of his life as he enters adulthood. In large measure, my “events” were the books and, when it came to Jefferson, the letters I read. I lost interest in Jefferson as I became more familiar with, and repelled by, his deism, which struck me as a halfway house to atheism. Which is why I was so cheered this morning to read the following letter to a young man named after him, Thomas Jefferson Smith, written shortly before he died, on 21 February 1825, in Bill Bennett’s The American Patriot’s Almanac:

This letter will, to you, be as one from the dead. The writer will be in the grave before you can weigh its counsels. Your affectionate and excellent father has requested that I would address to you something which might possibly have a favorable influence on the course of life you have to run, and I too, as a namesake, feel an interest in that course. Few words will be necessary, with good dispositions on your part. Adore God. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighbor as yourself, and your country more than yourself. Be just. Be true. Murmur not at the ways of Providence. So shall the life into which you have entered, be the portal to one of eternal and ineffable bliss. And if to the dead it is permitted to care for the things of this world, every action of your life will be under my regard. Farewell.

byMark Tapscott  editor, Washington Examiner

French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as painted by Alan Ramsay, 1766 (Public domain). The ideological origins of President Obama’s wing of the Democratic party are rooted in Rousseau’s view that traditional institutions like the church are enemies of man’s natural freedom.

No matter the ultimate destination of Rick Santorum’s current surge in popularity in the GOP presidential nomination battle, his rise to prominence is sparking a renewed interest in “the social issues,” helped along by President Obama’s latest bureaucratic salvo against religious institutions.

There are two important points to keep in mind here as the campaign goes forward. First, the conventional wisdom has it that Republicans should at all costs avoid embracing the social issues – pro-family, pro-life and pro-faith-based institutions – because, otherwise, they will lose the all-important independent voter.

Better to keep the focus exclusively on the economic issues where Obama is most vulnerable and which most voters see as their top-priority issues. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels’ familiar suggestion that a “truce” be declared for now between social conservatives and economic conservatives, with the concerns of the former assemblies taking a temporary backseat to those of the latter groups, epitomizes this approach.

But the reality is, as supply-side economist and gold standard guru Jeffrey Bell reminds us in his forthcoming book – “The Case for Polarized Politics,” which is ably described today in The Wall Street Journal’s Weekend Interview by James Taranto* – Republicans are most successful in national elections when both sets of issues are prominently addressed, with neither given prominence over the other, and in conjunction with a third element, national security concerns.

In the WSJ interview, Bell tells Taranto that: “Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964. The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections.”

This fact ought not surprise anybody familiar with the notion of GOP fusionism originally prescribed by National Review editor Frank Meyer in the early 1960s. Republican prospects depend mainly on the ability of the party’s presidential candidates to unite economic, national defense and social conservatives in one grand coalition. Failing to appeal to any one of these three legs to the stool results in defeat.

From this perspective then, Santorum’s embrace of social issues is a strength for the GOP, not a weakness, something to be heartened by, not threatened. He’s already strong on national defense issues, so his biggest vulnerability may well be on the economic side where his views have a distinctly mercantilist tone in some areas.

The second point here – also made prominently by Bell, as quoted by Taranto – is that nobody should be surprised that Obama initiatives so often have an anti-religious cast to them. Consider the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) recent assertion of authority to tell religious denominations who they can hire and fire as ministers. The EEOC met with a unanimous rejection by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Even so, the overwhelming EEOC loss didn’t prevent Obama’s Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, from issuing a proposed Obamacare rule forcing religious institutions, including churches, schools, charities and hospitals, to provide free birth control benefits in the health insurance they make available to employees, even if that coverage include abortifacients like the Morning-After pill that, for many, violates fundamental religious doctrines.

The HHS rule – including the subsequent “compromise” version – clearly violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and was greeted with an explosion of opposition from Catholic bishops, Protestant ministers, Jewish rabbis and legions of their followers in the pews. Odds are it will get a similar reaction in the Supreme Court as the administration’s EEOC initiative.

But the Left has been attacking traditional religious and family insitutitons for centuries, so, in relentlessly pushing these kinds of anti-faith initiatives, Obama is merely being true to his ideological roots. He is very much a product of the radical center of the Democratic Party, with its origins in the far-left student movements of the 1960s.

The intensity of reaction to the HHS rule likely confirmed for Obama and his strategists the rightness of their effort. As Bell puts it to Taranto, “they were determined to push it through, because it’s their irreplaceable ideological core. . . . The Left keeps putting these issues into the mix, and they do it very deliberately, and I think they do it as a matter of principle.”

The opening line of Jean Jacque Rousseau’s The Social Contract tells the story here: “Man is born free, but everywhere is in chains.” With that sentence, Rousseau captured the essential principle driving the Left’s view of society, economics, law, everthing: In the state of nature where men are born, complete freedom reigns.

But when men organize themselves into societies, convention (also known as habit or tradition) suffocates this natural freedom, making men slaves to kings, priests and tradition. Thus, the fundamental goal of left-wing ideology is always, in one way or another and to a greater or lesser degree, to liberate men from convention.

The virulence with which leftists have so long pursued their goals – particularly with regard to social issues and institutions – was perfectly captured long ago in the words of 18th century theorist and French Revolution light Denis Diderot: “Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”

Remember that the next time you hear talk of a “compromise” on the latest anti-faith, anti-family initiative from the Left. As a prudential matter, of course, all but the most radical of them will try to dissassociate themselves from such sentiments (Recall Obama’s distancing response when Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s views became an issue during the 2008 presidential campaign).

But sooner or later, leftists like Obama – as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, etc. etc. – always push for more and more regulation. And off at the end, their ultimate purpose is to subordinate traditional institutions entirely to the bureaucratic dictates of the all-powerful state.

* Author’s note: In the original version of this post, I confused the book and the interview. The Bell quotes above are from Taranto’s WSJ interview, not the book. My apologies to Taranto and Bell, for the confusion.

Next Page »