2009 April archive at Being Frank

Archive for April, 2009

Apr

The Good, The True and the Beautiful…and Muslims on TOTB!

By Tuppence 16 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

Once again I’m going to be unoriginal and point back to something someone else has done. Mind you, I don’t think it’s a silly thing to do…after 2000 years of thought, wisdom, not to mention revelation, it would be foolish to think that I could come up with something absolutely new!

Anyway, so, the other day I listened to Peter Kreeft’s audio download: ‘The Good, the True and the Beautiful’ C.S. Lewis on the three great transcendentals…ah, always so clear, simple, and cuts through any sort of waffly garbage. Why is it that the truth shines so brilliantly?! He discusses how these are three qualities of God, that the human heart knows intuitively…in other words, we intuitively yearn for the presence of God (St Augustine…our hearts are restless until they rest with Thee).

In the meantime, I’m stoked to be making some progress with my professor here in Sénégal. As a means of improving my French, we’re working our way through things like the passages (in French) in the Koran that talk about Mary and Jesus, documents from the Vatican that discuss interreligious dialogue…I’ve even found the French version of JPII’s Wednesday addresses that make up the Theology of the Body for my professor to read. He’s enthralled! I’m enthralled! This is what I call some serious interreligious dialogue!

While we’ve butted heads on things like the death penalty and polygamy, I find far far more in common with his faith than with most secularised, vague, relativistic Westerners…this continent is refreshingly conscious of the sacred and transcendent. And that knocks my socks off.

Apr

The saga that just won’t end

By The Dumb Ox 2 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

I have followed the Tony Veitch saga with intrigue since it hit the media spotlight last year.

It has been interesting to watch how the media has reacted to the fact that one of their own has been caught out after committing a very serious and very reprehensible assault.

TVNZ’s Sunday program chose not to air a scheduled interview with Veitch after it was revealed that he had attempted, for the eighth time (according to his wife) to commit suicide again on Saturday.

I think this was a very compassionate thing of TVNZ to do, but why is it that only Veitch gets such special treatment from TVNZ?

Is anybody really so naive as to believe that TVNZ would extend this same basic courtesy to someone who wasn’t such a high profile former employee of theirs?!

Then on the other side of this issue we have the rabid CanWest media network taking every opportunity they can to take cheap shots at TVNZ, all the while trying to paint themselves as a media outlet with integrity and morals (can anyone say “Bloody Mary”?).

Ha! The sad truth is that their only interest is monetary.

The Veitch case has simply served to highlight the worst aspects of the mainstream media.

But to be fair to the media, neither Veitch nor Dunne-Powell have really done anything to try and disassociate themselves from the media feeding frenzy that has erupted around them.

On the one hand they have both claimed that they are victims of the big bad media, but then they have both been more than happy to do all manner of media interviews since their case broke.

While I feel sorrow for Tony Veitch, who is quite obviously very lost and broken, I think that he has been his own worst enemy in many ways (or at least his advisors have).

Starting from the very genesis of this scandal where he tried to contract his way out of the NZ crimes act (which is illegal by the way) by paying money to the victim of his very serious and violent assault.

Then came the announcement that he was going to be returning to the mainstream media on SKY Television, just months after news had broken that he had committed a very serious and violent assault and before his criminal trial had even been resolved.

Why would someone intentionally put themselves back into the public spotlight under such circumstances, and more importantly, why would they think that such a course of action was okay?

Then came the infamous public statement outside the Court last week, where Veitch seemed to be completely unaware what the word “remorse” actually means, and why threatening to sue segments of the media is not really compatible with true contrition.

And just to complicate matters even further, his lawyer was caught out after lying to high profile New Zealanders in order to get references for Veitch that could be used at his sentencing – and his totally farcical explanation (we had to lie to them in order to keep Veitch’s guilty plea a secret) of why he thought that lying to people in order to gain documents under false pretences is an acceptable part of the legal profession, just made the situation even worse.

I think the saddest part of this whole saga for me was when I read about Tony Veitch ringing the media on Saturday to seek help during his suicide attempt – of all the places and people he could have rung to seek comfort and help, it seemed so tragically ironic that after all was said and done the only place (that we know of) that he chose to seek help from was the media.

Apr

Talent undercover

By James the Least 50 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

I hate to be one seen to be jumping on a bandwagon, but in case some of you have missed this, you have to check this out.

(YouTube won’t permit embedding of this one, so you’ll have to go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY).

“This” is Susan Boyle, 47, from Scotland. She is singing “I Dreamed a Dream” from Les Misérables on the “Britain’s Got Talent” TV show which is, to be frank, not a show that a lot of people outside the U.K. typically pay a lot of attention to. Because it’s like all the other “talent” shows that we seem to be saturated with at present.

But that all changed with this clip. Miss Boyle, who’s been singing since she was 12 years old, regularly sings in her local Catholic parish choir. The audience she sang before for the show is the biggest she has sung for. If you haven’t watched the clip already, or if you don’t have speakers attached, let me paraphrase it for you:

Susan walks onto the stage. She doesn’t have the classic “Hollywood” look, and she answers the questions from judge (American Idol’s) Simon Cowell with a quirky accent and sense of humour. When she tells them what she’s going to sing, you can see the cynical looks on all three judges faces, and the shots of the audience show similar scepticism that what is about to take place will be any good.

And then she starts singing. And she is really, really good. And the crowd goes wild! And the looks on the faces of the judges and the audience are priceless! :)

And, you may be wondering, why am I talking about this in my post today? Well, for a couple of reasons. For a start, this story is now Huge. Capital ‘H’. Over 22 million views on YouTube, thousands (literally) of articles in papers and magazines around the world, fansites, Twitter and Digg going crazy, talk of a recording contract etc.

So, one of the reasons for me covering this is that I love the fact that a good news story is selling papers! What is it that we are always told sells newspapers? Bad news or sex. Neither of these are involved in this story, yet it is fast becoming one of the biggest stories this year.

But what’s of even more interest to me here is the fact that this (apparently devout Catholic) woman walked onto a stage and was instantaneously judged. As the judges admit at the end of the clip, the judgement was not overly favourable and was probably similar to the judgement made by all those watching her at first. For myself, before she even opened her mouth, I was preparing myself to cringe. Why? Because these “talent shows” have become synonymous with people who are so desperate for fame and fortune – or even just some attention – that they step up and literally invite ridicule. Modern society has not only made the public humiliation of thousands of people possible, but it has done it in such a way as to make ridiculing others in this way socially acceptable.

And then along comes Susan.

In a couple of minutes of internet footage, this woman with an incredible voice made everyone – everyone – pause. Double-take. Skip a beat. Whatever you want to call it – Susan made the world pay attention to not just her, but who she represents. The people who we rush to critique and ridicule and judge and mock and laugh at – all for what? Fun?

I’m posting this because I hope that we all take a bit of a pause and maybe examine our individual and collective consciences. Do we rush to judge? Do we join in and ridicule because it’s fun? Can we do better?

(P.S. Good luck to you Susan.)

Apr

The childcare dilemma

By eyeWitness 4 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

Should parents put their children in daycare?

There was an article in this month’s North and South magazine in which authors Peter Feeney and Lauren Porter state that “In the past 10 years … research evidence has accumulated that flags a range of risks and consequences for very young children in daycare.” A recent UNICEF report also raises concerns about the increasing use of daycare for the very young, and shows that around one-third of 0-3 year olds are in daycare in New Zealand.

Financial considerations, career concerns, a desire to see more women advance in the workplace and the best interests of our children are all things parents and policy-makers have to balance.

Though one has to wonder, has the raft of childcare subsidies and other legislation been it all about increasing productivity for the government? I remember reading a scary government report a few years back that expressed concern that too many women in New Zealand were staying at home and we had to start providing better child care alternatives so they could return to work earlier and New Zealand could increase its GDP!! How short sighted is that approach if we fail to consider the well being of our children and the future generation?!

The people at the Maxim Institute “think tank” commented that “the debate boils down to this – What do we, as a society, really value — parenting or parental choice, economic outcomes or child wellbeing? ” After all the children didn’t choose to be born but you chose to have them – and they’re not simply an accessory you should fashionably acquire when you reach a certain age.

The full article on their website is here
UNICEF’s report is here

What age is acceptable to return to work though? Maybe we can make a distinction between children under three and those that are a bit older. Should you be there when your children get home from school when they are school age? One also has to be careful to recognise that in tough financial times some families have no option but to have a double income – especially when the government provides incentives to return to work through their child-care subsidies.

The Report comments on a higher likelihood of anti-social behaviour when very young (under 3) children are put in daycare. It is a crucial time for brain development and a professional caregiver is unlikely to be as attentive to a child’s uniqueness as a parent will be, nor will they have the same longevity of relationship.

Day care also has its benefits though – interaction with other children and there are also obvious benefits where children do not have a good home life. It also depends on the particular circumstances and the child’s relationship with its parents – some parents may be very good at spending quality time with their child, even if their child is at day care during the day.

But I probably agree with the Maxim Institute when it says that “if relationships are key, it’s hard to see how most daycare centres will ever surpass the average parent.” Maybe you could have a mix – one or two days of daycare and work, and the rest of the time at home?

Do we as a society value family and parenting as much as we should?

Apr

‘Clerics Get Classier’….New Zealand?

By On the Road 20 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

Sorry this comes a bit late….

About a year ago, there was a great post by The Dumb Ox on clerical attire. Read it and you will find the norms set out by the Church on minimum standards of attire for priests. Then, after the NZ Catholic Bishops meeting in February, there came this decision on priestly attire, followed by James’ insightful discussion in his post on the matter.

Well, thanks to our wonderful Holy Father for clarifying the issue recently and setting the record straight in his address declaring a ‘year of the priest’ which will begin on June 19th. He called for priests to essentially dress like priests, saying they should be “present, identifiable and recognisable for their faith, their personal virtues and their attire”. Now, I do not want to rehash the debate from February, but what I would like to point out is the Holy Father is obviously concerned about this issue – and made it quite clear to shape up. And apparently, this seems to be working in Italy according to a NZ Catholic article this week (I can’t seem to find it online, but it is titled, Clerics Get Classier, hence the post name).

In looking at New Zealand – I know that bishops are able to pick attire with national custom. But, since when did a ‘suit with tie and some agreed symbol’ become attire that makes a priest recognizable for their ‘faith, their personal virtues, and their attire’ in a formal occasion? That is hardly different from any other person at a formal occasion. I have been in the company of a priest multiple times recently, not even knowing they were priests until I looked closely at their collar to see some small pin of a cross. Honestly, New Zealand priests and bishops should heed the directives of the Holy Father this time and pick up their game. Kudos to all priests who sport the collar with dignity and humility. I am sure it is not easy at times, especially with the NZ weather, but offer it up to the Lord and put on that collar – you never know, it could change someone’s life.

Let’s follow Italy’s example – I would love to see priests walking down the street in a cassock, I would recognise it from a mile away. While I will not be investing in a clerical clothing manufacturer in New Zealand anytime in the near future, I will be thanking every priest I come across who dresses like they are proud of their vocation, not giving utmost importance to their personal sense of style, or the need to ‘identify with lay people’ – a euphemism for ‘fitting in’ in one of the most secularised countries in the western world.

Apr

“Ay, ay, ay! Es Homer Simpson. Me ha molestado! Oh!”

By Methuselah's Beard 4 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

Well it’s the week after Easter and after the whole of NZ celebrated this momentous occassion with a long weekend, I’m wondering what the general populace will do now with no more religious holidays they can celebrate with extended breaks. Why should the general public enjoy a 4 day weekend for a religious celebration they don’t even take part in?

Anyway, I have to say that one of my favourite ads on tv at the moment has to be that Instant Kiwi ad with Doug and his mexican friend that only he sees. Ok I know it promotes gambling, and it may not be sending the most positive message. But I think it’s funny. And it also depicts our eternal struggle against the voices in our heads. Or at least the struggle between what we want to do, instead of what we should do. Plus the ad has a guy with a mexican accent and mexican accents are one of the 3 guarenteed ways to generate laughs.

It’s been a big week in the news for Lincoln the Rhodesian Ridgeback cross after his front page appearance in the Dominion Post. It was hard not to feel some sort of sympathy for poor Lincoln after seeing his happy face in the newspaper, then reading about the plight he went through. Now there’s a $20,000 reward out for the perpatrators of the heinous act, and there’s genuine outrage everywhere over this incident. How could anyone do this to a poor defenceless dog? Now if the same level of outrage can be applied to all those who do outrageous things to unborn children, I think we’d be on the right track.

Apr

Prisoner(s) of society?

By Filia Day 16 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

I happened to follow a link to an article that recounts a variety of the torture measures used by the CIA in the “war against terrorism”. The author depict some of these brutal torture methods used by the US against 14 “high value detainees” in order to secure information/ suspects etc and is based on red cross confidential report, which ironically ain’t that confidential anymore. I have attrached this here.

Now if the report isn’t chilling enough, the author has also provided comments by politicians such as Dick Cheney, former vice president.

When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry…. These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.
If it hadn’t been for what we did—with respect to the…enhanced interrogation techniques for high-value detainees…—then we would have been attacked again. Those policies we put in place, in my opinion, were absolutely crucial to getting us through the last seven-plus years without a major-casualty attack on the US….

—Former Vice President Dick Cheney, February 4, 2009[1]

Now I have always held the opinion that the ends never justify the means and I happen to agree with Obama’s move to oppose torture. Despite all my other (fairly large) disagreements with Obama’s stance on life issues, I do think he has done a wonderful thing in this particular situation. Torture is degrading to the human person and should not be justified in terms of a “defence” of the American people. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that the Church has clearly stated that there is such a thing as just war but this type of horrific activity does not fit the criteria!

Mark Danner, the author of the book review in question, put it better than I could possibly express:

Torture, as the former vice-president’s words suggest, is a critical issue in the present of our politics—and not only because of ongoing investigations by Senate committees, or because of calls for an independent inquiry by congressional leaders, or for a “truth commission” by a leading Senate Democrat, or because of demands for a criminal investigation by the ACLU and other human rights organizations, and now undertaken in Spain, the United Kingdom, and Poland. For many in the United States, torture still stands as a marker of political commitment—of a willingness to “do anything to protect the American people,” a manly readiness to know when to abstain from “coddling terrorists” and do what needs to be done. Torture’s powerful symbolic role, like many ugly, shameful facts, is left unacknowledged and undiscussed. But that doesn’t make it any less real. On the contrary.

Torture is at the heart of the deadly politics of national security. The former vice-president, as able and ruthless a politician as the country has yet produced, appears convinced of this. For if torture really was a necessary evil in what Mr. Cheney calls the “tough, mean, dirty, nasty business” of “keeping the country safe,” then it follows that its abolition at the hands of the Obama administration will put the country once more at risk. It was Barack Obama, after all, who on his first full day as president issued a series of historic executive orders that closed the “black site” secret prisons and halted the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” that had been practiced there, and that provided that the offshore prison at Guantánamo would be closed within a year.

Take a moment to read the report and the article in question. I’m interested to know what you think – morally deplorable or excusible?