On Tuesday, The Daily Telegraph reported:

“Riot-swept Britain is tasting the “bitter fruit” of its failure to introduce Chinese-style controls on social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook, Chinese state media crowed on Tuesday, while raising questions over whether London could be trusted to stage a safe 2012 Olympic Games.”

Your humble Blog Goliard was inclined to play this for laughs, until he saw the latest report from the emergency session of the House of Commons:

The government is exploring whether to turn off social networks or stop people texting during times of social unrest.

David Cameron said the intelligence services and the police were exploring whether it was “right and possible” to cut off those plotting violence.

Even though he’s a PR man by trade and a bit of an empty suit (but I repeat myself), I never thought Cameron would be so ungrounded in the fundamentals of Western liberty that he would pick up an editorial in the People’s Daily and say to himself, “You know, I think these Chinese Communists may be on to something here…”

Stupid is at its most dangerous when the nitwit believes he’s brilliant.

Washington, D.C. is full of such people these days (as are so many other centers of elite power).

And Bret Stephens makes a persuasive case that the infestation reaches all the way to the very top.

Lord, deliver us from our betters…

Thank you for hosting a wonderful, lovely, Eucharistic Congress, and for just generally being a fantastic Archdiocese. Since your humble Blog Goliard has not had the occasion to offer such praise in this space before, let that be said at the outset.

Now that it has been said, yours truly has a bone to pick with you.

One of the Archdiocese’s official Twitter updates today reads as follows:

We are relieved to learn a federal judge has temporarily blocked parts of GA’s HB87. Vote 4 comprehensive Immigration! http://t.co/GHA8BTs

This pushes several of your humble Blog Goliard’s buttons.

So it’s now official Catholic teaching that governments may not enforce immigration laws, and that violating those laws must not be investigated and prosecuted?

And it’s the official position of the Archdiocese that the principles of subsidiarity and democratic governance can be thrown out the window, so long as the unelected lawyers in Federal robes are voiding only those legitimately enacted laws of our state government that we personally dislike?

“Social justice” is not the exclusive property of the open-borders crowd, and is not synonymous with “what liberal Democrats believe” (however much it may have been made to appear otherwise over the past forty-plus years). Catholics may legitimately disagree on many political issues, even when the peace and justice crowd would very much prefer to pretend otherwise. Issues—for instance—such as whom we should allow to enter the United States, and what to do about those already illegally here.

Neither the legal nor the political aspects of this dispute are within the Archdiocese’s areas of competence or authority. The Archdiocese should stick to those things that are.

Even though he terminated one of my comments with extreme prejudice in his combox, your humble Blog Goliard is becoming a fan of Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, aka “Fr. Z”.

Fr. Z now has a column in the Catholic Herald, the premier Catholic newspaper in the United Kingdom. There is a nifty feature available to bloggers, such as yours truly, who have digital subscriptions to the paper, whereby we can post clippings on our own blogs. Here is Fr. Z’s recent column on the new, corrected English response to “The Lord be with you”:

The Catholic Herald

18 March 2011

Page 16

Any of your humble Blog Goliard’s several readers who might have an interest in this fine publication will wish to know that there is a special offer being extended in the month of March. When using the promo code “CHPROMO”, a digital subscription to the Catholic Herald costs only £10 right now, for a whole year. (When paying by credit card and bypassing PayPal’s conversion service, this came out to just $15.94 for me, as Capital One is the least evil card provider by far when it comes to international transactions.) For more information, see Fr. Z’s link and instructions.

As a member of what we used to call “Generation X” (before our society more or less forgot that there are people my age at all), the headline to this piece on Fr. Z’s fine blog is music to your humble Blog Goliard’s ears.

The post inspired the following longish comment, which is being posted here as well, as yours truly is happy with the effort it represents, in summing up the position of some of us traditionalists of a certain age.

So many things were swept away in the 1960s and 1970s, and not just in the Church. As a lawyer, your humble Blog Goliard also thinks immediately of the radical and willful breaking from previous restraint and precedent exemplified by the Warren Court nationally, and the Traynor Court in California.

If the towering arrogance and self-centeredness of these people wasn’t sufficiently clear at the time, it is now. For the erstwhile iconoclasts now whine that we can’t possibly make this or that change, discard this or that aspect of their glorious handiwork. Don’t we realize that we are obliged to adhere faithfully to all the precedents and traditions handed down to us by our elders? Don’t we realize that change will be disruptive, and disheartening to the poor souls in the pews?

(If you ever find yourself bereft of a good definition of “chutzpah”, that right there would do in a pinch.)

Of course, there’s a paradox that arises from where your humble Blog Goliard is standing as well. How can I condemn them for having disrespected their elders and rejected their heritage, whilst I work to sweep away so many of the things that they, my elders, have wrought and seek longingly to have my generation adopt and carry on? Or, more tartly: how can I possibly resent and undermine my forebears for having committed the crime of resenting and undermining their forebears?

So they’ve given me, in many cases, stones to eat instead of bread. Or at least what I perceive to be stones. Doesn’t humility require me to ask on what grounds I can claim the authority to judge what are stones and what are bread? Don’t filial piety and obedience to tradition oblige me to keep trying to make the best use of the stones I can? (I mean nutritively…not simply chucking the stones at Marty Haugen.)

The best one can do is to let go, as best one can, of the bitterness and grudges that percolate in the soul. However much it may feel good and seem entirely justified to get worked up into an anti-Boomer lather, it isn’t helpful to anyone in the end.

And we should remember that not all those of the previous generation—maybe not, if truth be known, even anywhere near most of the previous generation—support and honor the wreckage that has been wrought. Much of it was accomplished over the strong objections of this blogger’s own parents, for starters.

Finally, if things are to be pushed back towards earlier traditions, we younger folk driving the change must make absolutely sure that we are truly in conformity with and submitting to those traditions, rather than using an idealized (or even largely fabricated) vision of such traditions as mere cover for the imposition of our own particular tastes, our own Zetigeist, and our own wills.

One generation of radicals refashioning everything into the image and likeness of themselves is, after all, quite enough.

I very much hope that Mr. Gingrich’s story of personal maturation and redemption is true. I rejoice that he is now a fellow convert to the Catholic faith, and pray that he shall benefit from limitless graces.

I recognize that Mr. Gingrich is a brilliant man, and hope that his ever-bubbling cauldron of fresh ideas and unique insights will always be readily available to Republicans as they deliberate over their governing agenda.

All this notwithstanding, I still believe that the former Speaker has forever forfeited his right to be considered for high office (and not merely on moral grounds), and find it perplexing that anyone is seriously considering running him for President next year. Even in the uninspired 2012 field as it now stands, we can do much better.

You’ve had your chance, and your time has come and gone. Kindly stand aside, sir.

Fr. Robert Araujo and others on the “Mirror of Justice” blog have been calling attention to an academic program to be held this fall entitled “More Than A Monologue: Sexual Diversity and the Catholic Church”.

Your humble Blog Goliard would be most interested in attending such an event. Not out of agreement with the conveners’ worldview and goals, mind you; but rather for the opportunity to try, through the promised dialogue, to finally comprehend exactly how such dissidents propose to construct and properly ground an alternate ethics of sexuality. This is something which he quite honestly has never been able to come close to comprehending, even after perusing various representative writings of such thinkers.

While dissenting from certain orthodox teachings, these theologians do not consciously place themselves outside the Catholic community and Christian tradition. Yet what they are positing makes an implicit case that all major monotheistic religions have been consistently wrong about the morality of sexual acts since the beginning of time.

That’s a big ask, to put it mildly.

So what arguments are they able to deploy, exactly, that support the idea that after thousands of years, this band of enlightened 20th/21st century dissenters are the ones who have finally gotten it right? Your humble Blog Goliard has thus far only managed to find a lot of soft-pedaling of Sacred Scripture, the teachings of modern Popes, and everything in between. True engagement with any of these authorities is then evaded by privileging “contemporary experience”, the autonomous and unguided conscience, and the claims of social and human “science” over all of them.

It would be enlightening and encouraging to learn that there is something deeper and more solid underlying all this; that despite appearances, the dissenters are in fact grounded in something more than the typical Boomer-style narcissism, willful wish-fulfillment, and disdain for Dead White European/Semitic Males.

Clarification of just what is to replace traditional sexual morality would also be most welcome. If there is a coherent alternate sexual ethic being proposed by anyone, to guide us as to what intimate acts are licit and what are illicit, it has somehow entirely escaped your humble Blog Goliard’s attention.

Or is to state it that way to miss the point? Is it instead the dissenters’ position that sexual acts are, in and of themselves, morally neutral? Or that the moral question depends so utterly on the specific persons and situations involved, and on individuals’ subjective judgments and soveriegn consciences, that making clear distinctions and moral judgments is impossible?

Dissenting theologians do not seem inclined to do much more than leave hints as to how we are all to behave once the old oppressive sexual teachings have been finally routed. One can only hope that this is more the byproduct of mere thoughtlessness than of active evasion.

Finally, there is a direct (and, truth be told, rather impolite) question that your humble Blog Goliard would love to be able to ask such an assembly, full as it promises to be of religious persons who favor radical redefinition of the sacrament of Marriage:

Precisely how do they propose to define, for purposes of unions of two men or of two women, the act of consummation?

The question is posed not in a spirit of provocation or prurience, but rather in hopes that the answer—as well as the manner in which it would be delivered—would prove highly instructive for all concerned.

Your humble Blog Goliard has taken some time to tardily commit his thoughts on the Libyan situation to paper (er…okay, to electrons); and it has been a bit of a struggle to reconcile an “I told you so” tone with the whole practicing-humility aspect of Lent.

That would be because it has been clear to this observer, since the day the Arab League called for action against Libya (said action to be taken by others for them, of course) that a heel turn was coming. Recent news reports indicate that this turn—from inciting the intervention in Libya to opposing and undermining it—is already underway. It may be coming a skosh sooner than some might have guessed; but in no other sense does any politically-aware grownup has any excuse to be surprised by this.

Why would the members of the Arab League have chosen to call upon us, and wait passively for us to act, if they were so deeply concerned for the well-being of their Libyan brethren? Have they not planes and ships and tanks of their own? (Of course they do. We sold these things to them ourselves.) Are they not capable of striking against their enemies without the assistance, or even approval, of anyone outside their circle? (Of course they are. Just ask Israel.)

But they are not lifting a finger militarily, and have no intention of doing so, because the fate of Libya’s “rebels” is a secondary consideration…one is even tempted to call it a pretext. Instead, foremost in their minds is the glorious opportunity they have been given to draw the United States and its allies into a trap. (Cue Admiral Akbar.)

Once the cruise missiles and bombs started falling, it was inevitable that a large enough share of them would come directly from U.S. aircraft and ships that it wouldn’t matter to the Arab world how many of our allies were also involved, or even technically “leading” operations. The average person in the Arab world would see this as a Yankee military action, full stop, and any and all collateral damage would be charged entirely to Uncle Sam’s account.

It was inevitable that such damage would ensue…and even more inevitable that Qaddafi’s goons would work to both maximize real collateral damage (you think his Tripoli compounds became crowded with civilians by happenstance?) and spin fanciful tales of invented carnage for the eager consumption of the Arab street.

Which would be all the Arab League would need to start their turn. “Yes, we called for a no-fly zone, but we didn’t mean for them to do this” is their opening line, but it is just the start. It won’t take long before they join Qaddafi and Putin (!) in baying about infidel crusaders spilling Muslim blood.

Here’s what we should have done, in your humble Blog Goliard’s opinion. When the Arab League called for action, we ought to have applauded them, and offered to rearm, refuel, and repair any of their fighter jets employed in the fight against Qaddafi, free of charge, at any airbase of ours or theirs they might find it expedient to use.

We would then have needed to set our diplomats to work crafting appropriately unctuous and rueful statements for release in the coming days and weeks, expressing our deep regret that the Arab League never took us up on our offer, and instead sat on their keisters while the people of Benghazi who are so dear to their hearts faced terror and massacre…which we join them in deploring in the strongest possible terms.

But no. That would require us both to correctly identify and to fully understand our enemies. It would also require us to be able to think at least two or three moves ahead. (Though right now, I’d be grateful for signs that they were thinking even one move ahead. Doesn’t anybody up there in D.C. know how to play this game?)

P.S. Looking forward now, here’s a question yours truly hasn’t seen asked yet. Let’s say we luck out, and the allied air campaign does soon lead to the complete triumph of the “rebels” in Libya. Suppose also that this victory leads to vicious reprisals (as victories of irregular forces tend to do) against Qaddafi’s supporters, collaborators, suspected supporters and collaborators, and also the odd innocent Tripolean or two…or hundred…or thousand. Do we then resume our air campaign, this time against Qaddafi’s vanquishers? And to whom will we then be able to look, to help us get rid of them?

The good folks at NRO’s Phi Beta Cons have taken notice of some of the problems in legal education, and today they link to a piece in the Washington Examiner where a Harvard Law grad (natch) argues for abolishing law schools…or, more realistically, for making them optional.

NRO’s George Leef comments, “Law school is a high barrier to entry that does not ensure competence, but simply drives way up the cost of entering the legal profession.”

Fair enough. Your humble Blog Goliard agrees that much of law school is pointless, and that reforms are badly needed.

But is it really a good idea to be reducing barriers to entry to a profession that is already way, way, way, way, way, way, way oversupplied with people?

The bottom line is, it is at once way too easy, and way too expensive, to become a licensed attorney. We need to raise the barriers, while at the same time making them more cost-efficient and also more tightly bound to actual competence to practice law.

My dream proposal would be the following:

1. 1) State bars shall no longer give any weight to ABA accreditation of law schools.
2. 2) Nor shall they, nor anyone else, give any consideration to US News rankings. Anyone who knows anything has known for a long time now that the whole business is fraudulent. Kill the rankings now…kill them with fire!
3. 3) The one-year law school model—which maverick schools were already pioneering, before the dead hand of the ABA started weighing down innovation and diversity in methods and approaches—shall be revived, even by some well-established institutions.
4. 4) State bars shall admit individuals to the bar exam upon the presentation of:
5. 1. a) A diploma from any law school that the bar, in its sole discretion, considers acceptable. The bar could maintain a list of schools considered acceptable in all cases; a list of schools considered unacceptable in all cases (and be bold about it! if a school’s bar passage rates have stunk for years, put them on this list!); and then allow a graduate of absolutely any other institution anywhere to petition individually to have his or her degree accepted.
   2. b) A certificate of completion from a reputable bar-preparation company. As with the previous item, I would suggest keeping a continually-updated list of acceptable and unacceptable firms.
   3. c) Proof of a certain amount of time spent as an apprentice, clerk, intern, or paralegal, accompanied by the endorsement of one of a select number of longtime members of the bar, to whom will be appointed the task of evaluating lawyers-in-training and their readiness to take the bar exam and enter practice.
6. 5) The bar exam shall be made considerably longer and vastly harder; and the greatest share of time (and largest portion of the grade) shall be devoted to applied tests of practical lawyerly skills. (For instance: “Good morning and welcome to day five of the bar exam. Each of you is being handed a packet which contains details of a fictional married couple with children. Your task is to provide the family with appropriate wills, along with any other estate planning and advance directive documents which may be appropriate. These documents will be due at three o’clock.”)

Comment threads and blogs have been exploding in response to Kay Hymowitz’s article in the WSJ. “Not so long ago, the average American man in his 20s had achieved most of the milestones of adulthood: a high-school diploma, financial independence, marriage and children,” she notes; and that this is no longer the case is obviously and rightly a cause of great grief and frustration for many women.

However, though it seems de rigeur these days to allow the concerns and perspectives of women to overshadow others, let us be sure to take a complete look at the situation from the male perspective; and in particular how much harder it is for today’s man in his 20s to achieve the education, financial independence, marriage, and fatherhood (not mere baby-daddy-hood, which is depressingly easy to attain) than for the most recent generations of his forebears.

Given the following:

1. a) The economy continues to transform in ways unfriendly to the “living wage” and many workers, and the Boomers are busy pulling up the ladder after themselves, making long-term job prospects grim, even for men with multiple degrees under their belts. Also, while women still face subtle discrimination in a dwindling number of areas, non-minority men face overt discrimination in a growing number.
2. b) A high school diploma, while still free through public schools, doesn’t get one very far these days; and as for higher education, even as its returns have diminished its costs have exploded. Many people are now forking over a sizeable portion of their paychecks to the student loan companies well into their forties.
3. c) Student loan burdens are high, and housing is still unaffordably expensive post-bubble, while mortgages have gotten much more difficult to obtain. Taken together with ruinous (and non-dischargeable!) student loans, this makes it notably harder than in the past for a freshly-minted college graduate to find his way to anything more than either a crash pad or moving back in with the parents.
4. d) Cultural cues tell us that immature, foolish, and stupid men are the norm, and manly virtues are either forgotten or proscribed or in a state of complete confusion. The ubiquity of “idiot-man adverts” is just one easily spotted manifestation of this.
5. e) Female empowerment has had certain side-effects; for instance, empowering women to be demanding, self-centered, and unforgiving, with unrealistic expectations; and empowering them to elevate female friends (sometimes along with the ever-popular gay male mascot) above all others—including any man they might marry, whom it is all too easy to relegate to the status of a junior partner.
6. f) Women are much more eager to get married than to stay married. Your humble Blog Goliard knows all too many good guys who married, tried—albeit imperfectly—to please their wives and be the men they wanted, stayed away from the worst vices, had children with them…and then wound up kicked to the curb or abandoned at the wife’s whim. (Refer to e) above: girlfriends are for life, men are disposable.) This is a very, very common story these days.

Given all of this, why not take a slacker McJob, share a crash pad with some buddies, and retreat to a world of videogames, TV, beer, hookups, and porn?