Vodka pundit -- an actual engineer -- picks up the ball.

Andrew Sullivan publishes an odd email which A) celebrates Derb B) trashes NRO and C) offers some very backhanded compliments at me.

I don't care about the stuff about me. But this "NRO just runs talking points" meme is among the most annoying in the blogosphere, in my book. Anyone who's followed the debates in the Corner, for example, knows that there's very little unanimity on many of the classic talking-point issues. Ramesh, a senior editor of the magazine, is against the "nuclear option." He's also against tax reform. Rich wrote a courageous and definitive cover story on how things went wrong in Iraq -- right before the election. Kate O'Beirne has written powerfully against Bush's faith-based initiative, the Department of Homeland Security etc. I think everyone here opposed the Medicare bill. It's true most of us are in favor of Social Security reform (except for Derb) but why that should automatically be interpreted as talking-pointism is beyond me since the magazine was advocating such measures long before Bush was. David Frum, Ramesh, Rich and Kate have been critical to one degree or another of Bush's immigration policies. And the magazine still opposes the drug war (though I don't). I can't remember the last time I read a celebration of "compassionate conservatism" around here. I could go on and on.

And yes, constructive criticism notwithstanding, we strongly support the administration on the war. But, again, why this should be seen as us taking marching orders from the White House or the GOP is beyond me.

And, sure, we often run pieces from conservatives who support the White House and/or the mainstream conservative position. But, uh, we're a conservative magazine. That's how things work.

I like originality in writing a lot, but originality in the form of contrarianism is only admirable if it is principled and heartfelt. Contrarianism just to be different is sophomoric. Claiming that NRO isn't original when it's speaking from conviction is an asinine criticism.

Again, I wish that people who traffic in this sort of criticism would provide examples, evidence, quotes -- anything to back up such sweeping declarations. I hear this criticism once a week. I hear evidence to back it up almost never.

I'm not now, nor have I ever been, a candidate for student government at Boston University:

Boston University students running for Student Union offices highlighted a need for improved campus communication and unity during the Candidate's Debate Thursday in the George Sherman Union Conference Room.

The Student Union Elections Commission moderated the debate.

Vice-presidential candidate and current Towers Residence Hall President Jonah Goldberg said Union members need to initiate communication between the student government and the student body.

"You will never see me around campus wearing a suit," the College of Communication sophomore said as he stripped out of his formal down to a pair of jeans and a T-shirt.

"You will never see me hide in an office," he said.

Okay one more:

Jonah,

Just to let you know I'm a scientist/engineer
(environmental, no less), and I've got your back.
There are plenty of conservative engineers and
scientists, though they are definitely less prevalent
than they should be.

The main reasons engineers and scientists are often
lefties include:

- Engineers/scientists are rarely part of the popular
crowd growing up, shocking, I know. They see
conservatism as the home of the "normalcy", and thus
constitutionally oppose it.

- I've met several scientists who think anyone who
votes Republican is a snake-handling Jesus-freak.
This is garden variety ignorance, sadly not uncommon.

In academia, other factors also contribute:

- All the other faculty/grad students are raging
lefties. Large collections of stupidity exert a
powerful gravity of foolishness.

- Academics tend to live in the theoretical, rather
than the practical world. In science, in particular,
the theoretical is actually a vital component of
knowledge. In politics, the theoretical is the first
pebble in the rockslide.

- Academics get much of their funding from the
government. The left tends to like spending
government money. Scientists and engineers like to
eat just as much as everyone else, even if they rarely
eat well. :)

And finally, ask Brad where an economist gets off
lecturing you about what engineers and scientists
think. By his standards, he should just shut it until
he has a real degree (note to Brad: talking down to
people is bad enough, but you should at least try not
to condescend to people higher up on the food chain).
Honestly, it doesn't bother me that you or Brad want
to hypothesize about why scientists and engineers
aren't more conservative, but he should at least try
not to use the "I'm so much more versed in this
subject than you" card. It's intellectually lazy and
has not been empirically supported on his part
(science, evidence, and all that).

GOP consultant Arthur Finkelstein married his male partner, according to the New York Times. Someone else can dissect what all that means. But what I loved is this sentence:

Mr. Finkelstein, 59, who has made a practice of defeating Democrats by trying to demonize them as liberal, said in a brief interview that he had married his partner of 40 years to ensure that the couple had the same benefits available to married heterosexual couples.

I've heard this formulation about Finkelstein's (and Atwater's and others') tactics many times. It always fascinates me. Demonize them as liberal. This is a great example of how liberalism is in trouble. Why should it be bad -- never mind "demonizing"! -- to be called a liberal if being liberal is good? The first task for a political movement is to be proud of its own label. Second, is to make others think they might be proud to wear it too.

Relatedly, it really is remarkable how leading liberal politicians switch into a song-and-dance about how they don't believe in labels whenever they're asked the very simple question "Are you a liberal?" The Kerry-esque response is invariably "Oh, I don't believe in buzzwords and labels" or something like that.

From a scientist at a large university out west:

Jonah,

I just got around to reading your article about
Krugman's column. I think you hit the main reason for
a lack of conservatives in the sciences dead on.
Salary matters and leads to strong self-selection.
I'm a chemistry professor on the tenure-track and I
could be making triple what I do now if I'd simply
taken a job in the private sector. (Granted, there
would be cost-of-living considerations if I did this,
since the amount I spent on my 5-bedroom, 1/2 acre
house in my current location would only buy me a
1-bedroom straw hut if I moved to take some private
sector jobs.) Regardless, I want to teach, and I got
into this knowing I wouldn't be making "the big
bucks". Let's face it though, I'm not typical. Given
the choice between a) low salary but "freedom" to
research whatever you want and b) high salary but
research guidelines heavily dictated by your employer,
I think it's reasonable to believe that most liberals
would choose "a" and most conservatives "b".

I suspect that if anyone ever did a survey of all PhDs
in the sciences, you'd find the ones working in the
private sector are considerably more conservative than
the academics are. (I mean really, what liberals are
going to take jobs with the evil oil, energy, consumer
products, or pharmaceutical companies?) We have
plenty of anecdotal evidence now that university
faculties lean overwhelmingly liberal/Democrat (maybe
8:1 nationally, though we're outnumbered 10:1 in my
department, which is in one of the reddest states.)
Yet exit polls, even from 2004, show only ~55/45 split
for the Dems among people with graduate degrees. So
that pretty much means that there has to be a subset
of masters and doctoral people that lean conservative
to balance out all the academics. Are these solely
the MBAs? Maybe--I admit, I haven't crunched the
numbers, but I doubt it. The private sector
scientists I know ARE making the big bucks and don't
like losing 1/2 of it to the government after they've
worked all their lives to get to that spot. On the
other hand, academic scientists are required to beg
the government to provide us with as much money as
possible to do our research. It's part of our job
description and a requirement for tenure for goodness
sake! So of course most of my profession leans
liberal, we all want as much R&D spending as possible,
because the bigger the pie is the greater the
possibility we get more.

One other thing to keep in mind. Krugman points out
that the scientists and engineers in academia lean
left too, presumably to show that the logical,
methodological people are also liberal. But as I try
to point out to my students, scientists aren't special
from other disciplines. We're just as prone to
biases, agendas, and pre-conceived notions while
interpreting data as everyone else. Now, we've been
trained to use methods that are meant to overcome
those problems, if we do our experiments right. But
it doesn't always happen that way. One of my
co-workers likes to say that you go into science
expecting everyone to behave like Mr. Spock--logical
by the book. Only after you get in do you realize
that most everyone is like Dr. McCoy--good scientist,
yes, but usually with a lot of emotion-based
assumptions about how things are supposed to happen.

Well, this email was a lot longer and drifting off
topic than I intended (hey, I am an academic.) But I
wanted to say good job on the article.

[Name and University Withheld]

P.S. while I doubt you will print any of this
longwinded rant, if you do, please don't use my name.
I haven't experienced any political discrimination
during my time here, but I don't have tenure yet, so
no need in asking for it!

This guy does make a point you hear a lot from folks who won't toe the line on global warming etc:

Jonah:

I don't understand the stats on liberal engineers. I am on the faculty of an engineering dept. in a mid-sized Southern university. We have, I think, one Democrat on the faculty, and no real lefties.

Engineering is NOT a 'hard science'. It is in a separate college, and has little or nothing to do with the Arts and Sciences. Generally speaking, the liberals are in places like Physics and Biology. Chemists trend a bit more Republican.

You are wrong on why a professor would become a liberal/left wing nutjob. The answer is money, in particular grants. Liberals dispense them (i.e. our tax dollars) with a lavish hand. All that is needed is a product that backs the liberals up - no real (i.e. successful) output is required. Perfect for academics. Grants are the root of all promotion and tenure, all advances to more prestigious university positions, and all advances to rank of endowed chair, etc. In other words, it's the key to career advancement. It really has little to do with creativity or talent. Particularly in the hard sciences, where industry funding is scarce, getting on some government gravy train can be a career saver. Engineers have a wider variety of funding sources, including industry, and consequently have much less pressure to tow the party line. Ditto with Chemists, who in many cases have extensive industry contacts.

An NRO reader

From a reader:

As a practicing young engineer (30) who knows LOTS of other engineers from all around the country (my company's full of them), I can tell you the following:

1. I got my BS in Engineering at a private religious school in Eastern Washington (red country) where the great majority of the engineering faculty and the engineering students were NOT liberal by today's measures. Friends and acquaintances that attended public schools along the coasts tend to be substantially more liberal.
2. My company has roughly 200 engineers from all around the world, but mostly from the US. There are routine e-mail 'wars' between the left/right factions. especially leading up to the election. I can personally attest to the fact that being an engineer (scientifically/factually oriented) has NOTHING to do with one's political outlook, believe me. Most of my company's liberal engineers tend to be from the coasts, while most of the rest of us are either from fly-over country or, as in my case, attended school there.
3. In my previous job at Boeing (Seattle), the great bulk of the older engineers who made Boeing what it is, were predominantly highly patriotic, chain-smoking, bourbon-drinking, gun-toting, church-going, conservatives. Even the ones that would vote Democrat were more Zell Miller types than what passes for a Democrat these days. The trend toward more liberal engineers is definitely new and again (contrary to DeLong) has NOTHING to do with engineering being a seriously scientific and practical discipline.

Standing up for the conservative engineers,

From a reader:

Hi Jonah,

Full disclosure: I'm a Conservative, Republican, Catholic, Engineer. Many would find this evidence of fundamental internal contradictions. I pull it off seamlessly. This data point may be relevant: I'm over thirty-five (in fact I'm two days away from forty-one).

Not one of DeLong's reasons pass the smell test for me. In fact if anybody told me any one of those was his reason for being a Democrat I'd look around for the hidden camera. I have to concur with your other correspondent's anecdote about young engineers. I've been surprised how many bright young supposedly scientifically trained people are tree-spiking knuckleheads, immune to reason, theory, logic and evidence (or lack thereof) on more than a few issues of interest in contemporary political discourse (The look of wonder on their faces if one questions the fact of global warming is actually worth the price of admission.) I thought it was just because I was getting old and cantankerous.

Who knew?

From a reader:

Jonah, I am an engineer completing my masters degree right now.... I will not be getting a PHD. I just read the post and the thread and I am extremely angry. You are absolutely correct that it is harder for liberal professors to get private sector jobs. In fact it is harder for ANY PHD to get a private sector job. It works as follows:

If you get a PHD you are only going to be able to find work which is directly related to your PHD or Masters research (this is what they told me when I was an undergrad). You will not get a job designing engines if your research is in manufacturing. Also, an engineer with a masters can do pretty much everything that an engineer with a PHD can do. Knowing this, why in the hell would a company pay a PHD $100k/year when they could pay a Masters $70k/year for the exact same work? The only reason (outside of nepotism) is if they want to say "this was designed by so&so, PHD". If you complete a masters degree though, you still have many options. You do not have to go to work in your research field. You can work for almost any company in your discipline doing what ever that company does. I am not going to get a PHD because I don't want to be tied down to one small area of my discipline.

As for your data to back up your claim, I can offer this little gem:

I had a coop (internship) at a nuclear power plant for seven months. There were many employees there as you can imagine. Out of all of these employees there were around 200 engineers. Out of all of these there was only ONE PHD.

Those arrogant pr**ks over at DeLong's website are basically saying that I, and every other engineer out there are morons. I believe that the reason they are in academia is that they were too chicken shit to become real engineers and get liscensed. Because once you are liscensed, you are responsible for your work. Your job is on the line every time you sign off on some component, mechanisim, circuit. If what you worked on fails, than just like a doctor you can and will be sued, or at least your company will be. It is alot of pressure when you think about it. I suspect that those in academia just wanted a comfortable salary, easy summers, and enjoy teaching.

If you want anymore insight into undergrad engineers today I would be happy to tell you what I have observed. There are many reasons on why you shouldn't go to graduate school.

If you post anything from me, please don't put my name. I still have to defend my thesis.

Another:

Hi Jonah,

It is disappointing that you don't even bother to refute Delong's broad brush strokes. So I'll do it for you:

1) Republicans want to control people: Yeah right. It isn't the GOP that is coming up with college campus speech codes and trying to force private clubs (a la Augusta) to conform to their principles.

2) Republican politicians say they don't believe in evolution: What on earth is he talking about? Sure there are some "religious right" Republicans that fit this, but it certainly isn't the majority of the GOP (rank and file or leadership). Certainly most Republican pols will say they believe in God the Creator, but so do most Democrats. I can't recall ever hearing a mainstream Republican denying evolution. Note to Delong: Belief in God does not equal denial of evolution.

3) Man-made CO2 is different from natural CO2: Again, WTF is he talking about? Global warming deniers (of which I am one) believe that man-made greenhouse gases make up a tiny fraction of all greenhouse gases (naturally occurring water vapor is the biggest one by far). If global warming is occurring, 1) it ain't caused by man and 2) cutting CO2 emmissions back to 1990 (or for that matter 1890) levels would have a negligible effect on it. There are plenty of climatologists that will agree with those statements.

4) Republicans are tools of lobbyists and don't listen to evidence: Now he sounds like your good friend, Chait. C'mon...anyone who thinks the GOP is any more or less beholden to "special interests" than Democrats has his head buried deep within the the confins of his backside.

5) Republicans don't understand the importance of investment in education: I'm an engineer. I understand that spending more money on a failing system without fundamental reforms (like introducing competition) just makes it fail more spectacularly. When we are spending an average of $10K per student in the public school system and the average graduate can't do basic math or understand the scientific method at its simplest levels, it doesn't take a Bachelor's of Science in Computer Engineering from Penn State and a 3.7 GPA to realize that the public education system is failing. It doesn't take a 10 years of experience in software developement with companies like Raytheon and EDS to understand that our college campuses have become less centers of education and more centers of liberal indoctrination.

Delong's statements are completely ridiculous. Very few engineers that I know would agree with his 5 statements. Probably because all the ones I know left the campus and got real jobs. The ones he knows probably were too scared to enter the real world where one must produce something of value to earn one's bread...

I get the feeling from people like him that some people (both liberal and conservative) harbor misconceptions of their political opposites and base all their views on those absurd misconceptions.

I'm not going to post all of 'em. I have a lot of work to do this weekend and I doubt there'd be that much patience for that. Still i'll put up a few. The consensus, however, is that I shouldn't have ducked a fight with DeLong because most of the readers think DeLong's freelancing and full of it. Anyway, this guy responds toDeLong's five points:

Well I am getting a PhD in electrical engineering so I guess I count.

Possible discounting information: I call myself a conservative libertarian and participate in QandO's neolibertarian alliance. However, I voted for W in 04 and campaigned pretty hard among my friends for W and have never voted for a Democrat in my life (I voted for Browne twice). I did however seriously consider voting for Boucher in 04 before I learned he voted against the ban on partial birth abortions which just appalled me.

======================
1. From libertarians, because the Republicans are really hostile to individual freedom: they want to control people's lives and boss people around.
a) That's what government does. Reps do it; dems do it. The only way you can really avoid it is by limiting the size of government (which the Dems really don't want).
b) Also while I may still be in school, I do remember Tipper leading the charge against offensive lyrics.
c) I recognize that if I'm taxed at 50%, the government is effectively controlling half of my life. Which party wants to raise my taxes and thus gain a greater control of my life?
d) Along the lines of personal freedom (where it really matters), which party is telling me that I'm too incompetent to invest my own income (with an apparent disregard to the fact that I, like millions of Americans, have an IRA and a 401K)?

2. From biologists, because Republican politicians say they don't believe in evolution.

And Democrats don't believe in genetics (see Summers).

3. From chemists and physicists, because Republican politicians pretend to believe that CO2 molecules created by human action have a different radiation-absorption spectrum than other CO2 molecules.

I have no idea where Delong is getting this, but I will point out that Dems aren't able to make intelligent tradeoffs with respect to the environment. Cripple the economy for the possibility of saving a degree? Cripple the nuclear power industry for kicks? Cripple the domestic oil industry to keep from annoying a caribou? Oh and after doing all of this, bitch about the state of the energy economy while wondering where the problems came from.

4. From all corners, because Republican politicians are the tools of lobbyists and do not respect the evidence about anything.

All politicians are the tools of lobbyists. As to the respect for evidence, I'll let your opinion duel posts speak for themselves.

5. From all corners, because Republican politicians don't understand how important investment in education is for the future of America--they have no idea where our current wealth and health really comes from.

What the f*ck is Delong smoking? Our public schools are a mess. Throwing good money after bad is a recipe for disaster and that's the Democrat proposal on education. The best thing that's happened in the school system in years is the accountability that NCLB brought in - and that's a distinctly Republican idea. And even by the metric of money for education (which I think is what Delong is getting at with "investment"), Bush has thrown an insane amount of money at education. As for where current wealth comes from, most of the Dems in Congress are socialists in all but name and would destroy the source of our wealth (the free market) in a heart beat.

From one:

Jonah

I am an environmental engineer who has been teaching at the university level
for about 27 years. In that time, I have seen young engineers getting more
and more liberal. What is the reason? Certainly not the five that Delong
lists in his article. I doubt that ANY engineer older than about 35 would
give any of the 5 reasons he lists for being a Democrat. The reason is that
even engineers have to go through the liberal arts to get a degree. It is
hard even for a practical, level-headed person to resist the constant
propaganda that our students are subjected to. The English, history, and
political science professors at my University and elsewhere have cleverly
learned to deconstruct science and plant doubt in the minds of budding
engineers and scientists. I am appalled at the gullibility of these young
professionals. These people believe in global warming with a religious
intensity and will not trust science to prove or disprove it. It is not a
good sign for the future of our country.

Dear Peter,

It is gratifying that you have dozens of us capable Norskies reading National Review. The musician’s first name brings up an issue hardly obscure to us, but likely trivial to the extreme for you. Beyond the regional accents and spellings, Norway actually has two major forms of its language. The [first pronunciation]…you posted in the corner is from the form that was heavily influenced by the Danish rule of Norway for centuries after the Black Death crippled the Norwegian nobility. The version that rhymes with safe is from the version that attempts to restore the original language of the country before the centuries of Danish (and Swedish) domination. Old Norse, the language of the Vikings, would pronounce Leif as rhyming with safe.

The language form influenced by the Danes is actually farther away from what ancient Danes (also speakers of Old Norse) used as well, since the more modern Danish has been heavily influenced by German. There is a language schism in Norway, with the elderly still hanging on to the Danish-influenced variant the strongest. In this country, the version of Norwegian used largely is a function of what part of Norway one’s ancestors came from and what era they emigrated from Norway. Again, either pronunciation is acceptable, but hard core traditionalists have a definite preference. In Norway today, students are taught differing versions of the language, depending on where they live.

It is ironic that while I am ancient Norwegian in most of my lineage, I am intensely proud of my lines coming in from Denmark and still insistent on not using the form of the language so heavily influenced by those notable antecedents. I must close by thanking you for being thoughtful enough to be concerned over the proper pronunciation of a Norwegian’s name.

The Journal lashes out at some of its conservative critics. I have no major objection to that. But, again, as I asked before I don't understand why they think the Justice Department should be commended for treating Berger more leniently than it would a defense contractor or an American serving in uniform. I see Glenn Reynolds agrees.

The posting on the pronunciation of 'leif' and 'ove' is wrong. I'm a Norwegian-American and my best friend growing up had Ove as his middle name. Anyway, here's how the whole name should be pronounced:

Layf-oov-e-and-snes

In Norwegian, the letter 'o' is pronounced like the English 'oo' sound. So in Norwegian for example, the capital of Norway is pronounced 'oos-loo'. And Leif is not 'Leaf'. It's like the word 'lay' with an 'f' at the end. The 'e' in Ove is like the 'e' sound in 'end'. And Andsnes is basically pronounced the way it's spelled. The 'A' is pronounced like the 'a' in 'wand'.

Hope this helps!

If the poetry didn't do the trick, maybe we have to up the ante.

Something like this perhaps?

Do not click on this link. It involves a leech and a nostril.

Much has been said this week about the direction the Catholic Church needs to go. The MSM (like the Andrew Sullivans, Amanpours, etc.) as well disgruntled, former and current nuns seem to think that the Church is hemorrhaging membership because of its inflexible moral rigidity on sexual matters. ... They warn that more members will defect unless their issues are given prominent consideration and the Church reverses its' position. ... I can't recall any broadcasts exploring the possibilities that a number of former Catholics have been collecting into the Evangelical, Pentecostal and Non-Denominational movements. Moreover, these movements are very similar if not more restrictive in moral doctrine, to the Catholic Church. ... Why does the MSM have such an aversion toward an honest discussion about departures of former Catholics? "Quid est veritas"?

Meanwhile, Brad Delong makes with the Jonah-smacking about my last G-File. He makes a fair enough point about the inconsistency in my column. He exploits my honesty about not having the data to back up one of my points to maximum effect. Rather than get into a to and fro about it, I'm just going to chalk 'em up to the perils of writing a column within hours of the original column coming out. Occupational hazard of the blogosphere and all that. Frankly I'm too tired of these ping pong debates (I just wrote three-frickin'-thousand words about Chait, for pete's sake). And while I realize that union requirements demand that DeLong be as snarky to me as physically possible, truth be told, I've always kinda respected the guy and the stuff he writes (what I've seen of it), even if I don't always agree with him.

That said, he says I should talk to a lot of engineers and scientists. For the record, I do talk to a lot of engineers and scientists -- if by talk you mean email. I also know a few personally. As I've mentioned before, we have a huge readership among engineers in particular and academics in general. Obviously, there's a selection bias in that our readers are going to tend to be more conservative, but if DeLong thinks there aren't any engineers or scientists in academia who don't agree with my general points he's flat out wrong. Of course, this isn't the full extent of my exposure to academia. But since all he wants me to do is talk with engineers and scientists, I thought I'd mention it.

My almost-certain last reply is up.

After waiting 3 months for some grad-student or professor to turn it back in, I FINALLY got Home-Alone America from the BYU Library. I've been looking for it since that Q&A you did with Mrs. Eberstadt. INCREDIBLE BOOK. People who already read NR and the Corner probably don't need an extra plug, but I just wanted to say thanks for calling my attention to the book-- I never would have heard of it otherwise. It calls attention to things that should be common-sense, but I've never really thought of in that way. I've always wanted to be a stay-at-home Mom-- my mother was-- and this book has just given me more reasons. This is the perfect antidote to that horrific Newsweek article. I can't remember the title, but it was disgusting. Thanks again!

Mr. Robinson, Leif Ove Andsnes's name should be pronounced "Life (long 'i,' not short), OH-veh AWNDS-ness.

(Host) Senator Jim Jeffords says he won't be surprised if the Bush administration launches a war with Iran next year.

Speaking Tuesday night on VPR's Switchboard program, Jeffords says he remains convinced that president Bush went to war in Iraq in order to control that country's oil supply and to bolster the president's chances of winning re-election to a second term:

(Jeffords) "I think it was all done to get - all that's the end result is going to be some oil agreement and the loss of life that we had. And the cost of it, to many was just a re-election move and they're going to try to live off it and probably start another war. Wouldn't be surprised next year, probably in Iran."

(Host) Jeffords says he fears that President Bush will use the same tactics to invade Iran in the coming year:

(Jeffords) "I just feel so bitter about the thinking that's gone on behind them and the reasons they go to war, went to war. But I feel very strongly that they're looking ahead and there will be an opportunity to go into Iran."

National Review
stands athwart Atlanta
yelling Come! Meet! Help!

The U.S. involvement in Iraq remains precarious. Good news can evaporate in a flash. But the toppled Saddam statue hasn't yet lost its positive potency. Iraqis who chafe at the continued American presence still are grateful for the end of Saddam's cruel dictatorship. A little luck, determination to stay the course — and a clear-eyed grasp of the realities — can restore the promise of that moment.

Voting-rights groups and computer scientists, concluding that a tangible record is essential to any electronic voting system, are persuading a growing number of U.S. lawmakers and election officials either to reject paperless voting machines or to require fitting them with costly add-on printers to help verify results.

Attending today's funeral Mass for the Holy Father were reigning monarchs of 10 countries, 57 heads of State, 3 hereditary princes, 17 heads of government, the heads of 3 international organizations and representatives from 10 others, 3 spouses of heads of State, 8 vice heads of State, 6 vice prime ministers, 4 presidents of parliaments, 12 foreign ministers, 13 ministers, and ambassadors from 24 countries.

Religious delegations, numbering 140 people, included representatives from the Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Churches, Churches and ecclesial communions of the West, international Christian organizations, the National Association of Evangelicals, representatives of Judaism, Islam and delegations from non-Christian religions.

Communion just ended - sadly, they ran out of hosts. But no one really seems to mind. They will make a spiritual communion instead.

It is hard to believe that a crowd nearly this large is gathered a just across the river, at the Circus Maximus. Tens of thousands who were at a vigil service at St. John Lateran Church processed across town last night and camped out there. There are reports that there might be hundreds of thousands of people over there, too! No reports on crowd numbers at the other parks opened up for the 4 million people who came to Rome for this.

People are now clapping in unison and cheering for their papa!

It is amazing - Ratzinger looked a little chocked up.

HOMILY DELIVERED AT THE FUNERAL OF POPE JOHN PAUL II BY THE DEAN OF THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS, CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER 8 APRIL 2005

“Follow me. ” The Risen Lord says these words to Peter. They are his last words to this disciple, chosen to shepherd his flock. “Follow me” – this lapidary saying of Christ can be taken as the key to understanding the message which comes to us from the life of our late beloved Pope John Paul II. Today we bury his remains in the earth as a seed of immortality – our hearts are full of sadness, yet at the same time of joyful hope and profound gratitude.

These are the sentiments that inspire us, Brothers and Sisters in Christ, present here in Saint Peter’s Square, in neighbouring streets and in various other locations within the city of Rome, where an immense crowd, silently praying, has gathered over the last few days. I greet all of you from my heart. In the name of the College of Cardinals, I also wish to express my respects to Heads of State, Heads of Government and the delegations from various countries. I greet the Authorities and official representatives of other Churches and Christian Communities, and likewise those of different religions. Next I greet the Archbishop s, Bishops, priests, religious men and women and the faithful who have come here from every Continent; especially the young, whom John Paul II liked to call the future and the hope of the Church. My greeting is extended, moreover, to all those throughout the world who are united with us through radio and television in this solemn celebration of our beloved Holy Father’s funeral.

Follow me – as a young student Karol Wojty_a was thrilled by literature, the theatre, and poetry. Working in a chemical plant, surrounded and threatened by the Nazi terror, he heard the voice of the Lord: Follow me! In this extraordinary setting he began to read books of philosophy and theology, and then entered the clandestine seminary established by Cardinal Sapieha. After the war he was able to complete his studies in the faculty of theology of the Jagiellonian University of Kraków. How often, in his letters to priests and in his autobiographical books has he spoken to us about his priesthood, to which he was ordained on 1 November 1946. In these texts he interprets his priesthood with particular reference to three sayings of the Lord. First: “You did not choose me, but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last” (Jn 15:16). The second saying is: “The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (Jn 10:11). And then: “As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love” (Jn 15:9). In these three sayings we see the heart and soul of our Holy Father. He really went everywhere, untiringly, in order to bear fruit, fruit that lasts. “Rise, Let us be on our Way!” is the title of his next-to-last book. “Rise, let us be on our way!” – with these words he roused us from a lethargic faith, from the sleep of the disciples of both yesterday and today. “Rise, let us be on our way!” he continues to say to us even today. The Holy Father was a priest to the last, for he offered his life to God for his flock and for the entire human family, in a daily self-oblation for the service of the Church, especially amid the sufferings of his final months. And in this way he became one with Christ, the Good Shepherd who loves his sheep. Finally, “abide in my love:” the Pope who tried to meet everyone, who had an ability to forgive and to open his heart to all, tells us once again today, with these words of the Lord, that by abiding in the love of Christ we learn, at the school of Christ, the art of true love.

Follow me! In July 1958 the young priest Karol Wojty_a began a new stage in his journey with the Lord and in the footsteps of the Lord. Karol had gone to the Masuri lakes for his usual vacation, along with a group of young people who loved canoeing. But he brought with him a letter inviting him to call on the Primate of Poland, Cardinal Wyszy_ski. He could guess the purpose of the meeting: he was to be appointed as the auxiliary Bishop of Kraków. Leaving the academic world, leaving this challenging engagement with young people, leaving the great intellectual endeavour of striving to understand and interpret the mystery of th at creature which is man and of communicating to today’s world the Christian interpretation of our being – all this must have seemed to him like losing his very self, losing what had become the very human identity of this young priest. Follow me – Karol Wojty_a accepted the appointment, for he heard in the Church’s call the voice of Christ. And then he realized how true are the Lord’s words: “Those who try to make their life secure will lose it, but those who lose their life will keep it” (Lk 17:33). Our Pope – and we all know this – never wanted to make his own life secure, to keep it for himself; he wanted to give of himself unreservedly, to the very last moment, for Christ and thus also for us. And thus he came to experience how everything which he had given over into the Lord’s hands came b ack to him in a new way. His love of words, of poetry, of literature, became an essential part of his pastoral mission and gave new vitality, new urgency, new attractiveness to the preaching of the Gospel, even when it is a sign of contradiction.

Follow me! In October 1978 Cardinal Wojty_a once again heard the voice of the Lord. Once more there took place that dialogue with Peter reported in the Gospel of this Mass: “Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep!” To the Lord’s question, “Karol, do you love me?,” the Archbishop of Krakow answered from the depths of his heart: “Lord you know everything; you know that I love you.” The love of Christ was the dominant force in the life of our beloved Holy Father. Anyone who ever saw h im pray, who ever heard him preach, knows that. Thanks to his being profoundly rooted in Christ, he was able to bear a burden which transcends merely human abilities: that of being the shepherd of Christ’s flock, his universal Church. This is not the time to speak of the specific content of this rich pontificate. I would like only to read two passages of today’s liturgy which reflect central elements of his message. In the first reading, Saint Peter says – and with Saint Peter, the Pope himself – “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. You know the message he sent to the people of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ - he is Lord of all” (Acts 10:34-36). And in the second reading, Saint Paul – and with Saint Paul, our late Pope – exhorts us, crying out: “My brothers and sisters, whom I love and long for, my joy and my crown, stand firm in the Lord in this way, my beloved” (Phil 4:1).

Follow me! Together with the command to feed his flock, Christ proclaimed to Peter that he would die a martyr’s death. With those words, which conclude and sum up the dialogue on love and on the mandate of the universal shepherd, the Lord recalls another dialogue, which took place during the Last Supper. There Jesus had said: “Where I am going, you cannot come.” Peter said to him, “Lord, where are you going?” Jesus replied: “Where I am going, you cannot follow me now; but you will follow me afterward.” (Jn 13:33,36). Jesus from the Supper went towards the Cross, went toward s his resurrection – he entered into the paschal mystery; and Peter could not yet follow him. Now – after the resurrection – comes the time, comes this “afterward.” By shepherding the flock of Christ, Peter enters into the paschal mystery, he goes towards the cross and the resurrection. The Lord says this in these words: “... when you were younger, you used to fasten your own belt and to go wherever you wished. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go” (Jn 21:18). In the first years of his pontificate, still young and full of energy, the Holy Father went to the very ends of the earth, guided by Christ. But afterwards, he increasingly entered into the communion of Christ’s sufferings; increasingly he understood the truth of the words: “Someone else will fasten a belt around you.” And in this very communion with the suffering Lord, tirelessly and with renewed intensity, he proclaimed the Gospel, the mystery of that love which goes to the end (cf. Jn 13:1).

He interpreted for us the paschal mystery as a mystery of divine mercy. In his last book, he wrote: The limit imposed upon evil “is ultimately Divine Mercy” (Memory and Identity, pp. 60-61). And reflecting on the assassination attempt, he said: “In sacrificing himself for us all, Christ gave a new meaning to suffering, opening up a new dimension, a new order: the order of love ... It is this suffering which burns and consumes evil with the flame of love and draws forth even from sin a great flowering of good” (pp. 189-190). Impelled by this vision, the Pope suffered and loved in communion with Christ, and that is why the message of his suffering and his silence proved so eloquent and so fruitful.

Divine Mercy: the Holy Father found the purest reflection of God’s mercy in the Mother of God. He, who at an early age had lost his own mother, loved his divine mother all the more. He heard the words of the crucified Lord as addressed personally to him: “Behold your Mother.” And so he did as the beloved disciple did: he took her into his own home” (ε_ς τ_ _δια: Jn 19:27) – Totus tuus. And from t he mother he learned to conform himself to Christ.

None of us can ever forget how in that last Easter Sunday of his life, the Holy Father, marked by suffering, came once more to the window of the Apostolic Palace and one last time gave his blessing urbi et orbi. We can be sure that our beloved Pope is standing today at the window of the Father’s house, that he sees us and blesses us. Yes, bless us, Holy Father. We entrust your dear soul to the Mother of God, your Mother, who guided you each day and who will guide you now to the eternal glory of her Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

I am closer at the other tail-end of that crowd you see. It continues until it reaches Castel San Angelo, the fort which used to guard the Vatican.

Some people are in still in the tent city that was set up overnight. Sadly, I saw two people still alseep in their sleeping bags. They came all this way, and collapsed.

But back to the Mass...People do not realize how well respected Ratzinger is within the College of Cardinals. Even those who do not agree with him find him to be a soft-spoken, spiritual priest. Everyone knows that he would rather be teaching theology and writing books than be heading up a Vatican Congregation. But he stayed for the sake of the man being buried today. Their relationship was a special one. I am so glad that he was appointed Dean of the College a couple of year ago, if only for this moment.

I am at the end of Via della Conciliazione. They have set up speakers and television screens along the road. When the Pope came out, the applause were deafening (people applaud at funerals in Europe).

The police are doing a very good job of keeping order. I had a co-worker who was able to leave my office and go to the front of St. Peter's Square in 10 minutes...which means they have not lost control of the crowds.

It seemed a bit iffy when they first opened the gates around 6:30. People ran to the square from every direction - we thought they were going to suffocate each other at the intersections. This was nothing the authorities could have done, except use clubs...and I don't think that was going to happen.

They have done a good job with making sure everyone has water. There are crates of it all around.

It is very windy, which makes it seem colder than it really is. People are huddling, but happy.

Is it possible to dismiss Christ and everything which he brought into the annals of the human being? Of course it is possible. The human being is free. The human being can say to God, "No." The human being can say to Christ, "No." But the critical question is: Should he? And in the name of what "should" he? With what argument, what reasoning, what value held by the will or the heart does one bring oneself, one's loved ones, one's countrymen and nation to reject, to say "no" to Him with whom we have all lived for one thousand years? He who formed the basis of our identity and has Himself remained its basis ever since. . . .

As a bishop does in the sacrament of Confirmation so do I today extend my hands in that apostolic gesture over all who are gathered here today, my compatriots. And so I speak for Christ himself: "Receive the Holy Spirit!"

I speak too for St. Paul: "Do not quench the Spirit!"

I speak again for St. Paul: "Do not grieve the Spirit of God!"

You must be strong, my brothers and sisters! You must be strong with the strength that faith gives! You must be strong with the strength of faith! You must be faithful! You need this strength today more than any other period of our history. . . .
BR> You must be strong with love, which is stronger than death. . . . When we are strong with the Spirit of God, we are also strong with the faith of man. . . . There is therefore no need to fear. . . . So . . . I beg you: Never lose your trust, do not be defeated, do not be discouraged. . . . Always seek spiritual power from Him from whom countless generations of our fathers and mothers have found it. Never detach yourselves from Him. Never lose your spiritual freedom.

It's 5:30 am.

The police have blocked off Via della Conciliazione (the long avenue in front of St. Peter's Basilica).

Thousands of police officers are manning barricades. Behind the barricades are tens of thousands (at least) of singing, chanting, flag waving people. Mostly Poles and Spaniards, by the flags.

I had struggle to get into my office, which is at the end of Via della Conciliazione. There are scores of people asleep in front of the doorway.

Across the Tiber, you can see large groups of people making their way to the Vatican.

The City of Rome is trying to get people to go to alternative venues, where the ceremony will be broadcast. No one seems to be taking them up on the offer yet.

What is unusual, considering the mood earlier in the week, is the joy in the crowd.

Most of these people are under 30. When the Pope died, it seemed like they didn't know what to do. Like today, there was singing and chanting, but also many tears.

By Wednesday, it was as if a decision was made that the mourning period was over. Right now, it is exactly like a World Youth Day, down to the commemorative t-shirts and hats. I haven't seen anyone cry since Tuesday.

In line one of us talked to an 'embedded' NBC reporter who said, as if it were a reportorial observation rather than a fixed dogma of his mind, how extraordinary it was that so many people should turn out to see a man they didn't agree with on key issues. The one from our group said that everyone in our group of 9 professionals from NYC agreed with every teaching on personal morality ever taught by JP2, in many cases because of the arguments he made and because of him. 'would you like to speak with any of them?'. Not at all. And the reporter headed off to re-embed himself where there was better shelter from the facts.

Last night, I managed to speak with Bertie Ahern, the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of Ireland. He had just come from viewing the body of the Holy Father, and was giving an impromptu press conference outside the colonnade of the square.

He mentioned how he had seen the crowds on televison, but it didn't do full justice to the scene. Probably because while giving his comments, thousands of pilgrims were sacked out in sleeping bags all around him!

Think about it, more people than live in Ireland have come to Rome for this.

In the measure that the end of my earthly life approaches I return to the memory of the beginning, of my Parents, my Brother and my Sister (whom I did not know because she died before my birth), to the parish of Wadowice, where I was baptized, to that city of my love, of my contemporaries, girl and boy companions of elementary school, the junior high school, the university, until the times of the Occupation, when I worked as a laborer, and later on in the parish of Niegowic, Krakow's of St. Florian, to the pastoral care of academics, the environment ... to all environments ... to Krakow and to Rome ... to persons who in a special way were entrusted to me by the Lord.

An email: "I think you're perhaps forgetting an important aspect of the argument from error, regarding the death penalty. The state deliberatly ends the life of those convicted of murder. In the case of speed limits and other governmental decisions that may result in greater deaths (as in the example of your article you referenced), those outcomes are in part dicatated by the actions of the individuals themselves, in addition to the general decision of the state. In the case of a wrongly convicted person who is executed, they ar