I’m Not the One Feeling Embarrassed Right Now

Monday, August 22, AD 2011

John Yoo has written a post on the Corner titled “Qaddafi’s Fall Should Embarrass GOP Isolationists” that is equivalent in style to a drunken Eagles fan at Giants New Meadowlands Stadium doing a celebratory victory dance after an Eli Manning pick six has given the Eagles a 7-6 lead two minutes into the second quarter.  Sure you have something to celebrate, but you might want to take a look at the clock and also mind your surroundings.

The stunning collapse of the Libyan regime today should be counted as a half-victory for President Obama, a rebuke to the GOP’s new isolationist wing in the House, and a testament to the responsible leadership of such Senate Republicans as Jon Kyl and Mitch McConnell.

One should understand that by isolationist Yoo means anyone who has ever opposed US military intervention at anytime, anywhere.  Presumably included in this list are people who supported military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, a list that includes most House and Senate Republicans, the editorial staffs of most conservative publications, and a majority of conservative voters.  Alas we balked at a poorly thought out intervention in Libya, one which involved no clear ally or American interest, and which also involved a Chief Executive blithely ignoring that pesky little thing called Congress.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to I’m Not the One Feeling Embarrassed Right Now

  • ???

    He didn’t get permission for it, he swore he’d get out of there far quicker, he announced we were out of it a long time ago…how does this reflect well on him?

  • I am delighted that the Butcher of Lockerbie may be dead and is certainly out of power. I supported Obama in this, if little else. Having said that, only a fool commits American military force in a non-emergency situation without Congressional authorization. Now let us pray that we do not get involved in protracted nation building in Libya and a probable nasty guerilla war. Our goal is now met as far as I am concerned. If other nations like France and Italy wish to take on that task, have at it. Libya is too far removed from American interests to justify more than what we have done. Most Libyan oil goes to Europe and Libya is in their backyard. Time for Europe to show us how this can be done properly. I will enjoy the show! If the successor regime proves troublesome to us, our bombers and missiles can find their way back, I am sure.

  • Agreed.

    Glad he’s gone, hope something worse doesn’t come in, how about the EU get off their duffs and actually do something– we’ll even sell them the gear, I bet, since they apparently have major issues doing basic operations.

  • Being a neocon means never having to say sorry. Should the Libyan adventure lead to another failed sharia state as it likely will, Yoo can always protest that it was carried out with the best intentions.

  • Can I rethink my opposition to trying Yoo as a war criminal?

  • And I’m sure all of you were saying the same thing when US tanks were rolling into Baghdad, right?

  • Third paragraph of this post, if you skip the block quotes.

  • RR, when U.S. tanks were rolling into Baghdad the sitting president who gave the order had no problem naming the U.S. national security interest at stake. In contrast, can you list the specific “national-security interests” to which Mr. Yoo is referring regarding Libya? Think twice before you answer, RR, because Obama himself, supposedly a constitutional scholar and lawyer, is reluctant to admit that he’s making war on the nation of Libya. You will recall the Obama Administrations’s employment of Orwellian circumlocutions such as “kinectic action” in order to deny that Obama is employing what Mr. Yoo calls “war powers”.

    Mr. Yoo’s attempt to scold his betters is amusing – he wants to blast Obama’s political opponents for criticizing that which Obama strives mightily to avoid admitting.

Our Catholic Veep in Action

Monday, August 22, AD 2011

Oh Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe.  God love ya.

But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China.  You have no safety net.  Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family.  The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people.  Not sustainable.

That’s right.  The Vice President of the United States of America, a good old Catholic, was speaking in China and couldn’t bring himself to criticize China’s one child policy.  No, he went so far as to say that he understands the policy.   This comes a mere few moments after he had expended some hot air about human rights.

 I recognize that many of you in this auditorium see our advocacy of human rights as at best an intrusion, and at worst an assault on your sovereignty.  I want to tell you directly that this is not our intention.  Yes, for Americans there is a significant moral component to our advocacy.  And we observed where we have failed, as well.  But it is who our people are.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Our Catholic Veep in Action

  • Pingback: MONDAY EVENING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Now thats a profile in courage !!

    I’m sure he will receive a funeral for a saint like Ted Kennedy had…

  • Notice that religious freedom isn’t even mentioned.

    Our bishops were arrested and hauled off to God knows where, pretenders were put in their place, priests, Brothwre, and Sisters were deported from the country if foreign and sent back to their home states if Chinese, Catholic layity have had their houses burned, been assaulted and murdered, and it is still a crime to bring an un-censured bible into thw country. And our “Catholic” VP says exactly nothing about it.

    Remind me again why we call him Catholic when he is running for office.

  • I’m trying to understand why a statement like that wouldn’t trigger a process of formal excommunication.

  • Biden’s comments are nothing in comparison to Pelosi’s. So the better question is why the Church is so hesitant to state what seems to a layman to be true: that these folks have excommunicaed themselves.

  • I’m as puzzled as Pinky (above).

    All I can figure is that U.S. bishops have a well-founded fear that Catholics will be targets of widespread violence, maybe even packed off to extermination camps, if they criticize the Democrat party or its quislings.

4 Responses to Well, He Could Always Blog!

  • I wonder how often judges actually wish they could beat lawyers/plaintiffs/defendants to death with their gavels?

  • Perhaps after attending a re-education camp and taking a class in sensitivity training, he could be permitted a sentence a day, carefully monitored of course.

  • Mr. Collins, probably more often than we would like to believe.

    But then, I am sure the sentiment is reciprocated.

  • “I rather doubt that he meant that, as Voltaire was a physical coward as well as being a congenital liar”

    You shouldn’t hold back Don of what you really think.

    IMHO, he’s also a detestable human being because of the thousands of priests and nuns he killed through his writings of “enlightened” thought.

    A Freemason as well as an anti-Catholic & anti-Semite, he refused to recant Satan on his deathbed.

    What a life.

Cross & Eagle Award for Most Prolific Blogger

Monday, August 22, AD 2011

The Cross & Eagle Awards (C&EA) will be honoring a true legend in Catholic Blogosphere history.

To qualify even for consideration you need not only be talented in writing and knowledgeable about our Catholic faith, you need to write often.  That is the kicker.

Many a Catholic blogger has stopped blogging due to an increase in the family unit, new job, blogging fatigue, carpal tunnel affliction, and even death.  And that’s just a short list.

This particular blogger didn’t allow a growing family nor inclement weather stop him.  Not even a beard that has gotten out of control has slowed down this convert.

Being a warrior for Christ, he is horizontally integrated in various forms of media battling heresy and anti-Catholicism in it’s many forms as well as educating the faithful and non-Catholic in our rich and long Catholic Tradition.

Even when his template was no longer supported or his antiquated version of blogger, he stayed the course, WordPress be damned!

Don’t know who this character of the Wild, Wild Web is?

Here is only a sample of the many publications he writes for online:

Crisis Magazine, National Catholic Register, Catholic Exchange, Inside Catholic, and a whole lot more.

I am happy to present the 2011 Cross & Eagle Award for the Most Prolific Blogger in the Catholic Blogosphere to. . .

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Cross & Eagle Award for Most Prolific Blogger

VirtuousPla.net, The Social Network for Young Adult Catholics

Monday, August 22, AD 2011

I’d like to announce a new Catholic website targeted for Young Adults:

VirtuousPla.net will be providing Catholic perspectives on every topic that matters to young adults–life, religion, relationships, and fun.

We have gathered 30 of some of the brightest young adult Catholics in the world that are already providing insightful articles ranging from current events to poetry.

Please click on the pic above or click here to see what it’s all about!


Continue reading...

One Response to VirtuousPla.net, The Social Network for Young Adult Catholics

Cross & Eagle Award for Most Catholic Non-Catholic Blog

Sunday, August 21, AD 2011

The continuing Cross & Eagle Awards (C&EA) is breaking new ground by honoring a non-Catholic blog today.

No, no, no, I will no longer entertain any submissions for the National Catholic ReporterThe Tablet, U.S. Catholic,  or America Magazine for this award.  This is a serious category and I will not tolerate such ornery suggestions.

Where were we, ah yes. . . there are a few notable exceptions to our separated brothers and sisters in Christ in the Protestant Blogosphere.

VirtueOnline, Mere Comments, and yes Get Religion come to mind.

But the winner of this rapidly-becoming prestigious award does more than be almost Catholic, he actually defends Catholic Church teaching when under assault from the world.  That cannot be said for some aforementioned “Catholic” blogs.

As much as this particular blogger reads like a solid orthodox Catholic blog, he is resistant to put his swim-trunks on to jump the Tiber.  Yet he is able to show to the world, more so than his state’s motto, that timeless Truths always lead back to the Church that Jesus established with Saint Peter as its Rock.

His wit is quick and his humor dry and to the point, he certainly reflects his proud patrimony he inherited from Canterbury.

I am happy to present the 2011 Cross & Eagle Award for the Most Catholic Non-Catholic Blog in the Catholic Blogosphere to. . .

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Cross & Eagle Award for Most Catholic Non-Catholic Blog

Obama Ready for Killer Rabbit Moment

Sunday, August 21, AD 2011

Columnist John Kass, the only good reason to ever read the Chicago Tribune, speculates that Obama is ready for his “Killer Rabbit” moment.

Anyone who thinks Obama is safe from a rabbit attack has forgotten what happened to President Jimmy Carter In 1979. Carter was attacked by a swimming rabbit, and the subsequent “Killer Rabbit” stories helped destroy his presidency. It led to the election of Republican Ronald Reagan in a landslide and an unprecedented economic revival.

There are eerie similarities. Like Obama, Carter was at that point where he was constantly viewed as weak and ineffectual. His fellow Democrats had lost patience with him. Liberal writers who once fawned on him had turned against him.

And like Obama, Carter foolishly left the White House for a “vacation.” Carter went home to Georgia for some fishing. Once his canoe hit the water of a pond, a terrible thing happened. A rabbit swam near with anger in its eyes.

Continue reading...

18 Responses to Obama Ready for Killer Rabbit Moment

  • I’m guessing the opinion polls will never show voters disliking Obama personally. If there is one place that a “Bradley Effect” is going to show itself, it’s in opinion polls asking whether voters have a personal like of the first African-American president. While voters might feel free to express their dissatisfaction with the way Obama is doing his job, I’m guessing they will be loathe to ever express dissatisfaction with him as a person.

  • When I was on the submarine, every one of us – all one hundred and twenty men – cheared when it was announced that Reagan won. Not the least of what made Carter loathsome was the way he handled the Iranian hostage crisis. Yellow-bellied, cowardly, incompetent idiot. I am sure that most of today’s nuclear submariners feel the same way about Obama. I realize that that won’t make any difference. But that’s how we all felt.

    BTW, Donald, you write, “Go here to read the rest.” Yet there is no link. Is my computer messing up?

  • I wonder if there isn’t a symbiotic relationship between how we feel about them and how they feel about us.

    GW was hated or loved by the same people from beginning to end – give or take a million or two.

    I wonder if Carter’s malaise speech wasn’t as much about the loss of faith in America. Perhaps Obama doesn’t like us any more. Maybe the constant vacations reflect his distaste for the job and the people he was supposed to serve.

  • “When I was on the submarine, every one of us – all one hundred and twenty men – cheared when it was announced that Reagan won.”

    My brother was commanding a tank platoon in Germany at the time. He said the exact same thing happened in his unit when the results were announced.

  • Thanks, Jay. The appearance of the word “here” wasn’t in the light blue that usually designates a hyperlink at TAC – at least on my PC.

  • I have added the color blue to the word to correct that Paul.

  • The “First African-American” mayor of NYC also was a superlative dud. He didn’t bust NYC and didn’t need to fight off a cotton-tailed, ninja rabbit.

    The West Side Commies haven’t been able to elect a lefty since David Dinkins.

    I apologize if that was “racist.”

  • Well, T. Shaw, people might just ask what the President has to do with the former Mayor of New York given that the latter has been out of office for 17 years and given that what the two have in common (party registration, skin color, a law license, and a passably durable marriage) a great many politicians have in common. Different ethnicity, different generation, different sensibility, different social origin, different kind of education, different work history, different career progression.

  • Not that it makes any difference, but the so-called “killer rabbit” was actually a swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus), a more aggressive creature and better swimmer than the typical Eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus).

    Years later, Carter press secretary Jody Powell described the critter thus:

    “(This was) not one of your cutesy, Easter Bunny-type rabbits, but one of those big splay-footed things that we called swamp rabbits when I was growing up…

    “The animal was clearly in distress, or perhaps berserk. The President confessed to having had limited experience with enraged rabbits. He was unable to reach a definite conclusion about its state of mind. What was obvious, however, was that this large, wet animal, making strange hissing noises and gnashing its teeth, was intent upon climbing into the Presidential boat.”

  • Perhaps Obama might be advised to watch “Night of the Lepus” before going on any boating or fishing excursions (although as far as I know, Martha’s Vineyard isn’t infested by swamp rabbits)


  • Art,

    That right! Unlike Dinkins, Obama’s “monumental failure” (see yesterday’s WSJ Letters, Bernard Lang, New Providence, NJ) is unsurprising “given the ridiculous system in which he has to contend.” Obviously, here we have one each clueless ivy League moron. What ridiculous system? Congressionally enacted laws? The US Constitution? The Declaration of Independence? Private Property? The evil, unjust private sector?

    NYC survived Dinkins. The US might not survive Obama.

    Add to your “two have in common”: multiple failures, incompetence, inexperience, liberal ideology, misery for the people, political hackhood, . . .

    You are even more correcter: I should not have insulted Dinkins. He did nothing outside NYC’s Charter. Dinkins is not a gangster.

  • David Dinkins, per published reports attended Howard University and Brooklyn Law School. One is a historically black school and the other a component of one of New York’s two public systems of higher education. He never had anything to do with the Ivy League. He is not a moron. His academic degrees were earned in serious subjects (mathematics and law) during the first decade after the war, when there were no mulligans for black students. He had to pass the same bloody licensing examination as did any other aspirant lawyer in New York.

    Dinkins was born in 1927, which is to say into the cohorts where exhibitionism is least valued and least manifested. He grew up in a milieu that was without qualification northern urban black. His father and his father-in-law were old-style bourgeois, one owning a real estate agency and the other a liquor store. Dinkins was a working lawyer. He was a clubhouse politician and rose within those ranks. In none of these respects does he resemble B.O., quite apart from the obvious differences in personality.

    New York City had the problems northeastern cities commonly do, what John Lindsay called the ‘layers and layers of deals’ with rent seeking constituencies necessary to keep the city running. The formal political architecture is not as dysfunctional as that of the federal government, but it had its curios. Obama has to contend with federal institutions that are quite poorly structured, in addition to whatever errors of judgment he makes.

  • Art,

    Thanks for the History lesson.

    Maybe they could find one of them non-human people to run for Prez; and reduce the size and reach of the federal government.

  • Honestly, if there’s an animal acting out of character, it’s a good idea to try to make sure it doesn’t get close enough to bite– unless you really like a bunch of shots through your gut to cure rabies.
    Kind of like how even though people die from being attacked by deer…it’s funny.

    I’d imagine it’s nowhere near as fun to actually be responsible for stuff as it is to give orders when you won’t really be held accountable for it.

    T. Shaw-
    general theory about non-human people is that they’d be fallen, too, so we’d still be vulnerable to the charm of power. ;^p
    Samwise for President!

  • The President confessed to having had limited experience with enraged rabbits. He was unable to reach a definite conclusion about its state of mind.

    Of course, if a crazed rabbit charged Rick Perry while he was out jogging, we all know what would happen…

    (Or if an antlered rabbit attacked Sarah Palin.)

    Still, perhaps all potential chief executives should sit down and watch:

  • By the time the rabbit swam by everybody was sick of poor Jimmy. My dad was a dyed in the wool Dem and even he was relieved when Jimmy lost.

What Voris Ought to Learn

Sunday, August 21, AD 2011

The Catholic News Agency reported a few days that Michael Voris and his RealCatholicTV operation were facing some issues. First, it appears that the organization has failed to maintain its nonprofit status despite possibly promising such status to potential donors. Second, it appears that his right hand man Simon Rafe has written some questionable sexual-themed fiction, which Rafe has since taken down and apologized for.

Several bloggers, most notably Mark Shea and the Anchoress, have stated that this is a non-issue. To some extent they’re right. I don’t blame Voris for being confused by the myriad regulations surrounding the maintenance of non-profit status and having a friend who sins simply you have a friend.

Continue reading...

34 Responses to What Voris Ought to Learn

  • Easy mr Lib careful what you call po dunk. Are you mirror gazing?

  • Unfortunately, I don’t think he’ll change. After all, his virulent polemics are the main selling point for his show.

  • Voris is a small man with no instincts toward the high road. He does not deserve the attention or defenses he has rec’d.

  • Spoken like true Libs. Chris change is inevitable but suffering is optional. Milla I think you should be more concerned of the road you are on.

  • Mr Denton, Voris’s criticism of our Bishops is just. These men allowed known sodomites and child molesters to run riot for years. Michael didn’t know what Rafe was doing, but when it was brought to light, appropiate action was taken right away by RCTV and St Michael’s Media. Our Bishops never did anything like this. They covered up, paid off, and continued on the road to damnation for years until the secular media laid bare their sins and hypocrisies. Yep, St Michael’s had their problems, bt they took care of them. Too many of our Bishops and their profesional Catholic toadies still refuse to do anything about the queers, heretics, social justice nuts, feminists and other wackos embedded in the Church structure. ntil then , God bless Michael Voris and his bad hair cut or bad wig! His head is on straight, even if his hair isn’t!

  • What you ought to learn, Mr. Denton, is a sense of humility yourself.

    There is no excuse for a bishop like Hubbard in Albany, NY dispensing heroin needles, eulogizing Cuomo and giving him Holy Communion while KNOWING Cuomo is living in sin with his concubine and Cuomo openly supports the sanctification of homosexual filth and the infanticide of the unborn.

    These bishops whom Voris puts on the carpet NEED to be put on the carpet. So what’s their reaction? Did Timothy Dolan throw out Hubbard as USCCB social justice prelate? NO. Did Hubbard and Dolan excommunicate Cuomo? NO. What happened is WYD having given Voris a warning that his organization was not approved for WYD. His was the ONLY organization so cited in all the YEARS WYD has gone on. Then when he shows up in Madrid anyways, CNA breaks with this news announcement about a lapse in 501(C) tax exempt status and an employee who wrote things he should not have. In the meantime CNA’s own tax exempt status was FOUR YEARS lapsed. And I am sure CNA (and TAC) likely have people with their own sex problems.

    The issue isn’t Simon Rafe or tax exempt status. The issue is that the bishops got caught with their pants down and they set this whole thing up to discredit Voris. I am not talking about a chancery that screws up its paperwork. I work in the nuclear power industry where the paperwork never ends and it’s real easy to screw up. Rather, I am talking about bishops who will NOT deal with Pelosi, Leahy, Biden, Kucinich, Kerry and all the rest, and who then cover up pedophilia while supporting that godlessly wicked man of sin and deparvity in the Oval Office. Look at their web site – filled with crap about that DREAM act. Salvation of souls means NOTHING to them. So they went to punish Voris for pointing that out.

    Yeah, sure, that’s speculation on my part. But dollars to donuts that’s exactly what happened.

    PS, if you are so self-assuredly sanctimonious about this, then maybe TAC should stop being a sponsor for RCTV’s regular daily Vortexes that many watch

    I love it when Voris calls those effeminate liberal Democrat clerics. This time – thank God – their smear campaign blew up in their faces.

  • One other thing: here is Michael Voris’s video response where he took full responsibility, doing exactly the opposite of what most of our liberal Democrat clerics do (as Stephen correctly pointed out):


    And here is the transcript:


    When I see something similar from Bishop Hubbard of Albany and the rest of the liberal clerics, then I’ll have some respect for them.

  • about a lapse in 501(C) tax exempt status

    Unless something else has emerged, I did not see a lapse in 501(c)3 tax exempt status.

    501 status is under the federal tax code. What I read regarded his failure to file an annual STATE report which results in an administrative dissolution. That kind of sounds bad, but it is something that is ratehr easily corrected and happens quite often. It is closer to forgetting to renew your driver’s license on time, so your driving privileges are “suspended” until you get it cleared up – most likely, simply filing the report and paying a late penalty.

    That is hardly anything like the lapses Voris points out about his targets. Not even a difference in scale – it is a difference in kind. Would we have had the Great Catholic Enema of the past ten years if the problem was that several bishoprics around the US forgot to file their annual state information reports for the non-profit entities they headed up rather than the abuse scandal? Please, it would sound like something from the Onion. Voris may be abrasive, and perhaps could use some humility (as all of us), but to even try to paint this as some sort of “he screws up too” is a bit much.

    Of course he screws up, we all do. But his screw up is nothing compared to what he criticizes, and he at least man’s up about it and fixes it.

  • Look at their web site – filled with crap about that DREAM act. Salvation of souls means NOTHING to them.

    “Lord, when did we see thee a stranger, and did not minister to thee?”

  • ED: We’re not going to get into the DREAM Act on this thread.

  • A few points:

    I have no idea whether the Bishop of Albany has committed serious wrongs. I would note however that Mr. Voris appears to have had no success in changing his ways from what you write. I am sure that some of Voris’s targets deserve it. Often they do not because Voris jumps to conclusions in similar ways as could be done in this situation in order to attack their faith.

    This is not a set-up. The bishops didn’t forget to file paperwork nor did they write scandalous stories. While Voris’s arrogance and dissent (not only from the bishops but most importantly the Holy Father) was clearly manifest in Madrid, I doubt that affected anything more than causing someone to wonder “hmmm lemme look into this guy.”

    This is a not a DREAM Act thread. However, the bishops are obligated to inform the faithful on a number of issues, including immigration and abortion. The extent to which they do so and not focus on spiritual issues is a matter of prudence in light of the needs of the diocese. Perhaps bishops focus too much on certain issues but that’s a harder determination to make.

    TAC is a group blog, therefore decisions about the blog are made as a group, including decisions regarding what content to promote. However, the decisions of TAC don’t bind me as writer. Thus, I am free to criticize any of the bloggers or blogs to my right in my own posts.

  • Mr Denton, the only thing that Voris “dissents” from is the corruption and apathy in the Catholic hierarchy.

  • What’s fascinating about Vorisees is that they *talk* as though Voris is bravely facing (and being attacked by) them damn libruls, while in fact, nobody at places like the National Catholic Reporter, or America, or Commonweal cares a jot about Simon Rafe’s RPGs–only the Vorisees care about such things and only CNA (not particularly a rabid dissenting left wing rag) broke the story or cared about it. What Vorisees excel at is not facing off with dissenting Lefties, but encouraging inquisitors to go attack as fifth columnists those conservatives who are not, in their view, pure enough. Exhibit A: His recent demagogic attempt to passive-aggressively associate those who receive communion in the hand with Priscillianist heretics (and his McCarthyesesque smear of same as “self-communicating”. Exhibit B: Voris’ graceless, classless, Nixonian, passive-aggressive response to CNA (and the predictable pitchfork waving of Mr. Primavera and Mr. Dalton and other Vorisees in Pavlovian response to his act of passive incitement, as well as his ongoing aggression against “the bishops”) is poison. When will self-appointed orthodox cops stop making litmus tests out of matters which the Church herself treats with liberty?

    Thank you, Mr. Denton, for calling this man on his merciless “gospel”.

  • Ed: You will not insult people in my thread, especially fellow commenters. This is your final warning.

  • Such sheA comedian. Use bigger words and think a little deeper. On the wrong side again I see. The torture you so vehemently oppose qualifies your attacks on orthodoxy.

  • Mr Shea, the reason Voris and some of us cared about Simon Rafe’s RPG thing is that it was sexually explict and featured a sodomite character that someone could play in the game. Since you are always whining about gay bullies, I’m surprised you’re not concerned.
    Voris’s response to the CNA statement wasn’t “passive-agressive”. He simply pointed out that CNA did a hit piece that strangely came out just as He was in Madrid. What was He supposed to do, cover-up like some of the bishops have done in the past when confronted by a scandal? No, Mike Voris was totally transparent about what happened at RCTV. He admitted the problems and started to correct them. Simon Rafe admitted his wrongdoing and submitted to discipline. Yet, for some strange reason, that upset you. Why? Doesn’t the Bible tell us that that the angels in heaven rejoice more in heaven over one repentant sinner than 100 rightous men?
    As for MV’s agressive “poison” against the Bishops, people who cover for child molesting queers and heretics deserve to be publically shamed for their lack of zeal in protecting the flock from ravenous wolves. As a former member of a religious cult who’s whole ministery was nothing but a wolf pack, I’m grateful that Michael Voris cares enough about his fellow Catholics to expose these wolves and warn us about them. BTW Mark, I don’t own a pitchfork. A shotgun works better anyway.

  • Mr. Denton, I just won’t bother to comment in the future on your posts. I got a real job to do.

  • Mr. Primavera:

    By “insult” do you mean I should not use terms like “fat egotist”? You know, like you like to use? FWIW, my language was directed to Mr. Voris’ tactics. Your is directed to my person. Your defense is “Mark Shea is fat. So he is is wrong.” Sound logic, if you are in the third grade.

    Mr. Dalton: Classy threat of violence.

    I repeat: Thanks Mr. Denton for standing up to these bullies.

  • Oh Mark, nobody was being threatened with violence by my shotgun remark. I was just ridiculing your over the top remark about pitchforks. If you make remarks like this, expect people to laugh at how foolish they are.

  • Micheal,

    You make a good point in your analysis.

    Though, IMHO, Mr. Voris does fill a gap left by the leaderless direction of many, if not most bishops, in their divine commission to lead and protect the flock.

    Since the bishops have abdicated their roles as defender of the faith, Mr. Voris is a natural reaction as such.

    Nonetheless, Mr. Voris is human after all, but he is not a bishop with a divine mandate through apostolic succession. That squarely belongs on the bishops themselves (to lead).

    The bishops want to be liked and go-along to get-along, then they will certainly face their judgement by God.

    But it doesn’t mean they will face (correct in many respects) criticism for their lackluster leadership.

    Administration is part of the job, if they are more concerned in raising money than saving souls, they will and should called out for it in the most charitable manner.

  • Tito,

    I want to caution you on your use of “the bishops.” There are several bishops in this country who are inspiring defenders of the faith (Dolan, Chaput among them). I would venture to say that most of the bishops in this country are in this group, suggested not only for the election of Dolan at the USCCB but by their willingness to sacrifice healthcare when it became clear Obamacare would attack life.

    To be sure, there is a role for the laity in helping wayward bishops. I’m just not sure Voris is living out this role in a prudent or charitable manner.

  • Michael,

    When I mean “the bishops”, I mean a large amount, if not a slight majority of them (I am being charitable).

    There are rarely any inspiring leaders. Abp. Chaput is one (I refuse to not use their proper titles, because I do respect them even though you imply that I don’t).

    Abp. Dolan is questionable. He wants a strong central government to control our lives, so I doubt he understands the basics of subsidiarity.

    As far as their willingness, they were played by the Democratic Party-controlled-USCCB to believe that Obamacare would not attack life, which it did. Even if it didn’t, their liberal impulses overcame their Catholic mission in order to bring Big Government into evermore tighter control of our every day lives.

    There is a role to put bishops in line, and Voris is the product of the bishops dereliction of their duty. Because the bishops refused to stand up to the Spirit of Vatican II crowd and speak up for the eternal Truths of our faith, Michael Voris is the natural product of frustrated Catholics who are constantly marginalized for practicing their faith–by their very own bishops because they embarrass the bishops for being Catholic!

    If you feel offended by the term “the bishops”, you shouldn’t because they brought this upon themselves when they created the USCCB, which is solely used as a cover for their malfeasance in leading their flock(s), ie, us.

  • Tito,

    In your first comment, you criticized bishops for raising money over saving souls. I can’t help but think your second comment falls into a similar error. Politics is important, but ultimately the bishops need to evaluated on their saving of souls. While there are teaching from Catholic Social Justice about subsidiarity, I don’t think when Abp. Dolan goes to the pearly gates the first question will be “Now, how central of a government did you like?” A difference in politics on a question like subsidiarity that is relatively minor (if it was abortion or something like that, you’d have a better point) shouldn’t prevent us from saying “this bishop has helped saved souls.” Otherwise, I wonder what you think of the last two popes.

    The USCCB condemned Obamacare in the end. I think they deserve a lot of credit for that as they more than any other group pushed for healthcare reform. You may disagree with the reforms they desired, but you have to admire them for abandoning those desires in favor of life.

  • Michael,

    You’re correct, I don’t agree with their decision to take away our free will in governing our own lives by letting the government become our Big Brother.

    I’d like to point out that Michael Voris apologized and is rectifying the situation that has occured.

    How many bishops have apologized for their (gross) dereliction of duty?

    Not that they don’t have to because they have free will, but the contrast is stark.

    That said, you are quick to attack those that actually believe and practice the faith, yet you won’t wait a New York second to defend the indefensible.

    Just sayin’.

  • Tito,

    What indefensible thing I am defending? If the princes of the Church are “indefensible” then where does that leave our faith?

    Moreover, I think it’s rich to attack me for “attacking those who actually believe and practice” while defending Voris, who attacks every Catholic in sight.

  • Michael,

    You know exactly what I meant.

    You defend their actions, not the bishops themselves

    So you (by your lack of calling these bishops out) defend the bishops silence on pedophilia, pro-abortion Catholics, pro-life issues, and more. (just to cite examples)

    Your descending into hysterics. If Michael Voris is attacking every Catholic in sight, then I can’t continue debating with someone who believes his own hyperbole.

  • You defend their actions, not the bishops themselves

    Tito. Where did I defend the actions you name? I’ve said nothing whatsoever about the silence of pedophilia. I think the bishops clearly made mistakes; due to naivety in some cases and pure indifference to the safety of children in the quest for sexual liberation in others. Most of those bishops are no longer with us, I imagine.

    I think the bishops deserve some praise on pro-life issues but with almost every issue in the Church today there is much work still to be done to get to the proper level. I also think bishops have the power to excommunicate or deny Communion to Catholic public figures who publicly deny Church teachings and refuse to engage Church teachings. However, I think that decision is one of prudence and spiritual direction which I defer to the bishops; nevertheless, I think that the silence of the bishops on this point as a whole is disappointing.

    I think the bishops are wrong quite frequently. But that doesn’t mean they’re poor Catholics. It means they need prayers and in some cases public discussion. Voris is not a discussion; it’s a rant which contains no mercy and no love. I don’t thin Voris has managed to do anything other than give himself a career; I don’t see how realcatholictv has changed anything for the better.

    Hyperbole is not hysterics, and the point remains. Voris has styled himself as one who attacks impure Catholics. Voris frequently attacks or undermines those he ought to help, with his counter-event in Madrid a prime example. If Voris is going to undermine the pope’s World Youth Day, does he have respect for any of the Church’s leaders? And if Pope Benedict XVI isn’t Catholic enough, who is?

  • Michael,

    I didn’t say the bishops are poor Catholics.

    My whole point is that because of the vacuum of leadership, Michael Voris is the result of their frequent inaction.

    As for WYD, I find it difficult to believe he went there to undermine the Pope. I truly believe he went there to educate. But that’s another point not worth pursuing in this Combox.

    I can’t wait to get into College Football ranking discussion.


  • Denton you’re lost. Tito nice!

  • Mr. Primavera:

    I don’t want to distract you from your “real job” so I deleted your juvenile comment.

  • I think the devil loves this thread. Good Catholics all taking roundhouse swings at each other. You can almost see him slinking away with a small smile.

  • Voris has plenty for which to be criticized – perhaps it is true his style is not conducive to reform and lacks charity. But the particular criticism that surfaced that I found rather embarassingly weak was the one about the non-profit status. And at least at this point it seems he has done the best he can and what is within his power to correct the wayward employee. On those two counts, at least, I can’t find much to criticize.

    As for undermining the Pope, it is possible Voris’s WYD side show may have had that effect, but I would find it difficult to believe that would have been his intent, particularly based upon the few clips I have seen where he mentions the Pope. I haven’t seen anythnig disparaging (perhaps the closest would be comments that bring to mind the Pope as a beleagured general trying to do the right thing but undermined by many of his troops – which, frankly, I can not say is completely unreasonable and doesn’t sound disparaging to the Pope at all).

    On the whole, like most, MV is a mixed bag.

129 Responses to Sarah Palin: Two Predictions

  • 1.) I doubt she will even seek the nomination.

    2.) If she IS the GOP candidate Obama will win in a landslide.

    3.) Why are we even talking about this? The election is 1.5 years away. My proposal: no primaries until after 4th of July, then conventions after Labor Day.

    Better yet, no primaries at all. I don’t see we’re better off with the pee-pul choosing candidates than when party hacks were in charge.

  • She’s become too polarizing. I don’t think she’ll get very far if she runs for office.
    Maybe she can hope to become the Secretary of State…

  • No Thomas she will run and she will crush Obama. With his numbers today and the wretched economy, which I think will only worsen by this time next year, almost any Republican could defeat him, but Palin, who I think has more raw political talent than anyone I have seen since Reagan rode off into the sunset, will humiliate him.

    Our election system is what it is. I see no great virtue in short campaigns, especially when major issues are at stake, and this election will have no shortage of these. However, I like politics which I realize makes me an oddity among most Americans.

  • I think she is “too polarizing” because the media has made her appear so. She is far less polarizing in reality that, say, Obama.

  • The news media will do everything in its power to ensure Sarah Palin is defetaed. They cannot stand a conservative Christian woman, especially one who is beautiful and shows by that beauty how godlessly ugly their liberal feminist sexual perversion is.

    I wish Don’s predictions would come to pass, but that’s more hope than reality.

  • They did that in 80 against Reagan Paul at a time that the lamestream press had far more credibility and a near monopoly on news. Their being in the tank for Obama, as they clearly were in 08, will work to Palin’s advantage as they have no credibility left with the vast majority of the American public.

  • It won’t happen as long as the negativity of “I don’t think she can win” talk keeps up..You think ANYONE is just gonna walk in & take it? Your gonna have to have faith pray then work like a dog to make it happen..She is gonna run,,she will beat Obama as long as WE DO OUR PART! She was ONLY ONE fighting against Obama the last three yrs..men put your ego’s aside-women put your jealousy aside..remember Moses led the people to freedom and he was mocked because he studdered..She is good decent hardworking woman that is not owned. This may be our last shot of saving our country..She has NO ties to oil,pharma,wall street,banks,muslim brotherhood…They fear her cause she WILL bring down entire foundation they spent 100yr sbuilding

  • 3 Years of Attacks:

    attempt to burn her church down, accuse her of murder, 1,000s death threats, 40+ reporters sent to AK for e-mail dig, Dozens of CNN, CBS, NBC, NY Times “polls” saying negs are high / not liked etc., Obama “media” repeating Can’t win a general, to divisive, obama landslide win & promote bachmann & perry to keep her out!!


  • Well, maybe Donald, Bellez and Max are right. I will say this: the dripping putrid hatred that liberal blog meisters demonstrate for Sarah Palin on their message boards is almost palpable. I even know some who are otherwise very intelligent and well-balanced when it comes to science and engineering. In fact, I can’t believe that the pro-nuclear energy forums I “attend” are all so in love with Obama (who himself appointed an anti-nuke as NRC chairman, thereby stifling the nuclear rennaissance) and in hatred against Sarah Palin (who is very pro-nuclear). I just don’t get it. That’s the reason for my pessimism – the liberals control what’s said in the media.

    BTW, the actual people who work in nuclear energy – those without time to administer blog sites – are for Sarah Palin and against Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

  • Delusional.
    Obama has a better chance of winning the Republican nomination.

  • RR I would doubt my prediction if you agreed with it. You know as much about GOP primary politics as a pig does about penance.

  • “That’s the reason for my pessimism – the liberals control what’s said in the media.”

    No longer Paul, thanks to the new media. TAC is one small part of that new media and there are tens of thousands of organs like it around the nation. The days when Walter Cronkite could say “And that’s the way it is” and be believed are as dead as black and white TV.

  • Donald,

    I thus thank God for TAC, Real Catholic TV and similar outlets. I mean that sincerely.

  • Don, a wager? If Palin enters and wins the nomination, I’ll upload a pic of me with literal egg on my face. If Palin enters and fails to win the nomination, you do it.

  • In this age of “gotcha” journalism dominated by leftist media, the sharks will be out en masse picking up on every alleged Palin”gaffe.”

    Bachmann’s pretty much finished after her Elvis blooper (despite the triviality of it). When you become the constant butt of late night comics and political cartoonists and the jokes go viral, you’re done in the eyes of many.

    In an age when appearances rather than substance matter most, Chris Christie also wouldn’t last long given his corpulence. Imagine him, for example, counseling Americans to “tighten our belts” and the reaction.

    Palin has hard core support on the right, especially the Tea Party, but there are millions of haters out there who would still stick with Obama rather than see her win. She ran a small state, which as governor would be comparable to being mayor of Columbus, Ohio, and while charismatic she lacks intellectual depth and gravitas to be president. However, if she were on the ballot against Obama, I’d hold my nose and vote for her.

    Right now, I’d say it’s a two-man race between Romney (well financed and a good campaigner) and Perry (the best resume by far), and while neither is ideal in my view (although a Perry-Ryan ticket would be attractive), both are superior to the hapless McCain and likely have the best chance to beat Barack.

    Speaking of which, while the economy is in the crapper, don’t discount Obama’s ability to turn things around by fudging the numbers and pushing his theme that the Repubs have been the obstructionists to everything he’s trying to do. He’ll play the blame card for all its worth.

    Penultimately, there’s a Hollywood movie about the Seals raid on Osama in the works, planned to be released in October 2012 (note the timing) that will portray the CinC as a rock-solid patriot totally in command evoking images of Ike, Patton and MacArthur.

    And, as one poster mentioned, it’s early yet and there’s always the unexpected. Another 9/11-scenario, in which Americans would become united again, could be enough to get Obama over the hump.

  • Don, I wish I shared your optimism on this, but I just don’t. Lord knows, I love Sarah Palin – she was the ONLY reason I voted for McCain in ’08, and I’d happily vote for her again. But I know too many people to whom she should be an appealing candidate who can’t stand her. I just don’t see her winning enough support from waivering independents, and her presence at the top of a GOP ticket would inspire Obama’s currently uninspired base to turn out in droves. And that’s assuming she won the GOP nomination.

    With a viable conservative alternative like Perry in the GOP race, Palin’s winning the nomination becomes even more difficult than it already would have been. More likely, Perry and Palin and Bachmann and Paul will so splinter the conservative vote that Romney will win the nomination by default.

    That’s the scenario Obama would love to see play out. If that happens, what should be a fairly easy win for a Republican will turn into either a narrow Obama victory, or, worse-case scenario, a very narrow Romney victory that will result in Romney governing like the Rockefeller Republican that he truly is (I honestly see an Obama victory as preferable to that).

    At this point, I hope she doesn’t run.

  • Max reminds me that the e-mail dig was supposed to find dirt. Didn’t the MSM enlist the aid of volunteers to dig and analyze.

    Did they complete the review and find nothing or are they still digging?

  • Thomas Collins, RR.

    Three of the President’s more recent predecessors have had at modest recovery in public esteem at some point or another during the fifteen months or so antedated a stand for re-election, so it is not unusual at all. These recoveries occurred over a period of months in 1948, 1975-76, and 1992. The quarter-to-quarter changes in gross domestic product (expressed at annualized rates) were as follows:

    1947 q2: -0.3
    1947 q3: +6.2
    1947 q4: +6.5
    1948 q1: +7.5
    1948 q2: +2.2
    1948 q3: +0.6
    1949 q1: -5.5
    1949 q2: -1.4

    1975 q2: +3.1
    1975 q3: +6.9
    1975 q4: +5.3
    1976 q1: +9.4
    1976 q2: +3.0
    1976 q3: +2.0
    1976 q4: +2.9
    1977 q1: +4.7

    1991 q2: +2.7
    1991 q3: +1.7
    1991 q4: +1.6
    1992 q1: +4.5
    1992 q2: +4.3
    1992 q3: +4.2
    1992 q4: +4.3
    1992 q1: +0.7

    I do not think we will see economic performance this good in the coming year and a half, sad to say. You may have noticed that two of the three individuals in question were voted out of office anyway. If I were employed on the President’s campaign crew, I would not be particularly confident unless the GOP nominated Darth Vader.

  • Polarizing! Obama is the most divisive, class/race-hate generating cad in American History.

    Polarizing? Is “polarizing” the obazombie vocabulary word for this week?

  • Obama will win in a landslide.

    The following have been returned to office in landslides:

    Franklin Roosevelt (rapid economic growth, tarnished opposition)
    Dwight Eisenhower (broad and durable public esteem, modest economic growth)
    Lyndon Johnson (general if brittle public esteem, prosperity)
    Richard Nixon (mixed public opinion, prosperity with problems)
    Ronald Reagan (improving public esteem & liked by all but partisan Democrats, rapid economic growth)

    Which precedent is analogous?

  • RR:

    If Governor Palin wins, meds wouldn’t be sufficient. You will be in a padded room wearing a straitjacket.

    I will be singing “Non Nobis Domine . . .”

  • If she enters she has to be considered a front-runner for the nomination. It basically become a three-way bloodbath between Perry, Romney, and Palin. Bachmman’s candidacy would effectively be over. My fear is that Perry and Palin would split enough votes to swing the nomination to Romney.

    As for a general, the idea that Obama would win in a landslide is laughable. Yes, Palin’s negatives would make it a close election, and it might turn a few swing states towards Obama. That said, at a minimum Palin or any GOP candidate will win every state McCain won, and at this point Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina would almost certainly return to the red column regardless the GOP nominee.

    All that said, I’m more or less with Jay in my preferred outcome at this moment, but there’s a long way to go.

  • “Don, a wager? If Palin enters and wins the nomination, I’ll upload a pic of me with literal egg on my face. If Palin enters and fails to win the nomination, you do it.”

    Done RR, but with the caveat that the wager only applies if she gets in.

  • Destiny is an unmovable force. So we will see whose side She is on.

  • If Palin gets in she will win the nomination by acclimation. By the time Iowa, NH, South Carolina, Nevada and Florida are done it will be so clear what Republicans want the GOP will have no choice.

    If the Establishment Good Ole Boys continue to try and manipulate the outcome the Republican Party will be finished.

  • “With a viable conservative alternative like Perry in the GOP race, Palin’s winning the nomination becomes even more difficult than it already would have been. More likely, Perry and Palin and Bachmann and Paul will so splinter the conservative vote that Romney will win the nomination by default.”

    Romney is a pathetically weak candidate Jay, as demonstrated by Perry obtaining front runner status just by getting in. I don’t think there is a sizable vote for him outside of New Hampshire against a first rate opponent. Bachmann gets out after Palin gets in. She will have no choice as her money and support collapses. Her appeal has basically been as an imitation Palin. Santorum will also get out, after throwing his support to Palin, in hopes of getting a cabinet position, which he will. Paul’s vote doesn’t come mainly from Republican conservatives, but rather from disaffected left wing Democrats and Libertarians. He and Palin will not be fighting for the same votes in the primaries. Her main opposition will be Rick Perry, who may well end up as her Veep.

  • (Guest comment from Don’s wife Cathy): G-Veg, the MSM finished digging through all the Palin emails released by the state of Alaska — and found nothing/zip/zilch/nada.

  • Rove and the rest of the GOP establishment will play divide and conquer like nobody’s business. They will play Perry and Palin (and Bachmann – she still has a significant following) off of one another, planting stories here and there to make it look like they’re backbiting one another. When all is said and done, they WANT Romney and they will have Romney, unless there is a single viable alternative to Romney. As much as I love Sarah, I’m not sure she represents the viable alternative.

    By the way, what will be the “theme” of her campaign? Perry has shown us what his theme will be and has shown some discipline in sticking to it, even in the face of all the sharp knives that have been out since his announcement. He is campaigning on jobs and the economy and pointing to his own 10-year record as governor of the 2nd-largest state as an alternative to what Obama has to offer. If the economy and jobs is the focus of the next election, the Republican nominee will win. What will Sarah’s theme be? What record will she run on to point to as an alternative to Obama. At this point, she has less executive experience than he has, which was not the case in’08, when she had more experience than he. If Sarah’s campaign becomes about her (and the Dem and the media will pull out all the stops to make it about her), she will lose. We already had one election in ’08 that was all about the candidate and the precedents that electing him would set – he won and the current state of affairs is the consequence of that. Sarah will need a compelling reason to vote for her over Obama. Perry offers that. Heck, even Romney (as pathetic as he is) offers that. Even Ron Paul, believe it or not, offers that.

    Unfortunately, I’m not sure Sarah does. Next year’s election has to be about the economy and jobs and restoring America’s confidence and good name. What does Sarah point to as being her qualifications to do this?

  • “Sarah will need a compelling reason to vote for her over Obama.”

    Actually I think any GOP candidate will be have a compelling reason to vote for them: they aren’t Obama. President’s who preside over lousy economies during election years lose. That is a simple fact of American political life.

    She has spoken out against virtually every economic and fiscal mistep of this administration. Go to the link below to read her facebook page which chronicles her views quite well.


    She has been building her platform ever since 2008. She will win due to the bad economy and a promise to reverse the course that Obama has set for us.

    In regard to Perry he is a good enough conventional politician with a tendency to be a bit too Texan for the rest of the nation. (Does he really think that the 1845 treaty of annexation gives Texas a right to secede?) I think he will give Palin a good race and keep up excitement and interest in the Republican primaries which will be all to the good for the general election. If Palin does not get in, Perry will be the nominee, absent some major scandal, but I think that Palin will get in.

  • JA Has it 100%.

    The campaign will be about “compare and contrast” four more years robbing Peter to pay Paul to prosperity for all: economic growth and job creation.

    The MSM can’t broadcast Obama’s utter failure so it will character assassinate Governor Palin or Governor Perry, or whomever.

  • To be honest, I’m hoping that Palin stays out.

    She’s an attractive political personality, and I had a lot of hopes for her when got the VP nomination last year, but it seems to me she showed a lot of weakness in quitting the governorship without finishing her first term, and she did honestly fall down badly in unscripted interviews.

    I hate saying anything against her, since the Left (and the elitist Right) managed to show some of the most despicable behavior in our political arena in the last 30 years towards here — behavior which shows how truly loathsome a lot of them really are.

    But overall I’m just not sure she’d be that good a president. (Better than Obama, but then would would be some yard gnomes.) And I’m concerned she wouldn’t do well in the election.

    That said, the GOP field is staggeringly weak. I’m slightly leaning towards Perry but no one has my enthusiasm.

  • Being a Texan myself, I can’t comprehend what “too Texan” might mean. Is that like having “too much money”? Or “too much love”? Or “car too fast”?

    Or “economy too good”? “Too much job creation”?

    In ’08, the “rest of the country” chose for President an infantile amateur with no governing experience who likes to make everything all about himself. At this point, even one of them there Texans might look good to the “rest of the country”.

    (And, by the way, MOST Texans, including expat Texans like myself, adopt the interpretation of the 1845 treaty of annexation that Gov. Perry put forward. In fact, I adopt the position that the treaty of annexation is completely irrelevant to the question of secession, and that Texas could just tell the “rest of the country” to go to hell and do whatever it wants.)


  • Ditto Darwin. I will add however, that I actually feel some despair about the situation in our country and the world as a whole. The only hope I have for any type turn toward sustainability is for the Republican Party to put forward a candidate with a solid vision, strong convictions that are good. I just don’t see it happening though. I would likely vote for just about anybody the Pubs put it up because the odds of that person being worse than Obama or any other Dem are slim, but holding your nose while you pull the lever does not bring relief to the soul. It’s so cliche to say it, but what need a Reagan type of candidate. Not a clone, not someone who pays lip service to him, not someone who tries to be like him, but just a sharp, decent human being who is unafraid to work for the right thing in spite of all the opposing forces.

  • the GOP field is staggeringly weak

    Most of them would be passable in a different set of circumstances (say, 1996). The trouble is the culture in the Republican Party. They are no longer able to talk turkey in any setting.

  • ” I can’t comprehend what “too Texan” might mean.”

    I believe there was a state advertising slogan for Texas a few decades back Jay that said, “Texas, it is a whole other country!” Sometimes Texas politicians translate well on the national stage and sometimes they do not. John B. Connelley wasted quite a bit of money in 80 to go noplace. I doubt if LBJ would have ever gotten to the White House, but for his ability to steal the 60 election for Kennedy in Texas, and an assassin’s bullet. Bush 41 was elected President in 88, but I doubt if he ever made a convincing Texan. His son was pure Texan, and he just barely made it to the White House in 00 and it was a lot closer than it should have been in 04. I personally think that Texas has been a success and that other states should emulate it in many ways, but that there is potential hurdle for a Texan politician going national is undeniable.

    The treaty of annexation does not say anything about secession, but it does allow Texas to split into four other states, something which might come in handy in the future if the citizens of Texas found that desirable.

  • “but it seems to me she showed a lot of weakness in quitting the governorship without finishing her first term, and she did honestly fall down badly in unscripted interviews.”

    I believe that she has been planning this run since 2008 and I think quitting the post was a necessary part of her plan. She has used it to build up a national movement and to amass favors owed from Republican politicians across the nation. In regard to unscriped interviews, I think that was true in 2008, but it is no longer true this year.

  • I and almost every other Texan knows what the treaty says. The fact that the notoriously independece-minded Texans didn’t feel the need to explicitly reserve the “right” to secede tells me that it wasn’t even questionable. Of course they could do with regard to the U.S. what they had just done with regard to Mexico.

    Apart from Sam Houston, who was a late interloper into the Texas Revolution acting as Andrew Jackson’s stalking horse with the interests of the U.S., as opposed to those of Texas, closest to his heart, I doubt most Texans believed entering into the Union foreclosed future options. And it wasn’t 15 years later that they decided to exercise those options.

    As for Texas being a “whole other country”, is it REALLY that different that frickin’ Alaska?

  • And let’s not forget that the Palins have a secession advocacy problem of their own in their past.

  • “And it wasn’t 15 years later that they decided to exercise those options.”

    And what a rousing success that was Jay! 🙂 A lot of misery could have been avoided if Texans had listened to the man who led them to victory at San Jacinto.

    Alaska has never had a politician in the White House. Palin will be sui generis on that point, as well as many others.

  • Wow. For people opposed to the hate shown by the media toward your devout Sarah, there certainly is a lot of hateful speech here toward anyone who doesn’t worship at her stilettos.

    Fact: she left Wasilla in debt by building a sports arena on land the city did not own.
    Fact: her mansion was built by the same contractors as the arena, with many of the same materials, supposedly by Todd’s ‘buddies.” Mayor Sarah suspended the need for building permits, so no one can find out facts about who, what, or how much.
    Fact: Sarah is afraid to be interviewed anywhere but Fox, which feeds her softball questions in advance so she can have her answers in front of her (you can often see the prompter reflected in her glasses.)
    Fact: Sarah Palin has nary a good word to say, ever, about the other side. President Obama has done all he can to work with the GOP, to the extent of hurting his initiatives and making himself look bad.
    Fact: the people here who support her will dismiss everything I have written, because you have bought her picked upon genius meme. So be it. But Sarah has so many skeletons in her personal and financial closets that I don’t think she wants scrutinized. For example, why is a PAC paying for ‘family vacations’ in a vehicle that costs millions to drive, and then they pay for her hotel rooms as well? Her PAC, which was set up to help candidates of her choice, has spent a teeny amount doing that, and much more on speechwriters (surprise, she never writes what she says, or writes) and personal things for multimillionaure Sarah.
    Keep thinking she is your savior: she is not.

  • “And let’s not forget that the Palins have a secession advocacy problem of their own in their past.”

    If you can ever find anything where Sarah Palin ever said that Alaska had a right to secede Jay, you would have a comparison to what Perry said.


  • I just mention it as evidence of what Texans might have been thinking in 1845. Clearly, slavery played a role (although a much more minor role than left-wing historians would have us believe) in the Texas Revolution. And it was one of the sticking points blocking an earlier agreement on annexation with the U.S. And it was clearly the reason behind secession 15 years later.

    There is no way Texas agreed to statehood thinking that they wouldn’t have a future option to secede over the issue of slavery. As ashamed of Texas’ slavery past as I am, that is just the plain intent of the parties based on the facts.

  • “that is just the plain intent of the parties based on the facts.”

    If such a provision had been inserted Jay it would never have made it through Congress. Northern Democrats and Whigs were already leery about Texas coming into the Union as a slave state, and a proviso allowing secession at the whim of Texas would have driven them over the edge. In any case, Texas had been begging for admission since 1836. This was not the case of the US wooing a reluctant Texas but quite the reverse.

  • As for the hero of San Jacinto, you will find that I am a big fan of Sam Houston. “The Raven” is one of my favorite books of all time, albeit fairly poor in the way of objective biography. More recent biographies and histories of the Texas Revolution offer a much more balanced assessment of Sam’s role in the Runaway Scrape and eventual victory at San Jacinto. It appears that Houston’s intent had been to retreat all the way across the Sabine and enlist the aid of U.S. troops to defeat the Mexican army. Much of the credit for the victory goes to Houston’s subordinates who forced Houston’s hand on meeting Santa Ana at Buffalo Bayou.

  • Again, Texas would never have entered the Union believing itself barred from acting in what it believed were its interests with respect to slavery. And all I’m saying is that what happened just 15 years later is evidence of that.

  • I hope she runs. She mentioned the blessings of liberty. I connect with that, so do others. To early to predict anything about anyone. I want Obama defeated and sent home.

  • I tend to agree Jay with those authorities who say that at the Council of War held by Houston prior to the battle of San Jacinto that a majority of the participants were in favor of going on the defensive and waiting for Santa Anna to attack, and that it was Houston who pressed for an immediate assault. Certainly several of Houston’s officers had various hare-brained schemes during that campaign including abandoning Texas to Santa Anna and marching on Mexico City. Houston who was a flamboyant personality himself, was, by comparison, restrained and sober in his command of the Texan army. I have always treasured this quote by Houston about those days:

    “All new states are invested, more or less, by a class of noisy, second-rate men who are always in favor of rash and extreme measures, But Texas was absolutely overrun by such men.”

  • The fact that she garners this much time and attention on a Sunday morning says something significant.

  • Indeed it does G-Veg. Love her or hate her the woman is a political superstar. Most politicians are ribbon clerks by comparison.

  • It seems as though Sally is a wee bit jealous. Isn’t there a Commandment about that?

    I would happily vote for Sarah just to put people like Sally into fits of apolexy.

    “…there certainly is a lot of hateful speech here toward anyone who doesn’t worship at her stilettos.”

    Hah! I don’t worship at her stilettos, but I certainly hope (and pray) that she takes them off long enough to place their business ends straight into the filthy dirty heart of the godless party of death know as “Democrat” (figuratively speaking, of course). Then I would ask – nay, beg! – Todd for permission to kiss them. Heck, I might do that anyways!

    I just love people like Sally and their vile invective. That alone shows me that perhaps Donald is right. Sarah can win and those who consider themselves better than her are perfectly green with envy.

    PS, does that make me racist because I cited green pigmentation in skin color? Ha!

  • It was only overrun by such men after the later wave of immigrants came in – say, roughly around 1832 or after. Houston, Bowie, Travis were among them. The earlier Anglo settlers like Austin were much more measured and conservative than the late arrivals.

    The definitive military history of the Texas Revolution, in my view, is “Texian Iliad” by Stephen L. Hardin. He’s been called a “revisionist” by many partisan Texans (is there any other kind?) because he offers a balanced portrayal of the events that seeks neither to glorify nor to denigrate. (NOTE: this is the book that almost EVERY Texas Revolution re-enactment group reccomends as definitive, so you can take their word for it, or you can defer to Houston apologists who absolutely HATE this book.) Hardin’s study of Houston portrays a man decidedly less “decisive” than the Houston you describe as one who “pressed for an immediate assault”. Apparently NOT how the whole thing went down. Not only San Jacinto, but Houston’s role in the entire Revolution is reassessed throughout. Suffice it to say, Houston made questionable decisions throughout the war, including dismissing Travis’ dispatches from the Alamo : “Houston ‘swore that he believed it to be a damn lie, & that all those reports from Travis and Fannin were lies, for there were no Mexican forces there and that he believed that it was only electioneering schemes on [the part of] Travis & Fannin to sustain their own popularity.’ ”


    Rather than regurgitate here what Hardin has written, I will instead encourage you to read the book. As a lover of military history, you won’t be sorry.

    At any rate, I didn’t mean to take this Palin thread so far afield. That’s all I’ll say about Texas … at least in this thread.

  • To win by 300, Obama needs to be in real trouble. Outside of conservative circles, Palin’s name is a punchline. We can debate whether that ought to be the case or not, but that doesn’t change the reality that Palin has a lot of baggage that she would have to overcome not only to secure the Republican nomination the presidency in general, not to mention have such a rousing defeat. Palin would make it easy for Obama to do what Bush did in ’04 and turn the tables to attack the stereotype of the opponent rather than have the public focus on whether the president deserves reelection.

  • Are you better off today than you were in 2008? I’m not. Since 2008 my husband has had a pay freeze and I’ve had a pay reduction. We are immensely thankful that we are still employed! Gas prices have doubled, food prices have soared, my retirement is in the tank, my home has lost value, our country is in another war, we’ve lost international standing, we’ve experienced more terrorist attempts yet it’s the grannies in the airport line getting stripped searched, Michelle Obama has been on vacation for over 42 days this year alone on our dime, and I can’t even bring myself to speak of what the Golfer-in-Chief has done to our military’s morale. And the radical pro-abortionist calls himself a Christian, phfttssts!

    I have taken a vow not to put down any Republican candidate, let the best man or woman win. Anyone out there who votes for Obama needs their heads examined!

  • Hmmmm….after a little research one wonders if our Sally might be none other than Sally Quinn, that Washington Post reporter who had a feud with the Clintons and who (being non-Catholic) partook of Holy Communion at Catholic Church anyways while knowing better (liberals always know better).

    I’ll wager there are skeletons in Ms. Quinn’s closet as well, and in this day and age of the internet, time and research can bring those to light. Fortunately, however, I actually work for a living instead of trying to drag Sarah Palin’s name into the dirt with writing nonsense that I know nothing about.

  • The Tea Party and hardcore social conservatives may be enough to make Palin a primary contender, but I really don’t see her going over the top even for the nomination; and if she does win the nomination I think she will lose by about 3-5 percentage points of popular vote (don’t ask me to translate that into electoral votes).

    The reason: she needs independents to win the general election, just as Obama needed more than just hardcore liberals to win. Obama has since lost appeal to independents, but in an Obama-Palin race they might be persuaded to vote for him again, albeit reluctantly, on the grounds that the devil they know beats the one they don’t.

    When even I — who vote Republican 99 percent of the time, have ALWAYS been pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment, and personally admire Palin and DO NOT think she is the complete idiot the MSM makes her out to be — nevertheless have severe doubts about whether I want her to be POTUS, you can bet a lot of other Republicans, not to mention independents, feel the same way.

    I think she will play the same role in the GOP primaries this time around that Hillary Clinton did in ’08 — it may be neck and neck between her and Perry until fairly late in the primary season. It certainly won’t be over on Super Tuesday.

  • Obama is in desperate shape, especially under the new electoral map. Palin takes Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Alaska and New Hampshire as givens for a total of 184. I can’t see Obama winning Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida, and that gets her to 276 and the election. Then I am pretty confident she will win Nevada, Michigan and Wisconsin for another 32. You can probably add into that mix Colorada at 9 and Pennsylvania at 20, both of where Obama’s numbers are plummeting.

  • a little research one wonders if our Sally might be none other than Sally Quinn,

    I doubt Sally Quinn bothers with blog commentary (much left chock-a-bloc with internet memes), would fancy a bus or an RV has operating costs in the ‘millions’, or would consider a 3,400 sq foot home built nine years ago to be a ‘mansion’.

  • “I can’t see Obama winning Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida”

    I CAN see Obama winning (or more precisely, Palin losing) Florida and maybe Ohio. I also would NOT count on Palin winning either Michigan or Wisconsin, because disillusionment with the GOP not having solved all their economic problems in 2 years may start to settle in there, and you can bet unions will be going all-out to defeat her. Also, I wouldn’t put Missouri in a “sure Palin win” column yet either; if I remember correctly, it took more than a week to determine, last time around, whether the Show Me State went for Obama or McCain (it finally ended up in the McCain column but not by much).

    All that said, if you remove all the states I consider doubtful from the R column, that subtracts 83 electoral votes from Palin (10 each for MO and WI, 16 for MI, 18 for OH and 29 for FL) and leaves her with only 225, if my math is correct. If she holds on to Florida, that gives her 254 electoral votes; she would need 16 more to win, which could be attained with either Ohio or Michigan by itself.

  • I don’t think Sarah Palin will run for President for 2012. Rick Perry has jumped in and Perry has a much longer – and quite successful – political record. It has some flaws, but I don’t care. Perry will hand Obama’s rear end to him.

  • Palin would make it easy for Obama to do what Bush did in ’04 and turn the tables to attack the stereotype of the opponent rather than have the public focus on whether the president deserves reelection.

    The President actually runs against a flesh-and-blood candidate, not some spectre (which is Elaine Krewer’s point). Mr. Kerry was as presentable as the Democratic Party could manage (his competitors being John Edwards, Dr. Dean, and Gen. Clark – each of whom had vulnerabilities). Mr. Bush had a passably durable floor of 50% of the public who approved of his performance (whether he deserved that or not).

  • I think Florida and Ohio are safe for the GOP next year Elaine. If Palin wants a little insurance for Florida, and to dent Obama’s Hispanic vote, Marco Rubio would be an excellent choice for Veep.

    The fact that Missouri went Republican in 2008 is a guarantee that it is going Republican in 2012, since 2008 was the worst Republican year since the Watergate wipeout of 1974.

  • Obumbler will not win Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida in 2012again. Obumbler could lose Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa and Wisconsin in 2012. If obumbler won New Hampshire last time, I don’t remember if he did, he will lose there as well. Maybe in Maine, too?

    The point is, a conservative has to win the GOP nomination (Perry or Bachmann, not Romney) for this to happen. The 2012 election will be all about the economy – jobs, inflation, the despised health care law and energy. Obumbler cannot win these issuses against Rick Perry.

  • Ohio would NOT be safe for Palin. As I mentioned earlier, I know too many people who SHOULD be huge Palin fans who can’t stand her. They’ve bought into the caricature the media has painted of her.

  • I disagree Jay. With this economy only masochists and yellow dog Democrats, no doubt a fair amount of overlap in those categories, will be voting for Obama next year.

  • I doubt if LBJ would have ever gotten to the White House, but for his ability to steal the 60 election for Kennedy in Texas,

    For the record, he would have had to arrange for his minions to steal 46,000 votes, not the 202 votes they stuffed into one ballot box in one precinct in Jim Wells County in 1948. I don’t think so.

  • Open fraud was blatant in the Presidential contest in 1960 in Texas Art. Typical examples include a precinct in Angelina county where 86 people voted and 147 Kennedy votes were tallied; in Fannin County the 4895 registered voters managed the considerable feat of casting 6183 votes, 75% for Kennedy. The Texas Board of Elections, completely controlled by Democrats, refused to order a state wide recount even though the fraud was open and obvious.

  • It’s not like there was any voter fraud in Illinois in 1960 or anything.


  • I doubt if anyone sentient doubts the stealing of the Illinois votes Jay! 🙂 Texas was always key however, since Illinois was not enough to change the results. Earl Mazo of the New York Herald Tribune began an excellent series on the fraud in Illinois and Texas. He wrote four of a planned 12 part series. His editors, at the request of Nixon, pulled him off the story. Nixon was afraid that a battle over the fraud would lead to endless turmoil and was not in the interest of the nation. I have almost no use for Nixon, but his attitude after the 1960 election was stolen from him was statesmanlike.

  • Coincidentally, Nixon came up at work in conversation this week. One of our Ivy League attorneys stated if it were not for his institution of federal guaranties for student loans, she could not have earned her Ivy laurels.

    There was a war going on in Vietnam and in America. Nixon similarly quietly resigned during Watergate when many patriotic Americans (outside the Viet-Congress and the comintern-funded VC sympathizer campuses/weathermen/media) would have backed him. That war was won in the US.

  • I have been noodling around in some databases. There appears to be little scholarly literature on the subject and what there is is on the situation in Illinois.

    It’s not like there was any voter fraud in Illinois in 1960 or anything.

    Again, Lyndon Johnson’s crew would have had to scale up their 1948 performance by a factor of 23 and outdo Mayor Daley in Illinois by a factor of 5. I do not think so.

  • Richard Nixon’s resignation was as quiet as a steam calliope, three-fourths of the public was content to see him go, and he was told by Barry Goldwater that there were all of twelve Senators who would vote for acquittal should the full House pass any of the three impeachment resolutions it had to consider. If I am not mistaken, federally guaranteed student loans (like Pell Grants) were an initiative of the Johnson Administration, enacted in 1965.

  • It might have been “statesmanlike”, but it certainly was NOT in the best interest of the country to allow to go uninvestigated voter fraud on such a scale as to swing a presidential election.

  • I disagree Jay. Consider the amount of bitterness injected into our politics by disputes over the 2000 election. I think Nixon made the right call for the country.

  • “Again, Lyndon Johnson’s crew would have had to scale up their 1948 performance by a factor of 23 and outdo Mayor Daley in Illinois by a factor of 5. I do not think so.”

    Why not? The Democrats were in control of the entire state and LBJ controlled the Texas Democrat party. The fraud was part and parcel of the way LBJ did business throughout his career. Interestingly enough, once LBJ was out of the state and in the White House, the Texas Republicans were able to win their first state wide race since Reconstruction when John Tower won the special election for Johnson’s senate seat.

  • The alternative to that bitterness was Algore stealing an election via “recount” fraud. Again, it does the country no favors to allow rampant cheating to swing the outcome of elections.

  • I think I need to redo my math based on Don’s projections….

    “Palin takes Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Alaska and New Hampshire as givens for a total of 184.”

    Mostly true, although I still have my doubts about Missouri (10 electoral votes) as noted above. I’m also not so sure about West Virginia (5 electoral votes) as that state is traditionally very Democratic. 184 – 15 = 159.

    “I can’t see Obama winning Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida, and that gets her to 276 and the election.”

    Remove Ohio and Florida, which I consider doubtful, and we are left with 6 (IA) + 11 (IN) + 13 (VA) + 15 (NC) = 45 electoral votes + 159 from the “sure thing” states = 204.

    “Then I am pretty confident she will win Nevada, Michigan and Wisconsin for another 32.”

    I don’t think ANY of those states are sure things — remember, Nevadans chose Harry Reid, who was thought to be a dead duck, over Sharon Angle, who was one of the Tea Party darlings; and if Nevadans thought she was scary, what will they think of Palin? It will be close in all those states but Obama could still pull it off here.

    “You can probably add into that mix Colorado at 9 and Pennsylvania at 20, both of where Obama’s numbers are plummeting.”

    If we do, that brings Palin’s grand total to 233, well short of what she needs to win.

  • “The alternative to that bitterness was Algore stealing an election via “recount” fraud.”

    Gore was in the Nixon role Jay. Instead of doing the statesman like thing and conceding that the election went against him in Florida, he was willing to raise up a whirlwind of ill will until the Supreme Court shut him down.

    Such statesmanship was also shown by Democrat Samuel J. Tilden after the 1876 Presidential election was stolen from him.

  • West Virginia went against Obama in 2008 Elaine. There is no way that will change in 2012. My comment about Missouri stands. I do not think it will even be close there. I don’t think there is anything doubtful about Florida and Ohio being in the GOP slot. In Pennsylavania in a recent poll Obama was shown in a virtual tie with Santorum, which is just incredible for anyone who pays attention to Pennsylvania politics. Wisconsin I think is headed in a red direction. Michigan has probably suffered more than any other state in the recession. While Nevada was re-electing Reid, his kid was getting clobbered in the gubernatorial election. Nevada will be the closest, but I think Palin would win by at least three points.

  • Al Gore won the popular vote and lost the electoral college on the basis of fewer than 600 votes in Florida. He owed it to himself and those who voted for him (the majority of those who voted) to seek a recount under those circumstances. I won’t begrudge him that, and it was not “unstatemanlike” for him to seek a recount to determine whether he actually lost by fewer than 600 votes. What was unstatesmanlike was the manner in which he sought to conduct the recount.

    Had the 1960 election ended like the 2000 election did, Nixon would have owed it to the country to seek a recount. If Sarah Palin were to win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote on the basis of fewer than 600 votes in Ohio or Florida, I feel certain you’d want a recount to determine whether she actually lost in that state.

  • Florida had a recount Jay. What the Gore campaign wanted was the Florida Supreme Court to alter Florida state election law in order for them to have the type of recount they wanted which was contrary to Florida law as it existed at the time of the election. The Florida Supreme Court, controlled by the Dems, obliged the Gore campaign and altered the law, which is why the US Supreme Court stepped in twice. I have no problem with Gore having the recount required by Florida law, which he had. The unstatesmanlike behavior arose from his campaign, and the Florida Supreme Court, seeking to alter the rules after the fact. The country is still paying the price for Gore allowing ambition to overrule patriotism.

  • Okay Don, now that I think about it, I’ll put W. Va. and Missouri back in the GOP column, which gives Palin 248 electoral votes. She needs 22 more to win. Those votes could come from Florida alone; PA in combination with ANY other state; or a 2 out of 3 sweep of WI, OH and MI.

    I worry, however, that in states like MI and OH and even PA that have suffered badly from the recession, independent voters might be susceptible to the argument that the GOP is dominated by wealthy fat cats like those eeevil Koch brothers who care about nothing but increasing corporate profits, busting unions and making everyone work for minimum wage (I’m not saying that is in any way true, just pointing out how the Democrats are likely to paint the situation).

    For a helpful tool in piecing together a 2012 electoral map, visit this site:


  • “I have no problem with Gore having the recount required by Florida law, which he had. The unstatesmanlike behavior arose from his campaign, and the Florida Supreme Court, seeking to alter the rules after the fact.”

    Then we’re in perfect agreement on that.

  • Al Gore won nothing in 2000. There is no “popular vote”. Had that election been contested, state by state, Gore would have ended up having more votes disqualified. Democrats get 100% of the dead vote and almost 100% of the illegal alien vote. How many voters voted in both New York State and Florida (thanks to Motor Voter, it is nearly impossible to remove a person from the rolls).

    I don’t think independents can bring themselves to vote for Obumbler in 2012 when so many of them resoundingly voted against Obumbler in 2010.

    Ohio will not go for Obumbler in 2012. Northeast Ohio does not like John Kasich, but Kasich has been turning Ohio around and Northeast Ohio does not carry the state. Florida will not vote for Obumbler. Virginia will not vote for Obumbler. North Carolina will not vote for Obumbler. Indiana will not vote for Obumbler. I don’t think Iowa will vote for Obumbler.

    Pennsylvania has weathered the recession better than most states, as the unemployment rate in Pennsylvania has not hit 10% statewide. The thing here is, despite some unpopularity for Governor Corbett, Corbett signed a balanced budget, with no tax increases, ahead of schedule. Eddie $pendell wanted a tax increase each and every year. There is Democrat fatigue in Pennsylvania and I don’t see how a tired, inept Obumbler can carry Pennsylvania again. They key is the Philly suburbs, which have trended Democrat for the better part in presidential elections since 1992, but went GOP in a big way in the 2010 elections.

    Let’s face it. The economy will not improve in the remainder of 2011 or in 2012. The health care law has frightened business from hiring and high fuel prices, coupled with inflation in food prices, will not scare independents into voting for Obumbler. George Soros’ money won’t save him. The silly college age youth who voted for Obama in 2008 are largely unemployed or underemployed and Obumbler can not snooker the college youth in 2012 like he did in 2008.

  • If she’s nominated, I can’t see how she wins, unless the economy tanks even more. A distinct possibility, but the President still retains a decided popularity edge over Palin. People still like him, if not the job he’s doing.

    Palin, on other hand, is radioactive with independents. The media’s hatchet job, along with a couple of unforced errors, have ensured that. That unpopularity will not decay in time for the 2012 election. I like her personally (my uncle worked with her father in law up in Alaska) and am infuriated by the hatchet job, but she’s not electable *now*. Run for Begich’s seat, build up her resume’ some and she still has a future.

    In short, if we’re staring down the barrel of Carter-level stagflation, she can win. But then again, so can the rest of the current field, including candidates with far less baggage.

  • More grist for the mill: Rasmussen has her being crushed in a head-to-head matchup with the President. Today.


    At 33%, she’s not even holding on to the Republican base, gents. Even in this dead-parrot economy.

  • And Reagan in 1979 Dale was being crushed 57-35 in Gallup head to head match ups against Carter. Campaigns and the state of the economy in the election year do wonders for determining the actual outcome in November. Polls at this point are fun for political junkies like me, but are of little utility except perhaps for one element noted by Rasmussen. Obama is losing to a generic Republican. That is usually predictive of an incumbent in deep trouble.

  • Don, don’t whistle too loudly past the graveyard. : )

  • I don’t watch or follow any sports Joe. Politics fills that function for me. I certainly support Sarah Palin, but my analysis in this thread is simply what I think the political outcome would be in a matchup between Palin and Obama. If you wish to argue otherwise based on facts, feel free.

  • Don, your Palin “landslide” presumes she will be the nominee, which is not only premature but unlikely. Although there’s much discontent in the land that an Obama opponent could tap into, it is a FACT that the Democrats are more united than the GOP where RINOs and the Tea Party barely co-exist much less share political views.

    Secondly, wasn’t it the “Architect” himself, Karl Rove, whose party clout is undeniable, who cut Sarah off at the knees repeatedly.

    Lastly, Wisconsin, although purple, is still a toss-up state and could go blue in light of the growing anti-Walker sentiment and possibility of recall and the mountains of cash the unions are able to use as leverage.

  • That Palin will be the nominee is quite likely Joe as Iowa and New Hampshire will demonstrate quite well. Her main competition will be Rick Perry who is now receiving the same micro-exam that Palin has been under since 2008. Palin has a hard core of supporters throughout the nation that the other candidates currently lack. She has been quietly building up enthusiastic organizations for her in every state of the Union. She can outraise in campaign funds any of her opponents. The enthusiasm gap between her supporters and the supporters of any of the other candidates is vast.

    Karl Rove? Would that be the Karl Rove who almost lost two elections that any Republican candidate should have won going away in 2000 and 2004? I enjoy his appearances on talk shows, but I have little doubt that he will have zero influence on who the nominee will be.

    Wisconsin is not necessary for Palin to win the White House, but I think we shall have it in any case. What Walker is doing is already bearing positive fruit for the Wisconsin economy, and the economy is going to be the overriding issue next year.

  • Well, Don, I’d like to share your enthusiasm but don’t think Palin can pull it off. We’ll see. Meanwhile Rove’s still a force and his potshots don’t help.

  • I thought this post was a joke! Palin as President? A wing-nut if I ever heard one.

  • “I thought this post was a joke! Palin as President? A wing-nut if I ever heard one.”

    Is that the best you can do? “Wing-nut”? As can be seen above, I’m a strong skeptic of Palin as a candidate, but can’t you at least offer something substantive? Anything?

  • “I thought this post was a joke! Palin as President? A wing-nut if I ever heard one.”

    Yeah and Reagan was only “a has been grade b actor”. I have been around long enough to recall all the epithets aimed at conservative standard bearers in presidential contests. You will have to dodge more artfully than that.

  • The reason I thought this was a joke was that Sarah Palin is the same as Obama except from the other political extreme. We don’t need political extremeism anymore. We need someone who has more real world experience than her. We need a republican candidate who can pull both parties together and start making something good happen in this country. I think electing Sara Palin would be self destructive to this country by electing someone who is just as polarizing as Mr. Obama.

  • The reason I thought this was a joke was that Sarah Palin is the same as Obama except from the other political extreme.

    To anyone remotely familiar with either, this statement must sound unreal.

    If you wish to argue otherwise based on facts, feel free.

    One cannot argue on the basis of fact. One can speculate. You’ve got your known unknowns (the course of the economy over the next 15 months and the identity of the Republican candidate) and then you’ve got your unknown unknowns. Precedents are modest in number and efforts at statistical modeling in the past have proven unreliable (recall the corps of quantitatively oriented political scientists whose model in 2000 predicted that Albert Gore would be voted into office with 60% of the vote, a historically unprecedented margin). Would not wager much.

    More grist for the mill: Rasmussen has her being crushed in a head-to-head matchup with the President. Today.

    Having a not-ready-for-prime time candidate would (one suspect) cost you. You know, though, there are only four recent precedents (Wendell Willkie, Barry Goldwater, George McGovern, and Ronald Reagan). The relevant question is how much it costs you and what your antecedent baseline is. Who can say?

  • I agree in essence with Art. There are simply too many variables to argue “facts.” All this conjecture is nothing more than opinion, or a semi-educated guess, on what can/will happen. Isn’t voting, when you come down to it, little more than a tabulation of collective opinion?

  • “One cannot argue on the basis of fact.”

    Fact: The economy is bad and getting worse.

    Fact: Obama doesn’t have a clue what to do about it.

    Fact: The overwhelming issue in the vast majority of Presidential elections is the economy.

    Conclusion From the above Facts: Obama is in the worst place of any President seeking re-election since Herbert Hoover.

    Further facts in regard to Palin to follow after I have had an opportunity to unwind from an order of protection hearing that didn’t end until 6: 30 this evening.

  • “Yeah and Reagan was only “a has been grade b actor”

    More precisely, a “has been Grade B actor” who had been Governor of California for 8 years. He was elected to two terms and COMPLETED both. So he was considerably more ready for prime time than Palin.

  • Not according to his critics at the time Elaine. Reagan got no credit whatsoever for his time as governor of California, and his ideas were mocked as out of date if not positively senile. The contempt and vitriol poured on Reagan in 76 and 80, more than a little bit from fellow Republicans, cannot be understated. The opposition was so strong to Reagan that it helped to convince Republican congressman John Anderson to run third party. He walked away with 6.6% of the vote on election day, not an uimpressive showing by a third party candidate. A gallup poll in late October of 1980 showed Reagan trailing Carter by six points. Reagan tends to be viewed through rose colored classes these days, but his road to the White House was bumpy and hard fought, and almost all elite opinion, and probably most Americans until shortly before the election, thought that he should never get there.

  • Sarah Palin cannot possibly be as successful as innumerable Ivy League geniuses that have pretty well wrecked the greatest nation in the History of Man.

  • More precisely, a “has been Grade B actor” who had been Governor of California for 8 years. He was elected to two terms and COMPLETED both. So he was considerably more ready for prime time than Palin.

    Gov. Palin was a mayor and a state bureau chief for ten years prior to her turn as governor. Her’s has been a more normal political progression. (Reagan did have some preparation by superintending the Screen Actors’ Guild). Lou Cannon and others have contended Mr. Reagan hardly knew whether he was coming or going during his initial years as Governor of California. I do not think anyone has contended Gov. Palin was in a similar predicament. She was quite forthright about practical circumstances which compelled her to resign as Governor of Alaska. Unless you can face $500,000 and ever upward of legal bills, I would suggest you be less catty about it.

  • Objection, Don, asked and answered.

  • I remember a couple of years ago many conservatives were saying that we can never again let the left and their media pick the Republican candidate. Did we forget what we said? Don’t let the media pick who we should not vote for either.

    Palin is the most vetted politician in history, and all of her ‘negatives’ are based on lies.

    Sticking her neck out confronting Obama, 2 books,
    24,000 emails, and an independently made movie,
    all show that Sarah Palin is a hard working, capable, incorruptible, servant of the people.

    Palin has the truth on her side. The more that comes to light, the better for her.
    This is exactly the opposite for most of her opponents and especially Obama.
    She has earned my vote already.

  • “Objection, Don, asked and answered”.

    My response to a successful objection along those lines Joe is to alter my question until I get the answer I want, or until I have so confused the court and opposing counsel that the answer I did not want harms me very little. 🙂 Oh and going back to the question later after additional questions and answers have complicated/confused the issue is another useful technique. Ah Socrates, the legal profession today would make you weep, but I could have spared you the hemlock if I had represented you! (Although after seeing a modern trial he might have been bellowing for hemlock, the more potent the better!)

  • We need a republican candidate who can pull both parties together and start making something good happen in this country.

    I think this is impossible. Other than a few outliers, the Democrats would never participate in it. It’s not in their best interest to help Republicans do the right thing and it’s not in their best interest to have society humming along nicely without their heavy hand. At best you can hope for a sound candidate who can solidify most if not all of the party behind him and garner enough broad public support to squeeze vulnerable Democrats to cross party lines.

  • Don, I’ve been a defendant twice in my life, both for traffic tickets, which I pleaded not guilty to. I represented myself, took photos, called the cops to the stand, cross-examined, all the while getting the malocchio (bad eye in Italian) from the judges. Verdict: Guilty, pay up. I guess I watched too much Perry Mason when I was younger. But I did get 30 days to pay. : )

  • Traffic cases are difficult to win Joe in front of most judges. They tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the cops in my experience. Additionally too many judges view contested traffic ticket trials as a waste of their time, which is precisely the wrong attitude for them to have. They are paid to preside and decide. I can sympathize with a Judge who has a schedule to keep and a bench trial over, to him, a petty matter, is throwing off that schedule, but that is the nature of the business, and if a judge cannot conceal his impatience, then a mistake was made when he was given the black robe.

  • Other than a few outliers, the Democrats would never participate in it.

    Agreed. Erskine Bowles and Alice Rivlin do not preside over the congressional caucuses. Reid and Pelosi do. The conduct of the Democratic caucuses in the last three years have left quite a few of us wondering just where the bottom is.

  • Additionally too many judges view contested traffic ticket trials as a waste of their time, which is precisely the wrong attitude for them to have. They are paid to preside and decide.

    Here in New York, traffic cases are heard by JPs (commonly laymen) who usually serve part time and by hearing examiners appended to the state Department of Motor Vehicles. The JPs usually are not pressed for time and the hearing examiners are specialists. You’re still guilty.

  • Don, my defense in the first case, speeding, was lame. I was “keeping up with traffic,” going no slower or faster than the rest of the violators. Why pick on me? Also, I challenged the accuracy of the RADAR gun. In the second instance, I actually felt not guilty because it was in a construction zone at night and I was being tailgated by a car with very bright headlines and was trying to stay reasonably ahead so as not to be blinded. Little did I know until a few miles later that the car that was tailgating me was a squad car! He claimed I was
    “going too fast for conditions,” a situation he caused by following too close! The judge didn’t agree.

  • bright headlights…in previous

  • “The JPs usually are not pressed for time and the hearing examiners are specialists.”

    In Illinois Art everything is tried by real judges. Unpaid JPs handled traffic offenses in Illinois until 1970 when the Constitution was rewritten. In my town the local JP was an auto mechanic who would hear traffic cases in his garage. The JPs got a percentage of the fines so there was a built in conflict of interest. My guess is that the results today, at vastly greater cost, are not too different from the verdicts handed down long ago by that auto mechanic.

  • “Don, my defense in the first case, speeding, was lame. I was “keeping up with traffic,” going no slower or faster than the rest of the violators. Why pick on me? Also, I challenged the accuracy of the RADAR gun. In the second instance, I actually felt not guilty because it was in a construction zone at night and I was being tailgated by a car with very bright headlines and was trying to stay reasonably ahead so as not to be blinded. Little did I know until a few miles later that the car that was tailgating me was a squad car! He claimed I was “going too fast for conditions,” a situation he caused by following too close! The judge didn’t agree.”

    Those aren’t defenses Joe but they are factors in mitigation. If I were representing you here in Illinois, I would enter my appearance and request a jury trial. Then at the pre-trial I would have you enter a blind plea. At the sentencing I would mention the factors in mitigation. We already have brownie points from the judge since we aren’t actually taking it through to trial, and most judges are then willing to discount the fine asked for by the State if I can give them some basis to do so.

  • Well, I did manage to avoid points against my license in both cases so it wasn’t a total failure. Irony of ironies, I ran into the same cop a few months later and he let me off with a warning on a broken tail light, cutting me a break after the first encounter.

  • “Unless you can face $500,000 and ever upward of legal bills, I would suggest you be less catty about it.”

    I don’t doubt that was a legitimate consideration on her part. But what if she gets hit with all sorts of legal expenses while in the White House? Is she going to walk away from that job too? Sorry, but I just don’t have confidence in her ability to serve as POTUS yet. As I’ve said before on this blog, I think she should run for Congress or the Senate, or take a Cabinet position in a GOP administration (maybe Perry could make her Interior Secretary if he’s elected?), get a few years of federal level service under her belt and then consider running for POTUS.

    Say what you will about the virtue of not being a “Washington insider” or of “running government like a business,” since when is lack of experience considered a virtue when considering someone for one of the most important, most complex, and most stressful jobs on the planet?

    Would you deliberately seek out an inexperienced airline pilot, brain surgeon, or even plumber? Granted, “inexperienced” doesn’t automatically mean “incompetent”, and the young, inexperienced doctor, pilot, etc. may be naturally smarter than some who have been in the field for many years. Plus, the problem of inexperience will get better with time. Someone who is inexperienced now may not be in 5 or 10 years.

    But, all other things being equal, when you are talking about putting your life, or your property, in someone else’s hands, you want someone who has a proven record of handling that type of job well. Shouldn’t the same principle apply when choosing someone to become Commander in Chief, which is, after all, just as much a life or death job?

  • And before anyone jumps to conclusions, the same principles apply equally to Obama, who had very little federal level experience when first elected (less than 2 years in the U.S. Senate), and who now has a proven record of INcompetence in office.

  • But what if she gets hit with all sorts of legal expenses while in the White House? Is she going to walk away from that job too?

    Again, she was facing the legal expenses because of the nuisance suits allowed by some curios in Alaska ethics laws. Supporters of Gov. Palin set up a legal defense fund to help defray her expenses and the result was … another ethics complaint. Unless the applicable federal statutes can be exploited similarly, that is not an issue.

  • Art is correct Elaine. Under Alaska law an ethics complaint can be filed by anyone who pays the minor filing fee. Then the Alaskan state government was required to conduct an investigation, and Palin had to hire counsel out of her own pocket. A few deranged Palin haters were the prime filers of the ethics complaints, all of which I believe were found to be meritless. This “politics through litigation” has continued after Palin left office. Note the link below. Now of course Palin has earned enough in the private sector so responding to these deranged cranks will not bankrupt her family.


  • If Sarah Palin will not make it as the nominee of the Republican party, it is because the owners let it be..

    It’s easy to win a congressional race as a tea partier, and to some extent some gubernatorial races, but that’s where the buck ends with the Republican machinery.

    If she is to win, there needs to be a third party. The only reason why conservatives in congress and media decry this is because it takes power away from their coporate owners.

  • No, if Sarah loses, it will be because the very type of voter who she needs to support her (people like me who happen to be BIG fans of hers) will have found another candidate that they would rather support. From a new poll of Iowa voters:

    “If you throw Sarah Palin into the mix the numbers are pretty similar with Perry at 21%, Romney at 18%, Bachmann at 15%, Paul at 12%, and Palin registering at only 10%…”

    Iowa is a state in which Palin SHOULD play extremely well – instead, she registers 5th in this poll. And, when you dig deeper into the numbers, it appears that she pulls more support away from Ron Paul than she does from Perry, Romney, and Bachmann combined. In short, mainstream conservatives in Iowa have, for the most part, settled on a different candidate than Palin.

    But, it’s early yet, and Palin is certainly the one person who could potentially change the dynamic of the race. I just hope she doesn’t do so by throwing the election to Romney. The fact that polls show him only 3 points off the lead in Iowa is cause for concern. If that fraud Romney should somehow pull off a win Iowa, it’s game, set, and match, folks.

  • if Sarah loses, it will be because the very type of voter who she needs to support her (people like me who happen to be BIG fans of hers) will have found another candidate that they would rather support.

    Bingo! I like her, but I simply see no path to victory for her in 2012. She has no room to grow with independents, unless the economy completely tanks. The people who are either indifferent to, unsure of, or unaware of Sarah Palin are those emerging from comas.

    The only grain of salt I’d add to that poll is that that’s what she’s polling in the absence of actually being in the race. Look what happened to Perry after he declared.

    And I agree about Romney–his real chance is rather like McCain’s in 2008: the more conservative candidates fracture the vote, and he takes the remainder.

  • Does anyone see Rick Santorum in the mix?

  • “Polarizing” if you really want to call it that is a good thing. Some of us call it divide and conquer. Psssst…We outnumber them. 2-1. Look it up. The “experts” are lecturing to us that if Mitt Romney is the nominee we will vote for Mitt Romney and if Sarah Palin is the nominee we will vote for Barack Obama. Hmmm…I didn’t go to Harvard, Princeton, or Yale (Heck I didn’t go to College at all) but I know crap when I hear it. I’m tired of the “experts” picking the nominee. Let’s divide and conquer. Polar-Rising! #PalinOrBust

The First Lord’s Song

Saturday, August 20, AD 2011

Something for the weekend.  The First Lord’s Song from Gilbert& Sullivan’s HMS Pinafore, a satirical look at how political hacks filled important positions they were completely unsuited for.  With around 40% of Congresscritters members of the legal profession, and I believe some eight cabinet level officers, the song remains topical.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to The First Lord’s Song

  • Got my husband hooked on G&S with a choice selection of their more…ah… currently accurate songs. My darling Evil Overlord especially enjoyed “I’ve got a little list.” (Link keeps the spirit but changes the words a bit….)

    Several family car trips were made MUCH better by my mom having a compilation tape for these folks, and being deaf enough to really blast it.
    (Also: Ride of the Valkyries is outstanding cruising music; hopefully we upgrade the minivan before our next really long drive, so I can use my “Massive Classics” CD.)

  • Really love G & S and the Savoy Operas – all had a comment to make on the society of that day, but as you say, still very relevant today.
    “Stick close to your desk and never go to sea……..” speaks volumes of the burgeoning bureaucracies in governments today – often instigated by socialist style govts – people who have been seat -polishers all their lives but making crucial life decisions that impact negatively on society at large.

    In my days at Sacred Heart in the 50’s there was an annual production of one of the Gilbert & Sullivan operas. When I was a boy soprano I acted in “Pirates of Penzance” and “The Mikado”.
    I missed “HMS Pinafore” and “The Gondoliers” when my voice broke and took me a year or more for my tenor voice to develop.
    Great selection Don.

  • Thank you Don. When you consider that these were light operas for the masses in the 19th century, the wit and the sharp observations on society contained within them are amazing. Apparently in those days entertainers did not assume that they had to appeal to the lowest common denominator to draw an audience.

  • “Stick close to your desks and never go to sea” is one thing for some one who is appointed First Sea Lord or Secretary of the Navy. But when I see headlines of ship’s captains getting fired in the NAVY TIMES I wonder how many Naval Line Officers follow that advice.

    I know we had a certain problem with Army Officers who hated troop duty and felt the way to get ahead was to avoid itl They usually got there come uppance before they got a star but not always.

    Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings

  • Magnificent! There is much truth in jest.

Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee

Friday, August 19, AD 2011

Hattip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.  I guess some public schools must not be quite clear on the First Amendment.  Jerry Buell is a 22 year veteran social studies teacher at Mount Dora high school in Florida, and he was teacher of the year for his school district in 2010.  However, after offending the gods of political correctness, he will not be in the classroom when school begins this year.  On July 25, 2011 he posted these comments on his Facebook page:

“I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up.  And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?”

“By the way, if one doesn’t like the most recently posted opinion based on biblical principles and God’s laws, then go ahead and unfriend me. I’ll miss you like I miss my kidney stone from 1994. And I will never accept it because God will never accept it. Romans chapter one.”

The school district suspended Buell because they are afraid that a homosexual student might be frightened or intimated by him.  Go here to see a video report of this farce.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee

  • Democrats are practitioners of freedom only when you agree with them.

  • Democrats/liberals/progressives: You are either on the bus or you are under the bus.

    Brave new world indeed.

    I hope Mr. Buell is lawyered up.

  • Sadly, not just schools– although schools are probably why it’s spreading.

    I just lost a friend over what he would call “politics”– when I shared an article on facebook that pointed out the top 1% are earning 20% of the AGI and paying nearly 40% of the income taxes, he attacked my math skills and said of course lower taxes on those who make more will get more income, it’s only fair that people “give” more….

    Remember, attacks, be they personal, physical, or on folks’ ability to get a job are fair game…if it’s for the right cause.


  • One way to put it is to say that Democrats are Platonic while Republicans are Aristotelian. The Democrats know from an elitiest vantage point what’s best for everyone else. So they have a right to make that happen and that regardless of the means. Republicans think individuals make choices and should make good ones because it’s their responsibliy. So it’s a war between Platonists and Aristotelians.

  • There was a time when the ACLU would have had the back of a man like Mr. Buell.
    Sadly, the ACLU no longer seems to be in the business of fighting for the preser-
    vation of civil liberties. T. Shaw was correct in his post above– Mr. Buell should
    lawyer up.

    It’s amazing that the school district suspended this otherwise sterling teacher not
    because of anything that he actually did, but because a homosexual student
    might be frightened or intimidated by him because of what he had posted
    on Facebook. No student actually complained about Mr. Buell.

    Would it be consistent with the dubious ‘logic’ used by the school district to call
    for the suspension of those officials responsible for Mr. Buell’s suspension? After
    all, Christian staff and students might be frightened or intimidated by
    them because of how they punished Mr. Buell for voicing his religious and
    political beliefs outside of the school. Just sayin’.

  • Pat,

    I need to break out my philosphy primer because I don’t remember ever having heard Plato and Aristotle reduced to those points? Could you elaborate?

  • As I recall, in the famous painting, The School of Athens, Plato is pointing to the heavens and Aristotle to the earth. Plato represented the ideal, Aristotle the “real world.” Choose your philosophers.

    As for Mr. Buell, Bravo! I hope he sues the pants off the school district on 1st Amendment grounds.

  • Well, E-Veg, I meant it only on the most general level, in the sense that Republicans do acknowledge the world as it is. Demoncrats have a vision, think of the world in terms of that vision, and demand that it materialize.

  • The Democrat vision is murdered unborn babies, and homosexual filth sanctified as marriage.

  • So that’s the opposition I meant to clarity. Democrats have got a vision that’s impracticable given human nature, and they try to impose that vision anyway. Republicans acknowledge human nature for what it is and go from there. God has promised a New Jerusalem. But he never said that it would come about through human effort. It would arrive from outside and beyond. Nevertheless, secular and religious ‘Calvinists’ are always trying to implement it in their own power. Silly. Silly. Very silly. Not to mention all the harm they do, whether it’s Oliver Cromwell or Hillary Clinton.

  • When you’re young you’re a Platonist. As you age you turn Aristotelian. You get afraid. You see how people really are. You know that some things can’t be done. You deal with reality as you find it and go from there. Can’t impose that vision; the material you have to work with just isn’t fit for it. Further, you learn it’s not your job. People have to be respected for their individuality and choices. Share the light you have. But don’t think you can impose it after your fashion.

  • The crowd now ruining the country has no experience and so no knowledge (I’m being charitable not charging them with intentionally destroying the USA, which they hate) that think they know everything.

    Camus: “All attempts to create Heaven on Earth result in Hell on Earth.”

    Part of destructive plan is polarization. Name one policy or goal that d’rats push which benefits, or asks for sacrifices from, the entire citizenry as a unit.

    Question for whomever on that Bd. of Ed.

    What will you do when normal (not sexual vampires) children living in fecund, sanctified households feel frightened, intimidated and threatened by the school’s imposition of sodomy on them? We know what Stalin would do.

  • Well you hit on something interesting…there are people who think we ARE the problem in the world. There are folks who think America stands in the way of a better world. It’s rediculous, of course. But they beleive that. They beleive that if the world had our money and we had their brains we’d have universal peace. Silly. But they DO believe it. And remember, as in psychology, reality is ninety-nine percent perception. If someone believes a thing, they’re acting in accordance with that. So you get this political type, a certain kind of Democrat or whateverf, that sees America as bad and the rest of the world as benign and victimized by us. This democratic type really believesthat, and you’d best acknwoledge it. They’re acting on that perception!

  • What’s the difference between America and the People’s Republic of China? In America, government coercion is used to force people to pretend sham marriages are real. In China, government coercion is used to force people to pretend sham ordinations of bishops are real.

  • A follow-up question to T. Shaw’s for the whomever on that Bd. of Ed.

    What will you do when homosexual children feel frightened, intimidated and threatened by the school’s imposition of an expection that they must someday marry upon them – and sue that Bd. of Id.?

Who You Calling Racist, Racist?

Friday, August 19, AD 2011

By now roughly 20 times more people have seen the clip below than when it originally aired on the Keith Olbermann Show.  Yes, Keith Olbermann has a show again.  It runs on a channel called Current TV.  It’s basically a cable access channel gone national.  Keith had political philosopher Janeane Garofalo on his show to discuss the Tea Party movement, and she uttered these sage remarks about Herman Cain.

For those of you who don’t feel like watching the clip, here’s a transcript of the relevant portion.

Garofalo also said successful businessman Herman Cain is either being paid to run or is suffering from Stockholm syndrome because he is a “person of color” running as a Republican in the party’s presidential primary.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Who You Calling Racist, Racist?

  • To many people on the Left it is an article of faith that racial minorities cannot be conservative, which would be news to Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Congressmen West and Scott, etc. They explain the existence of black conservatives using the type of psychobabble that Garafolo spewed. Just another example that whatever reality much of “the reality based community” is tuned into, it is not the one the rest of us occupy.

  • God willing, virtuous men and women like Col. West, Associate Justice Thomas, Herman Cain, Thomas Sowell, et al will lead black America out of democrat dependency and desperation.

    Recently, terrorist sympathizers at CAIR “called out” Congressman West for associating with certain Americans that oppose terror. His written, one-word response was: “NUTS!” Of course, the idiot progressives (I repeat myself) didn’t get it.

  • One wonders if Obama himself might not be racially suicidal given that abortions disproportionately affect persons of color, and Obama is a person of color.

    One also wonders why those who voted for Obama only because of the color of his skin are not themselves racist.

    Indeed, it’s not the accident of birth into a specific race or culture, or the pigment of the skin that counts, but the color of one’s heart. As Matthew 15:10-19 state:

    When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear and understand: Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.” Then His disciples came and said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.” Then Peter answered and said to Him, “Explain this parable to us.” So Jesus said, “Are you also still without understanding? Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”

  • I particularly like hearing Keith Olbermann talking about “delusions of grandeur” as if he wasn’t the poster child for such things.

  • So, Michael, Olbermann’s “delusions of grandeur” remark could be paraphrased thusly:

    Pot: “Hello, Kettle. You’re black.”

    … Or would that be racist, too?

  • Olbermann’s best gig was doing SportsCenter on ESPN at 1 in the morning when no one was watching. Amazingly, MSNBC gave this bonehead a $30 million, 4-year contract. Of course, no one of any intelligence watches that network much less Current TV. Garofalo’s so desperate for face time she’s a regular on Maher’s HBO show, another sources of enlightenment for the leftist loons.

  • Yawn! She would be more relevant if she said that Christianity is the reason why we have blacks like Herman Caine and women like Sarah Palin and Bachmann running under a conservative ticket. “Afterall” ,she would follow, “such a religion baits people into believing that a moral code is necessary to be live in this world.”

Over There

Friday, August 19, AD 2011

When I was 12 or so, my father picked up a newly released album of World War One music entitled, after the most famous American song of the war, Over There. It is now long out of print (though still occasionally available used). As is sometimes the case with highly singable songs one heard as a youth, several of these songs had been on my mind lately, and so when the breakdown of the dishwasher the other night set everyone to washing and drying dishes, I put it on and we sang along to the oddly cheerful songs inspired by one of the world’s darker interludes.

“Over There”, written in 1917 by George M. Cohan (I didn’t like the historical versions I found on YouTube as much, so I made my own with the Feinstein rendition of the song.)

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Over There

Gunga Din

Friday, August 19, AD 2011

The sixth in my ongoing series examining the poetry of Rudyard Kipling.   The other posts in the series may be read here, here , here , here and here.

Kipling is usually regarded, and often dismissed, as the poet laureate of British Imperialism.  A close examination of his poetry and stories reveals a good deal more complexity than that.  A prime example of this is Kipling’s poem Gunga Din, written in 1892:

You may talk o’ gin and beer
When you’re quartered safe out ‘ere,
An’ you’re sent to penny-fights an’ Aldershot it;
But when it comes to slaughter
You will do your work on water,
An’ you’ll lick the bloomin’ boots of ‘im that’s got it.
Now in Injia’s sunny clime,
Where I used to spend my time
A-servin’ of ‘Er Majesty the Queen,
Of all them blackfaced crew
The finest man I knew
Was our regimental bhisti, Gunga Din.
He was “Din! Din! Din!
You limpin’ lump o’ brick-dust, Gunga Din!
Hi! slippery hitherao!
Water, get it! Panee lao!
You squidgy-nosed old idol, Gunga Din.”

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Gunga Din

  • To me: best part is

    “You may talk of gin and beer
    When yer quartered safe out ‘ere
    And yer sent ta penny fights
    And Aldershot it.

    But when it comes to slaughter
    You’ll do yer work on water
    And lick the bloomin’ boots of ‘im what’s got it.”

    Here we have a vet teaching recruits. He finishes the lesson with the truth that some among that “black faced crew” are better men than you and me.

    My Dad (RIP) told me gin and beer could take the legs out from under you. I never tried.

  • Thanks, Donald. Kipling was earnest, yes, and sincere in his supposed ‘burden.’ I don’t know if that’s the nuance you’re referring to. That he was imperialistic can’t be denyed. His was a time of decadence, though. Folks were jaded. The rich were, at least. People couldn’t get enough of the ‘exotic,’ but civilization arrived. It seemed there wasn’t much else to do. I think that’s why they rushed into WWI.

  • Gin and sake are loathsome drinks.

Last Call to Vote in GOP Presidential Poll for Catholics

Friday, August 19, AD 2011

The American Catholic (TAC) GOP Poll will be accepting votes until tonight, so if you haven’t voted, now is the time.

Thus far former Pennsylvania U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is still leading with 23% (up 1 point since Wednesday) of the vote followed by Texas Governor Rick Perry with 17% (down 2 points since Wednesday) of the vote.

Continue reading...

Cross & Eagle Catholic Blogging Award for Longest Post Title

Thursday, August 18, AD 2011

The Cross & Eagle Awards (C&EA) will venture again into the unique today.

In the Catholic Blogosphere there are many authors that can make their point in a paragraph or two.  There are others that can write a 2,000 word essay in driving their point.  Still there are others that, like today’s cinema movie trailers, like to make their point not in their post, but in the title of their post!

This particular blogger makes a habit of writing his essay in the post title.  He, yes there’s no way around that, demonstrates that you can pack a powerful SEO punch by loading up on the post title.

He’s on the other side of the pond, but remember we are Catholics first before we are Americans or British or other.

Lately though he has been blogging on the Rupert Murdoch scandal in Britain.  He normally reports on all things Catholic and Anglican.

I am happy to present the 2011 Cross & Eagle Award for the Longest Post Title in the Catholic Blogosphere to . . .

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Cross & Eagle Catholic Blogging Award for Longest Post Title

Non-Human People

Thursday, August 18, AD 2011

(First time posting, so hopefully I don’t mess up the formatting too much; that would be a bit much after folks were kind enough to invite me to post!)

Time for a bit of Catholic applied to geekery! (Not to be confused with straight up Catholic Geekery, which is more the Holy Father’s area– does anyone doubt that he dearly loves thinking about, playing with and elaborating on Catholic theology? You just don’t end up writing THREE books on the life of Jesus without the love, intellectual interest and deep enjoyment of a geek for his geekdom.)

There’s something about Catholics and blogs that always ends up going into the old question of what makes a man– or, more correctly, a person. “Man” in this context would be a human, and there are several examples of people that aren’t humans– like most of the Trinity. Sadly, the topic usually comes up in terms of abortion; even the utterly simple-science-based reasoning that all humans are human and should be treated thus will bring out the attacks. (Amusingly, the line of attack is usually that someone is trying to force their religious beliefs on others, rather than an attempt to explain why a demonstrably human life is objectively different from, say, an adult human. The “bioethicist” Singer is famous for being open about valuing life in a utilitarian manner, but there aren’t many who will support that angle.[thank God])

Continue reading...

164 Responses to Non-Human People

  • Fascinating. If there are other sentient races in the universe then there arises the question as to whether God would provide ways for them to attain salvation other than through Christ. CS Lewis was intrigued by this question as demonstrated by his Out of the Silent Planet trilogy and the Narnia books.

  • When I think of what differentiates us as humans, Donald, I think of how we are spiritual beings. We yearn for God (whether we know it or not). And we of course look over the horizon to find something that will fill that gap. So we’re spiritual. As Augustine said, Thou hast made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless til they find their rest in Thee. We are at the center, too. There is a great chain even while Sir Lovejoy charted its intellectual demise. Regardless of our physical location in the universe, our spiritual plight places us right at the center. As far as we can tell, we alone are consciously troubled and preoccupied more than any other creature. We know of no others comparable to us.

  • “We know of no others comparable to us.”


  • Whether God created other beings than those mentioned in Scripture cannot now be known. Depsite what scientists have said, we live in a human-centered, geocentric universe till this day.

    C. S. Lewis was a fascinating, imaginative man, of course. His works are all classics. I appreciated The Abolition of Man. When we divorce our concept of man from the Christian worldview, we get a distortion. Our understanding is still dependent on the Christian worldview (to some extent). We’re at a transition, surviving on borrowed capital. But there are those who argue for a different view, and that other viewpoint is gaining in acceptance. So we have our feet in both worlds. Are we beings of worth and responsiblity? Or are we animals of instinct determined by forces?

    So what separates us? I don’t think it’s reason. I think it’s spirituality. We are accountable to God. He made us as priests over creation, to offer up sacrifices pleasing to Him. We failed in that assignment. So He initiated a rescue mission to restore us to that role. Once again we can be “priests of God and of Christ,” and we can reign with him (have dominion over creation). It’s the marriage of heaven and earth, where God, the temple, comes down to the garden never again to depart.

  • Priests and kings. We were created as priests and kings. To that we are restored if we are in Christ. This priestly and kingly role to which we’re assigned, then, is what differentiates us from all other created beings that are known.

    To possess dominion over creation, offering it back up to God, is the essence of the human being, I believe, when restored to God’s image. After all, who is God in whose image we were made?

  • Pat-
    I would agree “we” (culturally) are living on borrowed worldview– one of the things that this kind of discussion does is get people to realize how many of the things they assumed were just universal human views are Christian, and not shared by other cultures. (This is a major, major issue in dealing with time off the ship in the Navy–utterly ignoring the applications in terrorism!)

    I think the difference you draw between reason and spirituality might be an artifact of definition. Short version: you can’t be spiritual if you can’t choose.

    St. Augustine got it right in general, although I don’t think his biological detail is required:
    But whoever is anywhere born a man, that is, a rational, mortal animal, no matter what unusual appearance he presents in color, movement, sound, nor how peculiar he is in some power, part, or quality of his nature, no Christian can doubt that he springs from that one protoplast. We can distinguish the common human nature from that which is peculiar, and therefore wonderful.

  • Well, Foxfier: People have long distinguished us on the basis of reason. But do not animals reason? I have before me a dog that reasons. She’s not apparently spiritual, though. So I guess that’s the sense in which I meant to get that difference across. (Also, people vary in mental capability and sometimes profoundly so). I trace ‘the reason thing’ to the Greeks, Aquinas, Western phil., Victorian sensibility. I don’t think of it as a purely Christian notion. We’re spiritual beings, I know. I don’t know that reason really separates us from other seen beings. First of all I don’t know that we all reason. Secondly, I’m not sure all other seen beings don’t.

  • It’s that priestly and kingly role to which we were assigned that separates us from the rest of creation. We were to reign over it and offer it back up to God. We failed in that mission. He in His goodness, came down to us as high priest in Jesus Christ offering up a perfect sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. He thereby restored us to Himself. We are atoned for. We find in Christ our roles re-established. Priests of God and of Christ who reign with Him. There’s a polis in a garden that God has sanctified. He’s Immanuel forevermore.

    The human being is made in God’s image, fallen in Adam, and then redeemed and restored in Christ. Made by a triune God, we find our fulfillment in Him and in His community, the New People. The world is very old and is passing away.

  • You know I’ve been tempted to use reason and/or morality to separate us from other beings. It just doesn’t make any sense. Unless you’re living in one of the better parts of Victorian London. No. People are different from animals because they are spiritual beings, made in God’s image, and fallen from thence, though redeemable in Christ. This is our essence.

  • But do not animals reason?

    In this meaning of reason, no, they don’t reason, are not rational beings. Mental capacity of an individual is likewise not involved– we’re talking classes, groups, not individuals. I don’t remove your soul if I do so much brain damage that you’re unable to express the rationality of said soul.

    I’m not sure how you figure your dog reasons, since you don’t explain it, nor how you’d be able to tell if she felt a yearning for something greater than herself– after all, dogs do tend to desire a pack.

    You might want to go read Jimmy’s post that I linked.

    It’s that priestly and kingly role to which we were assigned that separates us from the rest of creation.

    Problem being, who is “we”? Rather the whole point of the exercise….

  • No idea what you’re getting at by the frequent references to Victorian London, either.

  • Well I think we are that: beings made in God’s image, fallen, and redeemable. Priests before and after. Lords before and after. We are spiritual. In Christ our identity is reclaimed. We find our place again in God’s creation: kings and priests. Does God need us? Of course not. But this is what he created us for. He loves us and engages us in his creative work.

  • In the Western world beginning wiht the Greeks, we at the height of culture/ civilizaTION HAVE thought of ourselves as rational beings. I think it’s old.

  • YOu see, the problem is that we’re not rational. We’ve found that out. We just have to accept it.

  • When we think of human beings, we must think not only of what we were, but of what we are and what we will be (assuming we are Christians). Our essence is this: Made in God’s image, fallen, and redeemed in Christ. This is what separates us from vegetation, animals, angels, etc. I do not mean to say creation in general is not redeemed. I believe very strongly that it is. I simply mean to point out our difference. Our essence. We are spiritual, with souls as well as breath, accountable spiritually since we were made in God’s image, since we failed his assignment, since we find redemption in Him through Christ, and restoration.

  • Well I think we are that: beings made in God’s image, fallen, and redeemable.

    Who is included in “beings made in God’s image”? That is the point of this post.

    Obviously it includes male, female, a huge range of hair, skin and eye colors, a huge range of body types, a huge range of mental abilities… we often use the short-hand of human, or homo sapiens; as we learn more about homo neanderthalensis, that becomes less reasonable.
    Like St Augustine reasoned, if “monstrous” births are still people, would it not be possible for there to be “monstrous races”?

    YOu see, the problem is that we’re not rational. We’ve found that out. We just have to accept it.

    That people don’t use the ability doesn’t mean that we don’t have it. It would take a lot of proof to “show” that your dog is rational, but humans aren’t!

  • Hmnn, I think you might be looking at it a bit too literally or precisely. Whether one is profoundly retarded or genius level is irrelevant. God made human beings in His image. We failed in that. But we have souls as well as ‘breath’ or life. We are spiritual. We were and could once again be priests and lords within the context of this creation. Whatever else is going on way out there is another topic, really. As for prodigies, unusual differences, etc., we still know they are human if they are. Otherwise it’s an animal. Darwinism and evolutionary thought has us confused on this. Secular scientists would like to blur the boundary between animals and humans by focusing on ‘deep time’ and theorizing.

  • Reason became a distinction, and perhaps the one distinction of the human being because of the Greek inheritance. Acquinas was reason-oriented within the western heritage. But the Bible’s dinstinguishing mark for the human is what? The soul, created in God’s image, fallen, redeemable in Christ, priests and kings. This is the pattern. It’s our essence. I was made by God, in God’s image, for Godself, and can be restored to that image in Christ the Redeemer. This is what’s central about the human.

  • Yes, that’s it. Animals have breath. Life is there….there’s blood. Human beings have souls too, however. We were made in God’s image. We were meant to be that. We can be that again. That’s the marker.

  • I think you’re bypassing the point entirely, Pat– who is “we”? Who has souls?

    To our knowledge, people/men/humans have souls, animals do not, but that makes for a circular definition– or for abject horror, when you consider that it’s pretty standard for a culture’s word for their own group to translate as “people,” “mankind” or “humans.” Just as with “rational,” the meaning of a word in context is very important.

    A person is one with a soul; how do we figure out if someone who is outside of our previous experience is a person or not? Appearance won’t work, obviously, and we are not God so we do not see their souls. Obviously, we have to assume that those who seem to have a soul do in fact have one– but what are the markings of having a soul?

    Can you argue against Augustine’s ‘rational, mortal animal’ definition? Actually argue, not assert?

  • correction:
    To our knowledge, people/men/humans have rational/spiritualsouls, animals do not

  • All made more complicated because “soul” refers to several different things– life, including that of animals; essence of something; the part of a human that is eternal….

  • Too much classification….why order it like that? Not necessary for our conception. No little green man will come by to confuse us. It’s just us. If it looks like a human, walks like a human, and talks like one, it’s a human. That includes the Elephant Man, the circus workers, those referenced by Augustine in the City of God, and anyone else who’s uniquely interesting and remarkably different. They’re all human. The trinity teaches us that there is diversity in unity, vice versa. The Fall teaches us that we’re not as we should be. Yes there’s variety. But I know a human when I see one. And I’ll bet the farm that they possess breath and a soul, and the same origin and destiny too, if in Christ.

  • No. The soul is not eternal. That’s a Greek error. Christ alone has immortality. That’s where the Christian gets it. Soul and body resurrect. We’re not eternal. No portion is. But the soul gains immortality in Christ. The body is resurrected in Him.

  • Our first parents were made in God’s image. The animals were not. Plants were not. The earth was not. Neither was the sky. We alone were made in His image. We fell. We’re restored if in Christ. That image manifests in the priestly and kingly role. Exercise dominion. Offer up creation. And St. John said, they came to life and reigned with Christ. Kings and priests.

  • Too much classification….why order it like that?

    Because meaning is important. You can’t say that only humans have souls, because everyone who has a soul is a human. That’s circular.

    We can’t say it’s obvious who is human and who is not, because it’s sadly not obvious– a quick glance at history will show that, and a moment’s thought on the current pro-life issues of abortion, eugenics and euthanasia show it’s ongoing. People are very, very good at making themselves believe things that suit them. God made this world in a manner that we can learn about systematically– why would he have not done the same when it comes to who is a person?

    If it looks like a human, walks like a human, and talks like one, it’s a human.

    And what constitutes “like a human”? From your prior statements, you mean “being made in God’s image”– which we cannot define by the standard use of “human,” which is a biological term.

    That question is the entire point of this post.

  • No. The soul is not eternal. That’s a Greek error.

    From Catholic Answers:
    The glossary at the back of the U.S. version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines “soul” as follows:
    The spiritual principle of human beings. The soul is the subject of human consciousness and freedom; soul and body together form one unique human nature. Each human soul is individual and immortal, immediately created by God. The soul does not die with the body, from which it is separated by death, and with which it will be reunited in the final resurrection.

  • Humans give birth to humans. Animals give birth to animals. Both have life. But the human was initially created in God’s image. We are now fallen, but redeemable. What’s the question? I think you’re trying to argue with secular ethicists and pragmatic people who represent what the late John Paul II termed a culture of death. I understand that if you are. But these people make distinctions the Bible does not. We shouldn’t. We know life. We continue to know life. Not everything can be proven. God only holds us responsible, in those casses, for maintaining faith and conviction and obedience to truth. If they press us, we may not be able to answer. They want to know what is special about a fetus. I don’t know exactly. It’s a human. God knits us together in the womb. They won’t believe that, though. And there’s no strict definition of the kind for which you’re searching. If they don’t have faith, it won’t be life to them. But we know it is, and will continue to say so.

  • Christ, who alone has immortality, be glory forever. Forgot which epistle. But we are ‘clothed’ with that immortality. It’s not ours. We ‘died’ because of sin, the fall…the soul would live on in death or die forever, however you wish to say it. But that’s not the same as “being eternal by nature.” The Greeks thought we were. Plato thought that. Some of it’s semantic. But those not saved in Christ are not immortal. They don’t live forever. They die forever. Christ is the Life.

  • Pat, where does the Bible define made in God’s image?

    Where does it define soul?

    Where does it define human?

    It’s obvious that people– from the embryonic through the senile, sound of mind and body or not, in all our wide range of characteristics– are different than animals because we’re made in God’s image. The question remains: who is “we”?

  • Why is that a question? I’ve never been confused over whether a created being was a human or an animal. I’ve always distinguished the two. I’ve never yet seen a demon or an angel. No aliens either. “We” are those two-legged creatures that walk upright, etc., though we sometimes are born with issues. “We” may be Siamese, etc. Humans though. ANd we all know them. What’s the question? You want a definition? Don’t tell me you dont’ knwo one when you see one. I can’t kkeep from laughing. I jsut don’t udnerstand where you’re coming from, Foxfier.

  • The Genesis myth tells us about our first parents, who they were, what happened. Who we are now. Who we can be in Christ. The new creation. Humans are at the center because made in His image and capableof being restored to that. It’s the focal point. Well, God is really, but then we in Him and He in us forever. That’s at the center of the story.

  • I jsut don’t udnerstand where you’re coming from, Foxfier.

    I noticed.

    Why is that a question?

    Because you claimed that the Bible has said the soul is the “dinstinguishing mark for the human.”

    You claimed that I’m making distinctions where the Bible did not– you still haven’t supported that claim.

    I’ve never been confused over whether a created being was a human or an animal. I’ve always distinguished the two.

    So? I’ve never had to splint a broken arm– doesn’t mean that the information isn’t important, or will never be used.
    As I pointed out, there are several times where people mistakenly classified other people as non-persons; more amusing are the times when people mistakenly classified non-persons as people. (Was it Mark Twain that wrote about a town mistaking an ape for a Frenchman?)

  • Admittedly, apart from the Biblical story, there is no way to define and separate people fromm the rest of creation. Paganism blurs the distinction. IT’s through the light of Scripoture that we learn of who we are. Our identiy is derived from our Creator who communicates revelation. Otherwise we wouldn’t know. And people today don’t know. The Christian identity of the person is wearing off. You can’t fix a defintion of the human for the non-Christian. It won’t work. It’s through Scritprue that we find out who we are. The Greeks tried and all they came up with was reason. No good. Priests and kings. Not simply reason. If only reason, why preserve a human?

  • Humans are at the center because made in His image and capableof being restored to that.

    To repeat myself a final time tonight:
    you can’t define “human” as “those made in God’s image,” then say that those who are made in God’s image are human.

    Bring in actual quotes, with citations. Make an argument for what you’re saying, rather than just claiming it.

  • You’re getting really incoherent, Pat.

  • You wihs to go with Etienne Gilson’s choice? Do you wish to have a universal sense of the human, that can prove to everyone, that can force everyone to believe it and be OK with it rationally? Then it would be watered-down. It would not be the udnerstanding given by Scripture, the identity we have within the narrative of God. It would be something far less, something paltry.

  • Well how coherent do you suppose you can become on something like this? It’s not that kind of a thing. Either you’re human or an animal in our visible realm here. I do not have to create new definitions because someone feels like they might face an alien soon. It’s simply either an animal OR a human. If you approach it, talk to it, and stay with it for about five minutes, you ought to know which classification it falls within. If it has two heads and two permanently separate personalities and identities, it’s two humans joined from birth. Two souls, not one. Otherwise, one soul per human. And that’s about it.

  • You see, it’s through God’s story that we learn who we are, why wer’re here, where we could go, etc. Apart from faith there is no correct definition of the human. God alone gives it. If you are willing to accept it then that’s what it is. If not, you live in ignorance as pagans always have. It’s nothing complicated. Very simple. No God, no man; Lewis wrote “THe Aboliton of Man.” That’s what he meant.

    If ever there’s confusion as to whether a creature is human or animal, I’d like to know why. I’ve never heard of someone being confused in our time.

  • God’s story is our story too. It’s our meaning, our identity. We are told everything that way. It IS circular. That’s why it’s faith. If it were otherwise, it would be human philosophy. What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? Jerusalem saved Athens, and so we continue to think as it did.

  • I always thought of people as possessing dignity. Then I read of a minister who visited the dying. He said that dying is the most undignified thing. He’s right. I feel we should be thankful that God made us for himself. Life is a gift. It’s precious. We’re responsible for how we live it. We need to be good stewards of all that God gave us. To live again is possible. But it happens in Christ alone. This is being human.

    I experience no despair over my lack of a scientific definition. Humanity cannot be defined philophically or scientifically. And that’s OK, since we gain our understanding from Scriptural revelation.

  • pat,
    It is basic Catholic teaching that we gain our understanding of God and His Creation not only through Scripture, but through reason as well. I don’t know you and perhaps you are a sola scriptura Protestant, and this thread is not intended to debate that point. I only point out that the notion that humanity cannot be defined philosophically or scientifically, but only by reference to Scripture alone is a singularly unCatholic point of view.

  • It would not be the udnerstanding given by Scripture, the identity we have within the narrative of God.

    What is this understanding? Lay it out.

    And that’s OK, since we gain our understanding from Scriptural revelation.

    If it’s in the scriptures, it can be cited. Go for it. Jesus Himself, if he said “is it not written,” would then give the actual quote.

  • Pingback: SATURDAY EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • In Genesis, it says that God created our first parents in His image. Let us make man in our image, after ouor likeness. So God created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. That’s the actual quote. This is NOT true of animals or the rest of the visible creation.

    The understanding is arrived at through progressive revelation. As the story unfolds, we learn of who we are: where we came from, where we’re at, and where we can go. It’s not fixed. It depends on who and where you are within the story. That’s our identity. It’s what it means to be a human being. But it cannot be abstracted to be a precise, universal idea. That’s reason at it’s best and it still falls radically short of scriptural revelation. Don’t baptize it. Don’t synthesize them.

    You’re trying to arrive at a universal, modernist understanding of the human, analytically or philosophically abstracted from concrete time, space, and the story that changes as it unfolds and moves eschatologically, or teleologically, toward its fulfillment, the story that informs us and gives us our understanding. We cant do that.

    The Greeks abstracted from the concrete because they beleived in the heraclitean/parmenidean split, the platonic this world of change versus that world of static reality, etc. No, we see it eschatologically.

  • So God created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. That’s the actual quote. This is NOT true of animals or the rest of the visible creation.

    Now, where does it say what, exactly, His image is? Clearly it’s not too physical, since the difference between male and female in the human species is rather large. The wisest idea would be to read the original, or as detailed an explanation as possible of the known meaning of the original.

    Given that information, we could very easily come to the conclusion that being able to create things is what makes us “in God’s image.”

    But it cannot be abstracted to be a precise, universal idea.

    How do you come to that conclusion? Much like the other claims you make, you don’t support it– you just state it.

  • No….we’ve wound up talking past one another because we’re starting with different assumptions. I’m assuming that Scriptural revelation is what we are given, and that that’s meant to inform all that we think and find elsewhere. I don’t hold to two separate categories. There is faith and it seeks understanding. I don’t maintain that reason or tradition are separate or reconcilable compartments. Never thought that way.

    Citgations, quotes….what good would that do? You prooftext with one set of references. Somone else uses another set. Everyone has their own pattern. That still doesn’t answer the question. It simply reveals paradigms. It’s like the Methodist who finds all the proofs. They back it up. Then the Calvinist does it with their proofs. The Catholic wiuth theirs. The Mormons have their documents from which to prove their arguments, and they are coherent within their own system, more or less.

    I advocate a better way. Let’s transcend these systems and get back to the BIble. Not Sola Scriptura per se. But let’s go back to the narrative first and foremost. That’s our story. Let’s learn it and allow it to inform our thinking. That’s what I’ve tried to do. I’ve tried to get across the Bible’s sense of who we are in relation to the one who has made us. We are humans, and the story tells us what that means. We happen through the story. It’s eschatological, that is to say that we are ‘on the way.’ We are pilgrims if we are Christian. We’r’e in transition. If not, we’re part of an old world that’s passing away, and that means death. Definitions? Not really. But definiately a reality that is wondrously amazing!

  • Once again: priests to God and kings over creation. Sacrifices acceptable, our creative service. Worship. That’s the image reflected. It’s the life we’re called back to. He’s not jsut the Creatior. He’s the Redeemer too. We participate redemptively in his plan. Also, He’s triune. So we exist in community. All this is what’s meant by being in his image. If we are in Christ, we are alive again! We see signs of that now. It will come about fully when the Lord returns in glory.

    A scientific or philosophic definition of the person that I can insert in Merrium-Webster’s? I really and truly don’t think it’s possible. There are two kinds: the saved and the unsaved…two very different definitions, and within each there is the telos—they’re in flux. You can try….I used to attempt that sort of thing. I find at the end of it soemthign like this: You learned all this information and wonder to yourself what you know. Then you come to realize that what really matters is who you know. The path, the truth, and the life is a person, Jesus. Not some abstract set of propositions. Propositions exist. But Chrsitianty is life. Our faith is never in truth itself. It is in Truth itself. Do you get what I’m saying? It’s not in the written word, but in the Word. Christ was the Word who spoke. We beleive the One who spoke. We therefore speak.

  • No….we’ve wound up talking past one another because we’re starting with different assumptions.


    I assume that when you say “the Bible says X,” that you can actually show where it says ‘x’.

    You seem to assume that when you say “the Bible say X,” that is enough– because you think that’s what it means.

    Perhaps you should try to mimic Christ in how He taught– as I said before, when He said “is it not written,” he followed with what was actually written.

  • Christ spoke things without quoting too. BUt the fact is that we have a Bible and it presents a story. We have to let that story inform our life.

  • To learn of the human, we must read the WHOLE story. Where we came from, where we’re at, and our destinations. I cannot quote the whole bible. We have to read it from cover to cover. You would never do that with a movie or another book. SO why would you only take a part of the Bible? I don’t like that.

  • Christ spoke things without quoting too.

    When teaching things on His authority as the Son of God, not when trying to explain his position as a guy in a compbox….

    SO why would you only take a part of the Bible? I don’t like that.

    Jesus Himself quoted. Don’t like it, take it up with Him.

  • We know from the Bible that the human is created in God’s image, made to reflect him. We are fallen. But we can be redeemed and this is life. Not everyone is redeemed. So in this sense the definiton of what makes us human is being redeemed. To be human is to be all that God has called us to be and do. And what is that? What the Bible says. You know the quotes. I don’t have the time to offer them now. But we see throughout Scripture that we are called to service and worship.

  • I don’t have the time to offer them now.

    You’ve spent roughly three days failing to offer them, Pat; small wonder you have no time left!

    The one quote that I asked for and you partly offered was out of context and didn’t actually say what you implied it did. (1 Tim 6:16.)

    Still, you beg the question- who is “we”?

    So in this sense the definiton of what makes us human is being redeemed.

    This contradicts what you’ve said before– that being made in His image is what makes us both people and able to be redeemed.

  • Yes, three things. We were made in his image. We fell. We can be redeemed.
    Some are. Some aren’t. Where you are in that defines who you ar as a person.

  • We were made in his image. We fell. We can be redeemed.

    Good start! Mr. Wright’s post touched on these aspects, pointing to aliens that never fell as being something that would actually cause trouble with folks’ faith.

    So, “we” are those made in God’s image, who fell and can be redeemed; how do we identify those who fit that category? Objectively– as I pointed out, there are a lot of people right now who can’t recognize a baby as a person, just because of where they happen to be located. (Be it in the womb or inside of Israel’s borders.)

    Where you are in that defines who you ar as a person.

    Has nothing to do with the conversation.

  • Well, we have not yet seen aliens. To be honest, I don’t really believe we will. We’re the focus now. We’re accountalbe to God. We must deal with this fact. What God chooses to do elsewhere is His business. We musn’t evade our responsibility for service and worship, to come home and accept his embrace, to arrive spiritually with God.

    Yes, if we’re redeemed, then we are a new creation. Old things have passed. New things have come. Otherwise we are part of a world grown old and dying.

  • So there are two different kinds of peole. Those saved and those unsaved. Again, a precise definition for the ‘universal human’ will allude you.

  • The only alluding going on here is your alluding to there actually being something to back up your claims; somehow, the notion that you actually have to support your assertions eludes you…..

    You’re still saying “we.” Of course people are “we” in a religious context. How to go about figuring out who is “we” is the point of this post.

  • Yes, in Genesis we learn that God created various creatures. And human beings were initially made in his image. Having given us dominion, he launched us into that priestly and kingly endeavor. God knew what would happen. The plan was built in so we can find restoration as it unfolds. We can find redemption in Christ. So the image is restored, as well as our initial purpose. As Augustine said in The City of God, though, it’s on a higher level. There’s a garden, now a polis, and a temple—God is with us forever. New Jerusalem. It’s taken to a higher level.

    What distinguishes the human being? Made in his image, responsible to Him for what he requires. We fell. The law came. The kingdom has come; now grace. Human beings can respond to their Creator as he engages us in a relationship with Him. This is special. Nonhumans, i.e. animals, don’t share in it in this way. How do we knwo? Revelation. Without it we are unenlightened as the pagans. A rational way to affirm? I don’t think so. A scientific way? I don’t think so. We sort of had that but it wares off without revelation. Science and rationality turn unscientific and irrational as our hearts and minds are darkened once again. They still call it science and ratioanlity, but it’s not. Apart from Revelation we simply wouldn’t know what human means. We wouldn’t accept it.

    So abortion, euthenasia, suicide, etc. is wrong. He gives us life with his plan in view. If an animal is put down do to severe complications or rabies, it’s just not the same thing. The animal is not made in His image and designed for this plan I described. THAT IS WHAT DISTINGUISHES US FROM THE OTHER VISIBLE CREATURES OF GOD. Then there are angels elect and fallen. That’s a different matter. The Bible gives us a sense of what that’s about too, but it’s different. Another order. Other life? If so, a different order. So yes, there is a classification.

    So to define it would go something like this: Human beings are made in God’s image, responsible morally. Can’t meet the law’s requirements. We tried. We’re responsible for “going through the eye of the needle.” How do we do it? Seek first God’s kingdom and His righteousness. Grace. He sent Jesus Christ, the atoning sacrifice. The human is responsible to God’s law. The provision is in Christ alone. With God all things are possible: we go through the eye of the needle. Our humanity is restored. That’s really human. New people. New community. New creation.

  • To clarify the kingdom, Christ is King and we His subjects. He reclaimed the world, creation. (When the strong man is tied, his place is looted by one stronger.) The nations are no longer deceived. Now we can live and reign with Christ a thousand years. It was promised. So it is.

    When we acknowledge Christ as the Lord, the King, the Messiah, we yield our political allegience to Him. Our inclusion in His kingdom is marked by the acknowledgement that He is Lord to whom we bow. Ours is a polis…an outpost in the world as it passes. So we are the New People. Creation waits for us to find itself again.

  • Creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. Who are the sons of God? Those redeemed in Christ. Creation too, is liberated from its bondage to decay and set free in the glorious liberty of Christ. God’s re-creation of the New Day. Humanity restored in Him. To be human is to be created by God in his image to worship and serve Him. But we fell. How to we reclaim our humanity? In Christ there is a new creation. Old things have passed away and new things have come. So we can be human again. I think this is the best way to answer the question of what defines us. It’s our essence.

  • You still don’t get it, Pat.

    You jump from those made in His image to “human”– without either defining the word or giving a reason why.

    Also, I thought you were out of time? Where are the verses you owe me?

  • I’m assuming macro-evolution never took place.

  • Genesis Chap. 1 versus 26-28. That’s the part that explains that human beings were made in His image. Revelation Chap. 20 verses 1-6 describes the reinstatement of dominion, as these are “in Christ.” They reign with Him.

  • In his image, dominion over creation, creatively offering up sacrifices well-pleasing. Worship and service as kings and priests. This is not given to the animal kingdom. Extra-terrestrial life doesn’t figure into this. It’s our story for now, so it doesn’t include what God may be doing elsewhere.

  • So we find our understanding of the human in the unique way that the Creator has made us, and for the unique purpose to which we’re assigned. And that’s what I’ve been detailing throughout this thread.

    That identity was given at the start of creation in Genesis. It is reclaimed in Christ.

  • Gen 1:26-28
    l Then God said: Let us make* human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth.
    God created mankind in his image;
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female* he created them.
    God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.* Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth.m

    (With many, many footnotes.)

    That does not say:
    So in this sense the definiton of what makes us human is being redeemed. To be human is to be all that God has called us to be and do. And what is that? What the Bible says.

    It’s only the same tiny snippet you’ve offered several times before, in various phrasings, still not defining who is human.

    How about we go back before you started just repeating yourself– how do you conclude that your dog both reasons and does not yearn for God? Evidence?

    Can you explain this phrase?
    You know I’ve been tempted to use reason and/or morality to separate us from other beings. It just doesn’t make any sense. Unless you’re living in one of the better parts of Victorian London.

    Justify this one?
    YOu see, the problem is that we’re not rational. We’ve found that out. We just have to accept it.

    Can you justify why we should abandon reason when all you can offer is

  • So we find our understanding of the human in the unique way that the Creator has made us, and for the unique purpose to which we’re assigned. And that’s what I’ve been detailing throughout this thread.

    No, it is not. You’ve been asserting various things, and failing to follow through the reasoning or offer justification for why you have reached various conclusions.

    You can not even explain the incredibly simple, basic question, the entire point of this post:
    why do you assume that ‘we’ consists of only those you have personally identified?
    You don’t even apply that consistently, since you’ve also said that only those who have been redeemed are truly people!

  • No, I do not beleive we have seen or will see extra-terretrial life. Humans are those who were created in God’s image, fallen and redeemable in Christ. Each human is somewhere within that story. Either we’re still fallen or we’ve been redeemed. Two entirely separate destinies, regardless of the same origin.

    What we were, what we are and what we will be are not necessarily the same. Once, again, it depends on where you are within the narrative.

  • You wish to abstact a definition so it will be static. That is not possible. You have to read the story to find out.

  • You wish to abstact a definition so it will be static. That is not possible. You have to read the story to find out.

    I “wish” support for the assertions you keep making, especially when you claim they are Biblical. Your track record on the Bible actually saying what you think it does really isn’t very good.

  • I don’t know what you’re referring to. In the scriptural narrative, human beings were created one way, fell to become something else, and are heading somewhere else if “in Christ.” I’m not sure how you would define that philosphically or scientifically. You have to read the story and find your place within it.

  • We need to understand that Scripture is a narrative. In any story things change. It’s in flux. We need to find out where we are in the story and decide what that means. What the implications are.

  • I don’t know what you’re referring to.

    That explains why you aren’t making any sense….

    By the way, you still haven’t supported your claim that your dog reasons, or any of the other claims you made that were actually related to the topic.

  • You want to know what makes a human and what differentiates them from other created beings. I told you: God made us in His image to reflect Him. We failed in that mission. He promised restoration in Christ. Some people claim that by being recipients of God’s grace. Others don’t.

    Animals stand outside that category. We have not seen, and I think we will not see extraterrestrial beings. So I’m content with the answer I gave. It’s biblically informed. It makes perfect sense. What part of it don’t you understand?

    On a broader level you can say that we are spiritual. This separates us. Not the ability to philosophize like the Greeks on a sunny day. No, but the fact that we were made for God in the unique way I described. As Augustine said, You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless till they find their rest in you. This makes us spiritual and that is what’s most profound about us. People have that need.

    From a non-Christian, Western vantage point, people often feel driven to say it is reason that separates us. But reason is merely a part of the ‘image.’ It fails, furthermore, to describe the person adequatly. It only mentions a facet, and does not get at our essence. Also, there are people who do not reason because of some predicament, e.g. severely low mental capacity. Animals can reason: they put two and two together to reach an end that that person I described would not. My dog sees someone and is hungry. She picks up her paper plate and growls as she moves toward you. Other animals are smarter yet.

    So you see it is not reason that separates us, but that we are spiritual beings, and in the way I described based on Genesis and the narrative’s development.

  • The quote from Augustine you gave earlier is not satisfactory. Mortal, rational? No, this is what I’ve been saying is not the case. Mortal, yes. Rational, no. Reason or rationality is a facet. That is not our essence, though. Our essence is that we’re spiritual, with souls, originally created in God’s image, fallen, and redeemable through Christ. This is what defines us if you look to the Scriptures. And any sense of the human that derives from elsewhere must be checked against that. I don’t even think the Greeks held reason or rationality to be central. Only aristocrats or freemen of their kind. They beleived that the rest of the world were Barbarians. And then there were slaves. No universality there. The universal notion came much later with Christianity. That’s because Christianity recognized a common descent for humanity and borrowed heavily from the Greeks for ideas. What the Greeks said was appropriated wrongly.

    It is true to say that reason or rationality is generally a facet of human beings. But it’s not the defining characteristic. It’s not our essence.

  • 1) You utterly miss what I “want.”
    2) You are still asserting, not arguing, supporting, giving any reason beyond “Because I’ve said so, several times.”

  • Foxfier, I’ve supplied an udnerstanding of the human in line with Scripture. It’s pretty scripturally-informed. I can’t see getting any more exact than that. I’ve supplied reasons and explanations. I even quoted Scripture. I’m not sure what else you’re looking for. This is best I can offer based on my understanding of the Bible:

    We were created in God’s image. We experienced a fall from that first estate. Christ can restore us to that. That’s human.

    All other visible created beings we usually see were placed under us.

    Angels are God’s ministers. They are (usually) unseen. Demons are angels who also fell.

    Extra-terrestrial beings: I don’t believe they’ve been mentioned in Scripture.

  • If you wish to engage in a thomistic exercise, and write the way he did in the Summa with quotes, citations, unreasonable and dramatic logic, I cannot afford you that kind of an experience. I don’t even udnerstand the Summa myself. I have a copy of it but it’s become a dust-collector.

  • No, Pat, you’ve just kept making claims and unsupported statements.

    Argument by saying it over and over, and then failing to provide any support, is what you’ve provided.

  • Support? We have the weight of Genesis and the whole Bible in fact. How much support do you want? I won’t go outside Scripture. I’ve quoted verses from Genesis. You know the story as it develops. The Fall, Redemption, Restoration….the themes speak for themselves. This is the basic Christian narrative. What is more central to the human person than this? Can you please tell me? I’m quite satisfied with what’s said. If you went to any Christian book to find answers to who we are as persons, you will find this. It is what Christianity has always taught.

  • This is where I draw my understanding of the person: the scriptural narrative. What do you base it upon?

  • Since you like quotes, I came upon this one from Laurens Van Der Post, quoted in L’engle’s Walking on Water: “The extreme expression of his spirit was in his story. He was a wondrful story teller. The story was his most sacred possession. These people know what we do not: that without a story you have not got a nation, or a culture, or a civilization. Without a story of your own to live you haven’t got a life of your own.”
    I introduce this to underscore the importance of ‘story.’ It is through ‘story’ that our meaning and purpose is derived. That is where our identity is found.

  • Support? We have the weight of Genesis and the whole Bible in fact.

    Great! So show your work.

    I’ve quoted verses from Genesis.

    Yes, and I’ve pointed out that it isn’t sufficient for your claims. Heck, you’ve quoted it to establish something not related to the topic!

    It is through ‘story’ that our meaning and purpose is derived. That is where our identity is found.

    That doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does, that your “the whole thing” sourcing is good… it’s a statement on personal identity.

    Nobody forced you to come here and start making claims, or dragging the conversation away from what could have been an interesting, fun route. Seeing as you decided to insert yourself, why can you not do the incredibly simple task of supporting your claims? In a manner other than just saying them again or ignoring that you ever said them!

    How do you figure your dog reasons, but isn’t “spiritual?” Etc.

  • I think that would be taking scripture out of its context. To see it as a whole, to catch the grammar or morphology of things, is rather the aim for me. The story is our story, yours and mine. It teaches us about origin and destiny, and where we fit within all of that.

  • I think that would be taking scripture out of its context.

    Now that is funny, since the very first quote you offered was out of context and clearly didn’t say what you claimed….

  • Hmmm, I’m not sure what you mean. I know I quoted something from Genesis about being made in God’s image. But the thing you raise goes to the heart of what I’m saying regarding definitions. We are not as our first parents (humans) were; we (humans) fell. But we (humans) can reclaim the position in Christ. Or rather, he can reclaim us (humans). So here is the quandary: how to fix a definition of the human given this dynamic reality. I feel that cannot be done scientifically or philosophically. So I let the story inform my understanding. And stories move from a begining to an end. As said Lewis Carroll, I like to begin at the beginning and end at the end.

    You see, here is the problem. If I say that human beings are creatures made in God’s image, well, that’s not true. Adam and Eve were. Then they fell. We can be among the redeemed or the unredeemed at this point along the story. At the consummation of things, those redeemed will be raised up body and soul, resurrected as a unity. You see the problem? No definition fits throughout, unless of course we include everything. That is why quoting just parts of the Bible doesn’t work. Gotta read the story. I do appreciate very much your spirited debate. There is a new (or not so new) trend known as narratival theology. It stresses the fact that Scripture affords us a story. It is less concerned with universal statements and propositions than with how this story shapes our lives and how we find our place within it, letting it inform us. I’ve been somewhat influenced by narratival theology. I find that the Bible makes much more sense this way. I used to think like a Fundamentalist, always wanting to locate a verse or two, or a passage in order to feel like I had proof. Yet those parts of Scripture are part of an ever-widening context, until we find ourselves within the broadest circle of the Word itself. And that Word presents us with a story.

  • When you tried to claim that immortal souls were a Greek invention, using a quote about the resurrection of the body.

    The reason you don’t want to offer text to support your claims is because, based on the evidence, you can’t. All you can do is make claims and hand-wave that it’s all there, somewhere.

  • I also said confusion could arise in part due to semantics.

  • But what has that to do with the discussion?

  • To get back on track, you wish to define the human. I’ve told you that the meaning and purpose of the human is found in the Christian story. By reading any story, you learn character development. We must do this witht the Bible.

  • Still waiting for support for a single one of the claims I’ve asked you about.

  • Foxfier, you’ve not listened to a single thing I’ve said. You continue to insist on supporting things with verses. People do this all the time. And they’re often wrong. To give you an example: i had a discussion with a man the other day who said alcohol was sinful. I said why? He said let me show you, and he brought me a gigantic King James Version of the BIble, and he pointed to a line where it said “do not be givne to strong drink.” Well, upon reading the epistle, I was reminded that this was advice for bishops/elders of the church. It was not a pronouncement on alcoholic beverages. Anotheher version reads “not a drunkard” which of course is binding upon all Christians anyway. It was horrendous. I just couldn’t explain it to him. THe understsanding simply wasn’t there.

    So no, I strongly feel, and this is my conviction (no proof here) that we should read the whole Bible and let its meaning come forth.

  • No, Pat, the “problem” is that I have listened to what you said– and asked you to actually support your claims, with something besides waving at the whole Bible.

    Every time you try to get into detail, you fail.

    Small wonder you try to change the subject, especially when asked to support your claims.

    I do not care what you strongly feel. This is not a post on “what Pat strongly feels.”
    This is a light-hearted, whimsical post about applying Catholic personhood theory in imaginary situations, which is a useful exercise for dealing with the darker, real situations that show up in day to day life– such as the trans-human embryos already in England.

    You’ve shown that you’re not going to defend the few statements you made related to the topic, let alone discuss the actual topic.

  • Too often it degenerates into prooftexting. Here a verse, there a verse, pick and choose them, divorce them from their contexts and use them to prop up an idea. Why? Because you hold a beleif prior to Scripture which you wihs to prove, whether it’s temperance, forms of church polity, views on baptism, or whatever else people subscribe to. They go to the BIble to prove things, and they uproot verses from their context. I can find ‘proof’ of the congregational politiy, the presbyterian government, the episcopal form, etc., for example, depending on which texts I use. Likewise, I can find ‘proof’ for many other things. There is always a tendency to do this in Chrisitnaty.

    Instead, I choose to read the BIble from cover to cover as a story, and to let that story inform me. And if something is unclear i don’t go back and try to find the verses that fit the belief I hold most dearly becasue of sentiment or preference. I let the story unfold. I find where I belong in it. I become enveloped by the story. The story then dictates to me. As Tom Wright said regarding our time, we are called upon at this juncture to improvise, to pick up where the apostles left off, and to play out our role until Christ returns (paraphrase). I do not solely conform to propositions, though those exist to which we give assent. Christianity is more importantly a living faith.

  • Can you give me an example of Catholic personhood theory? I’m not aware of this. I don’t see personhood in specifically ‘Catholic’ terms. I view the human in a Christian light as I’m informed by the Bible.

  • Too often it degenerates into prooftexting.

    The irony of you warning of is amazing…..

    You are still trying to change the subject away from your failure to support a single claim when challenged.

  • YOu say this is a light-hearted, whimsical post. I can see that. We move back again and again and again to your need for supporting versus despite all I’ve said. I wonder if you’ve really been reading my remarks, or simply skipping over them. Do you understand anything about what I’ve said thus far? About the narrative and the need for us to find our sense of ourselves within that structure? Or the need to take into account where we are along the timeline? Has any of that meant anything to you?

  • Can you give me an example of Catholic personhood theory?

    Read the post. There are several different examples, multiple links, many phrasings.

    For love of little green apples, you claimed to disprove it by assertion.

    We move back again and again and again to your need for supporting versus despite all I’ve said.

    That happens when you claim the Bible says something: people say “where?” Shockingly, the rest of us aren’t willing to accept the word according to Pat as a binding source of enlightenment.

    I notice you’re trying to change the subject to your favorite– “Pat.” Amazing how your sources all seem to be by your own authority, and every attempt you make to justify that with evidence fails.

  • The human being cannot be distilled into a definition such as would be broadly understandalbe and acceptable. I don’t wish to play fast and loose wtih Scripoture by engaging in prooftexting.

    Revelation teaches us who we are. Our identity develops through the narrative that is the Word of God.

    Whatever verses one has, another has theirs and so on. It just keeps going. There’s no way out until we discover truth. And that truth is in a person, the Truth, Jesus Christ. Once our God engages us, we learn who we are. We know it. The world cannot know this as we do. It’s spritually discerned.

  • I believe you misudnerstand what I’ve said. I’ve tried to explain my position: I read the Bible as story. That story informs my life. I find myself within that story. Before you know it, I’m a living part of that reality. I speak this way because this has been my experience. It’s wonderful. It’s truly human. And I think that’s what I’ve been trying to get across. Our experiences, if they relate to the Word, demonstrate that humanity we strive for. It is not what we were, and thank God we will not always be what we are. As tge past and present are taken up in the cross of Jesus Christ, we are transformed. We’re a new breed.

  • Pat, I don’t think you’re getting the point:
    You already showed that you’re not able to quote scripture–or anything else– without prooftexting.
    You already claimed to define what makes people be people, but couldn’t defend your objection to a rational soul or your support for “spirituality.”

    The thing that keeps going on and on is your attempt to change the topic to being all about you.

  • We each see things from our perspective. Hopefully we come to see those things accurately. I’m able to quote scripture and other sources. I have with regard to the human, by going back to Genesis. That’s classic. Nothing peculiar.

    Yes, I maintain that we are spiritual beings, and that this separates us off from the rest of creation. Having been made in his image, yet fallen, we’re accountable for that kind of creaturehood which we possess.

    I don’t prefer the ratioinal soul idea. I just don’t see it as getting to the core. I see it as Greek. I know we absorbed the Greeks. But I don’t agree with it, which is one of the reasons I welcome postmodernism.

  • We each see things from our perspective

    No, we’re not just seeing things from different perspectives.

    You made claims. You still haven’t backed them up. You misquoted, you still haven’t corrected yourself. You try to change the subject… in pretty much every post.

    What is so difficult about this topic? The simple fact that it’s not “Pat,” or something else?

  • I appreciate the spirited discussion on what makes us human. I of course don’t go at it the way you expect. For me, defining the human is not a logical exercise or a rational sort of thing. It’s not really about quoting a verse or a passage either. But when I think of what defines a human, or what their essence consists in, I think of how we’re spiritual. We live lives based upon our beliefs. Our convictions. We can’t prove such things. But if we have faith in the Word despite appearances to the contrary, we develop conviction. As John Ortberg has said in “Faith and Doubt,” we bet the farm on it. On all that we’re told throughout the Scriptural narrative about God, ourselves, and His ongoing interaction with us. I feel that life is worth it. That all that happens occurs redemptively in Christ. That our suffering, loss, grief, pain, uncertainty and all our trials are taken up into the cross of Jesus Christ and sanctified. That we’re loved by him and that being a recipient of his grace makes us entirely gifted and priveleged. I hope you can come to see that being human means recognizing what we were created for and finding our home once again in God. There are those who wish to remain apart from their Creator in darkness and alienation and confusion. I don’t totally understand how all this can be. But I’ve “bet the farm on it,” I know all that God’s story says, and I believe it. To present this to the world as an “ambassador” I believe I must share this in life, in love, and in action. I cannot communnicate all of this in a way that resonates wiht those who wish to keep their ears shut. I can only hope that “whosoever will” listens.

  • Still trying to change the topic.

  • It is true that Christianity is confessional. And the world seeks after wisdom. But to define the human in a way that’s embraced by everyone on the basis of proof is not possible. So to get right to the topic, here it is: The human cannot be understood outside of revelation and faith. Call me fidiestic, I don’t care. But it’s our story and we’re convicted it’s true because we persevere in faith.

  • You’re still trying to change the topic.

    Guess it’s pretty embarrassing to have evidence that you’re willing to quote things only when they don’t say what you claim, right above where you claim you wouldn’t do that? Probably annoying to find a place that keeps asking for more support than what you “feel.”

  • Another example of the serious applications of personhood theory, and why it matters to have a defensible, reasonable definition of what a person is.

  • Hmmm….I just can’t seem to figure out what you’re getting at. If the purpose of this thread was to work toward an understanding of the human as differentiated from all other creatures, I think we’ve been pretty successful. If the purpose of this thread was to do so on the basis of scriptural evidence, I think we touched on that when I quoted Genesis and spoke about the Fall and Redemption. But more important than single verses is the narrative as a whole. We find meaning and purpose and identity for the human in that story. It’s our meta-narrative, if you will.

  • Pat, the only thing you’ve done here is make unsubstantiated claims, misquote the Bible, complain about how you don’t understand what I’m saying and how I’m not listening to you, and go off on tangents to try to change the subject.

  • Oh, and misquote other sources, too. Mustn’t forget that.

  • Thanks for the example. Yes, indeed it’s a problem. But I think you’re assuming all people share in this rational thing that can be expressed and agreed upon.

    God chooses to make himself known to HIs people. THe world does not know him. They therefore see things from the perspective of that world.

    How would the nations have known of the one God and his ways? Revelation. How would we know of his plan? who we are? the anser is revelation. ONce known, revelation informs our reason and we go on to develop further understanding. But we remain people of faith whose minds have conformed to revelation and the way that revelation shapes our “reason.”

  • You’re trying to change the subject again.

  • Thomistic philosophy cannot hold onto the one while retaining the other; either we must accept that revelation is requisite always or we must reject the light that enlightens. There is no ‘reasonable’ concept of the human. Our ‘reasoning’ apart from the story of God will be to no avail.

  • On topic, with support for assertions, Pat. And your feelings aren’t evidence.

  • The issue does not relate to that at all. It relates to our approaches. I’ve explained that for me, the narrative of God tells us who we are. Read the story and find out. I give precedence to revelation.

  • For some people, faith and reason are equally valid categories, reconcilable systematically.

    I am not a thomist. Never was. Never thought that approach worked. God reveals himself to us personally through the Word and Spirit. Then revelation informs our lives and our minds are transformed. So our ‘reasoning’ is altered after conversion. Without this experience one would think from a worldly vantage point. You simply could not tell them what being human means, its implications, its worth, etc.

  • Calvinism, Thomism, all these systems want to be logical and universally compelling. They want their understanding to reach the world. To make sense to everyone. It’s as if the faith were a matter of common sense explanation. As if those who rejected it could be laughed at. That’s not how it is. Two radically different positions exist: we are either darkened in our minds and lost in sin, or we are enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Two viewpoints and no bridge but that of the Holy Spirit and of Christ.

  • Still not on topic.

    Still not supported by anything but your say-so.

  • I don’t know what you’re looking for in a thread. I tried to tell what it means to be human based on an informed biblical understanidng. I feel I have done this. I have no regrets. I would like to know what you specifically disagree with and why.

  • If you point to something you don’t udnerstand or highlight a disagreemnt you have, I can address that. But to ask for quotesand citations for everything stated is a bit odd. That’s something that might happen in an official debate. I would not expect to see that in a compbox. That’s just too much. When a priest offers a homily or a pastor delivers a messsage, it’s true they quote scripture. They do not do this constantly though. It does not go on from beginning to end. If operating on a calendar, tehy have the passages. They build from there. I know that fundamentalists are fond of quoting more often. I’m not fundamentalist. I don’t agree with that approach. I find it unnecessary and even confusing. Too often people quote scripture without understanding what it means and this confuses people. I told you about the gentleman who argued against alcoholic beverages. I spoke with another person who quoted verses in support of Sabbath-keeping for Saturday. No, the entire story must be reaed. That’s my approach and I’m sticking with it. Once againm, if there’s anything you wish to debate specifically, tell me what that is.

  • You made claims; the few times you’ve tried to support them with quotes, you failed. When asked for details or support, you try to change the topic.

    Your only approach is to try to change the subject to “Pat.”

  • I’ve expressed a lot throughout this page. I’d like you to glance back at it and see what’s there. Especially since you haven’t necessarily found soemthing you disagree with or can prove wrong.

  • First read through what I’ve written one more time. Try to get the gist of it,the basic idea. Then cite what you disagree with, if anything at all. And I’ll try to substantiate it. But we have to get this narrowed down.

  • I already pointed out where you misquoted, where you failed to support your claims and where you changed the topic. Two or more times for some of them. I even provided the quotes you misused.

  • I don’t see that. What I’ve stated is pretty classic, although it’s admittedly said in a different way at times. I don’t believe I’ve said anything contrary to the Bible. I believe I’ve communicated the sense of being human based upon our controlling narrative. I’m not sure what could be there that you’d disagree with or be uncertain about.

  • Behind everything lies conviction. I don’t know what your precise convictions are. I’ve tried to state mine.

  • I don’t see that.

    *dryly* Hadn’t noticed.

    I do notice that you’re still trying to change the subject, though.

  • Foxfier, are you interested, really interested in what makes us human? If you are, I would think you’d look back on what I’ve said to get the basic idea. Do you really want to know our essence? It’s there.

  • Oooh, nice try on changing the topic again! Too bad “Foxfier” isn’t my favorite subject….

  • Creation, the fall, redemption and restoration, these themes and our relation to them define us. We must of course trust the narrative. I believe it’s true. So I’m perfectly settled in my notion of the human. I know of no other source that can get to the heart of who we are. Acceptance of this requires a faith response.

    Now I know that people disbelieve this. I know that ‘Christians’ sometimes believe in macro-evolution and hold to variations of Darwinism. They say that human beings and animals possess a common descent. That at some point humans evolved. I just don’t beleive this. While the creation portion of Genesis is mythic in one sense, I see God intentionally creating creatures after their kind, with humans alone made in his image having dominion over all others. That kind of language doesn’t sound evolutionary.

  • I’m trying to get you to think. I want you to see what I said about faith in revelation, and about finding our place in God’s story. Our sense of ourselves must derive from this. Not from attempts at reconciling the Bible with knowledge from a worldly vantage point. Spengler, the historian, knew that evolution was a Western projection.

  • And Pat goes back to his favorite subject- “Pat.”

  • You’re trying to change the subject because people are actually paying attention to the lack of substance to what you say on the topic.

  • This is not about me. This is about what defines us as human beings. It’s about the story we’re given through revelation, the story that we find ourselves a part of. For those who can accept it, it’s ‘Everyman’.

    I’ve said nothing eccentric or heterodox to my knowledge. If anything strikes you as untrue, point it out and we’ll get to the bottom of it.

  • This is not about me.

    The topic isn’t; your posts are.

    I have pointed out your misquotes, incorrect claims, unsupported claims and where you keep trying to make the subject you, you, you. The Word According to Pat is not the topic, but it’s about the only one you’re willing to expound on– at great length.

  • I don’t see this as being about me. However, Christianity is a faith that involves the person. We experience it. There is no subjective/objective split. What the Bible says it says to all who would listen. For those who do, their experience is at one with what’s been said.

  • Again, trying to change the topic….

  • I’m not a fudamentalist. I don’t see the point in throwing out verses here. Anyone can find verses to support their view. That’s prooftexting. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been upset by people who do just that. They grab hold of some verse and use it to support their belief or claim as you put it. So we have people going aroudn saying it’s sinful for Christians to drink alcohol. There’s a thousand years of bliss in store for the Jews when Christ returns to the David throne and reinstates the sacrificial system. A rapture will occur that will beam us up to the sky because Christ won’t come all the way down. We’re not allowed to eat anything with blood in it. Vegetarianism is God’s best. David and Jonathan were homosexuals together. We can literally move mountains if only we believed we could. We must practice footwashing. Ministers should support themselves through their own means because Paul did, and on and on it goes. All these things sound like true statements for all time. They’ve been abstracted from the Story.

  • Still trying to change the topic, and still all about you.

  • This is not about me, Foxfier. It’s about what makes us human. It’s applicable across the board. Now this has become about prooftexting. You don’t accept something unless someone cites a chapte and verse. I don’t see that happening on any of the other threads.

    If you disagree with what I’ve stated, then say so. Tell me what you don’t believe in and why. Then we’ll take it from there. I’m fully ready to tackle that. I’m totally confident about what I’ve stated.

  • This is not about me, Foxfier.

    Nice of you to realize it, finally. So, when are you going to stop making it all about you?

    It’s about what makes us human.

    Close, but no– it’s about what makes us people.

    If you disagree with what I’ve stated, then say so. Tell me what you don’t believe in and why. Then we’ll take it from there.

    I’m not going to go back over all this again and collect up your unsupported claims, prooftexting quotes and attempts to shift the conversation.

    I’m fully ready to tackle that. I’m totally confident about what I’ve stated.

    Again, it becomes all about you. Same as the last several times.

  • Hmmm….don’t know what to say. But again, Christians are people of faith, of conviction. We have revelation from God, his Word, and we have faith. I don’t know what else you want to hear, but this is the most I can offer.

  • I don’t know what else you want to hear, but this is the most I can offer.

    Scroll up to the top of the page.

    See the post? See how it has a topic?

    Notice how it’s not “the word according to Pat”?

    Frankly, I doubt your sincerity. You were vaguely on topic up to the point where I started asking you to support the claims you made, such as that your dog is rational, or to explain the off-handed comments you made, such as about Victorian England.

  • Foxfier, dogs reason in a sense. They figure things out. SOme humans don’t. For example due to a profoundly low IQ or some other state they’re in. I mentioned Victorian England because people think of humans as rational—I intended my allusion to hit home, in other words, we’re not the rational people we tend to think we are. CIvilziation is precarious. Rationality adn civility are not givens. Intellectual edifices and official definitons based on rationality come and go, and people may or may not be willing to accept that understanding for long. In the end we have our faith, the revelation from God whom we place our faith in, and the convictions that develop as we persevere through life.

  • 1) Wrong kind of rational
    2) You’re still not supporting your claim that dogs aren’t “spiritual”– pretty hard to do, since they clearly do have a desire for something larger than themselves, most obviously their pack, and the God-shaped hole is traditionally detected by that yearning.
    3) How does Victorian England show that humans, as a group, are not rational?

  • Intellectual edifices and official definitons based on rationality come and go, and people may or may not be willing to accept that understanding for long.

    Fallacy. Truth isn’t determined by how popular a belief is.

    In the end we have our faith, the revelation from God whom we place our faith in, and the convictions that develop as we persevere through life.

    Again, you try to change the subject.

  • I don’t believe I have to support a claim that dogs aren’t spiritual. True, they are created by God. But they are not spiritual in the sense humans are. When it comes to something like that, I believe the burden is on the oteh person to prove that they ARE spiritual, i.e. made originally in God’s image and responsible to him in the way we are with the central purpose for which we were made.

    What God-shaped hole lies in the animals?

    Victorian England doesn’t necessarily show in itself that we’re not rational. World Wars and genocide do. Rebellion against the very Creator that made us creatures does. That’s irrational.

    Truth is not determined by popularity. Well said. But the acceptance of truth waxes and wanes throughout a civilization. The popularity level alters. What society is willing to take from the church changes. And it is for that reason that I remark on faith, revelation and conviction. Truth is spiritualy discerned. If civilization is not Christian, don’t expect it to heed truth from revelation that once was accepted. It’s wearning off. We can again see the separation of those who know and those who don’t, or to be more precise, the righteous and the wicked.

  • I notice you don’t believe you have to support most of the claims you make, or define your terms, or even hold with what you’ve previously said.

    You’re trying to change the topic again, too.

  • That separation occurs during times like this. Christianity and culture are not one and the same. They interact. It’s dynamic. The church is influenced by society and culture and also influences society and culture. This happens in varying degrees at different times.

    Thomism, Etienne Gilson’s choice, seems to some Christian philosophers to be the anwwer to our troubles. I just don’t see that. I think it creates more problems than it solves. Thomism, Calvinism, and all these scholastic methods don’t work out.

  • Would you please answer my questions? How is a dog spiritual? How is being rational at the center of being human?

  • I already did for the dog, and you’re still trying to change the conversation.

  • Foxfier, the conversation has remained the same throughout–the human–what makes us so. I’ve stated that we’re spriitual, originially amde in God’s image, fallen yet redeembable, and we have souls. That’s our identity, our meaning. Our purpose too. We were made to be priests and kings, to offer up sacrifices pleasing and acceptable, lives of service and praise, as we participate as co-creators, creatively engaging the world to God’s glory. Under God, over the earth.

    I’m sticking by this. It does not pertain to the animals, plants or othe aspects of visible creation. If extra-terrestrial life exists beyond angels and demons, we haven’t seen them yet and I suppose they’d be for another chapter. Thats’ God’s business, not ours. As of now, they exist as products of our creative imagination. We can posit other worlds and beings. It’s fabulous, but irrelevent to the discussion of what makes us human (except insofar as we can imagine other beings).

    You did not explain how a dog is spiritual. You only explained how they seek out things beyond themselves. Other aspects of creation. You didn’t prove they seek out or know God the Creator of all.

  • Yes, we are creative, and i’ve addressed that throughout the thread. We imagine other worlds, better worlds, more powerful beings. We hypothesize in all kinds of different ways. We have the creative capacity to invent new things. God engages those he calls in his plan. He invites us to work redemptively alongside him. He restores us. We live and reign again. Lords of the earth. That’s why we love myth. A new world’s coming and we’re going to reign as priests and kings in the kingdom of God.

  • Foxfier, the conversation has remained the same throughout–the human–what makes us so.

    No, it has not. Partly because the topic is not “what makes a human,” and partly because you keep dragging it off into The Word According to Pat.

    We’re now in stage three– stage one was making assertions until challenged, step two was offering quotes that didn’t say what you claimed or weren’t related to the topic, step three is you demanding that I do this or that.

    All of that, rather than just reading the post and responding to that.

  • As far as I can tell, and it’s not totally lucid, you’re trying to understand the human and to distinguish the human from the non-human who may also possess intelligence. Is that correct?

  • I don’t beleive it centers on intelligence or being rational. I beleive the Creator created a world and arranged it according to a plan. The plan, I believe, is what tells us about each being, who they are and what their purpose is. As the story unfolds, we learn of that in detail. We see where it goes and we get a glimpse of the outcome.

    That we are creative means we can posit OTHER worlds and beings similar too but not the same as us. I’m not sure what can be said beyond that. The dramatis personae in Scripture is pretty straightforward. We have the script, etc., and we live in that world.

  • We are characters in a story already underway. Through revelation, we learn that story and who we are. We wouldn’t know this otherwise. We otherwise wouldn’t know what being human versus being nonhuman meant. The distinction would not be clear.

    The world we inhabit is understood, if at all, through scriptural revelation. Otherwise it would be an existential exercise. We’d wonder about it. And we’d worship creation rather than the one Creator whose plan we are a part of.

  • I think I’ve ansered everyuthing as best as I can. I ‘ve told you how I feel concerning the whole thing. I’ve given you my very best understanding about who we are and what separates us from other biengs. I'[ve asked you to point out any paritcular disagreemnets you had with me and I told you I’d address them one by one. I answerreed several of the items you cited. What more do you expect? Yes, this should have been a fun exercixe, an enjoyable discussion aobout what makes us human and what separates us from other seen and unseen aspects of God’s order. Instead, this has become about reducing what I say to nothing by insisiting on literal quotes, citations, hair-splitting logic that would make a Presbyterian seem mild, and a sense that what you say matters and what isay does’nt. I don’t know where you learned to debate, but using terms like beg the question and so on when it’s a nice talk among Christian-minded people is not necessary. Straw-man, and all ofthis is used among adversaries or within debates that surpass this level. I’m a bit disappointed. I wish we could have discussed this thing in a fun way like you said without it becoming so literal and exacting.

  • This post has gone off topic, and there is apparently no pulling it back.

    I’m closing comments.