Our Country

Wednesday, February 29, AD 2012

So to sum up: we now live in a country where students at ostensibly Catholic universities testify on national television before Congress that they are freely engaging in pre-marital intercourse, and that the university’s failure to pay for their $100 per month contraception is severely cramping their style – as they pay on the order of $50,000 per year for the privilege of said education.

But Rick Santorum is considered kooky and extreme.

 

Continue reading...

24 Responses to Our Country

  • Yup, that aboout sums it up, Paul Z.!

  • “that they are freely engaging in pre-marital intercourse, and that the university’s failure to pay for their $100 per month contraception”

    Which would actually be closer to 9-20 dollars per month. Bad enough being an airhead with the morals of a shrew in heat, but a lying airhead with the morals of a shrew in heat is even worse!

  • Yeah, I thought the $1,000/year figure seemed a tad high.

    And can I be a bit crude here? If we’re concerned about overall health, shouldn’t we be subsidizing condoms? After all, birth control pills don’t protect against STDs.

  • I imagine her parents are very, very proud. We should find them, and congratulate them as publicly as possible, in front of as many TV cameras and pod-cast i-Phones as can be found.

  • I wonder what other items are in these students’ “budgets”. I recall college… “poor” indeed, except when it comes to the party life.

  • How much you wanna bet that these self-absorbed brats who cannot afford rubbers have smart phones with robust texting plans.

  • I wrote on this as well, complete with facts, charts, powerpoint presentations and fancy blockquotes in red text.

    OK, no charts or powerpoint presentations, but I did include a few facts and 2 fancy blockquotes in red text.

    And of course, my usual style of commentary, such as:

    “One thing is for certain – I won’t be seeking legal advice from any recently graduated Georgetown-educated lawyers. Ever. It appears the only thing they know about legal briefs are the ones they stripped off of a fellow student.”

  • Well done, LarryD. I’ve obviously been on twitter too much, thus my pithier post.

  • The Newman Society commissioned survey of some Catholic colleges found more Catholic college young women than men involved in pre marital sex 50% to 41% and less Catholic young women being drawn to the sacraments than men. Close ’em up. Those are religious orders that could be missionizing in the third world where people skip meals instead of class. Go to the bottom of this link:

    http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=1265&grupo=Think%20%20Learn&canal=Education

  • Not that it’s a high bar (rimshot!), but she’s waaaay too stupid to be a lawyer. If she’s having that much sex and not charging for it, she’s an idiot–she’d have even a Georgetown education paid off by now.

  • You crack me up, Dale, you truly do. And it’s with the truth, no less! 😀

  • Here’s a pdf of Fluke’s testimony:

    http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/fluke.pdf

    Now, Ms. Fluke talks about 3 people who need BC meds for non-sexual reasons – but that doesn’t explain 40% of the women at GLS. Unless there are only 7 female law students in attendance…

  • What staggers me is that these airheads expect everyone else to pay for their jollies.

    I think this is even too bizzare for George Orwell to have predicted isn’t it?

  • Their god is in their groins.

    Thank God I only have sons.

  • With marriage so devalued and convenient what is surprising about this?

  • Karl-
    I suspect marriage is devalued for the same reason that this happens, rather than being the cause of it happening. It’s possible that “free love” devalued marriage, as well…. Virtue is devalued, especially if you’re of the class that can expect to go to college as a baseline expectation.

  • I have no trouble accepting, on an intellectual level, the evil of contraception. But the emotional part of me really does not want people like this young woman to succeed in producing offspring.

    Incidentally: condoms to not offer much protection against STDs, espcially things like genitals warts.

  • I could not afford anything but a “state school” back in the early 70’s when I attended the University of Buffalo. Loose sex was everywhere. I hope no one kids themselves into thinking this is a recent phenomenon.

    By some miracle, I do mean miracle, I got through college without being sexually active but it was all around me. I once “slept” through my nearly orthodox jewish roomate and his girlfriend/future wife, making love. It was quite an experience. I remember staying up all night with a young woman, simply talking. This was after she had been invited to stay with a guy who offered to give her a room to stay in while she visited the school as a potential student. The guy was a suite mate of mine. I found the young girl sitting sad-faced nearly in tears in the common area outside of our rooms, late one friday evening. She told me he had ordered her to get out, with no place to go for the weekend to sleep, unless she would succumb to his charms. She was very broken up and knew know one at the school except my lecherous “friend”, but I was able to gain her confidence and asked a female classmate to help her out. Fortunately, I had gone to high school with this classmate and she kindly shared her room with this girl for the remainder of her visit.

    These kids, today, face these temptations, everyday. I am grateful to be old enough to be their, almost, grandfather. Even at 57, the temptation is ever present, living as a single man in a world of “hooking up”. I guess that is what it is called these days.

    I truly do not know how I got through my college years without such reckless behavior because I was always on its threshold. I had drifted away from my active Catholicism but retained the moral structure without paying much mind to God. When I reflect upon it, I must have a very wonderful Guardian Angel whom I probably just about wore out.

    I think things are much more “immediate” for young people today. I once got my glasses slapped off my face and into the backseat of my 1967 Plymouth Fury, for refusing to continue with the “gymnastics” I was involved in, in the front seat. I gently told the young lady I had met earlier in the evening(I was 19) that it was not “right” for us to proceed any further and that I did not want either her, nor I, to regret it later.

    POW, right in the face!

    I still laugh when I recall the incident. I was so naive. But I am glad that I was, even though that young lady never spoke another word to me.

    My point is, it is not easy to remain chaste. I am convinced, in my own case, that I was “protected” from what I still cannot believe I did not do. If that makes any sense. I would NOT want to be young now. Nothing of a sexual nature truly surprises me anymore.

    I do not deceive myself into thinking that I am “beyond” falling “off the wagon”. It is only
    a heartbeat away, but for the grace of God. How much more difficult it must be for younger people. May God help them.

    Karl

    Karl

    From time to time, I speak of these incidents to an occasional young person and I wonder if they think I am just making it up for their behalf.

  • Higher education to become tomorrow’s leaders and shape the world …
    Wonder if the professor offered college credit for the experience of debasing herself, her family, and her Catholic school and so, Church?
    Educating the brain must be a challenge when it’s located below the neck.
    Temptation, repentance, conversion of heart, renewal of spirit, reverence, and holiness will become futuristic courses taught by the desensitized as electives, or just become extra credit papers.

  • AC/DC: “On the highway to Hell.”

  • Remember, these contraceptives that are so expensive will be added to insurance plans ‘for free’ so that there is no financial impact to the university. Really, no one will be paying for it, it’s nothing…

  • “Friendly21” as well.

One Response to Uintentional Humor

Dr. Mengele Can Empathize

Wednesday, February 29, AD 2012

 

“After birth abortion” sounds like a catchy substitute for words like “infanticide” and “murder” doesn’t it?

Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Dr. Mengele Can Empathize

  • There are not enough bullets for the huge numbers of late-term, after birth abortions we must perform.

  • I read this and wonder why people who propose after birth abortions feel themselves immune to the procedure. I shouldn’t think that way, but this is beyond infuriating.

  • These ethicists should be on Obama’s health care team. At least that’s what it will take to get (some) lib Catholics to finally oppose the oncoming evil.

  • A humorous meme floating around the intrawebz these days is “Godwin’s Law,” wherein anybody comparing an opponent in a debate to Nazis, or invokes Hitler, automatically loses. It is applied in arguments where such comparisons are obviously extreme.

    I doubt Dr. Godwin himself would disapprove of the comparison here.

    I cite this: Aktion T4 as a reference. There is a poster on the page that states, roughly, “60,000 Reichsmarks is what this person suffering from a hereditary defect costs the People’s community during his lifetime. Fellow citizen, that is your money too.”

    What other evidence does one need to see the source of the unmitigated evil these “ethicists” put out? The publication is as culpable as the authors for even considering to publish such shit (pardon my French but that’s what it is.) This is Satanic, purley and simply. There could be no other source for the inhumanity there contained.

  • It’s a well know fact that Mengele worked as an abortionist in Buenos Aries when he fled there after the war. A few years back, there was an article in the Washington Post magazine about a young female med student, very ‘pro-choice’ who thought about becoming an abortionist and did an internship at an abortion clinic. She didn’t become pro-life exactly afterwords, but did decide she didn’t want to be an abortionist. There must be something essential missing from ethicists, scientist, abortionist, etc who hold such views.

  • Understand this: there is no scrap of Christian morality that these people are not determined to destroy. They believe they are doing the right thing by initiating such actions. In their world view – which can only be described as wholly alienated from God – it is a requirement that an intellectual elite control human life for what they view as the betterment of all. A “defective” child does, indeed, cost money and can be a burden – so, get rid of the child.

    A revolution is required – and it may have to come non-peaceful in the by and by.

  • We are well down the slippery slope.

    It is terribly frightening and bewildering that very few know of this monstrous “logic” or see how insidiously this manner of thought is pervasively strangling our society and setting the stage for a truly horrific future. Large numbers of people are naive to what is really going on. The cleverness of those in league with such “intellectuals” at maintaining a facade of
    sincerity, while with complete foreknowledge, manipulating their “prey” so masterfully, is, to me, the imprimatur of the Evil One.

    I cannot believe THIS has occurred in my lifetime.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY EXTRA: GLOBAL CULTURE WARS | ThePulp.it
  • Once again, children with Down syndrome are singled out as a ‘worst case scenario’. This is inexcusable, if the couple doesn’t want to raise a child with Trisomy 21, just sign him or her over, pack up and leave the hospital!
    Why must mothers who have carried the child, and given birth kill them?
    We are becoming monsters.

  • How disgusting!!!!! How dare they presume to play God! I wonder if the mother’s of these two so called “intellectuals” would have chosen after birth abortion (ie murder) if they had known their offspring were going to end up being so evil? You don’t have to be a zealot to know this is soooooo wrong. Pray for them.

  • They do have a point, so let’s start with Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, the first candidates for after birth abortions..

  • This is the utterly logical progression of the contraceptive mindset: children are a disease, man is a disease and must be eliminated. It is Cain killing his brother and thereby himself.

The Weathervane Avoids Disaster

Wednesday, February 29, AD 2012

 

What could have been a very bad night for Mitt Romney, a/k/a The Weathervane, turned out to be mixed.  He won handily in Arizona, a state none of his opponents seriously contested.  In Michigan he dodged a bullet by eking out a 3 point victory over Santorum  The problem for the Weathervane is that Michigan should have been one of his strongest states, a state where his father was governor, and which he won by nine points in the Republican primary in 2008.  Outspending Santorum three to one, he barely won a victory in a state which should have been his going away.  Ironically he owed his victory to the fact that his old nemesis Gingrich stayed in and deprived Santorum of a winning margin.

Continue reading...

32 Responses to The Weathervane Avoids Disaster

  • That’s as good a spin for Santorum as can be hoped, but the GOP electorate has decided that the most electable candidate is the one that takes Obamacare, energy production and the HHS mandate off the table.

  • Nothing was decided last night Dale, and we will see if anything gets decided next week.

  • I know Santorum can recover. In an interesting development, he won southern Macomb County’s congressional district, home of the Reagan Dems.

    But I continue to be stunned by the unexamined assumption that Mitt is the most electable. I guess those folks assume gas will be at $5 a gallon and Romney will somehow wave away his cap-and-trade law.

    Here’s hoping Ohio has better critical thinking skills.

  • Romney appeals to those GOP insiders who always wish to go with the safe choice. Play it safe is always the motto of the GOP establishment, the same type of people who backed Ford in 1976, Dole in 1996 and McCain in 2008. The safe choice can win but it is always by a hair, Nixon in 68, Bush in 2000 and 2004, unless the Democrat implodes, McGovern in 1972 and Dukakis in 1988. Fortunately for Romney, if he does end up being the nominee, I think Obama will be in sad shape in November due to high unemployment, high gas prices, perhaps sky high gas prices, and the coming war with Iran. The announcement by the Israeli government yesterday that they will not give the US government prior notification of an attack on Iran I suspect was done on behalf of the Obama administration to give them plausible deniability of being in cahoots with Israel prior to the attack being launched.

  • Super Tuesday will largely hinge on Ohio. Oklahoma is a layup for Santorum, and Mass is the same for Romney. Georgia is going to be interesting. It’s Newt’s “home” state (despite not being raised there and not currently living there), but Santorum was fairly close in the latest polls. I haven’t seen polls in North Dakota but I would assume that favors Santorum. Tennessee also looks good for Santorum, and Vermont should be another Romney win. Currently Santorum is doing well in Washington, which has its caucus on Saturday. Now I don’t know how recent events will make things shake out, but it’s looking like next Tuesday should be a fairly good day for Santorum.

    As for Michigan, I note that it was the senior vote that put Romney over the top. I can only speculate that many of these folks just thought they were voting for his dad.

  • I can envision Obama’s campaign speeches against Mitt….” my wife doesn’t have a couple of cadillacs and I don’t bet $10,000 on anything and that orientation of ours comes from the gravitas that most families have about life and money irrespective of net worth. To send people into war or to withdraw them from war at the right time requires gravitas…not the light headed modality of someone who seems to never have suffered.”
    It’ll be so easy for Obama writers.
    If Mitt gets that far, it’s going to be impossible not to watch the gaff meter….like counting the number of times basketball player Allen Iverson said “practice” to the sports media in his now
    famous sports press conference of another time. How many hard pressed families can Mitt offend per week by implying they are not successful in the shallowest area of life. It’s going to be pro choice versus smiley shallow. Obama may even raise the question as to whether God has ensouled Romney to date (ergo his lack of empathy with the unsuccessful)….God ensouled Adam while the latter was fully adult and breathed the soul through Adam’s nostrils. Can’t rule it out.

  • One of my favorite Democrats, Mickey Kaus, has some choice words for the GOP establishment:

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/28/david-broooks-sad-elite/

  • Michael Barone has an interesting analysis of last night’s returns suggesting that they show Romney’s potential strength in the fall (in brief: Romney managed to do better in the suburbs than Republican presidential candidates have done in 20 years).

    Looking at the delegate math, it’s not clear to me that Santorum has a path to victory at this point. He can draw out the campaign, potentially damaging the eventual nominee in the fall, but I don’t see how he wins a majority of delegates.

  • Currently Santorum is doing well in Washington, which has its caucus on Saturday.

    Two things… Saturday is just at the precinct level. Then we have the county level on 3/31. Then state is somewhere down the line from there. The WSRP is notorious for going for the safe choice. Also, WA is a rather left wing state, so a moderate is about all I expect to get WA’s delegates.

  • “Also, WA is a rather left wing state, so a moderate is about all I expect to get WA’s delegates.”

    Actually Washington is a divided state, with the Republicans tending to be very conservative and the Democrats being very liberal. I expect Santorum to do well there.

  • “Looking at the delegate math, it’s not clear to me that Santorum has a path to victory at this point. He can draw out the campaign, potentially damaging the eventual nominee in the fall, but I don’t see how he wins a majority of delegates.”

    Considering that the contest has just started BA, I don’t see how anyone can do delegate math and reach that conclusion. As to damaging Romney, I think Romney manages quite capably by himself in regard to that. If anything, this contest will make Romney a better candidate in the Fall, if he gets the nomination, assuming he has any sort of learning capability at all in regard to becoming a better politician, something I doubt.

  • Bill:

    President Obama’s wife spends on average $2 million (taxpayers’ money) a month on vacations.

    After nearly tthree years in control, Obama had the garvitas to getUS troops out of Iraq. Gitmo is still open. President Obama imnmediately stopped water-boarding three mass murderers; and ordered the aerial drone assassinations of hundreds muslim suspects.

    President Obama may now get us out of Afghanistan, after his apologoes got a bunch of our soldiers shot in the backs of their heads.

    But hey, I’m with President Obama on the apologies initiative.

    If I were President Obama, I would release the following statement:

    “On behalf of the Fifty-Seven United States of America, I apologize for the deaths of 19 muslims who were killed by New York City’s World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.”

  • Donald,

    CNN has an interactive delegate calculator that lets you look at various options. I’ve played around with it a fair amount. Romney currently leads Santorum by 100 delegates, and has another 140 all but guaranteed in Massachusetts (his real home state), Virginia (where Santorum isn’t even on the ballot), and Utah (self-explanatory). If we assume on the other side that Santorum will win Pennsylvania (which is winner take all), that still leaves him with a 168 delegate deficit to Romney. Given that the delegates in most of the remaining states are allotted proportionately, the only way that Santorum can come back from this delegate hole is if Romney collapses completely, which is not going to happen.

  • Actually Washington is a divided state, with the Republicans tending to be very conservative and the Democrats being very liberal. I expect Santorum to do well there.

    It would be nice. However, my experience is west of the Cascades, which is a different reality than eastern WA. Four years ago, all I heard was “We must support McCain! He’s the only one that’s electable!” There were better conservative options, in my opinion then. Can the east’s more conservative bent overcome the west’s more liberal tendencies? I hope.

  • There were better conservative options, in my opinion then.

    You mean like Romney?

  • Santorum reminds me of a good sports team that can rally to beat their rivals in one game a year, but don’t have the talent to put up a playoff-quality W/L record over a season. Santorum basically tied Romney in Iowa, where Romney didn’t spend much time. Rick swept the three non-binding states on February 7th, but again, they were largely uncontested. Rick avoided direct fights with Romney in Maine, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada. Michigan was the first time the two of them invested effort in the same state, and Mitt won.

    If Romney gets a boost in the polls after this win, he could have a pretty good Super Tuesday. If Santorum can win OH, OK, and TN, he’d prove himself to be a contender, but if he loses any of them then Romney will return to being the presumed nominee. And I think he can grind out a win from there.

  • “if Romney collapses completely, which is not going to happen.”

    Frankly BA nothing would surprise me this campaign. Additionally I assume that Gingrich will give his delegates to Santorum eventually if he can forestall the nomination of Romney by doing so. I rather suspect that Ron Paul would do the same for Romney if that is what it takes to ensure that he is the nominee so there are wheels within wheels here. California with 169, and New Jersey with 50, are winner take all states on June 5, and they may decide it.

  • Donald,

    If Paul does give his delegates to Romney, then that will more than cancel out any advantage Santorum gets if Newt gives him his delegates (though I don’t expect it will come to that). In fact, if the Paul camp is to be believed a lot of Santorum’s delegates are really Paul delegates, since they come mainly from caucus states that Paul claims to have infiltrated. Of course, all that only matters if there is a brokered convention, which I doubt will happen.

    You are right that New Jersey is winner take all. I didn’t list it as one of Romney’s guaranteed wins, but I think he is very likely to win there because of Christie’s support and the state’s favorable demographics. The demographics are favorable to Romney in California too, but you are mistaken in saying the state is winner take all. As in Michigan, California’s delegates are awarded by congressional district. My hope would be that the race will have concluded long before then. If not, that will be an enormous waste of time and money that could be better spent with an eye towards the fall.

  • “If Paul does give his delegates to Romney, then that will more than cancel out any advantage Santorum gets if Newt gives him his delegates (though I don’t expect it will come to that).”

    It depends upon what the number of delegates are for each candidate by the time of the convention BA, and assumptions on what those numbers will be are merely guesstimates at best.

    “In fact, if the Paul camp is to be believed a lot of Santorum’s delegates are really Paul delegates, since they come mainly from caucus states that Paul claims to have infiltrated.”

    That sounds like the type of conspiracy mongering that I would expect from the devotees of Doctor Delusional.

    “You are right that New Jersey is winner take all. I didn’t list it as one of Romney’s guaranteed wins, but I think he is very likely to win there because of Christie’s support and the state’s favorable demographics.”

    Last night was the first night I believe in which a candidate endorsed by a Republican governor won that governor’s state. We will see what New Jersey looks like by June 5.

    “The demographics are favorable to Romney in California too, but you are mistaken in saying the state is winner take all. As in Michigan, California’s delegates are awarded by congressional district.”

    Most are awarded by district and some are awarded state wide. I was misinformed initially by a site that didn’t note the change of California from winner take all in 2004. As for demographics, unless the Mormons are holding out on their numbers from the census figures, or there is a demographic favorable in the Republican party to fake conservatives from Massachusetts, I am unsure how anyone can speak assuredly about demographics this early in the contest.

  • Depending on the state, not all delegates are obligated to vote as their caucuses or primaries dictated. There are also super delegates wh can vote however they want.

  • T Shaw,
    Secret Service and secured planes (not poulette au reisling) are the expense in Presidential vacations. Just war theory requires success as possible. That rules out the Afghanistan fiasco. If you owed Visa $14 trillion, would you spend another one trillion rearranging but not changing two unbaptized populations one of whom will be farming opium until Elijah returns? Look at the mountains there…impossible to police. One in five vets has PTSD. That comes from risking for no gain.

  • the same type of people who backed Ford in 1976, Dole in 1996 and McCain in 2008. The safe choice can win but it is always by a hair, Nixon in 68, Bush in 2000 and 2004,

    For the record, Mr. Ford was the incumbent president, who had not done a poor job in office. Mr. Dole’s principal opponents were a newspaper columnist and a magazine publisher. Mr. McCain’s principal opponents were the fellow you refer to as ‘the Weathervane’, the fellow you refer to as ‘Doctor Delusional’, and Gov. Huckabee. Mr. Nixon’s principal opponents were Gov. Rockefeller and Gov. Reagan, the latter of whom had been in office all of a year and a half; his margin of victory was shaved to a nubbin by the presence of George Wallace. The show candidate in 2000 was Dr. Keyes, whom I doubt would have improved on Mr. Bush’s performance. I cannot imagine whom you would have nominated in lieu of the President in 2004.

  • “Play it safe is always the motto of the GOP establishment, the same type of people who backed Ford in 1976, Dole in 1996 and McCain in 2008”

    Agreed.

    Now, what’s interesting in this crazy election cycle is who has been added to this mix. No conservative in my little corner of the world that supports Romney today was a McCain supporter of yesteryear. Such is the difference in this election.

  • I’d say that there is a good deal of overlap Paul D.

  • “For the record, Mr. Ford was the incumbent president, who had not done a poor job in office.”

    Disagree Art. I vividly remember the “Win” buttons which was his strategy against inflation.

    “Mr. Dole’s principal opponents were a newspaper columnist and a magazine publisher.”

    I think Steve Forbes would have been far better as a candidate Art than Zombie Dole.

    “Mr. McCain’s principal opponents”

    Better the Huckster than Zombie McCain, although I agree that it was a very bad field that year.

    “Mr. Nixon’s principal opponents were Gov. Rockefeller and Gov. Reagan, the latter of whom had been in office all of a year and a half;”

    You can guess Art who I was supporting at the age of 11.

    “The show candidate in 2000 was Dr. Keyes, whom I doubt would have improved on Mr. Bush’s performance.”

    I was backing Steve Forbes Art, although I hoped that Bush would govern more conservatively than he in fact did.

    “I cannot imagine whom you would have nominated in lieu of the President in 2004.”

    No one Art. I listed 2004 as another example of how safe Republican candidates tend to produce cliff hangers.

  • Heard some really amusing spin this afternoon– a middle conservative guy talking on the radio about how Mitt beat Santorum by so little just because of the liberals– 41 to 38; about two minutes later, he offered as support for Mitt being popular with those who self-identified as conservative: “Mitt won, 43 to 41!”

    No idea who did the polling he was reading off, but it amused me. ^.^

  • Disagree Art. I vividly remember the “Win” buttons which was his strategy against inflation.

    The WIN buttons were an odd public relations campaign. The actual results were as follows:

    Increase in the Consumer Price Index,

    August 1973-August 1974: 10.8%
    January 1976-January 1977: 5.2%

    I think Steve Forbes would have been far better as a candidate Art than Zombie Dole.

    Whether or not he had been a ‘good candidate’, he was running for public office, which he had never before held.

    I was backing Steve Forbes Art

    The three candidates who actually won delegates and more than a scatter of votes were Gov. Bush, Sen. McCain, and Dr. Keyes. I like Keyes, up to a point. Wrong job for him, though.

  • “August 1973-August 1974: 10.8%
    January 1976-January 1977: 5.2%”

    And Ford had as much to do with that Art as his silly WIN Buttons. Inflation went down after the ending of the Arab oil embargo and the economy adjusted to higher energy prices. That inflation had not been cured by Ford’s ministrations was dramatically illustrated during the tenure of his successor.

    “Whether or not he had been a ‘good candidate’, he was running for public office, which he had never before held.”

    I doubt if Dole’s life sinecure in warming a seat in Congress Art made him much better prepared. It certainly did not prevent him from running one of the most lifeless and dispiriting Presidential races that I have ever witnessed by any candidate not named John McCain.

    “I like Keyes, up to a point.”

    I respected Keyes Art until I witnessed the appalling campaign he put on here in Illinois against Obama in the Senate race of 2004. Dreadful beyond belief.

  • And Ford had as much to do with that Art as his silly WIN Buttons. Inflation went down after the ending of the Arab oil embargo and the economy adjusted to higher energy prices. That inflation had not been cured by Ford’s ministrations was dramatically illustrated during the tenure of his successor.

    I had no idea you had studied the intricacies of monetary policies as followed during the years running from 1973 to 1979. In any case, these are the core inflation figures (price increases during the calendar year with food and energy prices excised).

    1973: 3.6%
    1974: 8.3%
    1975: 9.1%
    1976: 6.5%
    1977: 6.3%
    1978: 7.4%
    1979: 9.8%
    1980:12.4%
    1981:10.4%
    1982: 7.4%

    During the Ford Administration, the core inflation figures began to decline around about March of 1975 and continued to do so (not quite monotonically) until he left office. During the Carter Administration, they began to escalate around June of 1978 reaching their peak in June of 1980.

  • A handy dandy resource for looking at inflation in the US from 1914-2012 is at the below link Art:

    http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/

    Inflation reached a low of 4.9% in November of 1976. In December of 1976 it had bounced back to 5.8%. December of 1977 it was up to 6.5%. Ford enjoyed a brief decline in the seventies inflationary spiral for about a year and a half, but his policies had not touched the core of the problem which took Reagan to address.

  • The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes this data.

    Month-to-month headline inflation figures bounce around quite a bit. The core inflation figures have the volatile food and energy prices removed so fluctuate less. The month-to-month core metrics were on a downward trajectory from March of 1975 to the time Mr. Ford left office and for some months thereafter. Specifically, core inflation was running at an annualized rate of 11.7% in February of 1975 and at one of 6.3% in July of 1977. The country was not in a recession at that time either. The recession ended in early 1975.

    I do not see how that qualifies as poor performance, no matter how much milage comedians got out of the WIN program. All administrations are messy and make errors. In my lifetime, we have had three administrations (Nixon’s, the younger Bush’s, and the current one) which made far more severe errors than any Gerald Ford ever contemplated without incurring severe intraparty challenges, one administration which incurred a challenge for reasons irrelevant to its actual flaws (Mr. Carter’s), and two administrations among the least problematic of the post-war period who were badly injured by intra-mural party squabbling (Messrs. Ford and Bush the Elder). The only occasion where truly wretched performance met with a relevant challenge (albeit a challenge with poor prescriptions) occurred in 1968.

  • This seems to be the source of that amusing soundbite I mentioned.

    I figured out what was screwy– most major lefties don’t ID as dem, they’re “independent.” If you look at how people self-ID’ed by ideology– which is a bit more reliable– then he was far more popular with “moderate or liberal” than Rick.

    The probability that any people really trying to screw with the primary would lie like a dog makes the data even shakier, but not much you can do there.

The Human Face of Suffering

Tuesday, February 28, AD 2012

About a week ago, I wrote on a article that I read from Slate.com. Having never really been to this site, I have now found myself with the same sort of reaction one has to a horrible car accident … I just have to look. On the bright side, I think that any conservative blogger could find a lifetime of material on which to comment in but a few short days of perusing Slate’s archives.

Yesterday, there appeared a very emotional piece by a mother of a child with Tay-Sachs. My heart and prayers go out to this woman – I can’t even begin to imagine the daily struggles and emotional roller-coasters that she goes through. Yet there is something terribly unsettling with her story. Her opening paragraphs read:

This week my son turned blue, and for 30 terrifying seconds, stopped breathing. Called an “apnea seizure,” this is one stage in the progression of Tay-Sachs, the genetic disease Ronan was born with and will die of, but not before he suffers from these and other kinds of seizures and is finally plunged into a completely vegetative state. Nearly two years old, he is already blind, paralyzed, and increasingly nonresponsive. I expect his death to happen this year, and this week’s seizure only highlighted the fact that it could happen at any moment—while I’m at work, at the hair salon, at the grocery store. I love my son more than any person in the world and his life is of utmost value to me. I don’t regret a single minute of this parenting journey, even though I wake up every morning with my heart breaking, feeling the impending dread of his imminent death. This is one set of absolute truths.

Here’s another: If I had known Ronan had Tay-Sachs (I met with two genetic counselors and had every standard prenatal test available to me, including the one for Tay-Sachs, which did not detect my rare mutation, and therefore I waived the test at my CVS procedure), I would have found out what the disease meant for my then unborn child; I would have talked to parents who are raising (and burying) children with this disease, and then I would have had an abortion. Without question and without regret, although this would have been a different kind of loss to mourn and would by no means have been a cavalier or uncomplicated, heartless decision. I’m so grateful that Ronan is my child. I also wish he’d never been born; no person should suffer in this way—daily seizures, blindness, lack of movement, inability to swallow, a devastated brain—with no hope for a cure. Both of these statements are categorically true; neither one is mutually exclusive.

I want to try very hard to not be callous in my comment, but rather pastoral in the best sense of the word. As I stated from the beginning, this woman’s story is clearly one of great suffering.

That being said, what is the proverbial “missing piece” from this philosophy? I can think of three such pieces that are worth considering.

 

1. Suffering is Redemptive

There is something drastically “new” about the Christian take on suffering. If we define suffering as that gap between desire and reality (or between what we want and what we have), the ancient east and the modern west have opposite takes on how to close the gap. The ancient east suggests solving the problem by eliminating desires. According to Peter Kreeft:

We suffer because of the gap between what we want and what we have. This gap is created by our dissatisfaction, our wanting to get what we do not have or wanting to keep what we do have (e.g., life, which causes fear of death). Thus desire is the villain for Buddha, the cause of all suffering.

 

The modern west takes an opposite approach: we attempt to eliminate suffering by bringing what we have up to the level of what we want. This is true in both modern medicine and modern economics.

Although both work in opposite directions, the goal is the same: to eliminate suffering.

Christianity, through the Paschal mystery, takes a radically new approach: it redeems suffering and thus allows us to see it as a value in and of itself. As Christians, we are called to embrace suffering for the redemption of ourselves and of the world. I am reminded of the scene from Passion of the Christ where the Lord has hold of his cross and the soldiers ridicule him saying, “Look, he embraces his cross!”

 

2. God is the Author of Life – and the Soul is Eternal

It seems to me that this is an essential tenant of the Christian faith. The very first thing we learn about our nature from the Book of Genesis is that we are created. In other words, we are not our own, and nor are we each other’s. God is the author of life, and only God can decide when “it is time” (for lack of a better phrase). None of us ever wants to see an innocent child suffer to the degree that this mother has had to endure, yet even in these difficult cases, it is not our decision to make. Let us not forget, however, that the human soul is immortal. It has an existence well beyond the confines of time. Further, we know for certain that a baptized child not yet of the age of reason will be welcomed into Heaven – so whatever this child suffers here on earth, it will pale in comparison to the joy he will experience when standing for eternity face to face with the Living God.

There is actually something very laudable with the mother’s desire that “no person should suffer in this way.” While we embrace our own suffering, we also should work to a certain extent to minimize the suffering in others. Yet the line is crossed when first things fail to be kept first. The “first thing” in this case is the notion that God is the only one who takes the blessed soul from their suffering and welcomes them into eternal life.

 

3. God’s Ways are not Our Ways

This is so impossible to fully understand, and every one of us is guilty of crying out for justice, mercy, or some seemingly illogical combination of the two when faced with the hardest moments of our time here on earth. Few of us will experience moments as challenging as this mother’s trials, and virtually none of us will have to undergo the pain experienced by her son. Yet as hard as it is to grasp, the truth haunts us in the quiet of our hearts: as finite beings we are incapable of seeing the “whole picture.” We do not yet know everything that God has planned for both the world and for a particular individual. Only when it is all said and done, and we are granted the opportunity to “understand the whole” will we be able to find true solace in the events of this world.

What is curious about this point is that it is either a source of great consolation or bitter confusion. One either sees in the mystery of a plan not-yet-fulfilled a God who is a great architect that ever so slowly reveals His design, or one sees a tyrannical dictator who hides the truth from his subjects. It all comes down to the fundamental lens through which one sees the drama of life.

Regardless, my heart goes out to this woman. In fact, I can agree with her on not just one, but both of her points, properly understood. As such, I agree that they are no mutually exclusive. I believe with everything I am that she is telling the truth when she says, “I love my son more than any person in the world and his life is of utmost value to me. I don’t regret a single minute of this parenting journey, even though I wake up every morning with my heart breaking, feeling the impending dread of his imminent death.” I also believe that she deeply wishes her poor innocent son would not have to endure the suffering that he has already had to go through let alone that which is to come. Moreover, I too wish that I had it in my power to save him from any more suffering in his life. In fact, I even agree that his “life” would be better if he were already in the presence of God. Nevertheless, I cannot agree that taking a life of which we are not free to take, making a choice that we are not free to make, is a viable option towards such an end. The end can never justify the means.

I have already decided to dedicate a part of my Lenten spiritual reading and preparation to both this mother and her very blessed child, and I encourage others to do the same. Through all the suffering, it is clear that his mother as an authentic love for him, and that is something that many of our “healthy” children lack so desperately.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to The Human Face of Suffering

  • It would have been terribly easy to rant against this woman, to assail her apparent hypocrisy and to begin dissecting the illogic of her statements.

    But, Mr. Tawney, the example you have given is one of the best exemplifications of “the Corinthian love letter” that I have read in some time. The peace offered by your commitment to love this woman and her child regardless of anything is what’s so badly needed in so many corners of the world.

    May The Lord Bless you and keep you, sir. May He make His face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you. May He turn His face toward you and give you peace.

    I will remember you and for your intentions in my daily prayers.

  • Human suffering of such magnitude would be impossible for me to endure if I did not believe in a loving God who is lord of this world and the next. My prayers for Ronan and his mother.

  • Jake Tawney, This is a most beautiful post.

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Man needs more than bread (the temporal) to live.

    Without God this is unbearable.

    I bet the world will judge me “odd.” I believe the child eternally will be with God in Heaven after a finite period of worldly suffering.

  • My few thoughts…

    1. As you note, suffering is redemptive only for the Christian. We do not know what the woman’s spiritual state is, so we can hope for her conversion.

    2. We know that she acts from a place of being confronted by, and powerless to change, evil. Her indication is that she would have tried to stop the evil by committing evil, namely killing her son in utero. I say this while remaining cognizant of her suffering and her likely lack of culpability in feeling this way, and therefore hopeful for mercy for her soul.

    3. I stand with David Bentley Hart and others in the same vein who say that God has no part in this suffering, and that this suffering is not part of any sort of His action. God’s ways are inscrutable to us, indeed. However, it seems to me that we must be very careful in arguing to those who are suffering that they should have hope because God has some sort of purpose in or through the suffering of the child.

    4. Similarly, I have difficulty calling the son in this story “blessed” simply because of his suffering. His mother suffers, then states that she would kill the child or others like it because of the suffering. I do not think that suffering, in and of itself, confers any sort of blessing, except in Christian experience of it.

  • Jonathan,

    A couple of thoughts:

    – my son, too, suffered greatly at the outset of his life and will always have medical complications due to his birth defect, however, his suffering was what ultimately brought me to my knees and made me realize how much I needed God. I believe that by allowing this suffering to happen, he also allowed my son to touch the lives of thousands of people who have been brought back into communion with the God they had forgotten about.

    – through the magic of internet, a mother who doesn’t understand why suffering exists in this world (and specifically in her child), has made it possible for all of us reading this post to be reminded of the beauty that is found in the Church’s teaching on Redemptive Suffering. Trivial as that may sound, it may be saving the life of someone whose caretaker was strongly considering Euthanasia. I believe strongly that God does have his hand in this suffering.

  • I think the key distinction here is between the redemptive power of God in the face of suffering–which is indeed the vital center of any thorough Christian analysis of the problem of evil–and the temptation to say that because God can redeem suffering, that this means that God “has a hand in this suffering” or causes or needs suffering. The former idea seems right on: Grace takes even the most daunting and hopeless of cases and can use them to convert sinners and lead us back to the mystery of the cross. The latter idea can lead us to a vision of God that is not Love, but sheer Will, a God who willfully inflicts suffering on humans in order to save them. I think that God’s grace can and, with cooperation from the human will, turn suffering toward the good; but to say that therefore God CAUSES such suffering is a tremendously horrifying error. Satan causes and loves suffering; God never intended suffering to be part of our lives, and in the person of Christ, shows us how to destroy it forever.

  • Wayne,

    I do not think I could stomach a God who permitted suffering in order to bring people to Faith. However, God allowing the experience of grace because of the suffering is different. That is God bringing good out of evil, not allowing evil for the purpose of the good.

  • Our first child was born with cystic fibrosis, which brings a 1:4 chance with every pregnancy. We’ve had 5 more without it, and now our newborn probably has it. The Church’s teaching on redemptive suffering pulled me out of an angry, depressed pit of hating God (We are now converts, thank God.). We all suffer. This is not heaven. Like the child in utero who can’t imagine the other world, we have another unimaginable world. This article is wonderful ; I’m having my teens read it and offering our “suffering”, which now seems small compared to this mother, for them, as well. Thank you for taking the time to put this to writing. Warmly, Allison Howell

  • I firmly believe suffering can be redemptive and even worthwhile. Though I would argue suffering is not necessarily always created by God, He most certainly can use suffering for good. Opening ourselves to that possibility can make all the difference. Easy? Most certainly not. But that process could have positive affects on other relationships and be cascading in purpose beyond our even our visibility — not always driven to immediate “faith conversion”, but healing in some many other facets of life. I’ve seen families brought together, activities created, hope nourished.

  • Thank you for writing this. You have given me much to ponder……..for starters: a reminder that my life is not about me.

Assessing Potential Supreme Court Vacancies

Tuesday, February 28, AD 2012

Supreme Court appointments have been a relatively muted issue during the campaign.  It might be worth taking a look at the Court and in order to see where we might be headed over the course of the next presidential term.  I will be listing Justices in order from least to most likely to retire over the next four years.  Letter in parentheses indicates party of the president under which they were appointed.

John Roberts (R), Samuel Alito (R), Sonia Sotomayor (D), Elana Kagan (D):  All recent appointments, and all relatively young.  None of these guys are going anywhere anytime soon barring a catastrophic health crisis.

Clarence Thomas (R): Even though he recently started his third decade on the Court, Thomas is still fairly young, as he won’t turn 70 until 2018.  He is the Justice most committed to completely overturning decades of bad precedents, and I have a hunch he’d like to be on the Court to help shape those future rulings.  There is a tiny sliver of a chance he could retire if a Republican wins the presidency, but it would be a fairly big surprise.

Antonin Scalia (R), Stephen Breyer (D): Scalia and Breyer are fairly close in age.  Scalia turns 80 at the end of the next presidential term, and Breyer is two years his junior.  Scalia would also be completing his 30th year on the Court in 2016.  Both are still vigorous and active.  Neither will retire if a member of the opposite party wins the forthcoming election, and I would put the odds of retirement at just under 50/50 if someone from their party wins.  I would imagine Scalia would share some of Thomas’s desire to be able to shape opinions, so he might hang on through the next term.

Anthony Kennedy (R):  The Court’s swing vote, he is just a few months younger than Scalia and has served just one less year on the Court.  His retirement would be the game changer, and whoever gets to pick his replacement could be altering the course of the Court for the next thirty years.  It doesn’t matter which party controls the White House, the confirmation fight over his replacement will be a bloodbath, and I would fully expect a filibuster effort.

Will he retire, and will he peg his retirement to whoever is in the White House?  He’s a moderate, but he was appointed by a Republican.  Ultimately Kennedy will probably decide upon his retirement in the same manner as he decides most of his votes: by flipping a coin.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (D): The only one of the eight clear ideoloigical justices who could retire during an administration of the opposite party.  She is the oldest member of the Court, and she has had some health problems in recent years.  I personally have seen her up close a couple of times, and she looked incredibly frail – and this was several years ago.  But she is still fairly vigorous, even travelling to Egpyt in order to tell the Egyptians how rotten our Constitution is.  She has evidently indicated a willingness to retire at 82, the same age as Louis Brandeis.  That would occur in 2015.

If Barack Obama wins re-election, I would put the odds at just about 100 percent that she will retire over the next four years.  Even if  a Republican wins the White House, health issues might force her hand.  If that happens, the confirmation battle will be just as intense, if not more so, than for whoever would replace Kennedy.

Ultimately the question we have to ask is which of the candidates is likely to go to the mats when it comes to a Supreme Court nomination battle?

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Assessing Potential Supreme Court Vacancies

  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg was chief counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, not American nor Civil, before she became professor of Law at Rutgers University in New Jersey. She wrote in her book that fourteen year old girls ought to be given sexual freedom (without informed sexual consent at emancipation?) and the court took her lede by emancipating every pregnant child, without parental notification. The state was given access to aborting the infant child of the infant child. Ginsburg was shoed into the Supreme Court where I believe she has done nothing remarkable since her ideas and her non ideas are as severe as her hairdo. She reminds me of Chuckie Cheese on a bad day.

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY EXTRA: U.S. CULTURE WARS II | ThePulp.it
  • John Roberts (R), Samuel Alito (R), Sonia Sotomayor (D), Elana Kagan (D): All recent appointments, and all relatively young. None of these guys…

    Two of “these guys” aren’t even “guys”.

Some troubling catholic thought masquerading as Catholic thought…

Tuesday, February 28, AD 2012

U.S. House of Representatives Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has all but declared war on the authority of the Catholic Church to teach its faith and morals.

Telegraphing a “message” to the hierarchy last week, Ms. Pelosi said that the Church’s teaching on birth control “isn’t  even accepted by the laity churchgoing people themselves.”  She noted that “an overwhelming number” of American Catholic  girls from age 14 “or younger” use birth control.

Evidently, the Minority Leader would prefer a more democratized Catholic Church, where decisions are made by taking votes or, perhaps, hiring Gallup to do some public polling.

(The relevant remarks begin at 51:40, although the entire video is worth watching.)

Representative Pelosi had called a Georgetown Law School student, Sandra Fluke, to  testify concerning the Sebelius’ regulations that will compel all healthcare plans—including those  provided or purchased by Catholics and Catholic institutions—to cover sterilizations, contraceptives, and abortifacients.  Fluke, the former President of Georgetown Law Students for  Reproductive Justice, had complained that Georgetown did not cover contraceptives in its student health insurance plan.

Interrupting Ms. Fluke, the Ms. Pelosi said:

…it also speaks to the fact that this is what the practice is in our country. If an overwhelming number of Catholic women of childbearing age—and stretch that from 14 to 50 or however older or younger you want to go—are practicing birth control,  then that has to be some message to the church that please don’t expect  employers and insurance companies to enforce an attitude that you have that isn’t even accepted by the laity churchgoing people themselves.

So, we have a problem here, which you have really  clearly presented an answer to: A voice of a young woman in an institution of higher learning that is Catholic, I always thought with a capital C and a small c. Let’s hope that that is the case.

As a Catholic, The Motley Monk must note two problems with Ms. Pelosi’s analysis:

  1. Truth is determined by popularity: The Motley Monk would suggest that Ms. Pelosi rethink this.  After all, just because a majority of the citizens of the South in the 17th century believed that slavery was moral didn’t make enslaving human beings moral.  In the 20th century, just because the majority of Nazis believed the extermination of the Jews was moral, didn’t make exterminating them moral.  Even if 99% of humanity believed that contraception and abortion were moral, doesn’t make either moral.
  2. “Catholic” means different things to different people: The Motley Monk would suggest this assertion turns a fact—yes, different people believe the word “Catholic” can mean different things—into a principle, one that ultimately means “nothing can mean anything.”  Why?  Anyone is free to believe anything, whether true or not!  In contrast, The Motley Monk would argue that “words have meaning.”  Accordingly, a Catholic university would present the teaching of the Catholic Church by engaging it in principled discourse with other non-Catholic ideas so that students would, as Blessed John Henry Newman wrote, “think about these matters as Catholics do.”  A catholic university would discuss what catholics think the Catholic Church should teach, informed by the current Zeitgeist and supported by the magisterium of public opinion. (In some circles, catholics are called “Catholics-in-Name-Only” [CINO’s].  As this phenomenon impacts the nation’s Catholic universities and colleges, The Motley Monk calls it the “Georgetownization” of U.S. Catholic higher education…to wit: Ms. Fluke.)

If all of that isn’t troubling enough, Representative Pelosi also said that preserving the Sebelius regulations was about protecting the “God-given free will” of women.  Of the Chairman, Darrell Issa (R-CA), Ms. Pelosi asked mockingly:

  • Does that person, or that Chairman of Committee, have any judgment on what it means to a family to personally and religiously make decisions about the size and timing of their family?
  • Does that person have any knowledge, is he qualified to talk about the danger to women’s health, and therefore the care of the family, to a Mom if she and her husband, their doctor and their God cannot make  those decisions?
  • Is that committee chairmanship and leadership of the Congress qualified to make a decision about how people exercise their God-given free will to take their responsibility and to answer for how they  exercise that God-given free will?

Whew!  Where is one to start?

For Catholics, The Motley Monk notes three problems with the line of argumentation inherent in Ms. Pelosi’s  questioning:

  1. The “if you don’t have it, you have nothing to say about it” argument: Just just because a member of the U.S. Congress is a male and Chairman of a committee, does not ipso facto render that man incapable of making a judgment or render him unqualified to speak about women’s “health” issues.  According to Ms. Pelosi’s reasoning, would the fact that she is not a Catholic theologian render Ms. Pelosi unqualified to render a judgment or unqualified to speak about Catholic teaching?
  2. It is up to individuals to determine what their God requires: This argument is to the heart of the Protestant Reformation.  The Motley Monk would note that the Protestant reformers argued that they didn’t need an intermediary—a priest, a bishop, or a Pope of Rome—to tell them what the Scriptures taught.  Ms. Pelosi sounds more like a Protestant than a Catholic. (Or, is that a protestant rather than a catholic?)
  3. Human feelings trump God’s rights.  Ms. Pelosi failed to address the Creator’s “rights”…from which are derived all other rights and “human rights,” in particular.  Neither did Ms. Pelosi discuss the “right” of those who will be compelled to pay for “healthcare” practices and procedures that violate their consciences.  Also left out of Ms. Pelosi’s discussion were the Church’s rights to teach about the faith and morals as She (meaning the Church, not Ms. Pelosi) sees fit.

Ms. Pelosi is engaging in this discourse for strictly political purposes.  It is part of the overall Obama re-election strategy: To divide U.S. Catholics in order to shore up just enough votes to ensure re-election.

If The Motley Monk’s analysis is accurate, the House Minority Leader is selling her Catholic faith for political expediency.

 

 

To read The Motley Monk’s daily blog, click on the following link:
http://themotleymonk.blogspot.com/

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Some troubling catholic thought masquerading as Catholic thought…

  • In 1st Corinthians chapter 5, St. Paul had to instruct the parishioners at Corinth on how to deal with a man who was sleeping with his father’s wife. He told them to hand that person over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh so that on the last day he might be saved. With one blow he dealt with the public scandal of sexual sin and the need for the offender to be brought back to salvation.

    This whole issue of contraception and abortion, and Nancy Pelosi’s support for the same, is no different. Indeed, by 2nd Corinthians chapter 2 the man who had committed such heinous sexual sin had repented and was back in good standing within the Church. Do our Bishops care so little for the public scandal that Nancy Pelosi’s position causes, and so little for the state of her soul that they will continue to fail to publicly ex-communicate her? It is for the good of the souls whom her statements infect with heresy and apostasy, and for the good of her own soul that she has to be handed over to Satan for the destruction of her flesh so that on the last day she herself and those whom she has perverted might be saved.

    These words aren’t written out of hatred against her or against liberal Democrats. Rather, these words are merely a reflection (however poorly) of what St. Paul himself directed the Church at Corinth to do. Indeed, if they were hatred, then we would say, “To hell with her.”

  • Something to pray in these days. If the Bishops and laity don’t act to correct this in their respective spheres of authority, God will.

    Psalm 2
    1 Why do the nations conspire
    and the peoples plot in vain?
    2 The kings of the earth rise up
    and the rulers band together
    against the LORD and against his anointed, saying,
    3 “Let us break their chains
    and throw off their shackles.”
    4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
    the Lord scoffs at them.
    5 He rebukes them in his anger
    and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
    6 “I have installed my king
    on Zion, my holy mountain.”

    7 I will proclaim the LORD’s decree:

    He said to me, “You are my son;
    today I have become your father.
    8 Ask me,
    and I will make the nations your inheritance,
    the ends of the earth your possession.
    9 You will break them with a rod of iron[b];
    you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”

    10 Therefore, you kings, be wise;
    be warned, you rulers of the earth.
    11 Serve the LORD with fear
    and celebrate his rule with trembling.
    12 Kiss his son, or he will be angry
    and your way will lead to your destruction,
    for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
    Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

  • I agree with Paul Primavera mostly except there is a doctrinal divide between abortion and contraception and the Catholic blogosphere conflates them by word of mouth but I suspect many Bishops do not. The Vatican could actually excommunicate pro choice Catholics pols on abortion because that issue is infallibly condemned in a manifest manner (Evangelium Vitae, sect.62, abbreviated IC wording with one key change) as required by canon 749-3. Birth control for some theologians (Grisez, Fr. Ford, Fr. May) is infallibly condemned in the universal ordinary magisterium…but for several Vatican respected theologians, Karl Rahner and Bernard Haring, it was not infallible in that venue and Rahner edited the Enchiridion Symbolorum for years…a tome that ascribes authority levels to issues. The universal ordinary magisterium as a venue became more iffy ironically when the modern Magisterium including Popes went silent on wifely obedience, and went sparse on condemning usury, and went into overdrive against the death penalty de facto. Ergo…three issues seemingly of the universal ordinary magisterium were frankly slighted by the Magisterium while it was excommunicating persons around the issue of women priests which had less explicitness in Tradition and scripture than wifely obedience, usury and the death penalty. We may well have over a thousand Catholics in key offices in Visa and Mastercharge affecting 25% plus rates for late payers….but the usury days of Saints denouncing whole cities are over somehow.
    Abortion though does not have the misty fog of all those issues in the ordinary magisterium.
    It is clearly, infallibly condemned in section 62 of Evangelium Vitae after John Paul by polling all Bishops worldwide got unanimity on that, Euthanasia, and killing the innocent (he probably asked the Bishops on birth control but failed…and we’ll know in about 75 years as per the silent period
    on papal private correspondence).

  • Good commentary by Bill Bannon, certainly better than I could have done. But I am curious: what part of the command “Be fruitful and multiply” in Genesis 1:28 do the Bishops NOT understand? This was after all the first command.

  • Oddly Paul, Jerome and Augustine saw that Gn.1:28 as applying to only the Jews so that they would flourish and protect and produce the Messiah. But the present catechism disagrees with them in that it says that the Noachic covenant (which repeated “be fruitful and multiply for Jews and Gentiles ) will last til the end of time (CCC#71). But…lol…that means that the death penalty for murder of Genesis 9:6 (Noachic) should also last til the end of time. Ergo….some Bishops will ignore the Noachic covenant because while leading to “be fruitful and multiply”, it also leads to executing those who murder and the Bishops tried to save Timothy McVeigh.
    Jerome and Augustine were against contraception and against big families if you can figure that out. They envisioned a lot of abstinence:

    Augustine in “The Good of Marriage”…

    section 17
    “For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bare children, it was allowed, in order for a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful.”
    section 19
      ” For in these (moderns) the very desire of sons is carnal, but in those (OT patriarchs) it was spiritual, in that it was suited to the sacrament of that time. Forsooth now no one who is made perfect in piety seeks to have sons, save after a spiritual sense; but then it was the work of piety itself to beget sons even after a carnal sense: in that the begetting of that people was fraught with tidings of things to come, and pertained unto the prophetic dispensation.”

    Jerome saw “be fruitful and multiply” as falling under the curse of the law in two documents:

    Against Helvidius / section 21:  “So long as that law remained, “Be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth” [Gen. 1:28]; and “Cursed is the barren woman that bears not seed in Israel” [cf. Ex. 23:26], they all married and were given in marriage, left father and mother, and became one flesh….But once in tones of thunder the words were heard, “The time is shortened, that henceforth those that have wives may be as though they had none” [1 Cor. 7:29], cleaving to the Lord, we are made one spirit with Him. And why? Because “He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord…”. ( Jerome here strangely conflates the Christian married and the celibate therein as both not needing children).

    Letter to Eustochium. letter XXII.  Jerome…
    20. I praise wedlock, I praise marriage, but it is because they give me virgins. I gather the rose from the thorns, the gold from the earth, the pearl from the shell. 
    21. The old law had a DIFFERENT ideal of blessedness, for therein it is said: “Blessed is he who hath seed in Zion and a family in Jerusalem:”(5) and “Cursed is the barren who beareth not:”(6) and “Thy children shall be like olive-plants round about thy table.”

    Ergo you can see how Rahner and Haring saw the area of contraception as containing odd cross currents with Haring seeing I Cor. 7:5 as very ignored by many commentators in the tradition.

  • Pingback: TUESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • If The Motley Monk’s analysis is accurate, the House Minority Leader is selling her Catholic faith for political expediency. In 1981, Senator Harrison Williams of New Jersey was caught on tape “influence peddling” to Arab Sheiks in the Abscam Scandal. He lost his seat and was sent to Federal prison as Inmate #06089-050. Ii is time for Pelosi to be stopped from Catholic “influence peddling”.

  • More Virgins are the only reason to surrender virginity. The joy of life is knowing that there is another person who thinks enough about you, and likes you enough, to want there to be more of you. The joy of heaven is God knowing that you like Him enough to want there to be more of Him.
    God told the prophet to go into the prophetess, his wife, and she conceived. Children have a right to be called forth by God, our Creator and our Maker. God loves all children; “I have all those you have given to me.” Children are begotten through the will of God. Opposing the will of God is, well, rather evil. Demons, like Medusa and possessed individuals ought not be running our country. God must be running our country, not the Pope. The Pope has to “run” and serve the Catholic Church. God must be brought to bear on our nation, in its laws and in its economy and in its sovereignty. The Sovereign Person of God must be given FREEDOM to rule over His sovereign people. Religion is man’s response to the gift of Faith from God. There are as many of man’s responses, as there are free persons, to the gift of Faith from God. This, I repeat, because beliefs such as atheism are beliefs, but they are not a response to the gift of Faith from God and as such that they are totalitarian simply by the fact of having deposed the Person of God and the sovereignty of the Person of God from the whole of the nation, not only the public square but the whole of the culture, and from me and my family, and this demon would gladly erase me from existence if it could. May God bless and keep you.

  • We need to Publicly Excommunicate Pelosi and Sebelius as they are “catholic” heretics and hypocrites. I would add Brian Cahill to that list. The government under the 10th Ammendment of the Constitution does not have a right to force us to buy anything including health care. Also the government may NOT force its secular liberal religion on the Catholic church. Brian is no loyal or devout “catholic” as he is just another liberal hypocrite who is apostate. You cannot be Catholic and pro-abortion or liberal or pro-Obama or pro-Obama care. I do not know Brian but he seems to be another clueless liberal. Please click on the following link:

    “Request the Public Excommunication of Politicians Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebelius and others”
    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/request-the-public-excommunication-of-politicians/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=system&utm_campaign=Send%2Bto%2BFriend

    It is time to throw out the liberals. They are not Catholic. Enough is enough. We must be loyal and devoted to Our Lord and to the Blessed Virgin. Read about what she said in Fatima in 1917 and you will be amazed and overjoyed at Her wonderful message and the warning she has in it. Catholics can not be complicit or cooperate with evil and the Obama administration is the most morally corrupt we have ever had. In November we have our National IQ Test and that is to vote for moral leaders with integrity and that is conservative and NOT liberal.

  • I suppose THIS young Catholic woman’s voice means nothing, because it concurs with orthodoxy — I wrote to her, but I doubt she will listen (if by chance you’re reading this, Ma’am, which I also doubt, I dare you to prove me wrong!).

If

Tuesday, February 28, AD 2012

The ninth in my ongoing series examining the poetry of Rudyard Kipling.   The other posts in the series may be read here, here , here , herehere , here ,here and here.  By far If is the most famous poem of Kipling’s, written in 1909 in the form of advice to his only son, John (Jack) Kipling, who would die fighting bravely at Loos shortly after his eighteenth birthday in 1915.  The poem was inspired by the Jameson raid,  undertaken in 1895 by Doctor Leander Starr Jameson.  Jameson, who became a close friend of Kipling, became a British national hero by his leadership of the unsuccessful raid which attempted to start a revolt of British settlers, who outnumbered the native Boers two to one, against the Boer government of the Transvaal.  Jameson, who rose to be Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, throughout his life embodied many of the virtues praised in the poem.

If you can keep your head when all about you

  Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;

 If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

  But make allowance for their doubting too;

  If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

  Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,

 Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,  

And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;

 If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;

  If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;

 If you can meet with triumph and disaster

  And treat those two imposters just the same;

 If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken

  Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

  Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

  And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools;

 If you can make one heap of all your winnings

  And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

  And lose, and start again at your beginnings

 And never breath a word about your loss;

  If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

  To serve your turn long after they are gone,

 And so hold on when there is nothing in you

  Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on”;

 If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

 Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch;

  If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;

  If all men count with you, but none too much;

 If you can fill the unforgiving minute  

With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,

  Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,

 And—which is more—you’ll be a Man my son!

Continue reading...

2 Responses to If

  • “If you can make one heap of all your winnings
    And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
    And lose, and start again at your beginnings
    And never breath a word about your loss”

    I think the pitch-and-toss is explained earlier in the poem. We can’t be completely in control of our destinies – we all experience triumphs and disasters that we can’t control. Every day the things that we’ve given our lives to can be broken. Life is essentially a pitch-and-toss. That being said, the important thing is to respond to one’s fortune with equanimity.

    In fact, the only way that we can avoid the pitch-and-toss which can wipe out the things we care about and have worked for is to not care or work. The moment we commit to something we risk loss.

  • Kipling is saying a real man doesn’t sweat the small, i.e., temporal, stuff.

    Money quote that defines Obama-worshiping liars in the mainstreet media and their treatment of anything not liberal:

    “If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
    Twisted by hellions to make a trap for morons.”

12 Responses to Starry, Starry Night Open Thread

  • Random thoughts for the open thread.

    1. I tend to think that the Ludovic Bource win of the oscar for Best Original Score over two of John Williams’s scores is more evidence of the downfall of western civilization.

    2. I went to Mass with the family at the Basilica at University of Notre Dame this Sunday past. A wonderful combination of beauty in sight and sound. It struck me that beauty is the thing missing from most Masses – not the beauty of the Eucharist itself, but the adornment that is given. Beauty is in many forms – simple, elegant, ornate. But, it is not in poor architecture and “down to earth” music.

    3. I feel sorry for my students. They have hit a rare week of grouchiness and exam composition for me. It will be a more difficult road for them.

    4. I am reading the first of “A Game of Thrones” and finding it enjoyable.

  • Desire a spirit of mortification. I think of the cruel scourging Our Lord suffered (for my sins) at the pillar and the heavy blows which tore his sacred flesh.

    “Take up your cross and follow Me.”

  • I spent a lot of time with my eight year old son this weekend and would like to become as good a man as he is.

  • (Guest comment from Don’s wife:)
    “I am reading the first of “A Game of Thrones” and finding it enjoyable.”
    I recently finished that book myself, and have been viewing the Season 1 episodes from the HBO series (thanks to the free HBO promo when we switched to satellite TV). The HBO version is gorgeous, and reasonably faithful to the book; however, there’s way too much full-frontal nudity, on-screen fornication and gore for us to have it on when the kids are downstairs (and I keep a book handy to block my own view of the explicit scenes!). If this were edited down to a “TV-14” rating (as it may well be if it ever gets to broadcast TV), it would be much more enjoyable. As it is, I’ll stick to reading my way through the books, which are quite “meaty,” with lots of intrigue and multiple plot threads to keep track of.

  • The videos surely put Creation, space and time into perspective. The time lapse of the Milky Way from the Plains – amazing to this pretty well untravelled slice of sky viewer. When seeing Van Gogh’s paintings, I was struck by the limits of man, the art imitating life idea, and how much God has given us. Dismissed thinking about how far to ruin we are. Also, worried about a news clip last night about the trend of cloud cover over Northeast becoming lower than normal. The clouds over the Plains looked low enough to me. I don’t know – just a thought. Then the internet explorer quit and I think I travelled the world on the phone to reset it this morning. Cyberspace has become an important place to be with fellow man. Sorry to say – contemplating Eternity turned into my little worldly window – but I’ll click post. Just look out when you click ‘reset’. Little part of the world goes blank, and waits for you to do something about it.

  • Great peices Don.
    Halverson’s video is great filming and great music – seems I detected a lilt of celtic in there. Actually got it via e-mail ( you know, one of those e-mails you get from friends, some of them with jokes or amazing pictures) a month or two back, Its something you could watch a listen to over and over.
    Have always loved Don McLean. Recorded a live concert of his in Sydney Aus. when I was living there in 1984. He has what makes a true artist. He came on stage with his acoustic guitar, sad on a stool, and held everyone in rapt attention for an hour and a half – an entertainer par excellence.

  • Thank you Don. Starry, Starry Night has always defined the word “wistful” for me.

  • @G-Veg: Our Children are smarter and better than we are. This is how God renews the face of the earth. And they love us.

  • Here is a thread with which to sew our nation back together. Correct me if I am wrong, I am wrong a lot. In the prayer ban case, Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court told the atheist, Madalyn Murray O’Hair,: “She can go her own way” The newsmedia bannered “Prayer Ban”, leaving our country with a whole herd of prayer nazis, the likes of which even Vatican II woud be ashamed. and Yes she can go her own way. You and I can go our own way. Every man is free.

  • On the Fire and Ice Series:

    Ms. McClarey (et. al.),

    After reading the first two of the Song of Fire and Ice Series, Game of Thrones and A Clash of Kings, I have to say that I begin to find the books a bit tiring. It’s not so much the constant new names, scenes, etc. – as a Tolkien devotee, I am used to that – rather, it’s the constant sex and violence which the author feels the need to describe in graphic detail. I have found myself unsettled enough by the works to take a break from the for awhile. I am curious about endings, but not so curious as to continue without a breather.

    –Jonathan

  • Thanks for the content advisory on the Song of Ice and Fire series, Jonathan! I’ll probably still try reading at least Clash of Kings and see how it goes. I figure that with print descriptions only, it should be a bit easier for my “mind’s eye” to filter the sex & violence down to a “TV-14/R” rating (or just skip sections, as I did with the lengthy sex scenes in Jean Auel’s “Clan of the Cave Bear” series). If I still find that the amount of sex & violence overwhelm what could have been an epic fantasy series, the books will get sold on eBay (as do other books in our collection which don’t turn out to be “keepers”).

  • Less than an advisory, I think, and more of a restatement and adjustment of my initial praise for the books. There is, as well, a certain darkness (of which the sex and violence are symptoms) which pervades the series – a sense of hopelessness and doom which I think the author intends (“Winter is coming”). It will be interesting, I am sure, to see if he moves towards a Ragnarok with endless winter following, or whether there is some sort of Tolkienian mitigation of evil in some sense.

It Takes A Family

Monday, February 27, AD 2012

I recently completed Rick Santorum’s It Takes A Family.  I quipped on Twitter that had I read this before the campaign started then Santorum would have been my top Rick pick before that other Rick entered the race (though I still maintain that Governor Perry would have been an outstanding nominee, but no need to go there).  At times Santorum slips into politician speak – you know, those occasions when politicians feel compelled to tell stories of individual people in order to justify some larger agenda.  And some of the book is a little plodding, especially when he gets into wonkish mode (which fortunately is not all that often).  Those quibbles asides, there are large chunks of this book that could very well have been written by yours truly.  That isn’t meant to be a commentary on my own genius, but rather a way of saying I agree with just about everything this man has to say.

The book title really says it all.  The heart of Rick Santorum’s political philosophy is the family, meaning that to him strong families are the heart of any functioning society.  The family has been undermined both by big government programs and by the culture at large.  Santorum mocks the “village elders” who view more government programs as the solution to all problems.  Santorum acknowledges that many of the problems we face don’t have quick and easy fixes, and often no legislative action can be taken.  Santorum offers a series of small policy proposals that are aimed at giving parents and individuals in tough economic circumstances some tools to help, but he also emphasizes the doctrine of subsidiarity.  Ultimately we must rely principally on local institutions, starting with the family.

Santorum understands what even some on the right fail to appreciate, and that is we can’t divorce social issues from economics.  The breakdown of the family coincides directly with economic hardship.  If we want a healthier economy, we need healthier families.  It’s a central tenet of conservatism that is somehow ignored by large swathes of the political right.

His approach to politics can be summarized in a passage on page 341 of the hardback edition:

Continue reading...

10 Responses to It Takes A Family

  • What a contrast from “Dreams from My Father”. I’m voting for Rick tomorrow, May his tribe be blest.

  • By the grace and mercy of almighty God, Rick will be our next President.

  • I completely agree. If I was judging Santorum based on his books and speeches, voting for him would be trivial. The problem is his voting record does fit with what he says. Correction, doesn’t fit enough with what he says.

  • I think you make a good point here Kyle. I had a conversation last night with a Ron Paul supporter, who is a very faithful Catholic. His contentions with Rick are his support for Title X funding for Planned Parenthood (and other organizations who both provide contraception and perform abortions), his support for the Iraq War (which has been declared an unjust war by both JPII and BXVI) and his support for the use of torture. These are not pieces that mesh well with what Rick says and what he writes (and, for that matter, with the teachings of the Catholic Church). If it truly takes a family and public policies should emphasize that priority, why are we spending tax payer dollars on contraception? What assurances has he given us to prove that he will stick to his morals and principles when making public policy. He fell down on those principles when voting for Title X. George Bush talked great before his presidency, too. He didn’t deliver in dealing head on with the great social issues of our time.

  • I had a conversation last night with a Ron Paul supporter, who is a very faithful Catholic.

    Ah yes, Ron Paul supporters. I wonder what his thoughts are on the fact that Ron Paul is on record as saying that social issues should be completely off the table in this election, and that he’s basically serving no other purpose than to be Mitt Romney’s lapdog.

    his support for the Iraq War (which has been declared an unjust war by both JPII and BXVI)

    Are we really going to go down this road again where we act as though support for the Iraq war signals a break with Church teaching? Both of the popes opposed the war, it is true, but in so doing did not speak with the magisterial authority of the Church. They gave personal opinions on the matter. That is all.

    his support for the use of torture

    Only true if you consider the use of waterboarding as torture. I personally do, but it’s not an open and shut case (and NO, this is not an invitation to go down this rat hole again).

    If you’re looking for policy perfection in your candidates, you’re not going to get it. Every single politician is imperfect because all of them, contrary to the belief of some Obama voters, are human beings.

  • Thanks for the response, Paul and I’m with you on all you said. In fact, I mentioned much of this to him as well. Though I didn’t know that RP wanted all social issues off the table during the campaign.

    I guess I want to make sure that what he is saying is really what he’s going to try to give us. Funding contraception (especially giving funding to places that perform abortions) should not be allowable in his administration if he is going to try to shape this country into one that supports and promotes the family as the building block of this society.

    I believe he very well could, I just want to be reassured. His voting record doesn’t completely do that for me, but I also don’t see a better choice in the field.

  • Here’s Jay Anderson’s post talking about Ron Paul’s comments. Actually he called social issues a loser, but the sentiment is the same.

    I understand your concerns. One of the things to keep in mind is that these issues are more visible than they were during the time that Santorum was a Senator. President Santorum in 2013 would likely treat these funding considerations differently than Senator Santorum in 2003.

  • Just promising us one thing TAC, that whoever wins the nomination, if it is other than Santorum, that the end of the Obama regime is favored over internecine sniping.

  • Well, I can’t speak for my other bloggers, though I suspect most will work to defeat Obama. Personally, I have no intention of supporting Romney, but I will likely simply remain mute on the election.

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY EXTRA: U.S. CULTURE WARS I | ThePulp.it

Peter Shrugged

Monday, February 27, AD 2012

 

Year in and year out, the Catholic Church in this country, as well as around the globe, is the largest single private provider of charitable services to the poor.  However, what if a government makes it impossible for the Church to carry out her mission? The Church in America with the HHS Mandate is facing just such a dilemma, and Francis Cardinal George of the Chicago Archdiocese tells us what to expect:

The Lenten rules about fasting from food and abstaining from meat have been considerably reduced in the last forty years, but reminders of them remain in the fast days on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday and in the abstinence from meat on all the Fridays of Lent. Beyond these common sacrifices that unite us spiritually to the passion of Christ, Catholics were and are encouraged to “give up” something voluntarily for the sake of others. Often this is money that could have been used for personal purposes and instead is given to help others, especially the poor.   This year, the Catholic Church in the United States is being told she must “give up” her health care institutions, her universities and many of her social service organizations. This is not a voluntary sacrifice. It is the consequence of the already much discussed Department of Health and Human Services regulations now filed and promulgated for implementation beginning Aug. 1 of this year.

 Why does a governmental administrative decision now mean the end of institutions that have been built up over several generations from small donations, often from immigrants, and through the services of religious women and men and others who wanted to be part of the church’s mission in healing and education? Catholic hospitals, universities and social services have an institutional conscience, a conscience shaped by Catholic moral and social teaching. The HHS regulations now before our society will make it impossible for Catholic institutions to follow their conscience.

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

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

Continue reading...

24 Responses to Peter Shrugged

  • I am so depressed in having read this. But at the recent Ignited by Truth conference in Raleigh, NC over this weekend, speaker Michael Barber of the Sacred Page reminded us that Jesus Himself lost the only election He was ever in when in the courtyard before Pontius Pilate the “peepul” cried for Barabbas to be freed. It’s interesting what Barabbas means, as Mr. Barber explained it: the son of the father. Well, we have gotten the son of the father who is the devil. The question is: will we vote for him again, crying aloud regarding Yeshua, “Crucifige Eum, Crucifige Eum.”

  • The first step should be the admission by the USCCB that they were deceived into a pact with Satan when they thought that Obamacare would ensure that “basic health care should be accessible to all in a just society.” They should recant their support for this and assert their opposition to all State-enforced systems of this sort.

    Any political study at all outside of post-modern Progressive orthodoxy will show how programs run by The State eventually destroy all competition – even honestly charitable proragms whose only mission is relief to the poor – as it demands more and more power unto itself.

    It’s a real basic decision the Bishops have to face, but their solution is among the easiest to discern:

    Mk 12:17 – “Then Jesus said to them, ‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.’ And they were amazed at him.”

  • Has the Church, via the Bishops, fully and consciously participated in the Culture of Death. I read the following this morning and gasped. Please tell me it isn’t true.

    http://www.energypublisher.com/a/HDQNNMVTUF38/68919-Catholics-have-met-the-enemy-and-he-is-not-Obama

  • @WKAiken: The first step should be the admission by the USCCB that they were deceived into a pact with Satan when they thought that Obamacare would ensure that “basic health care should be accessible to all in a just society.”

    How about having to publicly admit which of them voted for this monster? I’m very sure my bishop did and he still is taking the high road with not using very strong language to teach his flock about this issue. He uses words like, “more study needs to be done” and “full implications are not clear”. How much worse does it have to get for our Bishops to stand up to the President and say “We will go to jail in order to prevent you from taking away our rights.” Cardinal George did not mention that step.

  • The only option is to disobey the order from the HHS Secretary. It is unconstitutional on its face. Make the Obumbler Misadministration enforce it. Don’t pay the “fines”.

  • Is this the proper Catholic decision? When faced with a mandate to provide a drug to employees that may (but not necessary be used to commit a sin) the Church would rather not provide charity to the poor? I am proud of the Catholic Church’s role in providing charity and the mere suggestion that we would consider placing a higher priority on the issues surrounding contraception is horrible.

  • “I am proud of the Catholic Church’s role in providing charity and the mere suggestion that we would consider placing a higher priority on the issues surrounding contraception is horrible.”

    Contraception is sin. Romans 6:23 – “The wages of sin are death.” Therefore, the wages of contraception are death. A contraceptive culture deserves neither social justice nor the common good.

    Repentance and conversion, personal holiness and righteousness come before health and prosperity, never afterwards. Matthew 6:33 – “Seek ye FIRST the Kingdom of God….” 1st Chronicles 7:14 – “If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

    John 6:24-27 tells about what happened when the 5000 got free handouts.

    24 So when the people saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. 25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27* Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal.”

    —–

    Note that they didn’t get a 2nd free handout.

    The purpose of the Church is to save souls from hell. Your job and my job as part of our repentance is to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, comfort the sick, etc. But the Church’s job is saving souls. We are not here to create a man-made kingdom of social justice and the common good. To think that is hubris of the worst sort. We are called to do our part to save souls from the fires of hell.

    Personally, I think that maybe God is arranging things to get the Church out of the health care business and back into the business of saving souls.

  • When I saw the title I thought, “They finally ‘got it’, robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

  • The HHS mandate renders the Church incapable of accomplishing its Mission: the salvation of souls. jesus came to save souls from sin, not to end temporal suffering.

    Justice and peace fanatics insist on doing Charitable Works with other people’s money, through the coersion of government. NB: If you do it with someone else’s money, it is not Charity. Refer to the Gospel story of the “Widow’s Mite.”

  • I’m with Penguins Fan on this – isn’t that the 5th option? Civil disobedience? Don’t offer the coverage, don’t pay the fines, and take it to the mat. Imagine the news coverage – hauling religious off to prison, students blocking entrances to universities, faculties holed up on limited rations. It would make Janet Reno look like a seasoned diplomat.

  • I agree, T. Shaw with one exception: Jesus told Peter that the gates of hell will not prevail. So HHS mandate or no HHS mandate, God’s will is going to be done, and He will establish His Kingdom, not some self-appointed, self-described “do-gooder” who thinks that with just a bit more or your tax money and mine, we can provide social justice to all. Let’s have that story of the widow’s mite (Mark 12:41-44 and Luke 21:1-4).

    —–

    1* He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury; 2 and he saw a poor widow put in two copper coins. 3 And he said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; 4 for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had.”

    —–

    It’s interesting that in the Gospels of both Mark and Luke , right after this parable, Jesus began talking about the destruction of the Temple. I do NOT think that is coincidental. Maybe the man-made temple of social justice is about to come down.

  • Jaha,

    Reno! Anyone remember Waco, TX 1993?

    I can see the MSM painting the Church radical as they did the Branch Davidians and I can imagine Obama’s Reno clone killing . . .

    And I can envision Kmiec and all the rest nodding OKAY.

  • Elm – excellent point. I am pretty sure my parish priest did as well, in that he dances all around the issue but doesn’t come out against it directly. I would wager that we could comprise a list of “first steps” that would all make very good sense. The discernment would be to find the one (or more) that starts the effort in the right direction while keeping to Church teachings about repentance, forgiveness and propitiation.

    I have family members – obviously intelligent, composed, stable and successful – who got hooked. My own wife got hooked. We still don’t talk about that. It’s no mystery to anybody with an open pair of eyes that there is only one power behind this serpent’s tongue, and we know who that is.

    The aim is to repeal this montsrosity and remove its supporters from public life, not to abase or demean thse who may have been duped.

  • If it comes to the linking of arms to peaceably resist the arrest of those doctors, administrators and other medical people in the demosntartion that We Have Chosen Who Our Authority Is, then color me there. Martin Niemöller’s plaint will not be repeated. If they come for us first, then they will come for no more after, for they will be defeated.

    Like the song says, “We were meant to be Courageous.” The rest of the verse fits, too.

  • Pingback: TUESDAY EXTRA: GLOBAL CULTURE WARS | ThePulp.it
  • Here is the evil genius of obamacare. The IRS is the punitive enforcing agency for obamacare. It should be disgusting to a free people that the health care reform act grants breathtaking powers to the IRS, not as a taxing agency, but as an enforcer of this and many other mandates now emanating from this hideous legislation. Civil disobedience in what form? If the penalties are not paid, assets are seized….plain and simple—and no arrests are even necessary save but some protesters in the streets. The goal here is for a centralized government takeover of all civil and religious institutions through tax and regulatory fiat (aka soft tyranny), and this is just the beginning.

    Authentic charity is the instrument of our salvation. Church institutions provide a modus operandi for the pastoral work of saving souls. I once was privileged to hear a wise missionary say that he invites us to work with the poor, not so much for the sake of the poor, but to save our souls, the givers, through charity—that is our giving of time, treasure and talent. Therein is the true evil of statist mandates—it takes away the instruments of authentic and salvific charity and replaces it with the tyranny, disorder and a false god of of ‘public good’.

  • There are spiritual and religious reasons for how Catholics vote. 54% of Catholics who voted in the last Presidential election, voted for the pro-abortion, pro-infanticide Democrat candidate. Not only is the economy and foreign affairs in the tank, our country, spiritually, is in the tank as well. I was not one of the 54%. I can’t understand how any Catholic could have voted for Obama…except other than he was a Democrat. The problem with our country and the threat to our Constitution is coming from the Democrat Party…abortion, gay marriage, removal of prayer and seasonal displays in public structures and institutions, etc. The key to turning our country around is in the hands of the same people who put people into office who did this to our country. The question is: Is being a Democrat more important than to being a Catholic? Obama and his administration have shown us what being a Democrat means. Is that really who Catholics are? The bishops should find out and find out quickly. They should authorize a Voter Registration drive in every parish from now to the end of Registrations for this November election to give Catholics an opportunity to state who they are in a public way, and a legal way – by who they will give their name identification to. The result of that Voter Registration drive will pre warn the Bishops what the outcome of the election will be so they can better plan what actions they will take. Implementing the HHS regulations in August will, I’m sure, be suspended by court action until after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on Obamacare. How Catholics choose to register to vote would also be influential in that decision. I wouldn’t look for a lot of new Republican registrations because such Catholics deciding to remain Democrats all these years couldn’t emotionally make that choice. I know; I’ve been there and know how difficult that is. But I would hope that there would be a LARGE number of those Catholics who would remove their names from the Democrat Party Rolls and register as Independent, as I did years ago. If that happened, that would indicate the outcome of this Presidential Election because Catholics are the determining voting block on who becomes the President. It would tell judges what the public sentiment is of an important segment of the population which is directly impacted by Obamacare and the HHS regulations. And it would be a gut check for so many Catholics, including the clergy, as to how honest they are to what they profess to belief and pray for in the Profession of Faith and the Lord’s Prayer in Sunday Masses. Do they put God’s will before man’s?

  • “So, if you want respect for your religion, start beheading people. That’s the real message.” Instapundit

  • Is there a mandate in the Scripture that says everyone is entitled to health care or that everyone must be cured? I recall visit the sick, help the unfortunate and the poor. We are to treat them as Jesus would. He did not heal all that came to him. The real healing is the forgiveness of sin and the promise of eternal life.

  • @Stillbelieve:The question is: Is being a Democrat more important than to being a Catholic

    What is the first adjective that we put in front of our names? This can be very telling about our moral standing.

  • often from immigrants

    Savvy point from his Eminence. Obama is anti-immigrant! Hit him with his base!

    On another point, it is all well and good to be up in arms about violating the conscience of religious institutions, but last I checked the First Amendment applied to the rights of individuals at least as much, if not more so. Why should individuals be required to violate their consciences with this Obamanation?

  • Liberty of religion is more than freedom of worship. Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. You could go to church, if you could find one. … We fought a long cold war to defeat that vision of society.

    Oooh – the bishop obliquely named Obama a commie.

    Onward Christian soldiers!

  • Off topic: Today’s Sadie Hawkins Day: look out bachelors!

    What do you call a leader who flaunts the law? “Hitler” or “commie” will do!

    The regime orders (you must buy health insurance with these benefits/terms, and the Church must provide with these features) people around. Big brother knows better. He owns you.

    It’s worse. Anyone know the why Argentina (educated people, rich natural resources) is an economic basket case while Chile prospers?

    America is becoming Argentina: a corrupt, banana republic where the rules for commerce and property change at the whim of the regime, e.g., HHS mandate and the recent foreclosure/”robo-signing”) confiscation.

  • “America is becoming Argentina: a corrupt, banana republic where the rules for commerce and property change at the whim of the regime, e.g., HHS mandate and the recent foreclosure/’robo-signing’) confiscation.”

    It’s called Democracy, T. Shaw – two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner:

    Crucifige Eum, Crucifige Eum – that’s what liberty, equality and fraternity have always been about, from the time of Pontius Pilate through Robespierre’s revolution to Obama’s hope and change.

Jesuitical 12: America and the Bishops

Monday, February 27, AD 2012

 

Part 12 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits.  For a nano second the Jesuit rag America was on the side of every Catholic bishop in this country in opposition to the HHS Mandate.  However, where your heart is so is your treasure, and America is back on the side of Team Obama.  I was going to take the Jesuits of America to task, but Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels so frequently in defense of the Faith that I have named him Defender of the Faith, has eloquently beaten me to the punch:

You Roman Catholic bishops have had your fun and put on your little temper tantrum, the editors of The REAL Magisterium Wannabe Episcopalian Weekly America write.  But the adults are here now so why don’t you all just look liturgically impressive, babble a little Latin and keep your stupid opinions to yourselves.  We’ll take it from here:

For a brief moment, Catholics on all sides were united in defense of the freedom of the Catholic Church to define for itself what it means to be Catholic in the United States. They came together to defend the church’s institutions from morally objectionable, potentially crippling burdens imposed by the Obama administration under the Affordable Care Act. Catholic journalists, like E. J. Dionne and Mark Shields, and politicians, like Tim Kaine and Robert P. Casey Jr., joined the U.S. bishops in demanding that the administration grant a broad exemption for religiously affiliated institutions from paying health care premiums for contraceptive services. Then, on Feb. 10, President Obama announced a compromise solution by which religious institutions would be exempt from paying the objectionable premiums but women would not be denied contraceptive coverage. A confrontation that should never have happened was over. But not for long.

Every single time we let the hierarchy think it’s in charge, the idiots completely screw things up.  Every.  Single.  Time.

After a nod to the White House’s retreat as “a first step in the right direction,” the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops rejected the president’s “accommodation” as insufficient. Their statement presented a bill of indictments on the fine points of public policy: It opposed any mandate for contraceptive coverage, expanded the list of claimants for exemption to include self-insured employers and for-profit business owners and contested the administration’s assertion that under the new exemption religious employers would not pay for contraception. Some of these points, particularly the needs of self-insured institutions like universities, have merit and should find some remedy. Others, with wonkish precision, seem to press the religious liberty campaign too far.

“Some of these points…have merit and should find some remedy?”  From where?  From the same people who wrote the initial rule and the transparently fraudulent “compromise?”  I can’t for the life of me understand why the bishops might be reluctant to take that offer.  Foxes, hen houses and all that.

And it’s difficult for me to see how the objections of the bishops constitute “press[ing] the religious liberty campaign too far” since forcing Church ministries to facilitate the acquisition of free contraceptives by any employee who wants them is the only option left on the table.  The idea of not being forced to provide free birth control at all seems no longer to be possible.

The bishops have been most effective in influencing public policy when they have acted as pastors, trying to build consensus in church and society, as they did in their pastorals on nuclear war and the economy. The American public is uncomfortable with an overt exercise of political muscle by the hierarchy. Catholics, too, have proved more responsive to pastoral approaches. They expect church leaders to appeal to Gospel values, conscience and right reason. They hope bishops will accept honorable accommodations and, even when provoked, not stir up hostility. In the continuing dialogue with government, a conciliatory style that keeps Catholics united and cools the national distemper would benefit the whole church.

I think you all know what’s going on there.  It’s the age-old story.  As long as the bishops are commenting on the issues that are important to the America editorial staff the right issues, we’re behind them 100%.  But once they move on to those…other issues(you know the ones America means), they are exercising “political muscle” and contributing to the “national distemper.”

On issues like nuclear war and the economy, the bishops should certainly take no prisoners and accept no compromises.  But on those relatively trivial issues that the laity constantly insists on whining about, Roman Catholic bishops need to “accept honorable accomodations,” they need to “not stir up hostility,” and, most importantly, they need to be “conciliatory.”

After all, we have the example constantly before us of the Author and Finisher of our faith who was always willing to accept honorable accomodations, who never stirred up hostility and Whose first name was Conciliatory.  Actually, we don’t have that at all.  What the heck was I thinking?

The campaign also risks ignoring two fundamental principles of Catholic political theology. Official Catholic rights theory proposes that people should be willing to adjust their rights claims to one another. It also assigns to government the responsibility to coordinate contending rights and interests for the sake of the common good. The campaign fails to acknowledge that in the present instance, claims of religious liberty may collide with the right to health care, or that the religious rights of other denominations are in tension with those of Catholics. But as Pope Benedict XVI wrote in “Deus Caritas Est,” the church does not seek to “impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to the faith.” Furthermore, the campaign fails to admit that the administration’s Feb. 10 solution, though it can be improved, fundamentally did what Catholic social teaching expects government to do—coordinate contending rights for the good of all.

Um…nuh-uh.  I have no idea what “Catholic rights theory” really consists of but I seriously doubt that “adjust[ing] their rights claims to one another” obligates Catholics to commit sins themselves or acquiesce in their commission.

As for the “contending rights” that America believes were coordinated by the Administration’s “compromise,” we have the long-established Constitutional right of Christian churches to order their own affairs versus the newly-created “right” to free birth control pills, a “right” which remains in place by means of an accounting trick.

Once again, there is no possibility of the Catholic Church not being forced to provide free birth control at all; the default position is the liberal one.  And that is not coordination of contending rights at all; it is soft tyranny.

By stretching the religious liberty strategy to cover the fine points of health care coverage, the campaign devalues the coinage of religious liberty. The fight the bishop’s conference won against the initial mandate was indeed a fight for religious liberty and for that reason won widespread support. The latest phase of the campaign, however, seems intended to bar health care funding for contraception. Catholics legitimately oppose such a policy on moral grounds. But that opposition entails a difference over policy, not an infringement of religious liberty. It does a disservice to the victims of religious persecution everywhere to inflate policy differences into a struggle over religious freedom. Such exaggerated protests likewise show disrespect for the freedom Catholics have enjoyed in the United States, which is a model for the world—and for the church.

What are you mackeral snappers complaining about?  It’s not like anyone’s burning down your churches or anything.  And you don’t have to pay for anyone’s abortion so chill out.

But here’s the problem.  A government that thinks it has the right to determine what are or are not Christian ministries is a government that can(and probably one day will) not only order Christian hospitals to provide free birth control but also order Christian hospitals and churches to provide free abortions for any staff member who wants one.

Were that to happen, what would America say?  That the bishops shouldn’t be so “wonkish” because this is yet anothern policy difference that doesn’t rise to the level of religious persecution?  That the bishops shouldn’t “provoke hostility” and need to take the lead toward cooling the “national distemper” over the fact that the Church is now being forced to participate in one of the greatest evils it is possible to conceive simply because somebody claims a right to access to it?

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Jesuitical 12: America and the Bishops

  • “Once again, there is no possibility of the Catholic Church not being forced to provide free birth control at all; the default position is the liberal one.  And that is not coordination of contending rights at all; it is soft tyranny.”

    All soft tyrannies become hard tyrannies. The cry of “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity” in France in the 1790s resulted in the murder of tens of thousands of Catholic clerics and laity alike. History will repeat itself.

  • I graduated from a Jesuit high school back in the mid-’70s. Once, when I dared contest the Godless, Marxist redistributionism of “Liberation Theology” in light of “Thou Shalt Not Steal,” I did not get a debate or even a “correction.” Instead, I was told to “shut up,” and received a disciplinary blot on my record. Such is the totalitarian bent of the Jesuits.

    Ironically, it was not until about 10 years ago that my wife and I went through RCIA and officially joined The Church. Every time I have brought up the Jesuit order during a “Stump the Priest” night at our parish, or even while we were still in formation, the replies were strained and vague. Obviously, none of the ordained is going to outrightly demean another, but it is also obvious that what restraint is shown is not out of respect for that order.

    In another vein, I have never understood how someone can claim a “right” to health care. Since when has there been that? Please tell me, o learned pastors, when it is the right of one to demand the fruits of the labors of another in any pursuit? At what point do doctors, nurses, pharmacists, therapists and all the other people whose work is in the provision of medical care become the slaves of those whose “right” it is to its access unencumbered? When will we start pressing into service unwillingly – and who will we press – when the inevitable shortages arise? And doesn’t such a right indicate that rights to the labors of farmers, well-diggers, builders and clothiers are also found somewhere? Aren’t food, water, shelter and clothing essentially much more necessary to survival than is a doctor’s visit?

    Where was this right during the 18th Century when the ideas of inalienable rights were being developed at light-speed? Was the right to leeches, cupping, bleeding and purging unquestionably argued? And if the right exists, is it not based on the idea that all health care is therefore true, beautiful and good? To what end is an inalienable right if it is for something malicious or incorrect? Speech may be hurtful or wrong, but guarantees to its freedom can never be deemed so.

    No – I will say it here. The so-called “Catholic” left is nothing more than Fascist. It cannot understand the essence of freedom or personal responsibility even while it calls for increased pastoral ministering to “the flock.”

    The last I heard, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind”, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and “Do unto others as you would have done unto you” seem to provide a pretty comprehensive plan, and I don’t see anywhere in there a call for Government enforcement, extortion or feticide.

  • If ever I saw an edition of “America”, I would burn it.

    I refer to it as the “society of Judas.”

    But, I suffer pangs of guilt for being unfair to Judas.

    Judas’ betrayal did not prevent anybody’s Redemption. The SJ-ers are leading many into spiritual danger.

  • Campaign poster or next issue cover?

  • Pingback: TUESDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • PM: Neither: there are two crosses which will be purged for the 0 campaign and issue cover.

  • To tell if any Order or Group or Individual is a faithful Catholic, all you have to do is check to see if they adhere to the “CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition”.

    “ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved … and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. “ – Pope John Paul II. (pg 5)

    “….the Catechism has raised throughout the world, even among non-Christians, and confirms its purpose of being presented as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life.” – Pope John Paul II (pg xiv)

    Any Catholic who does not do his or her best to adhere to the CCC in its entirety is a heretic or schismatic. (See # 2089).
    When are we going to start calling cafeteria Catholics by their true names – heretic or schismatic?

  • Often, when I see an heretical book in my church’s library, I’ll simply take and throw it away. No permission asked for. If I see “America” for the taking, I’ll take all copies and “down the memory hole.”

    How dare they give us s _ _ _ when Jesus mandates that we proclaim the Gospel, His precious Body and Blood.

The American Catholic in Good Company

Monday, February 27, AD 2012

 

We get a fair amount of drive by troll comments here at The American Catholic.  One such comment appeared in the Apologias thread from a William L. Zimmerman.  Here is the comment by Mr. Zimmerman:

Mr. Obama’s apology over the burning of Korans was entirely appropriate.  If you really think Muslim outrage over the incident is insincere, think back to when Mapplethorpe’s “Piss Christ” art work was enough to enrage the Christian world.  I truly wish you web site would stop posing as a “Catholic” publication.  It isn’t.  It’s at best a political rag for the American right.  Stop misrepresenting my religion to the world.  You are as out of touch with the message of Jesus Christ as I can imagine.

 

In regard to the comment, a hint for Mr.  Zimmerman:  If you are going to bring up a red herring, it should have some relevance.  The banally blasphemous Piss Christ of Andres Serrano, not Maplethorpe, aroused ire largely because it received an award partially funded by the National Endowment of Arts, a taxpayer supported institution, and no one lost their life or suffered any injury in the subsequent completely peaceful protests by Christians and those art lovers who could distinguish art from a con job.  As for his critique of The American Catholic, we seem to be in good company when it comes to Mr. Zimmerman’s attempt to drum us out of the Faith.

At the site Our Common Thread, the web site of Catholics United, a George Soros funded astroturf group of Catholic Anti-Catholics, Mr. Zimmerman left this observation about the Bishops:

Continue reading...

13 Responses to The American Catholic in Good Company

  • Has Mr. Zimmerman ever bothered to read the Bible, or the Catechism, or anything else that is remotely Catholic? Morality is absolute. But the devil’s favorite color is grey. And Adam and Eve made a decision on an individual level whose repercussions we still deal with today.

  • “Sincere outrage” for them not for THEE!

    The honorable ways to dispose of the American flag, Holy Bibles, religious materials, etc. are to burn or bury them.

    Here’s another lying liberal false comparison. As usual, they reward evil and assault virtue.

    No one: not Marplethorpes, was murdered – “SINCERE OUTRAGE” – because of his distasteful, faux art. He’ll be eternally dealt with.

    I don’t advocate killing all filthy pagans, just killing – “SINCERE OUTRAGE” – the ones that will murder us because someone 8,000 miles away mistakenly burned books or drew cartoons of the profit Muhammad.

  • I ga e up Facebook for Lent for the second year in a row this year. Last year it took until September for me to revert to arguing politics on the internet. “Troll” is an appropriate name for people who do what Mr. Z does, in that it is ugly and creates anxiety in the knowledge that somebody could be both so wrong and so steeped in the absolute surety of his own correctness.

    The giveaway is the implication that The Church is just another set of robber barons, pilfering from the poor to line thier own pockets. It’s the standard left/prgressive/neo-fascist rant against everything that isn’t driving down the street in his neighborhood throwing $100 bills out the windows.

    If I had a chancer to ask him, my question to the conflicted Mr. Zimmerman would be: “Why are you still calling yourself Catholic? If you disbelieve all of The Church’s tenets, why stay? The Unitarians would love you. If you miss the Liturgy, there are some Episcopalian dioceses in New England that would love to have you aboard. Your bleats, err, opinions are as substantial as those of an Orthodox Jew complining about how he can’t enjoy his baby back ribs. Please, go find peace, and when you do, your return will be heralded as with The Prodigal.”

    We must pray for Mr. Zimmerman and all those misguided and deceived souls like him. “St. Anthony, pray for us.”

  • Keep posting, Mr. Zimmerman. It’s important to preserve for posterity a certain ossified type of smug, leftist Church Lady emoting which identifies as “Catholic thinking.” Health warning: constantly patting yourself on the back for your enlightenment is potentially dangerous to long term rotator cuff health.

    Let me guess–you attended Catholic school, too.

    There’s no nice way of putting this, but you are a willfully obtuse twit immunized against any facts which might pierce your leftist bubble.

    Such as the lack of a body count from ANDRES SERRANO’S “Piss Christ” display. Good Gaia, Zimmerman, you can’t even get your artist straight in your preening vents. I know Donald already pointed it out, but watching you flail about trying to denigrate others with your alleged superiority is a lot like watching a one-legged cat determined to bury turds on a frozen pond.

    So, yes–keep it coming.

  • Let me guess–you attended Catholic school, too.

    I’m guessing he was an altar boy too. The question is, however, did he go to seminary?

  • If not “seminary”, then “sanitary” – as in sewage waste treatment. 😉

  • ” What is right in one situation is wrong in another context. There are no short cuts in moral decision making. But there are a million shades of grey. Catholic Bishops should learn that. ”
    These men are Bishops because they know the Word and Laws of God, the black and white, and how to apply it in moral decision making and in other areas where grey enters to confuse. I’ll stay with them for safety. Otherwise, it’s a life of trying to digest the fester and rot from ‘millions’ of grey views.

    ” But these right thinking old fools are intent on imposing their views on all of us. ”
    [Correct: Right thinking/ men of God]
    [Incorrect: ‘fools’ are found in grey areas, ‘imposing’ as does government,
    ‘views’ are personal opinions such as above, in contrast to applying God’s Law]

  • Please tell me you’re not moderating his comments. Please.

  • All trolls and William L. Zimmerman are free to go to hell. What the trolls and William L. Zimmerman are not free to do is to take other people with them. Then the state and the Church must step in and prevent innocent persons being drawn into the hell forever and forever by the likes of trolls and William L. Zimmerman. Moral relativism only begets more moral relativism making us all lost. Any shade of gray is good if the person consents with full knowledge to having gray. Having gray shoved down our throats on our way to hell with a troll is not exactly what Jesus wants for us in freedom. Thomas Aquinas defined the human being as “an individual substance of a rational nature”. God’s name is “I AM WHO I AM”, HE WHO IS, HE WHO WAS AND HE WHO WILL BE, GOD IS BEING, GOD IS EXISTENCE, God is the theological basis for the notion and truth that the human life of another person begins at conception, when two become one, with the will of HE WHO WILL BE. As far as ejaculation, one must be concerned with every cell of the human being as it is precious in the eyes of God, WHO made every one. How dare you speak your vile tongue for me? Who are you to speak for me? Did you get my permission? No, I do not give you permission to speak for me. Plagiarist. Liar.

  • Dale Price,
    “Good Gaia” the exclaimation caught my eye and I thought I may start using it. Gaia is an idea, but her priestesses refer to humans as parasites on the back of Mother Earth, so I do not know if this is good. The idea of God as Mother is treated at http://www.rosaryvictory.blogspot.com. “Nature is not our mother. Nature is our sister.” GKC

  • GEORGE SOROS Goinng, goooingg, gone.

  • Dale Price.

    ….like a one legged cat determined to bury turds on a frozen pond.”

    Priceless – 😆
    Couldn’t help picturing this in my mind.

    Maybe, Don, you could encourage Mr. Zimmerman to keep commenting? Would arguably raise the level of mirth on the blog 🙂

Father Barron and Edmund Burke on Atheism

Sunday, February 26, AD 2012

 

 

We know, and it is our pride to know, that man is by his constitution a religious animal; that atheism is against, not only our reason, but our instincts; and that it cannot prevail long. But if, in the moment of riot, and in a drunken delirium from the hot spirit drawn out of the alembic of hell, which in France is now so furiously boiling, we should uncover our nakedness, by throwing off that Christian religion which has hitherto been our boast and comfort, and one great source of civilization amongst us, and amongst many other nations, we are apprehensive (being well aware that the mind will not endure a void) that some uncouth, pernicious, and degrading superstition might take place of it.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Father Barron and Edmund Burke on Atheism

  • In Obama We Trust

    E PLURIBUS OBAMA

    Obama Bless America

    We swear on our sacred Obama . . .

    I love my master . . .

    Stop me!

  • Atheism – the easy way out.

  • The American Catholic The finite mind cannot comprehend the Infinite Mind. The sovereign being cannot comprehend the Supreme Sovereign Being. If there were two Supreme Sovereign Beings, neither would be Supreme. There can be only ONE Supreme Sovereign Being or each will preempt the other as the word” Supreme” implies.
    There is no way a finite mind will comprehend an Infinite Mind because the finite mind does not have the capacity to encompass and make his own, the intimate knowledge of an infinite nature. There is no way a finite mind can be offended by an Infinite Mind, because of the lack of information needed to make an informed consent. Unless the finite mind perjured itself and pretended to know, the finite mind can only know what the Infinite Mind instills in it. Therefore, since God is not offended by Himself, neither can man be offended by God. God instills only love in man’s finite mind.
    The devil, created as Lucifer, the Great Angel of Light is a creature with a finite mind having had a beginning and needing to be created. Lucifer rebelled against the Infinite, Supreme Sovereign Being, our Creator, without the knowledge of WHO God really is. Lucifer made war against God without knowing WHO IS LIKE UNTO GOD. Lucifer lies and murders the soul of man. Lucifer does not know God, yet, Lucifer promises to make Adam and Eve, already created as finite human beings into Infinite Human Beings. A pretty good trick since Lucifer himself is not infinite. WHO is like unto God.
    Almighty God adopts the children of men and makes of us children of God and, as his children, almighty God refers to man as “lesser gods”. God does not change the nature of man as Lucifer promised to do. God accepts man as his children and loves us forever.
    Militant factions have demanded legal equality under the law and have successfully achieved their goals. Among these are atheists, homosexuals and feminists. And now, they are MORE equal than the body of people. The atheist denies to ALL men the freedom to acknowledge almighty God, our Creator, who endows men with freedom and creates men equal. The atheist denies to all men the infused immortal soul. Man’s immortal, rational soul makes of man the crown of God’s creation. Atheism makes of man despair and hopelessness, property of the state, soulless, powerless and servile. The homosexual militants practicing psychiatry have foisted arrested development as “normal” on the medical profession. The radical feminists have emasculated our culture. Militant feminists have refused to be feminine and have refused to allow other women to be feminine. So, women are acting out, appearing in public naked to prove that they are female, rather than neuter. Men, too, are acting out in violence to prove that they are not neuter, murdering other people, raping and vandalizing. Some people are teaching trans-genderism in public school to prove that they are not neuter.
    Man’s immortal soul and his human dignity is denied to us by our current interpretation of rights, giving to atheists the freedom to tyrannize, to deny the same freedom to all people. The freest soul among us is the newly begotten sovereign person in the womb when two become one. This free soul has no moral or legal guilt, is endowed with virtue and has the gift of virginity. This free soul is hunted down and aborted, killed by his parents, neutered to make him equal to the atheists. The free will choice by the atheist has denied the American citizen his free will right to acknowledge God, our Creator, the freedom to express his immortal soul through response to the gift of Faith from God in speech, press and peace.
    The atheist uses “our Creator endowed UNALIENABLE rights” to deny to others the self-same “our Creator endowed UNALIENABLE rights”. To paraphrase Pope John Paul II “When one person is denied human rights all persons are denied human rights.” When that one Person is the Person of God and the nation is America, every citizen is a victim of the anti-Christ. It is time for a renewal of the Spirit of ’76.

  • and speaking of superstitions again: Superstition in the Supremacy of TRUTH is Catholic. If it is not true, than it is a lie. The infallibility of the Truth is Catholic. Moral relativism is like wandering in the desert. We know where we are to go but we do not know how to get there. Moral relativism is a map to nowhere, a map to more moral relativism and more relativism and finally to being nowhere. God bless us one and all…from a Christmas Carol

  • Pingback: MONDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Very true Atheism has become the opium of the masses

  • I actually liked the bus sign campaign by atheists precisely because it wasn’t directly anti-religion (i.e., it did not bash any particular religion to make its point). If religious adverts were like political campaigns, these ads would clearly not be considered a negative/attack ad.

  • The superstition of religion brings comfort and has calmed some groups while causing friction and killing among others. Our instincts do seek this kind of ease but reason creates doubts. Reason and close communication can ulitimately bring peace to our species. I wish I had the comfort of “the gift of faith” but it was not given to me.

  • There is a difference between superstition and true religion as revealed by God Frank. It is one of the key teachings of the Catholic Church that faith and reason are completely compatible. God is always extending the gift of faith to us, but we have to accept that gift. Some of the greatest saints in the Catholic Church have struggled with their acceptance of that gift. A prime example is Saint Augustine who possessed one of the sharpest intellects of his day, or any day. Good luck on your journey.

Apologias

Saturday, February 25, AD 2012

 

I believe that President Obama has been a notable failure in most ways as President, but he is a champ in regard to abject, groveling apologies to those who hold us in contempt:

President Barack Obama apologized to Afghans on Thursday for the burning of Qurans at a U.S. military base, trying to assuage rising anti-American sentiment as an Afghan soldier gunned down two American troops during another day of angry protests.

The U.S.-led military coalition says the Muslim holy books were sent by mistake to a garbage burn pit at Bagram Air Field and the case is under investigation. The explanation and multiple apologies from U.S. officials have yet to calm outrage over the incident, which has also heightened tension between international troops and their Afghan partners.

Thousands of protesters, some shouting “Long live Islam!” and “Death to America!” staged demonstrations across Afghanistan for a third day. Protesters climbed the walls of a U.S. base in the east, threw stones inside and adorned an outside wall with the Taliban’s trademark white flag.

At other sites, demonstrators burned tires or American flags. Afghan police and international troops fired guns in the air to disperse the crowds.

Such apologies simply play into the hands of the enemies of the US who use mock outrage as an excuse to go on murderous rampages.  Two US soldiers were murdered by an Afghan government soldier during the current on-going riots and of course no one has apologized for that true outrage.  There is a time for diplomacy and there is a time for blunt speaking.  Time, past time, for some blunt speaking to our enemies and our “friends” in the Islamic world.  In that regard, I believe this is an appropriate apology from Kira Davis to President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan.  (Content advisory:  harsh language and refreshingly undiplomatic sentiments.)

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Apologias

  • Obama needs to apologize to the mothers of the four US service members murdered by Afghan National Army troops since he apologized to the vicious savages.

  • Afghan troops have been routinely murdering our service members. This is not new.

    When I hear Newt talk like this it really makes me want to vote for him. He gets it…. He gets radical Islam, he gets the uselessness of our continued attempts at “nation building” in Afghanistan.

    Our country has sacrificed our sons and daughters and countless dollars in Afghanistan. At the very least we can’t even ensure that vetted Afghan security forces won’t shoot our troops and insist that the Afghan government protect the rights of Muslim converts to Christinaity.

    It’s disgraceful.

  • “There is a time for diplomacy and there is a time for blunt speaking.”

    Oh, Obama agrees with that, Don. He is diplomatic with the Afghans and blunt with his enemies – namely, the Catholic Church.

    A liberal called me an “American Taliban” on another site this past week. My reply should have been “If I were Taliban, Obama would treat me better.”

  • If extremist correspondence was being passed through the Qurans, couldn’t they’ve found a fluent-in-Arabic (and/or Farsi) soldier to fin the messages and white them out or something?

    (Not to mention that the burnings may have been inadvertant. Sounds like the Afghans could use some insensitivity training.)

    While you are right that the Obama administration seems to be turning a blind eye to the abuses and atrocities of the Islamic world, I must say that it disturbs me when people here and elsewhere start using rhetoric to the effect of “let’s allow our forces to slaughter Afghan civilians!” I’m sorry, but it is evil and wrong to throw aside God’s commandments and the Catholic moral tradition based upon them simply because it makes us feel more patriotic. Sin that serves the American national interest is still sin.

    No doubt I will be considered a liberal, an Obama supporter, a public sector union worker and other such things for making these remarks. I am none of these things, but if I have to choose between the Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Ayn Rand, Jack Bauer and the Founders, then the Founders, Bauer and Rand can just say good-bye.

  • “but if I have to choose between the Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Ayn Rand, Jack Bauer and the Founders, then the Founders, Bauer and Rand can just say good-bye.”

    I rather suspect Tommy that the Founders have a wee bit more in common with traditional Christianity than they do with the fictional Jack Bauer and the acted -as-if -she-was- a -fictional-character- in- one -of -her -wretched- novels Ayn Rand. There is a golden mean between “kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out” and acting as if being a Christian means having your forehead perpetually stamped CHUMP. In this century the West is going to have to learn how to deal with Islam, and what we are doing now is manifestly not working.

  • “BTW, you’ll love this: Catholics mobilizing against the HHS directive.”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/25/video-dem-rep-booed-by-constituents-over-hhs-mandate/

    You anticipate one of my posts Donna!

  • Tommy,

    Good concept: I have chosen the Holy Trinity and Teachings of Holy Mother the Church over Obama and all the evil scoundrels prowling the White House and Congress intent on the damnation of souls.

    I would think your conflation of Ayn Rand and private enterprise are false comparisons to abortion, unmanned aerial drone assassinations, gay marriage, class envy, etc.; i.e., whether Ayn R, the US Constitution or private property are evil are matters of prudential judgment, while abortion and the rest of the garbage I cited are intrinsically evil.

  • I must say that it disturbs me when people here and elsewhere start using rhetoric to the effect of “let’s allow our forces to slaughter Afghan civilians!”

    I have yet to read anyone post “let’s slaughter Afghan civilians”. I have not read or heard that anywhere….

    I think what most of us are saying is “we have wasted enough of our financial resources and have lost too many military men and women on a lost cause”. We don’t know what the answer is, if one exists, but nation building is not it. Heck, our troops can’t even have a cross posted outside a makeshift Chaplin tent…..

    I live near Ft Campbell and almost weekly the local newspaper has articles on the families of lost soldiers. Something the national press all but ignores.

    I am no anti-war pacifist liberal, but enough is enough. Time to come home…..

    I think our country needs to come to a better understanding of Islam as a religion and sharia law before we continue engaging in foolish military engagements throughout the middle east and the larger Islamic world.

  • Further there is no reason to spell their book Quran or even Q’uran instead of the anglisised Koran. Their book mean nothing to Christians. These people are stupid and thoroughly vicious. Common courtesies are wasted on them and only pander to their vanities.

    As to the larger question question of whether Muslims desire the same things as minuteman Americans; the answer for all practical purposes is in the negative. The Americans have squandered lives and treasure,and seen their own rights and liberties curtailed in pursuit of the grand experiment of engaging the Musalman. It is time to cut the losses. When Mr and Mrs Bush went to Uganda at the tail end of his term, they were treated to a tumultous welcome – so grateful were the Ugandans to Bush for his aid in their difficulties. This was only a small fraction of the amount spent in Afghanistan and Iraq, yet I doubt if even sympatico Muslims would have dared to name their children George or Laura. That is how screwed up all largely Mohamedan cultures are. They have the dead weight of the murderer and rapist their prophet to carry around.

  • Apologies for thee (Islam) but not for ye (Catholics). What an odd world where the leader of what was once known as the free world apologizes to the advocates of islamic depotism while at the same time trashes religious and other liberties here at home.

  • As he said recently, after pushing ~contraception and health~ the supply of which has been in place anyway, men with guns protect his daughters from the risks he legislates affecting 11 -18 yr. schoolchildren. The drones from violence or danger to someone’s liberty are legal. This, which revitalized a war cry of death to America and Kira Davis’ response. Tests for the first Sunday of Lent, with the story of Jesus in the desert and John’s sacrifice.

  • I’ve got a serious question:

    As Catholics, we burn or bury blessed items. What do Muslims do with worn or damaged holy items?

    In other words, if Muslims had found Korans with the pages defaced, what would they have done with them, if not burn them?

    I am asking this here because several of the contributors are much smarter than me, so I figure someone might know.

  • Pingback: The American Catholic in Good Company | The American Catholic

The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald

Saturday, February 25, AD 2012

Something for the weekend.  The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald by Gordon Lightfoot.  I have featured this song before in one of my Saturday posts, but the superb video above that melds the song with information about the sinking of SS Edmund Fitzgerald compelled me to post it again.  Besides we can never have too much Gordon Lightfoot, one of the few musical brightspots in that vast musical wasteland of the last century known as the Seventies.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald

  • St. Elmo, pray for us!

    I think these are the original words for the US Navy Hymn.

    Eternal Father, Strong to save,
    Whose arm hath bound the restless wave,
    Who bid’st the mighty Ocean deep
    Its own appointed limits keep;
    O hear us when we cry to thee,
    for those in peril on the sea.

    O Christ! Whose voice the waters heard
    And hushed their raging at Thy word,
    Who walked’st on the foaming deep,
    and calm amidst its rage didst sleep;
    Oh hear us when we cry to Thee
    For those in peril on the sea!

    Most Holy spirit! Who didst brood
    Upon the chaos dark and rude,
    And bid its angry tumult cease,
    And give, for wild confusion, peace;
    Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee
    For those in peril on the sea!

    O Trinity of love and power!
    Our brethren shield in danger’s hour;
    From rock and tempest, fire and foe,
    Protect them wheresoe’er they go;
    Thus evermore shall rise to Thee,
    Glad hymns of praise from land and sea.

    I bet the liberals plan to have this eliminated, too.

  • “We can never have too much Gordon Lightfoot.”

    In that case you should enjoy this classic SCTV commercial for the 379-album set, “Gordon Lightfoot Sings Every Song Ever Written” (it’s actually Rick Moranis singing):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F08b_d_Sh0g

    I’ve heard that to this day, people jokingly ask Gordon to sing “76 Trombones” at his concerts because of this sketch…

  • Thank you Elaine! That is a fun note to begin the weekend on!

  • Don thanks for this excellent post. As an 11 year old kid growing up in a Great Lakes state, I remember the event like it was yesterday. Captain McSorley (who lived in Toledo) didn’t live that far from me. As a matter of fact, many of the crew was also from Ohio. The Great Lakes can be quite fierce and even huge ships like the Edmund Fitzgerald (which I believe when she was built was the largest ship of her kind on the Great Lakes) can sink. It is all so very humbling and brings home our mortality. I will have to take issue with you on your quip about 70s music. As a child of the 70s and 80s, I think it was a great era in music history. It sure beats the black hole which we find ourselves in today. Anyway, again Don thanks for another great post!

  • The Wreck of the Edmund Fitxgerald was the first Gordon LIghtfooy song I ever heard. It was also the first song of his I learned to play on guitar. Although much of the 70s was a musical wasteland, his particular genre wasn’t. There were many great artists like Henry John Deutschendorf, Jr. (better known as John Denver), Jim Croce, Harry Chapin, Dan Fogelberg, and Cat Stevens. Although the latter’s behavior as Yusef Islam is a heartbreak, to say the least, he was a great artist.

  • That song just haunts. Nothing short of brilliant–I can picture surging waves on a cold, cloudy fall day from the first notes.

    Dave is right–she was the Queen of the Lakes when she was launched, and still one of the biggest when she sank. The Lakes claimed at least one big ship a decade through the 70s, but–thank God–none since. The way they used to be crewed, they tended to get crewman in clusters from an area, and it was common for extended family members to sail together. Rogers City, Michigan, lost 23 men when the Carl D. Bradley broke apart on Lake Michigan in 1958.

  • Thanks Don – a great number by Gordy.

    Great also to see I have some reinforcements in the 70’s music debate 😉 – thanks Dave and Greg.
    Because of the song is of a nautical theme, and being a sailor who olves the sea and sailing on it, may I provide for your enrapture, another GREAT 70’s group, Crosby Stills and Nash, singing one of my all time favorites, “Southern Cross”. May times when sailing at night, I have looked up to the heavens and seen this great heavenly sign which is featured on our national flag, and wonder – again – at the magnificence of creation.

    Enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw9gLjEGJrw

  • Yes, I olve the sea 🙂 – should be love.

    and further down, ……….MANY times when sailing….

  • … but I’m not having that much fun after his music and the Naval Hymn are over.
    The ship was so full (of rock and sand?) that it reached the breaking point in the stormy conditions. What stays in mind is the breaking apart part.
    The subj. of the posts about our country, between which this one is, hint at some symbolism in the Edmund Fitzgerald to our nation overloaded with waste of life, purpose, and money.

  • Don the Kiwi: I olive the sea, too. Noah olived the sea and the eagle, the symbol of the swiftness of God’s Justice, on the Great Seal of The United States of America olives the sea. The olive branch has been the symbol for peace since Noah. The Southern Cross on our national flag I do not know. No ridicule intended. I read “olive”.
    P.M. The streets of New York were paved with cobblestone, or Belgian block, used as ballast for an empty ship. Gordon Lightfoot’s singing is indeed haunting. Is Lightfoot the author of the song?

  • Mary.
    According to Wikipedia, Lightfoot wrote, composed and sung the song.

  • Thanks so much for the post. I remember the tragedy of the Edmond Fitzgerald. I live in MN and on the anniversary of the sinking there is usually an article in the local papers. Such a loss of life. God rest their souls. Also, checked out YouTube to listen to a few Gordon Lightfoot gems. I especially liked the song, Beautiful. Good evening to all.

  • The “Maritime Sailors’ Cathedral” in Detroit still exists — it’s actually called the Mariners’ Church of Detroit and until the early 1990s was affiliated with the Episcopal Diocese of Michigan. Today it is an independent church but still uses Anglican liturgy based on the 1928 Book of Common Prayer (which must be very beautiful).

    Until 2006 the church tolled its bell “twenty-nine times for each man on the Edmund Fitzgerald” every Nov. 10; now it has switched to having an annual memorial service on or near that date commemorating all sailors lost on the Great Lakes.

  • The video ends with a list of the names, ages, job and hometown of each man lost. I
    was astonished to see that over half of the men in that crew were in their 50’s and 60’s.

    All that skill and experience from so many years spent shipping on the Lakes was no
    match for an unforgiving nature…

Gingrich and the Fourth Estate

Friday, February 24, AD 2012

No one is better than Gingrich in pointing out the wretched double standard of the Mainstream Media:

 

I want to make two quick points, John. The first is there is a legitimate question about the power of the government to impose on religion activities which any religion opposes. That’s legitimate. But I just want to point out, you did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Gingrich and the Fourth Estate

  • “If you don’t read the papers you are uninformed. If you read the papers you are misinformed.” Mark Twain

    Truth.

    I go into my “wife-listening” mode until the sports and weather come on.

  • The Academy Awards could add a few new categories for re-election candidates.

  • Unfortunately, there has been little evidence of non-partisan journalism ever in that mean estate. From the days when you knew which paper in your city supported which candidates, through the yellow journalism of a century ago all the way up until today, that concept is tough to conjure and tougher still to maintain.

    The culprit is the consumer, of course, who wants to be titillated and shocked. Straightforward, unbiased reporting has a favorable demographic that’s way too far at the high end of the bell curve to be profitable.

    I submit that the closest example we’ll see is CSPAN.

  • The thing is I have no problem with partisan journalism. All I ask is that you fly your flag. Please don’t tell me you (the media) are objective. I am not stupid.

  • I like the comment of flying your flag, but that just polarizes the nation. The pundit reporting is almost like hate/rumor-mongering. It serves little purpose, except to brainwash stupid people (the majority of the US). Instead, we need un-biased reporting and we’re simply not getting it. Everyone is biased….maybe CSPAN, maybe NPR (at least they provide two perspectives).

  • Don

    The incident that resulted in the “Born Alive” bill was not a botched abortion. The pregnancy was carried to normal term then the baby was shelved to die of lack of nourishment and care. .

    What I don’t understand is why needed the law, it seems to be homicide carried out with intent and malice, which I thought was already illegal with a hefty punishment. But I’m not a lawyer, what do I know.

    Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings

  • Pingback: FRIDAY EXTRA: GLOBAL CULTURE WARS II | ThePulp.it
  • The MSM is mostly unaware of their bias.

  • Hey folks, could someone running this blog please email me? I wandered over to a progressive web site and found myself literally in a den of vipers. I was curious and I learned a few things. I thought things would go more or less like they do here but boy, was I mistaken. I wanted to share them in more detail through email and get your thoughts if you don’t mind.

    Thanks,

    Big Gar, aka TemplarofTruth…

  • Progressive Web Site = Den Of Vipers. This is a fair and open blog, but please try to limit the redundancy.

    ;^D

    Thanks.

  • It seems like many years ago that journalists were more objective in reporting the facts than they are today. They may have leaned either to the Left or Right but it wasn’t as so blatantly obvious as it is today with reporters playing partisan politics.

  • Prior to the Sixties Teresa reporters were often of blue collar origin, many without college degrees. As a group they tilted to the Dems, but they often had varied experiences, including military service and working at a variety of jobs that made them a fairly eclectic bunch. Today, most journalists come out of college with similar life experiences and a standard pattern of ideological beliefs.

  • Also, as I’m fond of pointing out, reporters at the LOCAL level (weekly or small daily newspapers) do not tend to skew to the left as much as the NATIONAL or large city media do. Covering the police or city council beat in a town of, say, 10,000 or fewer people — especially when you and your spouse and children (if any) live in the town you are covering — is a far different animal from covering Congress or the White House. Plus, most journalists at the local level make very little money, sometimes barely above minimum wage (that was my situation for several years). They are nothing like the pampered talking heads you see on TV.

  • True Elaine. I think that as more and more local reporters get into blogging they will begin to have a regional and national impact.

  • I have noticed that as well, Elaine. Even when the local reporter covers politics its for a brief minute or two so they don’t have time to spin the story like the national media reporters do.