It's ironic, really. Every time the left needs to manufacture a crisis to rally their base we invariably hear angushed cries gins about how "Republicans want to take away a woman's right to choose"! As J. F. Kerry might say, "would that it were!" In fact a significant faction of the G.O.P. leadershup has gotten a bit squeamish about abortion, to the point that the post-mortems on the 2012 election have elicited some "suggestions" that the party might consider de-emphasizing their official opposition to abortion.
Meanwhile the left has no such qualms. In 2008 their standard-bearer was a man who couldn't bring himself to vote for an Illinois law that guaranteed that infants born alive would be entitled to medical care. In a saner and better-informed America that alone would have been sufficient to disqualify him for any further office of public trust. Instead he was elected president. Pundits on both sides referred to him as the most abortion-friendly president ever, and they were right. And so, in his first term we got not only the usual fare from the left: revocation of the so-called Mexico City Policy, abortion as a litmus test for judicial appointments, etc.; but then came something new: a socialized medical insurance plan that not only covered abortion and contraception, but required heretofore exempt organizations - e.g. Catholic schools, hospitals, and other entities - to subsidize it.
To be sure there was an outcry, albeit muted... and ineffective: at this writing nothing has changed save for a fig-leaf "exemption" so narrowly crafted that Mother Teresa would have been unlikely to qualify for it!
Meanwhile, a grass-roots organization called LiveAction.org made a series of undercover videos exposing Planned Parenthood's willingness to defy the few laws fettering access to abortions and even to offer assistance in circumventing child sex trafficking laws! Congress attemted to de-fund Planned Parenthood, which receives over $500,000,000 of taxpayer funds annually - half a BILLION dollars of our money - but this only served to enrage the left. "Terrorism!" they cried. Yep, the same folks who've seemingly never met a real terrorist who's nothing but a misunderstood kid do are fine with the notion that buchering babies is such a fundamental right that anyone who exposes the fact that it is insufficiently regulated or attempts to withdraw public fundig for it is... a terrorist!
It's now 2013. America has re-elected the most radical and pro-abortion president ever to a second term. With the right to a taxpayer-subsidized dead baby seemingly safeguarded for another four years the media felt free to ignore the gruesome facts of the Gosnell case. "We don't cover local crime stories", sniffed one national outlet of the MSM. Were it not for the yeoman work of several blogers and non-traditional news outlets the MSM probably wouldn't have been shamed into even the minimal coverage they finally deigned to give it.
With the trial ongoing President Obama judged the time apt to accept an invitation to address the annual convention of Planned Parenthood, conveniently held in Washington, DC; the only president ever to do so. Unlike the MSM the President had shown a prior willingness to comment on "local crime stories", but like the rest of the abortion industry, their political supporters, and media enablers he didn't bother to acknowledge this horrific story. Instead all was sweetness, light, and lies: the oft-repeated canard about mammograms (which are not performed at ANY Planned Parenthood facility) and two typical happy-ending anecdotes. He ended with perhaps the most chilling words ever uttered by an American president: "Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you. God bless America. Thank you."
"God bless you" to the largest provider of abortions in America? Makes your blood run cold.
During his speech the President quoted a remark by Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, about "opponents" who “literally got up every day trying to figure out how to keep us from doing our work.” Imagine that. Might not a thinking person ask himself: "what kind of work is this they so, and what kind of people would be so single-minded in opposing it?" Alas, many in America have lost their capability for critical thinking. But not the folks at LiveAction.org who are amongst those who do in fact get up every morning and try to figure out how to put PP out of business - or at least out of the abortion business - permanently. Their latest undercover investigation has produced footage of an abortionist promising a client - the investigator - that if the late-term abortion of her baby "failed", resulting in a live infant, steps would be taken to ensure that the baby was dead by the time she left the clinic. How many more of these will it take to prove that Gosnell was not an aberration, and that so-called "partial birth abortion" is neither rare nor necessary, as it's proponents claim.
Incidentally, that clinic is in Washington, DC. It is operated by Planned Parenthood. Amazingly enough, the Washington Post ran a story. Not a story about how viable babies are killed in their fair city every day, whether inside or outside of the womb; more of a 'story-about-the-story'. But they did interview the "doctor" who was caught on tape. "I really consider them terrorists” was his final word. Will Saletan of slate.com tweeted on the WaPo story: "What's more disgusting than late-term abortion? This scheme to exploit it by hiring actors & secretly taping doctors."
Sorry for the length of this post. When we regain our ability to think critically and reason logically, and our moral fiber as a nation perhaps we will ask these questions about Dr. Kermit Gosnell, Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood, Barack Obama, Dr. Cesare Santangelo, Will Saletan, et al: Who is their god? What is their creed? Whence comes their gospel?
It is frightening to speculate on the answers. All I can say for certain is: as for me and my household, their god is not our God, their creed is not our Creed, and their gospel is not our Gospel.
God bless them indeed.
12 April 2013
What's worse?
The joyful season of Easter reminds us that no matter how bad things get we must never cease to trust in God. Despair is the ultimate sin. Spera in Deo!
But inasmuch as our current abode subsists in this vale of tears we cannot fail to take account of the realities which surround us.
One of the most horrifying stories in the news lately has been that of the Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell whose trial is ongoing... oh, wait a sec: it hasn't been in the news! Even as each day's testimony elicits new and more chilling accounts of babies born alive and decapitated, mothers gravely injured and left without medical care, untrained personnel, squalid and unsanitary conditions; the MSM's coverage is... nonexistent! So what's worse? Objectively the heinous sin and crime of abortion - and outright infanticide - is orders of magnitude worse that the MSM's dereliction of their duty, there isn't even a question there. But neither can we minimize the consequences of a partisan media practicing advocacy journalism, in this case by malign neglect. It has already done, and will continue to do, great harm to our nation.
In a similar vein, what I euphemistically call the "Boston Problem" (yes, I know about L.A. and elsewhere!) might be "old news" by now, and one cannot minimize the evil done by these sexual predators in clerical garb, but again we should not fail to consider the "collateral damage" done to the Church... and to the Faithful! How many times have you heard: "The Church has no credibility on [marriage, artificial contraception, homosexual acts, etc.] when the priests are buggering little boys!" Leaving aside the for a moment the particulars - n.b. these cases involve a very small number of clergy and are overwhelmingly instances of predatory homosexuals rather than "paedophiles" - this is the perception that has been created in the minds of the public. And so, those looking for an excuse to ignore the Church have one, and many others who might be attracted to Her recoil in disgust at the foul spectacle of these flagrant sins. Of course the actual sins of the priests are worse, but their immediate damage is limited to a specific number of souls. But the repercussions for the Church, and for those sould who may at this moment be losing the means of salvation through mistrust of the Church, continue to multiply.
What's the common thread? Aside from evil that is? I suppose it is that so many of us have lost any sense of shame, of personal sin and community standards. This is the fruit of the poisoned tree of 1960's relativism and its given our society the worst case of indigestion imaginable.
But inasmuch as our current abode subsists in this vale of tears we cannot fail to take account of the realities which surround us.
One of the most horrifying stories in the news lately has been that of the Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell whose trial is ongoing... oh, wait a sec: it hasn't been in the news! Even as each day's testimony elicits new and more chilling accounts of babies born alive and decapitated, mothers gravely injured and left without medical care, untrained personnel, squalid and unsanitary conditions; the MSM's coverage is... nonexistent! So what's worse? Objectively the heinous sin and crime of abortion - and outright infanticide - is orders of magnitude worse that the MSM's dereliction of their duty, there isn't even a question there. But neither can we minimize the consequences of a partisan media practicing advocacy journalism, in this case by malign neglect. It has already done, and will continue to do, great harm to our nation.
In a similar vein, what I euphemistically call the "Boston Problem" (yes, I know about L.A. and elsewhere!) might be "old news" by now, and one cannot minimize the evil done by these sexual predators in clerical garb, but again we should not fail to consider the "collateral damage" done to the Church... and to the Faithful! How many times have you heard: "The Church has no credibility on [marriage, artificial contraception, homosexual acts, etc.] when the priests are buggering little boys!" Leaving aside the for a moment the particulars - n.b. these cases involve a very small number of clergy and are overwhelmingly instances of predatory homosexuals rather than "paedophiles" - this is the perception that has been created in the minds of the public. And so, those looking for an excuse to ignore the Church have one, and many others who might be attracted to Her recoil in disgust at the foul spectacle of these flagrant sins. Of course the actual sins of the priests are worse, but their immediate damage is limited to a specific number of souls. But the repercussions for the Church, and for those sould who may at this moment be losing the means of salvation through mistrust of the Church, continue to multiply.
What's the common thread? Aside from evil that is? I suppose it is that so many of us have lost any sense of shame, of personal sin and community standards. This is the fruit of the poisoned tree of 1960's relativism and its given our society the worst case of indigestion imaginable.
09 April 2013
What we are up against...
No longer do the enemies of the Church and of civil society simply ask for acceptance... now they seek to neuter, to co-opt, and to destroy.
We are up against evil. It will not abate on its own, we will have to stand up and oppose it. There will be a cost. Do we have what it takes?
Today's bit of cheer comes from our nation's capitol. Again, from the realm of "higher education":
http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=7395
Read it. Believe it. We are in a war. Where will it end?
We are up against evil. It will not abate on its own, we will have to stand up and oppose it. There will be a cost. Do we have what it takes?
Today's bit of cheer comes from our nation's capitol. Again, from the realm of "higher education":
http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=7395
Read it. Believe it. We are in a war. Where will it end?
05 April 2013
The America Our Children Will Inherit
Amidst the gloom of Year Five of the Obama Experiment comes some indication of how we got to this point, i.e. at which a supine and toothless Catholic Church is unable to resist the elimination of major elements of our First Amendment protections of Religious Freedom by the worst government we've ever had.
We know that - with a few shining exceptions - the realm of "Catholic" higher education has long been a hotbed of dissent from the Magisterium, but there is perhaps the tendency to feel that things had started to get better, and that some of the excesses of the Seventies were behind us. Alas not so... Two recent examples will serve to illustrate the situation.
1.) Notre Dame's recent history has been more than a little bit checkered, e.g. the Obama fiasco of 2009, but they may have reached a new low with the recent announcement that they were seeking an "LGBTQ Director" for their shiny new "LGBTQ" support organization. Does the name "Catholic" actually mean anything to these people?
2.) Gonzaga University, which might well be renamed "GoneGaga" owing to their even more radical deviations from the mission of their founders and the Church, has had a similar group for years - ho hum - but cannot abide at least one venerable Catholic group - the Knights of Columbus - because they restrict their membership to... Catholic Men only!
For far too long the majority of American bishops either tolerated or abetted this sort of lunacy, and now the bill has come due. "Catholics" brainwashed into accepting an adulterated version of the Faith by these diabolical dissidents see nothing wrong with voting for the most pro-abortion president ever, or "Catholic" phonies like his vice president and the most recent Democrat Speaker of the House (to name a few). Truly, these folks have gotten the government they deserve, but rest of us aren't so lucky. And it's only going to get worse: it came to light today that the U.S. Army Reserve has published training materials designating the Catholic Church as an "extremist" organization and specifically citing several traditionalist Catholic organizations as "hate groups". This is real, folks. It was only a couple of years ago that Cardinal George of Chicago was ridiculed by the elites for his comment that "I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square". It doesn't sound so farfetched now, does it? "Extremist", "hate group" and "bigot" - that latter gaining in popularity for those who commit the cardinal sin of "homophobia" - are just names, but who can doubt that there are sticks and stones to come...
We know that - with a few shining exceptions - the realm of "Catholic" higher education has long been a hotbed of dissent from the Magisterium, but there is perhaps the tendency to feel that things had started to get better, and that some of the excesses of the Seventies were behind us. Alas not so... Two recent examples will serve to illustrate the situation.
1.) Notre Dame's recent history has been more than a little bit checkered, e.g. the Obama fiasco of 2009, but they may have reached a new low with the recent announcement that they were seeking an "LGBTQ Director" for their shiny new "LGBTQ" support organization. Does the name "Catholic" actually mean anything to these people?
2.) Gonzaga University, which might well be renamed "GoneGaga" owing to their even more radical deviations from the mission of their founders and the Church, has had a similar group for years - ho hum - but cannot abide at least one venerable Catholic group - the Knights of Columbus - because they restrict their membership to... Catholic Men only!
For far too long the majority of American bishops either tolerated or abetted this sort of lunacy, and now the bill has come due. "Catholics" brainwashed into accepting an adulterated version of the Faith by these diabolical dissidents see nothing wrong with voting for the most pro-abortion president ever, or "Catholic" phonies like his vice president and the most recent Democrat Speaker of the House (to name a few). Truly, these folks have gotten the government they deserve, but rest of us aren't so lucky. And it's only going to get worse: it came to light today that the U.S. Army Reserve has published training materials designating the Catholic Church as an "extremist" organization and specifically citing several traditionalist Catholic organizations as "hate groups". This is real, folks. It was only a couple of years ago that Cardinal George of Chicago was ridiculed by the elites for his comment that "I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square". It doesn't sound so farfetched now, does it? "Extremist", "hate group" and "bigot" - that latter gaining in popularity for those who commit the cardinal sin of "homophobia" - are just names, but who can doubt that there are sticks and stones to come...
25 March 2013
America in 2013 - Signs of the Times
Had to run over to one of the big home improvement stores on Saturday morning to rent a tool. There were a few dozen cars in the parking lot, but for a decent Saturday morning in the Springtime it was practically deserted. Inside, the folks doing various product demos were begging the few customers to stop at their displays, and the cashiers were standing aorund chatting with each other. When I left and got back on the highway, I noticed that traffic heading in the opposite direction was backed-up for over a mile. My first thought: thank Heaven, I must have just missed whatever it was that was causing the backup.
So what was the reason, and why does it matter? Well, I saw some temporary signs by the side of the highway: "Gun Show - 10-6 Saturday". The venue was accessed from the same exit as the home improvement store. That explained the unusual traffic.
When I returned my rental tool in the early afternoon the traffic had abated, but the store was nearly as deserted. Welcome to Act II Scene I of Obama's America. The great American pastime of "D.i.Y" goes neglected in the stagnant economy, meanwhile the citizenry rush to arm themselves to the teeth. Draw your own conclusions...
So what was the reason, and why does it matter? Well, I saw some temporary signs by the side of the highway: "Gun Show - 10-6 Saturday". The venue was accessed from the same exit as the home improvement store. That explained the unusual traffic.
When I returned my rental tool in the early afternoon the traffic had abated, but the store was nearly as deserted. Welcome to Act II Scene I of Obama's America. The great American pastime of "D.i.Y" goes neglected in the stagnant economy, meanwhile the citizenry rush to arm themselves to the teeth. Draw your own conclusions...
21 March 2013
EXCLUSIVE FROM THE ARCHLAIC: A Confidential Interview with Cardinal Balony
The Archlaic was at Logan Airport the other evening and stopped at one of the licensed establishments for a pint; as he looked for a table he noticed a man sitting alone, wearing a black clerical suit with a hint of a chain showing diagonally inside the jacket. The cleric, who was sipping a glass of white wine and reading a paperback novel by Andrew Greeley, looked vaguely familiar... then The Archlaic recognized him: Cardinal Balony himself!
Realizing the unique and providential opportunity presented by this chance encounter, His Magnitude sprang into action:
THE ARCHLAIC: Sure, if it isn't Cardinal Balony himself, in the flesh as it were! Eminence, what brings you to our fair city?
CDL. BALONY: That rat - I mean Archbishop Gomez, didn't want me to go, and by the time I got a reservation first class was full on all the nonstop flights, so now I'm stuck here on thie 3-hour layover. Seems like an eternity... hey. wait a minute, who are you and what do you want?
THE ARCHLAIC: Forgive me, Eminence; I'm the Archlaic of North Carver and...
CDL. BALONY: Archlaic of what? (looks suspiciously at the collar of The Archlaic's black turteneck) What are you, some kind of subdeacon or something? I thought Vatican II did away with all that...
THE ARCHLAIC: (laughs) Ah, Eminence, Archbishop Weakloins always said you had a great sense of humor! So tell me, what do you think of the new pope?
CDL. BALONY: Well since you asked, it was one of the great experiences of my life to be able to be a part of a conclave for the second time, and to elect another pope.
THE ARCHLAIC: But what do you think of him so far?
CDL. BALONY: Did you see his shoes? Plain black ones, not those red Pradas like Ratz... er, Benedict wore. Paul VI got rid of all that medieval foofery you know, but if Ratz had been there any longer he's have brought back the sedia and the ostrich plumes!
THE ARCHLAIC: But Pope Francis...
CDL. BALONY: That's what I'm talking about, we need to show we care about the poor. This pre-Conciliar high church stuff puts people off, modern men - people - can't relate to it, it's like the Queen of England, nobody pays any attention to any of that stuff.
THE ARCHLAIC: But didn't Pope Benedict believe that beauty in the liturgy brought people to God?
CDL. BALONY: Oh. you're one of those? Should have known... Archlaic, eh? Well I'll tell you, while Ratzinger was running the inquisition and writing his little books I was dealing with real problems of real people. I have the largest archdiocese in the world you know, and we don't do any of that silly stuff. My Cathedral was the first one built according to the blueprint of Vatican II, noble simplicity and so forth...
THE ARCHLAIC: I thought Los Angles was the largest in the United States, not in the world. I think Mexico City is...
CDL. BALONY: Well that's only because our undocumented workers are in the shadows, they're afraid Bush is going to deport them. If we counted them L.A. would be the biggest. We probably have more Mexicans than Mexico City anyway, and they're all Catholic. And that's another thing, Pope Francis is Hispanic, he speaks Spanish, él puede hablar con los hombres y mujeres modernos en su propio idioma just like me. And he's humble, did you see his shoes? Really low church!
THE ARCHLAIC: Eminence, I'm a bit confused about your references to "high" and "low" church. Those are protestant terms, and they don't really seem to be appropriate points of reference to the Catholic liturgical ceremonies...
CDL. BALONY: There you have it - ceremony! When we do liturgy in my church there's none of that, that, ceremonialism! Just plain, simple Catholic Christians gathered around a humble table to eat the Supper of the Lord.
THE ARCHLAIC: But Eminence, what's un-ceremonial about liturgical dancers, rock bands, and gaggles of laypeople milling around in the sanctuary? And you built a $150 million cathedral when you already had one, is that what you mean by "low church"?
CDL. BALONY: That old wreck was about to fall down, one more good earthquake and it would have fallen like the walls of Jericho; and it would have cost a lot more than $150 million to retrofit it for earthquakes and Vatican II! And incidentally it was more like $190 million, all given by the People of God in Los Angeles. I designed it myself...
THE ARCHLAIC: Yes, Eminence, but why do you think that "simple" and "noble" and even "humble" exclude "beauty"?
CDL. BALONY: Hey, did you hear that announcement? Didn't she say "Now boarding first-class passengers for American flight 007 to L.A.”? I've got to run! Nice talking to you and I'll pray for your intentions...
Realizing the unique and providential opportunity presented by this chance encounter, His Magnitude sprang into action:
THE ARCHLAIC: Sure, if it isn't Cardinal Balony himself, in the flesh as it were! Eminence, what brings you to our fair city?
CDL. BALONY: That rat - I mean Archbishop Gomez, didn't want me to go, and by the time I got a reservation first class was full on all the nonstop flights, so now I'm stuck here on thie 3-hour layover. Seems like an eternity... hey. wait a minute, who are you and what do you want?
THE ARCHLAIC: Forgive me, Eminence; I'm the Archlaic of North Carver and...
CDL. BALONY: Archlaic of what? (looks suspiciously at the collar of The Archlaic's black turteneck) What are you, some kind of subdeacon or something? I thought Vatican II did away with all that...
THE ARCHLAIC: (laughs) Ah, Eminence, Archbishop Weakloins always said you had a great sense of humor! So tell me, what do you think of the new pope?
CDL. BALONY: Well since you asked, it was one of the great experiences of my life to be able to be a part of a conclave for the second time, and to elect another pope.
THE ARCHLAIC: But what do you think of him so far?
CDL. BALONY: Did you see his shoes? Plain black ones, not those red Pradas like Ratz... er, Benedict wore. Paul VI got rid of all that medieval foofery you know, but if Ratz had been there any longer he's have brought back the sedia and the ostrich plumes!
THE ARCHLAIC: But Pope Francis...
CDL. BALONY: That's what I'm talking about, we need to show we care about the poor. This pre-Conciliar high church stuff puts people off, modern men - people - can't relate to it, it's like the Queen of England, nobody pays any attention to any of that stuff.
THE ARCHLAIC: But didn't Pope Benedict believe that beauty in the liturgy brought people to God?
CDL. BALONY: Oh. you're one of those? Should have known... Archlaic, eh? Well I'll tell you, while Ratzinger was running the inquisition and writing his little books I was dealing with real problems of real people. I have the largest archdiocese in the world you know, and we don't do any of that silly stuff. My Cathedral was the first one built according to the blueprint of Vatican II, noble simplicity and so forth...
THE ARCHLAIC: I thought Los Angles was the largest in the United States, not in the world. I think Mexico City is...
CDL. BALONY: Well that's only because our undocumented workers are in the shadows, they're afraid Bush is going to deport them. If we counted them L.A. would be the biggest. We probably have more Mexicans than Mexico City anyway, and they're all Catholic. And that's another thing, Pope Francis is Hispanic, he speaks Spanish, él puede hablar con los hombres y mujeres modernos en su propio idioma just like me. And he's humble, did you see his shoes? Really low church!
THE ARCHLAIC: Eminence, I'm a bit confused about your references to "high" and "low" church. Those are protestant terms, and they don't really seem to be appropriate points of reference to the Catholic liturgical ceremonies...
CDL. BALONY: There you have it - ceremony! When we do liturgy in my church there's none of that, that, ceremonialism! Just plain, simple Catholic Christians gathered around a humble table to eat the Supper of the Lord.
THE ARCHLAIC: But Eminence, what's un-ceremonial about liturgical dancers, rock bands, and gaggles of laypeople milling around in the sanctuary? And you built a $150 million cathedral when you already had one, is that what you mean by "low church"?
CDL. BALONY: That old wreck was about to fall down, one more good earthquake and it would have fallen like the walls of Jericho; and it would have cost a lot more than $150 million to retrofit it for earthquakes and Vatican II! And incidentally it was more like $190 million, all given by the People of God in Los Angeles. I designed it myself...
THE ARCHLAIC: Yes, Eminence, but why do you think that "simple" and "noble" and even "humble" exclude "beauty"?
CDL. BALONY: Hey, did you hear that announcement? Didn't she say "Now boarding first-class passengers for American flight 007 to L.A.”? I've got to run! Nice talking to you and I'll pray for your intentions...
18 March 2013
A New Beginning? Let's Chill a Bit...
I keep saying that I need to find time to tend to the blog, but entries have been few and far between for the past year or more. The abdication of Pope Benedict and the election of Pope Francis have prompted many thoughts and I find myself feeling compelled to rejoin the fray at this time.
One concern is the nearly immediate polarization of opinion toward Pope Francis although he has yet to sit on the Throne of Peter for even a week. On one hand are many of the modernists in the Church and their counterparts amongst arbiters of the popular culture, some of whom have thus far been perfervid in their sentiments. The likes of Donna Brazile are seen on television gushing over 'The Pope of the Poor' while the disgraced but apparently shameless Cardinal Mahony breathlessly twitters away like a lovesick bobby-soxer about the color of the Pope's shoes(!) and kvells about "moving from HIGH Church to LOW and humble Church"! (No word from Cardinal Balony as to whether his $150,000,000+ cathedral or his liturgical dancers are what he means by "Low Church"... but then again I've always wondered whether the man was actually a protestant so perhaps it's only natural for him to use such language.)
At the other extreme are two unlikely bedfellows - the secular left whose fantasies about their ideal pope (who'd probably take the name "Libertine I") have been shattered by the fact that yet again the Catholic Church has elected a pope that is Catholic; and the 'traditionalists' who believe they've seen nothing but ill omens in every liturgical and quasi-liturgical action of the past 5-1/2 days.
Herewith a few quick thoughts:
- Liberals/modernists who are curently singing paeans to Pope Francis will find cause to come down out of the clouds before too long. Once the bloom is off the rose they will treat him the same way they treated Papa Ratzinger - with scorn and derision.
- For people who claim that their beliefs and positions are based upon 'science', 'reason', 'logic', etc. the secular left certainly engages in a lot of unscientific, unreasonable, and illogical thinking - one might even call it 'blind faith' - in expecting a pope to suddenly change the Church's teachings.
- Pope Francis is not going to undo what Pope Benedict has done juridically, and if he tries there will be one heck of a row. That is not what he needs. Even if perchance he is at heart a polyester-poncho-wearing inculturated low-church Mahonyite whose papal liturgies make JPII's look like Tridentine Masses he is not going to "repeal" Summorum Pontificum.
- Granted, the ars celebrandi of the reigning pope does have a great deal of value as an example to the Church. Funny, we complained about B16: "he doesn't decree, all he does is 'lead by example'" but surely his 'style' gave many a priest both an ideal to follow and some 'cover' against his critics: "I'm just doing what the Pope does". My one specific fear is that a reversion to a 1970's Bugnini/Piero Marini style of papal liturgies will embolden the opponents of the liturgical renewal who will then be able to claim: "now you're not doing what the pope does".
- The "inaugural" Mass of Pope Francis is tomorrow. All of us will learn more about what to expect in this pontificate. Let us wait and see, trust in God, and meanwhile use the remainder of Lent fruitfully. I know one thing for sure: the Holy Father needs our prayers!
One concern is the nearly immediate polarization of opinion toward Pope Francis although he has yet to sit on the Throne of Peter for even a week. On one hand are many of the modernists in the Church and their counterparts amongst arbiters of the popular culture, some of whom have thus far been perfervid in their sentiments. The likes of Donna Brazile are seen on television gushing over 'The Pope of the Poor' while the disgraced but apparently shameless Cardinal Mahony breathlessly twitters away like a lovesick bobby-soxer about the color of the Pope's shoes(!) and kvells about "moving from HIGH Church to LOW and humble Church"! (No word from Cardinal Balony as to whether his $150,000,000+ cathedral or his liturgical dancers are what he means by "Low Church"... but then again I've always wondered whether the man was actually a protestant so perhaps it's only natural for him to use such language.)
At the other extreme are two unlikely bedfellows - the secular left whose fantasies about their ideal pope (who'd probably take the name "Libertine I") have been shattered by the fact that yet again the Catholic Church has elected a pope that is Catholic; and the 'traditionalists' who believe they've seen nothing but ill omens in every liturgical and quasi-liturgical action of the past 5-1/2 days.
Herewith a few quick thoughts:
- Liberals/modernists who are curently singing paeans to Pope Francis will find cause to come down out of the clouds before too long. Once the bloom is off the rose they will treat him the same way they treated Papa Ratzinger - with scorn and derision.
- For people who claim that their beliefs and positions are based upon 'science', 'reason', 'logic', etc. the secular left certainly engages in a lot of unscientific, unreasonable, and illogical thinking - one might even call it 'blind faith' - in expecting a pope to suddenly change the Church's teachings.
- Pope Francis is not going to undo what Pope Benedict has done juridically, and if he tries there will be one heck of a row. That is not what he needs. Even if perchance he is at heart a polyester-poncho-wearing inculturated low-church Mahonyite whose papal liturgies make JPII's look like Tridentine Masses he is not going to "repeal" Summorum Pontificum.
- Granted, the ars celebrandi of the reigning pope does have a great deal of value as an example to the Church. Funny, we complained about B16: "he doesn't decree, all he does is 'lead by example'" but surely his 'style' gave many a priest both an ideal to follow and some 'cover' against his critics: "I'm just doing what the Pope does". My one specific fear is that a reversion to a 1970's Bugnini/Piero Marini style of papal liturgies will embolden the opponents of the liturgical renewal who will then be able to claim: "now you're not doing what the pope does".
- The "inaugural" Mass of Pope Francis is tomorrow. All of us will learn more about what to expect in this pontificate. Let us wait and see, trust in God, and meanwhile use the remainder of Lent fruitfully. I know one thing for sure: the Holy Father needs our prayers!
04 October 2012
Obama-Romney #1 - Some Observations
General Stuff:
1.) Never seen Obama so flat, seemed lost without a teleprompter... he kept coming back to the "$5 trillion tax cut" even after Romney refuted it as though he coudn't think on his feet... just repeated his taking points.
2.) Romney really knows what he's talking about. One had the sense he was strugging to keep his answers short.
3.) Surprised there weren't more "canned" or pre-rehearsed "zingers" - perhaps Romney's "trickle-down government" and "you're not entitled to your own facts" were?
4.) If I was an undecided voter my interest would really be piqued, and I'd be looking forward to the next debate.
5.) Was hoping Romney would press some more on religious liberty - and get specific about what he meant.
My Favorite Moments:
1.) "Uh, Jim, you, uh, might want to move onto another topic"
2.) "but you just pick the losers"!
3.) Romney's comparison of subsidies to the oil companies versus $90b to Solyndra et al really provided some perspective.
4.) Again, his remark on the same $90b being enough to hire 200k teachers!
5.) "I've been in business for 25 years and I have no idea what you're talking about"
Best Reactions from MSM and Lefty Pundits:
1.) Bill Maher: "Maybe he really does need the teleprompter"
2.) Al Gore - blamed it on the altitude!
3.) Chris Matthews "Tonight wasn't an MSNBC debate, was it?"
4.) Andrew Sullivan: "This was a disaster for the president"
5.) Michael Moore: "This is what happens when u pick John Kerry as your debate coach"
29 March 2012
Another Marxist Liturgist?
There were many interesting moments from Pope Benedict's visit to Cuber ("Cuba" for those of you outside 495) this week and most have been amply commented-upon in the blogopshere. But something jumped out at me from a Reuters dispatch covering the Papal visit. With regard to Benedict's brief meeting with Fidel Castro, we find the following:
"They discussed serious issues such as Church liturgy and the state of the world"
The Liturgy? What on earth could this conversation have been like? Consider that although he was raised a Catholic and educated by Jesuits (which could explain a lot) it's a safe bet that the old boy hasn't been to Mass very often in the past fifty years or so...
"They discussed serious issues such as Church liturgy and the state of the world"
The Liturgy? What on earth could this conversation have been like? Consider that although he was raised a Catholic and educated by Jesuits (which could explain a lot) it's a safe bet that the old boy hasn't been to Mass very often in the past fifty years or so...
I'm Ba-a-a-ck...
OK, my blogging sabbatical has ended. It's an election year, Spring Training is in full swing, there are stirrings of authentic revivification in the Church, and of course we are living in generally "interesting" times. How can I remain silent keep my big mouth shut?
By last February I had fallen into the trap of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and discovered that I didn't have enough time to write lengthy, witty, provocative and original posts. Maybe I had been failing to achieve that all along, but it was at least my intention... Anyway, I let things slide and the next thing I knew this little project had fallen completely off my radar screen.
But the whole thing was supposed to be fun, and I found I mssed the fun part of it. So, I don't want to say I've lowered my standards, but I guess I could say I've lowered my expectations - of myself.
So for the few - we happy few - who used to congregate here on occasion, hopefully I can find the time and the mental energy to post often enough, and interestingly enough, for you to find a reason to drop in now and again...
By last February I had fallen into the trap of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and discovered that I didn't have enough time to write lengthy, witty, provocative and original posts. Maybe I had been failing to achieve that all along, but it was at least my intention... Anyway, I let things slide and the next thing I knew this little project had fallen completely off my radar screen.
But the whole thing was supposed to be fun, and I found I mssed the fun part of it. So, I don't want to say I've lowered my standards, but I guess I could say I've lowered my expectations - of myself.
So for the few - we happy few - who used to congregate here on occasion, hopefully I can find the time and the mental energy to post often enough, and interestingly enough, for you to find a reason to drop in now and again...
06 February 2011
Remembering Reagan
Today is the 100th aniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth, an event which has prompted many retrospectives and reminiscences in the MSM and blogosphere alike.
I would date the beginning of my own real political awareness to Reagan's campaign and election in 1980. Nearly all of my high school teachers went out of their way to denigrate him and offer dire prophesies of the manifold ills that would befall us if he was elected. "Ronnie Ray-gun", they called him; "a dangerous cowboy" who "confuses his movies with reality". Some seemed sincerly and utterly convinced that he'd instantly provoke the nuclear armageddon which hed been hanging over our heads for all of our young lives. Full of the rebelliousness of youth, I wondered about the shock-value of professing to admire Reagan, how "bad" one might seem to ones right-thinking" (actually left-thinking!) elders!
But before long I discovered that there were some opinions contra the groupthink I'd encountered. Many of them were offered grudgingly, in a backhanded manner: "he's actually a pretty smart guy for an actor", "too bad he's not younger, he did a decent job as Governor of California", "anyone's got to be better than Carter", and "at least he'll have Nixon on speed-dial when he has to deal with the Russkies!".
My opinion of the man was alrerady beginning to change when I saw a clip on the news one night in 1980. "Controversy", the newscaster informed us, "at the Republican candidates' debate in New Hampshire". On-screen I watched the now-famous footage of a bespectacled moderator asking the sound man to turn Reagan's microphone off and a controlled but visibly angry Reagan's icy response: "Mr Green, I am PAYING for this microphone!" as the crowd erupted in cheers. Believe me, it made an impression on me, as it apparently did on many others. I think that brief incident did more to demolish the negative stereotypes held by many of the public who really knew nothing about Reagan other than what they'd seen in the movies and heard from the left-leaning media.
Many years later, I learned of another interesting incident which has only recently become slightly known (thanks to the Internet). In 1967, Governor Reagan and Senator Robert F. Kennedy were guests on a CBS program called "Town Meeting of the World" which featured a panel of students representing various nations who were given an opportunity to question Reagan and Kennedy on the hottest issue of the day, the Vietnam War. At the time Kennedy was regarded as a front-runner for the 1968 Democrat presidential nomination, the heir-apparent to the "Camelot Dynasty", while Reagan was something of a curiosity to many people, the actor-turned-politician who was a fledgling governor ("only in California") and presumed to be wholly ignorant of foreign policy.
A funny thing happened. Ronald Reagan made "Bobby" Kennedy look like a rank amateur. The "actor" parried every thrust from the hostile students, challenging their erroneous statements and presenting an alternative viewpoint to their generally anti-American rhetoric. With cool confidence he reeled-off facts and figures, and delivered cogent answers which demonstrated real mastery of the subject. By contrast Kennedy came off as weak and uncertain, seemingly trying to claim both sides of the issues, and spoke mainly in generalities.
Kennedy's assassination less than thirteen months later has enshrouded his memory in a mixture of legend and myth, and it is extremely difficult to locate any publicly-available footage of the show. A brief segment is available on Youtube which gives some of the flavor of the exchanges:
I would date the beginning of my own real political awareness to Reagan's campaign and election in 1980. Nearly all of my high school teachers went out of their way to denigrate him and offer dire prophesies of the manifold ills that would befall us if he was elected. "Ronnie Ray-gun", they called him; "a dangerous cowboy" who "confuses his movies with reality". Some seemed sincerly and utterly convinced that he'd instantly provoke the nuclear armageddon which hed been hanging over our heads for all of our young lives. Full of the rebelliousness of youth, I wondered about the shock-value of professing to admire Reagan, how "bad" one might seem to ones right-thinking" (actually left-thinking!) elders!
But before long I discovered that there were some opinions contra the groupthink I'd encountered. Many of them were offered grudgingly, in a backhanded manner: "he's actually a pretty smart guy for an actor", "too bad he's not younger, he did a decent job as Governor of California", "anyone's got to be better than Carter", and "at least he'll have Nixon on speed-dial when he has to deal with the Russkies!".
My opinion of the man was alrerady beginning to change when I saw a clip on the news one night in 1980. "Controversy", the newscaster informed us, "at the Republican candidates' debate in New Hampshire". On-screen I watched the now-famous footage of a bespectacled moderator asking the sound man to turn Reagan's microphone off and a controlled but visibly angry Reagan's icy response: "Mr Green, I am PAYING for this microphone!" as the crowd erupted in cheers. Believe me, it made an impression on me, as it apparently did on many others. I think that brief incident did more to demolish the negative stereotypes held by many of the public who really knew nothing about Reagan other than what they'd seen in the movies and heard from the left-leaning media.
Many years later, I learned of another interesting incident which has only recently become slightly known (thanks to the Internet). In 1967, Governor Reagan and Senator Robert F. Kennedy were guests on a CBS program called "Town Meeting of the World" which featured a panel of students representing various nations who were given an opportunity to question Reagan and Kennedy on the hottest issue of the day, the Vietnam War. At the time Kennedy was regarded as a front-runner for the 1968 Democrat presidential nomination, the heir-apparent to the "Camelot Dynasty", while Reagan was something of a curiosity to many people, the actor-turned-politician who was a fledgling governor ("only in California") and presumed to be wholly ignorant of foreign policy.
A funny thing happened. Ronald Reagan made "Bobby" Kennedy look like a rank amateur. The "actor" parried every thrust from the hostile students, challenging their erroneous statements and presenting an alternative viewpoint to their generally anti-American rhetoric. With cool confidence he reeled-off facts and figures, and delivered cogent answers which demonstrated real mastery of the subject. By contrast Kennedy came off as weak and uncertain, seemingly trying to claim both sides of the issues, and spoke mainly in generalities.
Kennedy's assassination less than thirteen months later has enshrouded his memory in a mixture of legend and myth, and it is extremely difficult to locate any publicly-available footage of the show. A brief segment is available on Youtube which gives some of the flavor of the exchanges:
Robert Kennedy excoriated the aide who agreed to the joint appearance with Reagan and vowed (in rather salty language) never to appear with him again.
There were plenty of defining moments during Reagan's presidency - four in particular that I hope to comment upon in a future post - but since the current post has gotten awfully long I'll conclude with one of my favrorite parodies of Reagan, from the days when Saturday Night Live was funny:
27 January 2011
Where are the bishops?
We have just returned from our annual midwinter sojourn to D.C. for the March for Life. Every year on (or about) the 22nd of January, pro-life Americans converge on the capitol to observe the anniversary of the lamentable decision by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.
The Archlady and I - and each of the five archscions as they've arrived on the scene - have been making he trip for nearly fifteen years. The March itself has been going on for thirty-eight years now. We assemble, rally, march, tie-up traffic, mill-around outside the Capitol and the Supreme Court, visit our Senators and Representatives, and then quietly return home to begin making plans for next year. The MSM barely deigns to acknowledge the March, much less provide any in-depth coverage or editorial examination of the serious issue at hand. They know they can get away with it because with each passing year, even as polls indicate Americans are growing more and more pro-life, abortion-on-demand becomes a more entrenched element of the status quo.
You see, nothing has changed. The immediate aftermath of Roe v. Wade was a time of raw emotion and righteous indignation that the Greatest Nation on Earth could grant legal protection to such a barbaric and immoral act. The Eighties were a time of hope and promise, with the election of President Reagan and the effort to pass the "Human Life Amendment". Alas, it failed, most of the activity since then has been in the direction of further broadening or at least codifying various abortion-related "rights".
Joseph Stalin famously said that "a single death is a tragedy, a million dead is a statistic". This seems to be the attitude of the media, who are able to work themselves into a well-lathered state of agitation about a single death, as long as it's the death of a "suspect" who initiated a gunfight with the police and lost, the long-delayed execution of a convicted criminal whose guilt is beyond questions, or a cute animal. Meanwhile the million-plus babies aborted each year are only a footnote, and afterthought, and certainly not someting that merits a mention in the nightly newscast or the morning paper.
Since 1973 the Catholic Bishops have leading the fight against abortion - sort of. It is of course the unambiguous teaching of the Church, to which all of the bishops are to give assent, that direct abortion for any reason is gravely sinful and can never be permitted. Many individual bishops have been staunch and visible leaders, the late Edward Cardinal O'Connor of New York comes to mind, but others seem to display a curious detachment from this issue. I find it particularly scandalous that each and every bishop is not on hand for the annual observances in Washington, D.C. each and every year. Sure, there will be a few who can't come for authentic reasons, but I really wonder whether the presence of the entire U.S. episcopate, in person or represented by a senior member of their local curia, would help us to extinguish this enduring holocaust even a little bit sooner.
Why cannot the bishops resolve to do this? It is not as though they don't know where Washington is, and none of them seems to have embraced poverty to such an extent that they are unwilling to fly - if only in coach! They certainly find their way to the Nation's Capitol when one of their pet political issues is being legislated, and of course the U.S.C.C.B. has its headquarters there. Speaking of this "sorry bench of bishops", as His Excellency Bishop Fabian Bruskewicz of Lincoln, Nebraska called them a few years ago, one wonders why they haven't done this. Here we are, in an era when far too many bishops abdicate their God-given rights and responsibilities to govern, teach, and sacntify their own flock in favor of some lowest-common-denominator "policy" of the U.S.C.C.B., whom they seems to regard as the supreme authority in the Church. How about having one of their annual meetings in D.C. during the week of the March? Would the MSM dare ignore the entire episcopate - cardinals in scarlet and bishops in purple - marching at the head of +200k citizens down one of the main throughfares of the Capitol? Perhaps they ask themselves, right now at least, "if this isn't important enough for ALL of the Catholic bishops to be there, why should we take any notice of it?"
Let me close by thanking all of those bishops who *do* come to the March every year, I didn't mean to imply that there were not many of them; my lament is that that even their witness is diminshed and diluted when so many of their brothers in the episcopate stay away.
The Archlady and I - and each of the five archscions as they've arrived on the scene - have been making he trip for nearly fifteen years. The March itself has been going on for thirty-eight years now. We assemble, rally, march, tie-up traffic, mill-around outside the Capitol and the Supreme Court, visit our Senators and Representatives, and then quietly return home to begin making plans for next year. The MSM barely deigns to acknowledge the March, much less provide any in-depth coverage or editorial examination of the serious issue at hand. They know they can get away with it because with each passing year, even as polls indicate Americans are growing more and more pro-life, abortion-on-demand becomes a more entrenched element of the status quo.
You see, nothing has changed. The immediate aftermath of Roe v. Wade was a time of raw emotion and righteous indignation that the Greatest Nation on Earth could grant legal protection to such a barbaric and immoral act. The Eighties were a time of hope and promise, with the election of President Reagan and the effort to pass the "Human Life Amendment". Alas, it failed, most of the activity since then has been in the direction of further broadening or at least codifying various abortion-related "rights".
Joseph Stalin famously said that "a single death is a tragedy, a million dead is a statistic". This seems to be the attitude of the media, who are able to work themselves into a well-lathered state of agitation about a single death, as long as it's the death of a "suspect" who initiated a gunfight with the police and lost, the long-delayed execution of a convicted criminal whose guilt is beyond questions, or a cute animal. Meanwhile the million-plus babies aborted each year are only a footnote, and afterthought, and certainly not someting that merits a mention in the nightly newscast or the morning paper.
Since 1973 the Catholic Bishops have leading the fight against abortion - sort of. It is of course the unambiguous teaching of the Church, to which all of the bishops are to give assent, that direct abortion for any reason is gravely sinful and can never be permitted. Many individual bishops have been staunch and visible leaders, the late Edward Cardinal O'Connor of New York comes to mind, but others seem to display a curious detachment from this issue. I find it particularly scandalous that each and every bishop is not on hand for the annual observances in Washington, D.C. each and every year. Sure, there will be a few who can't come for authentic reasons, but I really wonder whether the presence of the entire U.S. episcopate, in person or represented by a senior member of their local curia, would help us to extinguish this enduring holocaust even a little bit sooner.
Why cannot the bishops resolve to do this? It is not as though they don't know where Washington is, and none of them seems to have embraced poverty to such an extent that they are unwilling to fly - if only in coach! They certainly find their way to the Nation's Capitol when one of their pet political issues is being legislated, and of course the U.S.C.C.B. has its headquarters there. Speaking of this "sorry bench of bishops", as His Excellency Bishop Fabian Bruskewicz of Lincoln, Nebraska called them a few years ago, one wonders why they haven't done this. Here we are, in an era when far too many bishops abdicate their God-given rights and responsibilities to govern, teach, and sacntify their own flock in favor of some lowest-common-denominator "policy" of the U.S.C.C.B., whom they seems to regard as the supreme authority in the Church. How about having one of their annual meetings in D.C. during the week of the March? Would the MSM dare ignore the entire episcopate - cardinals in scarlet and bishops in purple - marching at the head of +200k citizens down one of the main throughfares of the Capitol? Perhaps they ask themselves, right now at least, "if this isn't important enough for ALL of the Catholic bishops to be there, why should we take any notice of it?"
Let me close by thanking all of those bishops who *do* come to the March every year, I didn't mean to imply that there were not many of them; my lament is that that even their witness is diminshed and diluted when so many of their brothers in the episcopate stay away.
13 January 2011
Another Year Begins...
Wow - I didn't realize that it had been a whole month since I'd posted. With this sort of performance I'm liable to lose my readership - all six of them! Seriously, Merry Christmastide and Happy Hew Year!
it's been about a year since I started this little adventure and I'm wondering whether to wrap it up or continue a bit longer. It's not that I haven't got anything to say - perish the thought - but I have so little free time that I don't feel that I am able to do justice to the subjects which matter to me.
No, I'm not trolling for someone to beg me to keep blogging, just sharing what's on my mind. That's sort of the purpose of this whole enterprise. Anyway, I'm not one for "New Year's Resolutions" but if I'm going to continue I should "resolve" to post at least once a week to make it worthwhile. But it's not a "New Year's Resolution"!!!
OK, if you've read this far you deserve some content. So here goes:
1.) Tucson - MSM Frenzy - Obama's speech:
The events in Tucson were horrible, terrible, acts. Acts of a deranged individual who actually wasn't a charter member of the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy", the hyperventilations of the left and the MSM notwithstanding. It is a lamentable shame that some leftist politicians and their allies in the MSM have sought to gain political advantage from it. Fortunately the American people seem to be seeing through it. The "alternative media" of the blogosphere has much to do with that. The President gave easily the best speech of his term, probably his best since his single previous lifetime achievement, the speech at the 2004 Democrat Convention which nominated J.F. "Reporting-for-Duty" Kerry.
2.) Palin and Mania (not Palin-mania!):
It's astounding to me how the same folks in the MSM who've vilified Governor Palin in the most personal manner have been trying to claim the moral high ground in attempting to blame her for "inciting" the Tucson shooter. Her response was quite good, but she shouldn't have had to make it. Undoubtedly she'll be further pilloried for bothering to respond, at least one leftist pundit was castigating her on the air yesterday for "politicizing" the shootings What is perhaps the most amazing is how commentators who otherwise strive to be taken seriously completely lose it at the mere mention of Mrs. Palin's name. Personally I like her style but I question whether she's the right candidate for the G.O.P. in 2012, however I'd certainly vote for her if only to stick a finger in the eye of the MSM. Which leads us to an interesting question:
3.) Obama and Palin (no Tucson):
According to their political opponents neither of them had sufficient experience to be president or vice president (repsectively). Each has celebrity "star power" but they've both proven to be polarizing figures. Has anyone else wondered whether things would be better or worse had the other become president? Let's say McCain had been elected, pulled a "Harrison" (as in William Henry) and caught pneumonia during his inaugural address, and passed from this vale of tears in short order. As of 1 February 2009 we'd have had an inexperienced, untested president thoroughly distrusted by the opposing party. OK, that happened anyway. But could things have been worse? Or would they have been better? I believe that three positive things would have happened: first, we wouldn't now have the albatross of "Obamacare" around our national neck, secondly the business community wouldn't have had to endure two years of uncertainty as to what direction the gevernment would take to try to influence the economy; and thirdly there would have been a real public debate about the judicial philosphies of type of justices nominated to the Sopreme Court (and neither of them would have been Sotomayer or Kagan!)
4.) Double-standard for quarterbacks?
Just thinking about the recent and not-so-recent travails of a couple of NFL QBs from the Deep South. What if their trangressions - or their skin color - were reversed? What if Brett Favre had been guilty of dogfighting and killing dogs, would he have been jailed? Would he have even been suspended? And what if Michael Vick had been guilty of "sexting" pictures of his nether regions to a female sports reporter? How quickly would he have been suspended? And for how long? You know I'm not a grievance-monger but I couldn't help contrasting these two cases and wondering. Sports is a great meritocracy, and there is probably less racism on the field and at the contract table than in any other sphere of American life. And we've made enormous progress since the 1960's, to the point where most accusations of racism in today's world would be laughable to our forebears. But again, I look at these two cases and wonder...
it's been about a year since I started this little adventure and I'm wondering whether to wrap it up or continue a bit longer. It's not that I haven't got anything to say - perish the thought - but I have so little free time that I don't feel that I am able to do justice to the subjects which matter to me.
No, I'm not trolling for someone to beg me to keep blogging, just sharing what's on my mind. That's sort of the purpose of this whole enterprise. Anyway, I'm not one for "New Year's Resolutions" but if I'm going to continue I should "resolve" to post at least once a week to make it worthwhile. But it's not a "New Year's Resolution"!!!
OK, if you've read this far you deserve some content. So here goes:
1.) Tucson - MSM Frenzy - Obama's speech:
The events in Tucson were horrible, terrible, acts. Acts of a deranged individual who actually wasn't a charter member of the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy", the hyperventilations of the left and the MSM notwithstanding. It is a lamentable shame that some leftist politicians and their allies in the MSM have sought to gain political advantage from it. Fortunately the American people seem to be seeing through it. The "alternative media" of the blogosphere has much to do with that. The President gave easily the best speech of his term, probably his best since his single previous lifetime achievement, the speech at the 2004 Democrat Convention which nominated J.F. "Reporting-for-Duty" Kerry.
2.) Palin and Mania (not Palin-mania!):
It's astounding to me how the same folks in the MSM who've vilified Governor Palin in the most personal manner have been trying to claim the moral high ground in attempting to blame her for "inciting" the Tucson shooter. Her response was quite good, but she shouldn't have had to make it. Undoubtedly she'll be further pilloried for bothering to respond, at least one leftist pundit was castigating her on the air yesterday for "politicizing" the shootings What is perhaps the most amazing is how commentators who otherwise strive to be taken seriously completely lose it at the mere mention of Mrs. Palin's name. Personally I like her style but I question whether she's the right candidate for the G.O.P. in 2012, however I'd certainly vote for her if only to stick a finger in the eye of the MSM. Which leads us to an interesting question:
3.) Obama and Palin (no Tucson):
According to their political opponents neither of them had sufficient experience to be president or vice president (repsectively). Each has celebrity "star power" but they've both proven to be polarizing figures. Has anyone else wondered whether things would be better or worse had the other become president? Let's say McCain had been elected, pulled a "Harrison" (as in William Henry) and caught pneumonia during his inaugural address, and passed from this vale of tears in short order. As of 1 February 2009 we'd have had an inexperienced, untested president thoroughly distrusted by the opposing party. OK, that happened anyway. But could things have been worse? Or would they have been better? I believe that three positive things would have happened: first, we wouldn't now have the albatross of "Obamacare" around our national neck, secondly the business community wouldn't have had to endure two years of uncertainty as to what direction the gevernment would take to try to influence the economy; and thirdly there would have been a real public debate about the judicial philosphies of type of justices nominated to the Sopreme Court (and neither of them would have been Sotomayer or Kagan!)
4.) Double-standard for quarterbacks?
Just thinking about the recent and not-so-recent travails of a couple of NFL QBs from the Deep South. What if their trangressions - or their skin color - were reversed? What if Brett Favre had been guilty of dogfighting and killing dogs, would he have been jailed? Would he have even been suspended? And what if Michael Vick had been guilty of "sexting" pictures of his nether regions to a female sports reporter? How quickly would he have been suspended? And for how long? You know I'm not a grievance-monger but I couldn't help contrasting these two cases and wondering. Sports is a great meritocracy, and there is probably less racism on the field and at the contract table than in any other sphere of American life. And we've made enormous progress since the 1960's, to the point where most accusations of racism in today's world would be laughable to our forebears. But again, I look at these two cases and wonder...
10 December 2010
Worth 1,000 10,000 words...
Nothing I can say would add to the eloquence of this:
I can only hope that America's REAL enemies - not the "enemies" of those who seek blanket amnesty or the "hostage-takers" who fail to express sufficient enthusiasm for The Messiah's last-minute plan to retain the Bush-era tax rates, but those nations and political movements which wish America ill - don't view this image the same way I do...
God Bless America, now more than ever. Stand beside her, and guide her, through the night with the light from above. This is one dark night we're going through right now.
I can only hope that America's REAL enemies - not the "enemies" of those who seek blanket amnesty or the "hostage-takers" who fail to express sufficient enthusiasm for The Messiah's last-minute plan to retain the Bush-era tax rates, but those nations and political movements which wish America ill - don't view this image the same way I do...
God Bless America, now more than ever. Stand beside her, and guide her, through the night with the light from above. This is one dark night we're going through right now.
04 December 2010
Christmas comes early for Red Sox Nation
I really can't believe that the Sox acquired Adrian Gonzales - their hearts' desire - from San Diego for three prospects. This is huge, a bona fide 3 or 4 hitter who's not yet thirty and had averaged over 30 homers and 100 RBI playing half his games in the spacious and pither-friendly Petco Park.
Of course they traded their two best prospects, Kelly and Rizzo, and Fuentes has to be in their top ten. And, rumor has it, there will also be a PTBNL heading San Diego's way. But still, it looks like a real steal from where I sit. Gonzales is virtually an identical player to Mark Teixeira, who the Sox ardently wooed before he signed with the Evil Empire in Gotham. Tex is a switch-hitter and his numbers are slightly better, but he's played in better lineups and MUCH more hitter-friendly parks for the past five seasons. But AG may be an even better fielder, which is no small feat; at least he seems to have superior range although that is hardly the most important attribute for a first baseman.
Of course, the reason AG was available is that he will be a free agent after 2011 and he's looking for a contract comparable to the one the Yankees gave Tex. I have little doubt that the Sox will pony up, probably before the weekend is over. They want this guy - they need this guy - Theo Epstein has been dreaming and scheming how to get this guy - and they're not going to let him slip away over a measly difference of ten or twenty millions of dollars.
Meanhile they're not done - they could still re-sign Adrian Beltre if they were intent on leading the league in Adrians, and there is some speculation that they might do so with an eye toward moving Youk temporarily to left field - egad! Sort of a Yaz-in reverse - everyone remembers that Yaz was a superlative left fielder who became an decent first baseman, but not so many remember (and those of us who do would prefer to forget) his monthlong stint at third at the end of the '73 season, after he volunteered to fill-in for the injured Rico Petrocelli.
Youk is a decent third baseman who has made himself into a superlative first baseman but whose brief stints in left field were reminiscent of Yastrzemski's efforts at the hot corner. Really gives one some appreciation for guys like Steve Lyons, Tony Phillips, Ben Zobrist, et al; who the manager can plug-in just about anywhere knowng that they won't embarrass themselves or the team. But I digress.
I'm still a little woried about the catching situation - in Salty we trust, and let's hope they keep a good supply of Geritol onhand for Tek - and they need some major help in the bullpen, but this one move does a ton to solidify the batting order for 2011 and many years to come.
Can't wait for Spring Training!
Of course they traded their two best prospects, Kelly and Rizzo, and Fuentes has to be in their top ten. And, rumor has it, there will also be a PTBNL heading San Diego's way. But still, it looks like a real steal from where I sit. Gonzales is virtually an identical player to Mark Teixeira, who the Sox ardently wooed before he signed with the Evil Empire in Gotham. Tex is a switch-hitter and his numbers are slightly better, but he's played in better lineups and MUCH more hitter-friendly parks for the past five seasons. But AG may be an even better fielder, which is no small feat; at least he seems to have superior range although that is hardly the most important attribute for a first baseman.
Of course, the reason AG was available is that he will be a free agent after 2011 and he's looking for a contract comparable to the one the Yankees gave Tex. I have little doubt that the Sox will pony up, probably before the weekend is over. They want this guy - they need this guy - Theo Epstein has been dreaming and scheming how to get this guy - and they're not going to let him slip away over a measly difference of ten or twenty millions of dollars.
Meanhile they're not done - they could still re-sign Adrian Beltre if they were intent on leading the league in Adrians, and there is some speculation that they might do so with an eye toward moving Youk temporarily to left field - egad! Sort of a Yaz-in reverse - everyone remembers that Yaz was a superlative left fielder who became an decent first baseman, but not so many remember (and those of us who do would prefer to forget) his monthlong stint at third at the end of the '73 season, after he volunteered to fill-in for the injured Rico Petrocelli.
Youk is a decent third baseman who has made himself into a superlative first baseman but whose brief stints in left field were reminiscent of Yastrzemski's efforts at the hot corner. Really gives one some appreciation for guys like Steve Lyons, Tony Phillips, Ben Zobrist, et al; who the manager can plug-in just about anywhere knowng that they won't embarrass themselves or the team. But I digress.
I'm still a little woried about the catching situation - in Salty we trust, and let's hope they keep a good supply of Geritol onhand for Tek - and they need some major help in the bullpen, but this one move does a ton to solidify the batting order for 2011 and many years to come.
Can't wait for Spring Training!
01 December 2010
More Catholic Eye Candy
Amongst the new cardinals created at the recent consistory was the Archbishop of Columbo in Sri Lanka, H. E. Malcolm Ranjith. Some of you might remember Archbishop Ranjith from his time as the secretary for the Congregation for Divine Worship and his high-profile support of liturgical sanity and tradition. It is well-known that he shares Pope Benedict XVI's vision for the Church and enjoys the Pope's confidence. Many think he will be papabile at the next conclave...
Meanwhile I got quite the kick out of some of the photos from the homecoming festivities for the new cardinal. These people know how to be joyous in their faith, no over-scrupulous quaverings about "triumphalism". Of course Catholics - all Christians, actually - comprise less than a tenth of the population of Sri Lanka which makes me wonder what kind of relationship they have with the Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists of that land. Must be fairly good, nobody seems to have objected to the Galeromobile being driven down the thoroughfares of their fair city.
Pretty cool if you ask me - I challenge the Archdiocese of Braintree to rig up something like this next time we get a new Cardinal!
(For more photos of Cardinal Ranjith's joyous homecoming go here)
Meanwhile I got quite the kick out of some of the photos from the homecoming festivities for the new cardinal. These people know how to be joyous in their faith, no over-scrupulous quaverings about "triumphalism". Of course Catholics - all Christians, actually - comprise less than a tenth of the population of Sri Lanka which makes me wonder what kind of relationship they have with the Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists of that land. Must be fairly good, nobody seems to have objected to the Galeromobile being driven down the thoroughfares of their fair city.
Pretty cool if you ask me - I challenge the Archdiocese of Braintree to rig up something like this next time we get a new Cardinal!
(For more photos of Cardinal Ranjith's joyous homecoming go here)
20 November 2010
In which we finally DO complain...
The recent groundswell of dissatisfaction with the intrusive airport security measures visited upon ordinary Americans bade me to wonder what the late William F. Buckley, Jr. would have thought of it all. Many years ago Buckley wrote an essay entitled "Why Don't We Complain?" in which he lamented the apathy with which most Americans supinely accept the ever-increasing incursions upon their freedom and autonomy by the government.
It would, of course, have been seen as quite impolitic had Buckley publicly expressed his chagrin at any of the enhanced security measures which were hastily enacted in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. But with the benefit of nine years experience and hindsight it is readily apparent that the basic approach to airport security, in which everyone is treates as equally suspicious, is simply the gesture of a bloated government which lacks the will to put your safety ahead of the totem of political correctness.
Any measure of security requires us to relinquish some of our personal liberty. In many cases that's a fully acceptable trade-off; I am quite content to be disallowed to stroll blithely into the Pentagon carrying a concealed weapon because the odds are quite overwhelming that someone less trustworthy than little ol' me could try the same thing with malicious intent and purpose. But the requirement that each and every passenger - even a nun in her habit, an infant, a grandmother in a wheelchair - all must submit to a full body scan or an invasive patdown - either of which is a gross affront to modesty - is sheer politically correct cowardice, required because the government is afraid to admit the truth.
We need only look at the practices which Israeil uses to see that these invasive measures need not be applied to every man, woman, and child that attempts to board an airplane. The elephant in the room is "profiling", which we durst not even consider. But every single attempted act of terrorism using airplanes against the United States has been perpetrated by indivduals who fit a certain "profile" - and I'm not speaking only of appearance or national origin. Israel has lived under a constant threat from the same enemies who have now begun to target America and it has successfully protected it's air travelers through the use of intelligent screening and... "profiling"!
Perhaps enough finally is enough. The Tea Party movement, which is a true grassroots American phenomenon, grew out of Americans' frustration at the erosion of their liberties at the hands of an ever-more intrusive and overreaching government. I think the recent spate of airport security incidents is a manifestation of the same sort, representing a further awakening by Americans to the dangers posed by our government's aproach to governing. William F. Buckley would no doubt be pleased by this turn of events and might note that we've finally started to complain!
Ironically, even after the results of the recent election and the MSM's coverage of the airport security controversy, the Obama administration still doesn't seem to get it. We heard this week that Secretary of "Homeland Security" Janet Napolitano is considering a waiver of the intrusive screening requirements for... whom? Nuns? Infants? Grandmothers in wheelchairs? Nope, Muslim women! You can't make this stuff up, as another Buckley - WFB's son Christopher, a novelist - has said: we're living in the post-satirical age!
But don't get me wrong, I'm fine with excluding Muslim women - and Catholic women, and Jewish women, and protestant women, and Mormon women, and Buddhist women, and lots of other women - and men - too. 99% of the traveling public ought to be able to answer a few questions from a screener, keep our shoes on, pass our carry-on baggage through an x-ray machine, and walk through a metal detector. But we ought to adopt some common-sense "profiling" of passengers which would reserve these extraordinary screening methods for those indivuduals whose circumstances raise reasonable suspicions about their trustworthiness. Even The Boston Daily Worker (a.k.a. The Globe) permitted publication of an op-ed piece recognizing this as long ago as 2006, but of course this isn't really the paper's editorial stance. And the majority of the left, in particular the A.C.L.U., vehemently opposes any such practices.
So - keep complaining, America; but in the meantime prepare to be exposed, humiliated, and groped. Unless you're wearing a hijab and burkha, in which case you will probably sail through airport security with nary a touch...
UPDATE: lest anyone think I plagiarized George Will's column in Sunday's Washington Post, be assured that I didn't read it until several hours after posting the above. But do read it yourselves, he has some good things to say - including the pithy description of the airport screening charade as "security theater"! Pitch perfect!
It would, of course, have been seen as quite impolitic had Buckley publicly expressed his chagrin at any of the enhanced security measures which were hastily enacted in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. But with the benefit of nine years experience and hindsight it is readily apparent that the basic approach to airport security, in which everyone is treates as equally suspicious, is simply the gesture of a bloated government which lacks the will to put your safety ahead of the totem of political correctness.
Any measure of security requires us to relinquish some of our personal liberty. In many cases that's a fully acceptable trade-off; I am quite content to be disallowed to stroll blithely into the Pentagon carrying a concealed weapon because the odds are quite overwhelming that someone less trustworthy than little ol' me could try the same thing with malicious intent and purpose. But the requirement that each and every passenger - even a nun in her habit, an infant, a grandmother in a wheelchair - all must submit to a full body scan or an invasive patdown - either of which is a gross affront to modesty - is sheer politically correct cowardice, required because the government is afraid to admit the truth.
We need only look at the practices which Israeil uses to see that these invasive measures need not be applied to every man, woman, and child that attempts to board an airplane. The elephant in the room is "profiling", which we durst not even consider. But every single attempted act of terrorism using airplanes against the United States has been perpetrated by indivduals who fit a certain "profile" - and I'm not speaking only of appearance or national origin. Israel has lived under a constant threat from the same enemies who have now begun to target America and it has successfully protected it's air travelers through the use of intelligent screening and... "profiling"!
Perhaps enough finally is enough. The Tea Party movement, which is a true grassroots American phenomenon, grew out of Americans' frustration at the erosion of their liberties at the hands of an ever-more intrusive and overreaching government. I think the recent spate of airport security incidents is a manifestation of the same sort, representing a further awakening by Americans to the dangers posed by our government's aproach to governing. William F. Buckley would no doubt be pleased by this turn of events and might note that we've finally started to complain!
Ironically, even after the results of the recent election and the MSM's coverage of the airport security controversy, the Obama administration still doesn't seem to get it. We heard this week that Secretary of "Homeland Security" Janet Napolitano is considering a waiver of the intrusive screening requirements for... whom? Nuns? Infants? Grandmothers in wheelchairs? Nope, Muslim women! You can't make this stuff up, as another Buckley - WFB's son Christopher, a novelist - has said: we're living in the post-satirical age!
But don't get me wrong, I'm fine with excluding Muslim women - and Catholic women, and Jewish women, and protestant women, and Mormon women, and Buddhist women, and lots of other women - and men - too. 99% of the traveling public ought to be able to answer a few questions from a screener, keep our shoes on, pass our carry-on baggage through an x-ray machine, and walk through a metal detector. But we ought to adopt some common-sense "profiling" of passengers which would reserve these extraordinary screening methods for those indivuduals whose circumstances raise reasonable suspicions about their trustworthiness. Even The Boston Daily Worker (a.k.a. The Globe) permitted publication of an op-ed piece recognizing this as long ago as 2006, but of course this isn't really the paper's editorial stance. And the majority of the left, in particular the A.C.L.U., vehemently opposes any such practices.
So - keep complaining, America; but in the meantime prepare to be exposed, humiliated, and groped. Unless you're wearing a hijab and burkha, in which case you will probably sail through airport security with nary a touch...
UPDATE: lest anyone think I plagiarized George Will's column in Sunday's Washington Post, be assured that I didn't read it until several hours after posting the above. But do read it yourselves, he has some good things to say - including the pithy description of the airport screening charade as "security theater"! Pitch perfect!
18 November 2010
This is what you get...
...when you vote for radical leftists.
Two news stories this week reminded me of this fact. Here in the People's Republic, a mere 48% of the electorate voted for our benighted governor Deval Patrick. Unfortunately, there were four candidates, and the second-place finisher got 42%. This, to our fearless leader, apparently constitutes a mandate so overwhelming that he can blithely resume his long-held quest to enact a "right" for illegal aliens to pay the in-state tuition rate at state colleges and universities!
Mind you, the children of a member of our armed services living in Massachusetts on active duty does not quality as a "resident" able to receive such a benefit. Nor does someone who lives in a bordering state but who is employed in Massachusetts and pays taxes here. Soldiers and the gainfully-employed are not big priorities for the likes of Deval Patrick.
As for his messianic doppelganger, we got a painful reminder about him this week as well when the civilian trial of an Islamic terrorist almost resulted in his - the terrorist's - aquittal. B.H. Obama had insisted that the best way to try captured terrorists was in civilian courts - as opposed to military tribunals - and the the trial of Ahmen Ghailani was intended to be a rehearsal for the BIG ONE, the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad.
Well, as you're probably aware the rules of evidence are a *little* bit different in our criminal courts than they are in a wartime military tribunal. Nothing wrong with that. But the result in this case was the indubitably guilty Ghailani being acquitted of 284 of 285 charges.
Of course there are none so blind as those who will not see. We elected an inexperienced, radical young leftist as president of the most powerful nation on earth, thus we ought not be surprised that he has surrounded himself with the likes of Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano, who are (not surprisingly) in full agreement with him that trying war criminals in the civilan court system is a good idea.
If this is what Massachusetts - and America - want, so be it. But count me out. Barely six years ago a few leftist celebrities were vowing to leave America if G. W. Bush was re-elected. To my knowledge none did. But right about now Canada is looking better and better to me...
Two news stories this week reminded me of this fact. Here in the People's Republic, a mere 48% of the electorate voted for our benighted governor Deval Patrick. Unfortunately, there were four candidates, and the second-place finisher got 42%. This, to our fearless leader, apparently constitutes a mandate so overwhelming that he can blithely resume his long-held quest to enact a "right" for illegal aliens to pay the in-state tuition rate at state colleges and universities!
Mind you, the children of a member of our armed services living in Massachusetts on active duty does not quality as a "resident" able to receive such a benefit. Nor does someone who lives in a bordering state but who is employed in Massachusetts and pays taxes here. Soldiers and the gainfully-employed are not big priorities for the likes of Deval Patrick.
As for his messianic doppelganger, we got a painful reminder about him this week as well when the civilian trial of an Islamic terrorist almost resulted in his - the terrorist's - aquittal. B.H. Obama had insisted that the best way to try captured terrorists was in civilian courts - as opposed to military tribunals - and the the trial of Ahmen Ghailani was intended to be a rehearsal for the BIG ONE, the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad.
Well, as you're probably aware the rules of evidence are a *little* bit different in our criminal courts than they are in a wartime military tribunal. Nothing wrong with that. But the result in this case was the indubitably guilty Ghailani being acquitted of 284 of 285 charges.
Of course there are none so blind as those who will not see. We elected an inexperienced, radical young leftist as president of the most powerful nation on earth, thus we ought not be surprised that he has surrounded himself with the likes of Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano, who are (not surprisingly) in full agreement with him that trying war criminals in the civilan court system is a good idea.
If this is what Massachusetts - and America - want, so be it. But count me out. Barely six years ago a few leftist celebrities were vowing to leave America if G. W. Bush was re-elected. To my knowledge none did. But right about now Canada is looking better and better to me...
12 November 2010
More Incense, Less Nonsense!
One of the better Botafumeiro videos out there. The Pope. The Botafumeiro. Filmed with a real camera, not someone's phone. Alas it lacks the dramatic nature of the one - somewhere on youtube.com - in which the combination of an overmatched camera, some fortuitous glare, and a full load of incense make the thing look like a glowing meteor streaking across the transepts with a full tail of smoke. (Indeed, watching Benedict's stinginess with the incense I wondered if Spain had their own version of OSHA, but of course OSHA wouldn't allow any such thing unless everyone in the workplace, er, cathedral had hardhats... at least) But this one is much clearer and there are some unique perspectives, also the sound is decent; you can actually hear the words of the Himno al Apostol Santiago...
Don't misunderstand me - I *know* stuff like this is pretty much inessential to eternal salvation. But Catholic worship has always been distinctively sensuous and there's nothing wrong with doing things on an outsized scale in church - we're there to worship the God if infinite power and majesty after all. And for the past 45 years the liturgical "experts" have been introducing an endless stream of novelties in an effort to make the liturgy more "relevant" and "interesting" while eliminating the notions of power and majesty.
Bah! This is no novelty, no meaningless liturgical entertainment. They've been doing it for at least ten centuries. They had to, to relieve the interesting odors presented by hundreds of pilgrims camping inside the Cathedral! And for goodness sake, the thing had already been in use for a few hundred years when Catherine of Aragon - you may remember her - stopped by in 1499 on the way to England to marry the heir to the British throne. During her visit, the Botafumeiro parted company with its rope and crashed through a window in one of the transepts. Maybe she should have taken it as an omen and gone back home...
But anyway, this is an ancient tradition, beloved of Compostelians and pilgrims alike, and so what if it happens to be a little bit over-the-top? When in doubt as to the suitability of a particular liturgical element you can almost always make a proper judgment by asking three questions:
1.) Was it introduced for an actual reason, or as an experiment/novelty for the sake of "change"?
2.) Did it precede the Council (of Trent!)?
3.) What would Bugnini have thought of it?
I rest my case.
(n.b. get your minds out of the gutter, I said "sensuous", not "sensual"!)
Don't misunderstand me - I *know* stuff like this is pretty much inessential to eternal salvation. But Catholic worship has always been distinctively sensuous and there's nothing wrong with doing things on an outsized scale in church - we're there to worship the God if infinite power and majesty after all. And for the past 45 years the liturgical "experts" have been introducing an endless stream of novelties in an effort to make the liturgy more "relevant" and "interesting" while eliminating the notions of power and majesty.
Bah! This is no novelty, no meaningless liturgical entertainment. They've been doing it for at least ten centuries. They had to, to relieve the interesting odors presented by hundreds of pilgrims camping inside the Cathedral! And for goodness sake, the thing had already been in use for a few hundred years when Catherine of Aragon - you may remember her - stopped by in 1499 on the way to England to marry the heir to the British throne. During her visit, the Botafumeiro parted company with its rope and crashed through a window in one of the transepts. Maybe she should have taken it as an omen and gone back home...
But anyway, this is an ancient tradition, beloved of Compostelians and pilgrims alike, and so what if it happens to be a little bit over-the-top? When in doubt as to the suitability of a particular liturgical element you can almost always make a proper judgment by asking three questions:
1.) Was it introduced for an actual reason, or as an experiment/novelty for the sake of "change"?
2.) Did it precede the Council (of Trent!)?
3.) What would Bugnini have thought of it?
I rest my case.
(n.b. get your minds out of the gutter, I said "sensuous", not "sensual"!)
11 November 2010
Thanks!
On Veterans' Day I'd like to thank all whose selfless service has helped to preserve our freedoms and way of life in the greatest nation ever.
I'd like to personally thank +Uncle Don (WW2 + Korea), +Uncle Bill (WW2), Uncle Bob, Uncle Paul, George, Frankie, Joe, Eddie, Tom, Nathan, Dave, Ulysses, Mariel, and Jesse among others.
God bless you, and God bless America.
I'd like to personally thank +Uncle Don (WW2 + Korea), +Uncle Bill (WW2), Uncle Bob, Uncle Paul, George, Frankie, Joe, Eddie, Tom, Nathan, Dave, Ulysses, Mariel, and Jesse among others.
God bless you, and God bless America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)