America's last World War I veteran has died

Rest in peace Frank Buckles, America's last WWI veteran.  The passing of more than just Mr. Buckles, but also an era.  A time of America's ascent has given its last representative to the period of America's descent.  May a hundred years from now see that we were able to turn things around and claim, once again, the potential for a country founded on the lofty goals of freedom, liberty, and equality. 

Live Action, Lying, and the land of a thousand blogs

You would think that until the debate sprung up across the blogosphere in reaction to Lila Rose and Live Action's sting operation against Planned Parenthood, I wouldn't have known lying is wrong.  I certainly didn't realize that the Catholic Church condemns all falsehoods, including but not limited to, espionage, spying, undercover police work, law enforcement sting operations, and undercover investigative journalism.  It must be true.  Folks on the Internet have made it clear: There is only one obvious take on the question.  Some suggested that those, like Peter Kreeft, whoonce may  have been a respectable Catholic professor of philosophy, are now in the muck and mire of heretical thought for not conceding this clear point.  Obviously Christians who lied while they hid Jews during WWII were sinning, too.  Corrie ten Boom, I was informed during a discussion, was just a sinner who screwed things up and is loathed by many for having caused the deaths of so many innocent people by way of her sinful falsehoods.  As did all who dared sin the great sin in their incompetency. 

Now, the thing I've come away with during all of this?  Beware the Catholic blogosphere, the posts that bite, the comments that snatch.  It is, for the most part, amateur apologists with little to no actual theological training.  Those who do have it, more often than not have no real ministerial experience behind it.  For instance, Dawn Eden, whose article, written with William Doino, Jr., was among the first to take attention off of Planned Parenthood and place it firmly on Lila Rose, has a degree in theology.  She just earned it.  A former rock groupie journalist who converted to Catholicism in recent years, now has a degree.  By that logic, this former Protestant minister who converted to Catholicism and spends the next two years getting a business degree, can then go up and down main street telling all of the business owners how badly they are screwing things up.   I don't mean to dis Dawn, or anyone for that matter.  I'm sure they're fine Catholics and great people.  But it's not for nothing that Paul warns those who are new converts to be slow in throwing their hats in the overseer ring.  If ministery teaches you anything, it's that you can be right and still end up being wrong, in more ways than one.

Am I saying there is no debate here?  No. It is an old debate that has been passionately argued for ages: is any lie or falsehood not only always wrong, but so bad that it's worth risking your own life and the possible lives of innocents in order to avoid the telling?  Or is there a principle involved?  Does this fall under the heading of 'the Sabbath of made for man, not man for the Sabbath'?  Good Christians of good faith have had radically different opinions.

The problem is, this became fodder for the Internet, a forum where people react and act in ways they never would to someone sitting next to them, looking them in the face.  Thus both sides hurled the insults, the accusations, the judgements.  The side that insisted on the sinfulness of lying looked like nothing so much as a KJV only fundamentalist Baptist preacher.  Fans of various bloggers rushed to their defense, insisting that all of those other folks who are obviously wrong are NOT the Magisterium - missing the clear fact that those bloggers they are fans of are not the Magisterium either.

And in it all, a possibly horrendous act on the part of an already dubious institution has more or less gotten off free.  The discussion was used to split, once more, the Catholic ranks.  A pro-life organisation that was filled with young people passionate about defending the unborn was not gently reminded to walk closer to the truth, but was used as a case study for the evils of lying by folks who I can't help but guess have probably told a lie or two in their lives, and for reasons far less noble.

But then, the Internet tends to breed a certain fundamentalist attitude.  Bloggers, many of whom are so because they are talented writers, have the craft and ability to make powerful cases.  They attract followers and fans who quickly circle the wagons and dare any would be critics to beware.  And if the heat gets too bad, if a person plows forth with disagreements and hits too close to home?  Well, that's where the handy 'delete' button on the blog kicks in.

Altogether, a reminder.  The Internet is not the Vatican.  Catholic bloggers, no matter how talented, insightful, Christ loving, and faithful, are NOT the Magisterium.  Some of them are wonderful.  Some have insights and understanding of the Faith that would put a theology professor to shame.  But they still are not coequal with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  And the Catholic blogosphere is not some denomination of exclusive Truth within Sacred Tradition.  So when we do step forward to guide and lead people to truth, we should do it like Catholics, not like the average Protestant fundamentalist caricature.  It wasn't to hear Himself talk that Jesus, in telling us to be innocent as doves, also told us to be shrewd as serpents.  And in this little train wreck of a discussion, many may feel they have truly achieved the 'innocent as doves' portion of the charge, but I can't help but feel it was done at the expense of the 'shrewd as serpents' clause.

Coptic Monasteries under attack in Egypt

You wouldn't know it if your world view is shaped by the MSM.  Terry Mattingly over at Get Religion asks if anyone has seen mainstream coverage of this.  I sure haven't.  But then, it is early Monday morning.  It's not like this is the Oscars or something.  It's Christian monastic communities being attacked by Egyptian soldiers.  Best part of Mattingly's article:

"As always, however, it’s crucial to remember that there is no one Islam in this scene"

Fact is, there is never no one of anything in any scene, despite all attempts to suggest otherwise.  Since 9/11, we have tried, tried, and tried again to frame Islam into two groups: poor, starving terrorists who hate us because we made them do it, and the rest of Islam that is about tolerance, love, peace, and John Lennon songs. 

It is a shame that it takes stories like this to challenge that.  The good news is that the MSM, never quick to allow an inconvenient fact get in the way of a good narrative, will probably not make to much of this or similar stories. 

Fun note.  Read the comment by reader Jerry.  His beef?  Mattingly chose to focus on this story, instead of the stories about Muslims lending a helping hand to their Christian neighbors.  Tmatt's response makes it simple: We hear nothing other than how wonderful, tolerant, and welcoming Muslims are to their Christian neighbors.  It's those cases where Muslims are kicking down doors, blowing up churches, and shooting nuns that don't get the press time.  Now, if this were a Christian minister threatening to burn a Koran, then you can be the coverage would increase a hundredfold. 

Save Baby Joseph

A more heart wrenching story I've not heard of recent months, and that's been in a period of heart wrenching stories.  Brave young baby is fighting for life.  It doesn't look good.  Parents would like him to come home and be with the family. Canada, in following the footsteps of every great, post-Christian socialist society, has decided it knows how to define and handle what is and isn't valuable life.  Ordering Baby Joseph removed from his ventilator, he has been condemned to die.  In addition, he will not be allowed to go home with his family in keeping with the parents' wishes.  Typical.  Canada is, after all, keeping the faith of the post-liberal left that in all things sex, drugs, and vulgarities total freedom; everything else, including human life, right to religion, speech, and thought, will be controlled and suppressed by the government that gave you unfettered access to the aforementioned sex, drugs, and bathroom humor. 

 

You can go to Save Baby Joseph on facebook.  Do what you can.  Remember, before the Nazis were slaughtering Jews and other minorities by the millions, they were training Germans to believe that some life just isn't worth the keeping.  And we all know how that turned out.

Sam Harris dubunked

Which isn't hard to do.  Simple common sense derails most modern neo-atheists.  But over at the MoralMindfield, a PhD student has done a better job than many.  The best, and most obvious problem with Harris - to anyone who's read his works - is that he appeals to reason as the ultimate source of truth, and then plays on pure emotion, bigotry, anger, and other knee jerk feelings in his books to make the point.  The PhD student sums this problem up nicely:

"Emotional, arrogant, glib rhetoric.  Harris’s approach to writing is to make it amusing, readable, and emotional.  Harris almost always appeals to emotion, not reason, despite how much he doth protest.  He knows reason isn’t how people work.  People want something to hate and something to love.  All he has to do is find the loves that the reader already has, and then link them to his own point, and he has made his case.  Then he just links reader hatreds to his opposing positions and voila, he has made his case again.  And because we share a common cultural background he already knows what most people love and hate.  All he has to do is name-call over and over and produce anecdotes of bad religion and he has drawn the reader to his side.  After all, who wants to be on the same side as a bunch of irrational perverts?  Exactly.  This is in-group/out-group politics.  By setting himself up as the crusader against evil, Harris automatically attracts followers.  It is pathetic, in the classical Greek sense of evoking emotion, and certainly not rational.  It is a form of rhetorical persuasion to create political unity, not philosophy or science.  I will point out more of these as we go."

Read it all.  This fellow has done his homework.  And he makes sense despite his being one of those religious types that Harris and company so readily mock.

Meanwhile, things are beginning to slow down on the home front, and get back into some semblance of order.  That means there are only about a thousand things we have to worry about.  Of course, we will ever and always worry about my Dad, but that is something we have to live with at this point.  Hopefully, next week, I'll be back.  I hope folks will come back again.  Remember, add yourself to the Follower tab to the Left of the screen.  Tell others, invite them back, hijack a bus.  Do whatever.  I'll be back soon, and then we'll get things going again.  TTFN

A billboard that tells of an ugly truth about abortion

Has been removed.  Thank goodness Lamar Advertising stepped in and took care of that one.  For a minute there, I though people who didn't embrace liberal values had the right to display their beliefs.  Whew.  That was close.  Of course it has nothing to do with the controversy or the content. It's all about the obvious safety hazards that giant African American focused anti-abortion billboards can pose. 

Still busy

Just a note that I am still very busy trying to help my Mom and family get adjusted, and move things, and generally get settled in after placing my Dad in a nursing home.  Thanks for the prayers.  Will be back soon, maybe later this week, but likely next week.  Lot's of stuff happening.  Prayers for those in the Middle East, and in our own backyards who are struggling with financial woes.  Also a lot of wildfire in the Catholic blogs about Lila Rose and her sting operation against Planned Parenthood.  As usual, we pulled the pro-life bus off the side of the road and have insisted it's better to debate the morality of her sting action, thereby letting the fugitives escape as the MSM was able to quickly sweep the whole, sad episode under the carpet and turn out attention to Wisconsin, and not because of it's defeat of the Buckeyes.  Oh well.  We'll get into those things later.  For now, more prayers for those who need them most, and a few for us would be appreciated.

Johann Hari doesn't heart religion

This may come as a shock to those who don't read his work, but Johann Hari of the London Independent seems to dislike religion.  This article, this rant, reads like a 1950s anti-desegregation tract.  Or like any radical piece that says, basically, 'I hate those scum, they are responsible for the evil in the world, and it's damn time we do something about it.'  The great thing about the post-modern Left is how deliciously unaware of itself it is.  Of course, that's also the scary part, since most agencies and industries that might check its growth of power are more or less sympathetic to its causes.  The usual chorus of anti-religious Christophobes and Theophobes chime in.

Blogging will be light

For the next couple weeks.  We are making some big changes in our family as we prepare to move our Dad into a care facility.  We would appreciate prayers.  The ensuing help for my Mom and the various demands on time will make blogging sparse.  I'll pop in now and then if something catches my fancy.  Otherwise, blessings to all, and if there is anything of interest to the readers, just send it along and I'll do my best to post accordingly.  Till then, TTFN.

What about this doesn't seem strange?



Batman, Robin, Shaggy, Scooby Doo, and Weird Al Yancovic?



Science and the all explaining theory that explains everything

Over at the Huffington Post, Robert Lanze, M.D., tries to explain that science can explain everything, including what science can't explain.  Basically it's 'How do we give meaning to a race of people who have been told they are nothing but biological accidents who will die and rot in the grave - without straying from the idea that science has to explain everything.'

It seems strange to imagine that everything has to be explained by the physical sciences.  Physical science is great - for explaining the physical universe.  But to imagine that unless there is a physical scientific explanation, it can't exist, is odd to me.  Especially when I imagine just how many things we are wrong about now that, a thousand years from now folks will laugh about.  I actually imagine a time, sometime around the year 3011, when a child will ask his father, "Daddy, do you mean people in the 21st century actually believed that science could explain everything, and if science couldn't explain it, it didn't exist?" 
"Yes, son, that's what people believed." 
"Well, that was silly wasn't it?"
Nope, for me I'm content with saying there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies - or sciences.

And the funny thing is?  There is nothing in any science today that can prove or disprove my prediction.  The world will have to wait.  Whether I am right or wrong, at this point in history, depends on what we belive in the first place.  And that's sort of the point, isn't it.

The ultimate definition of post-modernity

When a man like Bill Maher actually believes it's wrong to treat our presidents disrespectfully because it makes the president look bad in the eyes of the world.  And Lawrence O'Donnell agrees.  The reference is to this interview Maher did with MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell.  And people laugh at Glenn Beck.  Well, I laugh at Glenn Beck.  But I laugh at the likes of Bill Maher as well.  

Beowulf socks!

I have to find me a pair of these.

Has Sundance found religion?

Hell no, if you ask Anthony Sacramone at First Things. Basically, responding to a gushing review by John Horn at the LA Times, he informs us that it's what we've come to expect.  Hollywood, mind slave of the emergent Left, is also it's primary propaganda wing.  Seeing the grand eternal conspiracy by evil Organized Religion as the root to all suffering, expect any films produced today to reflect a similar attitude.  According to Anthony Sacramone, the five talked about 'religious movies' at this year's Sundance Film Festival* don't disappoint.  As per usual, the religious characters are divided into two parts.  On one side, you have bigots, homophobes, fascists, morons, idiots, dolts, racists, hypocrites, child rapists, tyrants, liars, thieves, and imperialists whose crosses take on the shadowy glimmer of a swastika.  On the other, you have confused, lonely, miserable, frightened, flawed, yet well meaning people who finally realize the shortcomings of this institutional lie and fallacy that has caused so much human misery through the years, and finally find enlightenment through some watered down, pseudo-Eastern repackaging of  modern narcissism expressed through the sacrament of hedonism and self-centeredness disguised under the moniker of self discovery.  Yep, as I said, it's what we've come to expect.  After all, there's nothing more predictable or conformist than the modern American film industry.

*I link to the Festival site as a matter of personal policy.  I don't condone it or in anyway encourage folks to go there.  Anything you see promoted or celebrated there is not reflective of me or my views in any way.  Readers be warned.

Ich bin ein Longenecker

Here, the good Father expounds on some of the main problems in Catholicism facing our Faith today.  He hits it on the head regarding a serious issue.  I've not so much been shocked, as I've been saddened by much of what I've seen in the Catholic Church.  In many Protestant, particularly Conservative Evangelical, denominations, the basic view is that Catholicism has become a watered down, semi-European secular, post-modern faith in the best traditions of most mainline Protestant denominations.  Oh, the Church stands against abortion.  But that's about it.  Many apologists for the traditional Faith bemoan the fact that many Catholics think abortion is the only thing worth caring about.

Let's face it, there's little reason to think otherwise. When it comes to abortion, the Church is as organized, diligent, and swift to act as you can imagine.  When it comes to almost anything else, not so much.  Anything else, and it's more or less up to the diocese, or the parish, to hash out whatever it wants to do, think, believe, or whatever. 

So at least this is a start.  The Church seems to have an almost hands-off approach to its own fold nowadays, focusing its attention on abortion and birth control, and telling countries in the West pretty much how badly they are screwing things up.  But when it comes to other things, such as science and scientific theories, academic theories, the latest scholarly trends, it appears to just have an 'as long as it doesn't contradict God, it's good enough for us' mentality.

Thus I've read biblical commentaries in many a Catholic bookstore that would out liberal the most liberal Protestant biblical commentaries.  The Bible is fairy tales and myth, made up by people centuries later to explain the faith of the postexilic Israeli community. Or it's folks writing a hundred years or more after the time of Jesus, in the name of this or that apostle, to speak to the contemporary political an social milieu in which they lived.  Of course the Resurrection is always real.  And to varying degrees, so is the Incarnation.  But those real events are surrounded by more fables than Aesop could muster.

This isn't to say there is no place for biblical scholarship.  And it isn't to say we shouldn't open ourselves up to new discoveries of the Sacred Texts.  But it is to say that some level of moderating and oversight needs to be in place.  Because if the mainline, liberal Protestant denominations suggest anything, it's that a great way to turn the Faith into something in desperate need of Viagra is to tell the people that the most important sacred text in their lives was really a pack of myths, tales, fables, and quite frankly, lies.  Whatever fiery revival might occur, that is sure to pour water on it.  So well done Fr. Longenecker!  Way to take the bull by the horns.  It is at least a step in the right direction.

It's all in your headline

Note this story about the Live Action sting video that allegedly caught an employee of Planned Parenthood trying to help the 'pimp' keep his robust underage sex trafficking business afloat.  The headline reads Anti-Abortion Group Targets NYC Clinic in Video.  The focus is on 'Anti-Abortion Group', and the 'Clinic' is not named, or even hinted at.  Sure, anyone with a brain could figure that the clinic is an abortion provider.  But only because the mind must recall the 'Anti-Abortion' part of the headline. After all, this is only the first, second, third case in which this has been allegedly discovered at an abortion clinic, so we should keep the focus on the real story.

Of course the headline could have read Employee of Planned Parenthood allegedly aids Sex Trafficker.  It would be just as accurate.  And it would give some indication of a major, major point of the story.  Instead this, like the CNN ticker and other MSM descriptions, have focused on 'Anti-Abortion', 'Sting', and 'Undercover', rather than 'Planned Parenthoold', 'Illegal', or 'Sex Trafficking'.  It's all in the headlines.  Most journalists and news outlets are aware that folks today read the Headlines, and that's about it.  Therefore the headline focus is on yet another sting by some anti-abortion group (the groups that were highlighted when Dr. Tiller was killed).  It isn't on the unspeakably horrible crime that may have been committed.  We save that emphasis when its a conservative, traditional Christian, or Republican accused of wrongdoing.

Because only Right Wing nutjobs are scared of the Muslim Brotherhood

As usual in our hyper-divided, 'ideology as religion' society, any concerns about the possibility of a Muslim takeover of Egypt are dismissed as the lunatic ravings of Glenn Beck and his ilk.  Yes, I grant you, listening to Beck rave on is about as painful as listening to someone torture canaries.  But that doesn't mean that the only ones concerned are those who inexplicably hang on every word that proceedeth from the mouth of Beck.  As much as we continue to imagine that Islam is made up of two groups - terrorists who are bad because we made them hate us, and the rest of Islam that is truly the religion of peace - we often miss what those who live in the shadow of Islam have to say.  Oh, we listen to the ones who say there's no problem, all is right with the world, and an Islamic take over could never happen or wouldn't be bad if it did. And we should listen to those who hold such views.  But we should also pay attention to those who don't.  Unless we live in Egypt ourselves, we would do best to listen to both sides of the non-Muslim witness, and from there try to make an educated guess about what might happen.  We should not just dismiss one or the other because they dare to speak against what we in our middle class American minds have already concluded to be true.

He had a dream

Of course, because of our post-modern, progressive society's tendency to take anything and immediately interpret it through the prism of the color of people's skins, I doubt that dream will be coming true any time soon.  Note that the story isn't focusing on the coach who, you know, won the Super Bowl.   Like the days when Michelle Kwan was promoted by the media because the media had already decided to promote her, and wasn't going to let a little thing like those girls who kept winning Gold Medals in the Olympics get in the way, I've seen as many stories about Mike Tomlin as I have the Green Bay Packers in general, and mostly because of the color of his skin.

I know, it's Black History Month (a month dedicated to ensuring that MLK's dream doesn't come true anytime soon).  And I don't have anything against Tomlin.  He seems like a great guy.  I just have to chuckle at the fact that we lionize, idolize, and almost worship MLK and hold as sacred his "I Have a Dream" speech, and yet continue to live the polar opposite way he was yearning for as we examine everything and everyone based on, yes, the color of their skin. 

Liberalism to Western Civilization: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN

Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. So I caught a quick glance at a National Geographic show last night.  It was about the European Settlers in the New World.  You may want to sit down for this, but the portrayal of them was less than positive.  Only it wasn't their sadistic and deliberate genocidal slaughter of the indigenous people that we so often hear about.  Nope.  It was because they came and ravaged the countryside, 'declaring war on the forests', and depleting the land of it natural resources, leaving it an empty shell in the manner of their homes in the Old World.  Poor folks, to hear modern progressive scholarship, they just didn't do anything right. Therefore a growing percentage of the emergent left is  hoping that the days of Western Civilization are numbered.

Of course, nothing is mentioned of the fact that they were bringing the civilization and ideological belief system that would introduce the world to liberty, freedom, equality, and the dignity of the human person.  No matter how poorly those settlers did in living up to those standards, they would nonetheless help form the foundations of the only civilization in history to be so lofty in its principles, that it would commit suicide out of guilt for failing to have lived up to those principles.

Yet it's not surprising that these things mean little as a counterbalance to the sins of the West.  After all, as we move into a post-Western, post-Christian culture, notions of the dignity of human beings, equality for all, tolerance for beliefs and religions, are all going by the wayside.  In our post-abortion, post-modern age, a growing yen for censorship, intolerance, oppression, and the redefining of human life based on some Darwinian notion of the fittest, is replacing such old, antiquated notions.  And ironically, we are becoming the parts of the pre-Christian world that were once seen as the most barbaric, the most heinous. 

AOL is buying Huffington Post

Why?  Well, according to the New York Times quoting AOL's chief executive Tim Armstrong:

The deal will allow AOL to greatly expand its news gathering and original content creation, areas that its chief executive, Tim Armstrong, views as vital to reversing a decade-long decline.

Now, the part that struck me was 'expand its news gathering and original content creation.'  News?  Mr. Armstrong is aware that Huffington Post is a radical, extreme, uber-left leaning website, dedicated to promoting hyper liberal social, political, economic, and philosophical ideals, isn't he?  It embraces the finer points of multi-culturalism, and post-Western progressivism.  And its basic theme is that those who embrace the same group think mentality are, of course, rather swell; while those who are bad and don't embrace the dogmas, are morons, loons, scum, hatemongers, racists, bigots, losers, etc., etc.  And that's from the official contributors.  Check out the comments section and it gets worse.

So why would AOL pick such an over-the-top example of partisan rhetoric, vitriol, and hackery as the flagship for its news gathering initiative?  Well, I don't know.  Mr. Armstrong failed to consult with me before he made his big decision.  But one thing I've notice, it's that a growing number moguls of the new digital age are, for want of a better term, liberal.  Leftist.  Progressives.  Call it what you will.  They lean to the left.  Whether Google, Youtube, or possibly AOL?, Microsoft, Apple, many wear their ideals on their sleeves. 

So much are they open about their beliefs, that they are willing to put their money where their mouths are as Apple demonstrated when it banned an Iphone App by the Manhattan Declaration simply because gay rights groups cried foul and, as usual, called for immediate censorship of unacceptable speech. 

Which got me to thinking, as I am wont to do.  As our society falls over itself to seize the highest principles of Orwellian culture and make it our own, I can't help but see a growing trend.  AOL is just the latest.  The merging of art, journalism, business, academics, science, and politics is something that seems to be gaining speed.  We are a country where everything is becoming punditry.  And an increasingly powerful group of individuals are inventing the very tools with which we seem so eager to invite Big Brother into our homes.  And some of these individuals seem to have little compunction about enforcing their beliefs, including and up to banning the right to use their products that are linking our society and the world. 

Now, in the 60s and 70s, if a radio station refused to play The Doors, or a record store didn't carry a Stones album, that was censorship.  That was fascist totalitarian thought control no questions asked.  As we've finally gotten rid of that silly notion, and as we see a growing tendency of many who used to define such things as censorship now calling for the same type of things from the mega-billion dollar stores and stations of today, I can't help but wonder where those who don't conform to the dogmas of Leftist ideals will fit.  When FOX News is partisan, and HuffingtonPost is News, and a growing cadre of billionaires feel it is their right to use their mediums to enforce the dictates of goodthink, where will those who don't want to play ball end up playing?  Makes me wonder. 

P.S. I realize that Apple says it reserves the right to pull things based on content.  My guess is, companies always should have been able to do just that.  I just can't help but notice there was a time when 'pulling for content' was Big Brother 101, and now those who once cried Censorship are the ones demanding it today. 

Richard Dreyfuss does stupid

Richard Dreyfuss helps demonstrate that there are few movements more intellectually vacant, morally corrupt, or stunningly unaware of themselves than the post-modern Left.  This is the residue of the lofty, and arrogant, ideals of the post-war liberal movement.  Now, I am second to none in my admiration for Richard Dreyfuss as an actor.  I grew up being touched by some of the movies he made, key films that shaped the era in which I matured.  From American Graffiti and Jaws, to Close Encounters of the Third Kind, I was awestruck by his command of acting, even before I understood what it took to be an actor.  Later, in Down and Out in Beverly Hills, What About Bob, and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, I rediscovered him and why I always admired him.

Later, as he became more of an activist, I listened to what he had to say.  Obviously he was schooled in his passion for history, particularly American History.  And the willingness to invest some sweat and blood in a subject always garners a certain level of admiration - even if I strongly disagree with the methods or conclusions.  But in recent years, I've noticed him saying some pretty, well, strange things.  Even stupid ones.  Ones that I get the feeling are more demonstrative of the failings of post-modern Leftist ideologies than many might care to admit.

So in the wake of the Tuscon Shootings that had nothing to do with politics or political rhetoric, we are still discussing the need to tone down our political rhetoric.  Many - especially on the Left - have made it clear who is to blame.  Those on the Right have obviously launched counter attacks to defend themselves.  In the midst of this, at The National Press Club, Mr. Dreyfuss is asked if the statements by individuals on the Left could sink to the same deplorable level of hateful violent rhetoric, by being given the example of Ed Schultz's wish for the death of Dick Cheney.  Schultz's statement is at the end of the video:



Essentially, Mr. Dreyfuss says, "Sure, no problem.  It was beautifully phrased."  Well, if you listen to Schultz's statement at the end, you'll notice there was nothing beautiful about it.  In a manner that makes Rush Limbaugh sound tame, he expressed his hatred for Cheney, his loathing for Cheney, then capped it off by saying 'Lord take him to the promised land...I don't care if he goes to hell, just get him the hell out of here.'  OK, for the record, I've never heard Rush Limbaugh wish death on anyone.  Maybe he has.  But I've not heard it.  So what about this isn't hateful, violent rhetoric?  That it was couched in 'flowery speech'?  That's not very flowery, if you ask me.  So what is it?

To me, it is indicative of the problems with the Post-Modern Left.  Essentially, the Post-Modern Left has become a shadowy reflection of all that liberals once said they hated about the old conservative status-quo.  There just seems to be a lack of ability to see it.  Perhaps it's his age.  After all, Mr Dreyfuss is no spring chicken.  And maybe that's why many Boomer liberals are so blind to the rage, hatred, violence, and death that surrounds the emergent Left.

My guess is, however, that the reason so many on the Left continue to spiral into a mockery of what they once condemned is that the Post-Modern Left has no accountability.  With our educational institutions, entertainment institutions, and media institutions almost all aligned along the same ideological side of the field, there is no real taking to task of one another for such things.  Heck, I heard about what Schultz said one night on Fox when it covered Mr. Dreyfuss's answer.  I hadn't even heard of it before.  No other networks covered it.  There was no outcry.  Not like when Rush Limbaugh mocked Michael J. Fox.  Or when Rush Limbaugh played a mock-up song of Barack the Magic Negro, or that he wished President Obama would fail.  Or when Bill O'Reilly said that Muslims were to blame for 9/11.  When those things were said, I heard about it on most stations.  I heard discussions, debates, and condemnations across the board.  And I heard about it for days.  If not weeks.  Yet I didn't hear one time on any network (perhaps it was mentioned, but could only have been mentioned once or twice), about Mr. Schultz's scree on Cheney.

That's the point.  There is no accountability.  And therefore, through intellectual laziness and ethical foppishness, those on the Left are becoming the very things they once said they hated the most about America's old status-quo: arrogance, self-righteousness, judgementalism, meanness, hatefulness, intolerance, closed-mindedness, and basic group think.  And while age may have something to do with it, with the younger generations simply pushing the envelope as younger generations do, I can't help but think that this compound mentality that the Left has established, by essentially marginalizing or ostracizing any who fail to conform to the dogmas of the Left, has led to such jaw dropping examples of complete idiocy and lack of self awareness that Richard Dreyfuss just displayed, and that Ed Schultz continues to make a career of.

Again none of this is personal.  I don't know Ed Schultz and, based on what I've seen, have no desire to know him.  I don't personally know Mr. Dreyfuss, but I've always been a fan.  And as a former liberal who didn't leave liberalism as much as I realized liberalism had never truly existed, it pains me to see such a man, who no doubt cares and is passionate about some important things, decay into the very things liberals once so clearly saw and condemned.  Truly, when looking from one to another, it is increasingly difficult to tell the pigs from the men.

Oh, and if my boys could vote, I think this would be their favorite commercial of the moment

Speaking of original Mean Joe Coke Commercials

Is there anyone over the age of forty that doesn't remember this?  If commercials have a  hall of fame, surely this is in it.

Hurray Green Bay!

Callooh! Callay!  Glad to see my favorite team for the night - any team that plays the Steelers - prevailed.  In this case, the Green Bay Packers. To quote Wellington, it was a near run thing.  But they pulled it off.  Well done to Mr. Aaron Rodgers, I'm sure we'll be seeing more of him.  The commercials seemed a bit brutal this year, with no small amount of innuendo.  A few worth watching*, but the game, thankfully, was the star.  Even the ear-splittingly bad rendition of the National Anthem, and the halftime show, which I'm already seeing may go down as the worst halftime show in football history, didn't overshadow that nail biter of a game.  Kudos to the Steelers for making it a game to remember, though I'm still not sure it will outshine the legendary Dolphins/Chargers match.  Still, it kept us on the edge of our seats.  And to add icing on the cake - Green Bay won! 

*FWIW, my favorites were the truck as Lassie commercial, and the House take of the famous Mean Joe Greene Coke commercial.

Happy Birthday Mr. Reagan

I may post more later.  But Reagan defined the era in which I came of age.  I'm old enough to remember the national malaise that we had c. 1979.  There was just no real hope.  Things were unraveling, the world was laughing at us, our economy was collapsing, and many young people were turning to the sex and drugs disco culture as the way of coping.  When Reagan was elected, the Left pounced.  Particularly vicious was the younger press, those Baby Boomer ex-hippies who now held microphones and wrote articles for key publications.  He was a B-movie actor who made films with chimps.  He was a brain dead, senile cowboy.  He was a right wing warmonger of the Goldwater variety.  He would nuke the world! 

 

Everything he did was criticized.  Even when he was shot, I remember the pre-cable news world allowed discussions by individuals questioning the way in which he was recovering.  Jelly beans on his desk?  Yelling at reporters and telling them to shut up?  Why, he probably didn't even know where the Falkland Islands were!  And when he called the USSR the evil empire?  Wow, that was it.  We were all going to die.  And his policies in Europe and missile defense were sure to lead to the cataclysmic end of civilization.  So sure were those on the Left of this scenario that they released a special TV movie, complete with weeks of discussions liking it to Reagan's policies, called The Day After. 

And yet, by the mid-80s, it was clear to anyone that things were better.  I'm not saying Reagan was right about everything.  Most in my family were Democrats, and while some voted for him, none supported him in everything.  But then, in those days, those who didn't vote for him still found things they liked about him.  They didn't feel that to disagree with someone politically was to hate them.  Still, despite any criticisms, and despite the popular culture's insistence that our economic doom or death by nuclear annihilation was just around the corner, by 1985 we could see the light at the end of the tunnel.  Things were better.  America was standing strong. Things were improving.  We had pride once again.  And while the Bruce Springsteens of the nation would continue to fuss about Reagan, suggesting it was wrong for Reagan to claim he had a monopoly on patriotism though Reagan never really made the claim, it was clear he had done what his critics imagined would never happen. 

And for that, I thank him.  For all the problems, short comings, bad decisions, and failures that are common to all who take up the mantle of worldly leadership, he brought an optimism and a hope to our country that was not there in the late 70s, as I began to move into the world of young adulthood.  There would be problems, worries, and concerns as there are in any era.  But at that crucial time in my life during the mid-80s, we believed there was hope.  Something five years earlier so few believed could ever happen again.  And so for the good memories, the happier times, the bountiful prosperity that even the critics were happy to enjoy, thanks for the good times.  Happy Birthday Mr. Reagan, may you rest in the peace of our Lord.

Rachel Maddow explains the Green Bay Packers

They're my favorite team Sunday.  More information than I ever knew about the Packers, and done with humor and interest.  Fun stuff.  Go Packers!

Blogging to resume presently

Well, catch up time is coming around now.  We were blessed in not losing our power yet again.  A couple years ago, we actually got hit with the remnants of a hurricane, and hurricane force winds played havoc in our part of the neighborhood.  Yet we not only dodged major damage from falling trees, but didn't lose power like so many around us.  This year, another wind storm hit and took out one of our backyard trees.  It hit the neighbor's fence and shed, but did so in such a way that no damage was done, the fence and shed were fine (a little dent on the side of the roof), and our garden was spared.  This time, ice and freezing rain and ice and freezing rain.  Power was out everywhere - except our part of the neighborhood.  That allowed my parents and sister and her husband to come over and camp out over night.  It was a pleasant time, like old times when we were all together, cozy and snug while the temperatures dropped to near zero.  So all in all, we've been spared many things, and are thankful to God, and praying that all others are cared for and protected and comforted in kind. 

All that is to say, we're woefully behind on things this week (we did lose cable/Internet for a day).  So this weekend will be catch up.  We're following the basketball Buckeyes as they continue to dominate!  We're mourning for the Cleveland Cavaliers as they continue to implode.  And of course, like all Americans of good heart and sound mind, we are planning on rooting against the Steelers on Sunday.  Much work, planning, praying for job concerns, and of course the obligatory fun time with the family - these are our plans.  If something super-colossal happens, I'll pop in.  Maybe I'll throw something out about Egypt, though I prefer to wait and see.  Otherwise, I'll see everyone Monday.  Remember, tell a friend, share with family, hijack a bus - anything to spread the word of the blog.  I see some new names popping up.  Ya'll come back now, sit a spell, take your shoes off.  Also, become a FOLLOWER!  I know that has been a bit fickle, but hopefully if you try, it will work (Let me know via email along the left side of the page that there's problems).  And otherwise, see you next week. TTFN. 

Don't change your Friday plans to see Sanctum

At least not according to Steven Greydanus.  It doesn't even seem to rate the 'so bad it's good' recommendation.  Especially bothersome seems to be a shocking contempt for human life that seems to be coming from the plot line - what little there is.  Based on a real event, the story seems to go places that would have to make the real survivors thrilled they only endured a real life disaster, and not the one that could have been had screenwriters been in charge.

What seems worse to me is the presence of Ioan Gruffudd.  For folks who don't know, or only know him because of the sub-par Fantastic Four movies, he burst onto the scene in the late 90s with a series of made for TV movies back when Cable Channels meant quality entertainment.  The series, broadly titled Hornblower, and based on C.S. Forester's novels about the fictional Horatio Hornblower, were some of the best ever made for the tube.  Gruffudd seized each episode, completely entered the skin of the character, and made you believe.  Sad.  I know he's had some acclaimed roles, but seems to make some pretty bad choices.  My suggestion - stop trying for the big blockbusters, and go back to period pieces.  I have yet to see him not shine in such a role.

Time compares Reagan to Obama?

Some have read the latest issue to be a comparison between the two presidents.  Many on both sides are, naturally, upset by the comparison.  Me?  I'm not surprised.  After all, in addition to Ronald Reagan, Obama has been compared to Abraham Lincoln,  Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, George Washington, James Madison, James Monroe, Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, James K. Polk, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Rutherford B. Hayes, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Harry S Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt,  Winston Churchill, Charles DeGaul, Otto Von Bismark, Richard the Lionheart, Charlemagne, Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, Caesar Romero, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, St. Godric, St. Cuthbert, Gary Gygax, DaVince, Descartes, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Einstein, Hawking, Washington Irving, Denzel Washington, Freddy 'Boom Boom' Washington, Harrison Ford, Humphrey Bogart, Errol Flynn, Clark Gable, Gary Grant, Cash and Carry, Carry me out to old Virginia, and any other comedy rift by Alan Alda as Hawkeye Peirce, MacArthur, Patton, Sun Tzu, the Buddha, Mohamed, Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, John, Paul, George, Ringo, George Martin, and even Pete Best for good measure,  the guy who invented the sewing machine, Thomas Edison, Zeus and Odin, and God the Creator of the Universe. 

Now, with such lofty expectations, it's not hard to see why the poor fellow seems to flounder no matter what he does.  Unlike Reagan, we were given a scenario of utter hopelessness, able to be delivered only by this man who God prays to every morning.  The times were tough, and therefore it took a man of singular talents to make things right.  And not only could he, but he would.  He had to.  He couldn't fail.  After all, this is a man compared to the genetic depository of history's greatest, who could move mountains, feed five thousand, walk on water, explain how American Idol still garners an audience, align the planets, and end death and disease as we know it.

When Reagan took over, the increasingly left leaning media tried to downplay his potential, portraying him as a hack, a B-Movie actor who made films with chimps, a brain dead cowboy who wasn't gay, and a right wing warmonger sure to nuke the world and end civilization as we know it.  To this day, the Left can't forgive the fact that Reagan disappointed their expectations. 

But Obama was none of those things.  Even the Right dared not criticize too much, lest the dreaded Racist label be thrown faster than the speed of light.  So on the day he became president, with such lofty a cloud of witnesses with which he had been compared (and continues to be compared), with the expectations of nothing less than a Messianic deliverance to a new epoch of the universe,  Obama was doomed to fail.  The poor guy could have turned everything around, cured cancer and Alzheimer's, ended hunger, brought peace, and he still would have fallen short of expectations.  As I've said before, if you want to blame anyone for Obama's struggles, blame his near god-worshipping supporters in the media and other venues of the Left for expectations only God could have possibly met.

I've learned not to be surprised by Catholic theologians

The web has been abuzz here lately about why the Catholic Church is essentially floundering numbers-wise.  Sure, there are parts of the world where Catholicism is growing - but no more than other religious devotions are growing.  And in many parts traditionally held in Catholic practice - Europe, United States, S. America in general - the numbers are not pleasant.  People are leaving the Church, and new converts are dwindling.  I know, things can change, and they probably will.  But still, as of now, things could look better.  So why? Why? Why?  That was the question. 

I'm no expert, though I have some ideas.  But at the risk of being to forward, let me suggest at least one reason: This story.  Another version is here. So around a third of German Catholic theologians have come out and said it's time for the Church to soften its stance on homosexual relations, women's ordinations, and priestly celibacy. And the reason:

The professors said that they no longer wanted to stay quiet in the face of child sex abuse scandals that came to light last year and plunged the Catholic Church into an unprecedented crisis.

So, things that had absolutely nothing to do with the sex abuse crisis are addressed.  Nobody with more than a kindergarten education has tried to link celibacy or the absence of women priests with the sex abuse scandal. It's just not relevant.  The overwhelming evidence is that the vast majority of abuse happens by men who are in relationships, happens despite sexual orientation, and is capable of happening by women (though most male journalists seem more turned on by the later stories than appalled by them). 

Therefore, we should change all of these things.  Why not solve the Church's problems by taking entirely irrelevant subjects and changing them because of a scandal that was not connected to any of them, since most Protestant denominations that have embraced those suggested changes are all but dying away.  There you go.  When you want a winning basketball team, who better to learn from than the Cleveland Cavaliers?

Of course remember, Germany was the birthplace of Theological Liberalism, and a primary mover and shaker in the secular philosophies and academic theories of the 19th and 20th century.  It does our secularized, post-religious society good to make us think that Germany was a hotbed of religious fanaticism.  But fact is, by the dawn of the 20th century, Germany had embraced just about every post-Christian, post-religious, liberal theological secular philosophical viewpoint on the planet.  So these fellows may just being following in the footsteps of those intellectual geniuses who brought such a paradise on earth to Germany and its environs that last time around.

Warning signs missed with Nidal Malik Hasan

OK, so a report finds what many had guessed, that Major Hasan's shooting rampage in Fort Hood was not quite as sudden as early reports tried to paint.  Now for the million dollar question: why?  Was this just some consistent dropping of the ball over and over again?  Or was there a reason behind it?  Many will conclude that this is the result of PC censorship that abounds in our country today, mixed with prejudice and bigotry aimed at others, such as right wing activists who were so quickly blamed after the Tuscon shootings.  Others will dispute the findings.  While others will insist it was just some cosmic coincidence, a series of failures that could have happened anytime, any place.  It's hard to say, isn't it?  It's one thing to say this or that happened, or this caused that.  But when it comes to the question why, that's always tough to pin down.  Especially if we assume that the reason would either be denied, or perhaps not even  comprehended by those who are guilty of the act.  So we'll just have to wait. Perhaps some document will be found to shed more light on the subject.  Or it just might remain as it is, with the gaps being filled by people in ways that will say more about them, than it will about Major Hasan or those who failed to see the inevitable carnage.

Good news from the land of religious tolerance

Some fast thinking professors at the Air Force Academy have filed a lawsuit to keep a self proclaimed Christian motivational speaker from talking at a voluntary prayer breakfast.  Whew.  That was close.  Hopefully the judges in question will see the light and stop this unprecedented use of religion at a prayer breakfast. 

Of course, like most things, the pseudonym that the group aiding the lawsuit goes under is a smoke screen.  The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is an organization that embraces the dogmas of  a singular definition of what constitutes 'proper' religious beliefs.  In an attempt to garner government support for censoring anyone who doesn't share their dogmatic views of religion and its place in society, they continue to play the switch-a-roo with the public, making it seem as if they are really out to promote tolerance and religious diversity, when in fact they are out to get the iron gauntlet of government oppression on their side.  They do this by using the age old 'they're tunneling under our houses I say!  They're out to conquer the world!  We must save ourselves!!' tactics.  You just take an old Nazi propaganda speech c. 1934, scratch out 'Jew', and insert Evangelical Christian.

Now, I spent almost 15 years in ministry in an Evangelical setting.  I rubbed shoulders with many a fundamentalist and conservative Evangelical who had just as strong beliefs as the MRFF does about what constitutes acceptable religious practice.  But it isn't hard to hear the 'Scare Quotes" all over this youtube video, as we are treated to the same type of hysterics that many on the Left accuse the Right of using:

Now, according to MRFF's own website, this is the standards that they seek to promote:

Therefore, MRFF holds that:

1. No religion or religious philosophy may be advanced by the United States Armed Forces over any other religion or religious philosophy.
2. No member of the United States Armed Forces may be compelled in any way to conform to a particular religion or religious philosophy.
3. No member of the United States Armed Forces may be compelled in any way to witness or engage in any religious exercise.
4. No member of the military may be compelled to curtail – except in the most limited of military circumstances and when it directly impacts military discipline, morale and the successful completion of a specific military goal – the free exercise of their religious practices or beliefs.
5. Students at United States military academies are entitled to the same Constitutional rights pertaining to religious freedoms and the free exercise of those freedoms to which all other members of the United States Armed Forces military are entitled.
6. No member of the military may be compelled to endure unwanted religious proselytization, evangelization or persuasion of any sort in a military setting and/or by a military superior or civilian employee of the military.
7. The full exercise of religious freedom includes the right not to subscribe to any particular religion or religious philosophy. The so-called “unchurched” cede no Constitutional rights by want of their separation from organized faith.
8. It is the responsibility of the military hierarchy to ensure that the free exercise of religious freedoms of all enlisted personnel are respected and served.
9. All military personnel have the right to employ appropriate judicial means to protect their religious rights.

Fair enough.  Now, will someone please tell me how inviting a Christian speaker to a voluntary prayer breakfast violates any of these?  Which ones?  No?  Well here is their explanation from the article as it appears on Huffington Post:

"By making a fundamentalist Christian the keynote speaker at this event, the government has promoted, elevated, endorsed and favored Christianity over all other religions," they argued.

In other words, simply because of who he is, what he believes, the lawsuit was filed.  Because we know that all of those Jews Fundamentalist Christians are out to take over the world, and it's time we find a final solution to the problem.  That solution?  Make sure that if folks don't embrace the dogmatic definitions of religion that are upheld by these fine, enlightened professors and that bastion of tolerance, the MRFF, then they need to be censored and banished for the good of the nation.

There's cool

And then there's 'gone to plaid' cool.  Make sure you click on the image at the bottom of the article for a full slide show. 

Light Blogging due to ice

That's right, because of the ice storms - which Al Gore insists prove Global Warming - I've been out of the blogging circles.  We've been fortunate, and didn't lose our power these last few days.  My family, however, was not so fortunate.  So in a house already overstocked, we brought my extended family in for our own personal version of A Night at the Opera.  As a result, attention has been focused on other things.  I've been able to get a few posts in, but generally - as anyone can see - they've been sparse.  But now the power is back on, and hopefully it will stay on.  They've gone back home - a pity, since it was fun in a sort of camp out/sleep over sort of way.  So hopefully, things will pick up again.  Till then, here's a little demonstration of life at our home over the last day or so:

As a Catholic who typically loves the Fall and Winter months...

I agree with my Baptist brethren.

Michelle Malkin makes a great point about Chick-fil-A and the New York Times

Regarding the recent uproar over Chick-fil-A's refusal to conform to post-modern Leftist dogmas, Michelle Malkin brings up a few good points.  But the best one is from this part of her column:

Over the weekend, New York Times reporter Kim Severson gave the Chick-Fil-A bashers a coveted Sunday A-section megaphone – repeatedly parroting the “Chick-Fil-A is anti-gay” slur and raising fears of “evangelical Christianity’s muscle flexing” with only the thinnest veneer of journalistic objectivity. Severson, you see, is an openly gay advocate of same-sex marriage equality herself and the former vice-president of the identity politics-mongering National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association. In a bitter op-ed on gay marriage laws not changing quickly enough, she asserted: “I don’t want the crumbs. I want the whole cake.” Severson has voiced complaints about her social and economic status as an unwed lesbian with a partner and child in several media publications.

Over at Get Religion, the big question was, why did a story like this rate the 'coveted Sunday A-section'?  What made this worth posting?  Well, because the journalist is, shockingly, using her craft to advance an agenda.  We don't have news.  We have propaganda.  And increasingly, we are not being told what is happening, but what we are supposed to believe based on what we are told, and what we are kept from knowing. 

This is why for months after the murder of Dr. Tiller, one of the few abortion providers open about providing late term abortions, we heard everything there was to hear...about Operation Rescue, religion in general, pro-life movements, and the linkage between religion and violence in history.  This is why, only days after the charnal house of murder and slaughter that was Kermit Gosnell's abortion clinic was discovered, he and his crime have all but disappeared.  We no longer have a news media.  We have propaganda outlets that aim to preach to the willing choir, who seems to care less about whether it is getting the truth or not.  And with such low demands on the truth, journalists are free to make mountains out of molehills, or simply deny there are molehills or mountains altogether - unless it advocates and promotes The Cause.

Planned Parenhood covering up sex trafficking?

No.  Never heard that before.  Of course, like the ACORN tapes before, these will be shown to have been discredited, discarded, found to be fakes, and to have shown the zealotry dedicated to destroying this esteemed institution that, as Meagan Kelly on FOX News reminds us, provides many great services to teenage girls outside of that whole abortion issue.  But then, this is the same Meagan Kelly who, when reporting on a story about a family who decided to use seven thousand dollars for a down payment on a new house after selling an autographed letter from Barack Obama, snorted with derision over how seven thousand for a down payment must be 'for an awfully small house!'  Yeah, let's be out of touch with reality.

But Meagan's lack of credibility aside, I'm going out on a limb by suggesting that there is probably much more to these stories than mere conspiracies.  Yes, the tapes are made by people who are out to get Planned Parenthood.  But that's ultimately irrelevant.  If Planned Parenthood is even accused of such things, you would think supporters of PP would be on it like white on rice.  Just like so many expected Catholics to jump on the Church as soon as the first accusations of abuse surfaced.  Because no matter what the motivations behind the lawsuits, what mattered was protecting the victoms of abuse. Same here.  I say this because, at this point, the main defense I've heard is that these tapes were made by people out to get Planned Parenthood, as if this should be reason to stop caring about the second case in which the same criminal activity was said to be happening.

Jane Kim explains post-modern patriotism

The tactic of choice of the Left has always been to love America in the ethereal plane, in some abstract ideal that has never been realized, but because it could be realized, America is and has been a great nation.  But the reality of America has been, and is, a long, sad history of genocide, bigotry, ignorance, hate, violence, racism, sexism, prejudice, xenophobia, homophobia, imperialism, religious zealotry, fanaticism, arrogance, and any one of another thousand faults and flaws. 

When, and only when America conforms to my own, personal, subjective (which I see as objective) value system, will I give it my love and obedience.  But my support for America or celebration of America, like all realities and truths, centers around me, only me.  What I want.  What I believe.  Until it does so, I reserve the right to dismiss any loyalty to any celebration or affirmation of America.  Until it conforms to me.

The irony, of course, is that Jane Kim can do just what she is doing.  Not because America has existed perfectly only in some abstract spiritual realm of unrealized liberal ideals, but because it has been a real, solid, material bastion of the very freedoms that allow her - now, here, at this time - do refuse to say a pledge to that same country.  Such is the post-modern mind that it never seems to grasp that, or feel it is something worth celebrating, or supporting, in the here and now. 

A hero that movies are made of

Read it and cheer. Lone Napali soldier fights off 40 men who are trying to rape an 18 year old girl. 

Pope's outreach to Muslims looking good!

You can tell, because only about 40,000 Muslims came out to beat the stuffing out of an effigy of the Pope.  Remember, since 9/11, any Muslim not flying jets into skyscrapers is by definition a moderate Muslim. 

Indiana University South Bend loves censorship

And you might want to sit down for this, but it has to do with conforming to the dogmas of gay rights.  Yes, Chick-fil-A, that evil empire of the post-modern world, is suffering yet more slings and arrows in the name of liberalism's dogmatic definitions of diversity.  We'll see where this leads.  But this is a university, and in the 21st century, that means publicly funded indoctrination center meant to bring young minds into the glories of the Leftist fold.