Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Me in a nutshell

At least according to an always balanced and unbiased observer of current events.
"Militarism, social policy hostile to the poor, the rejection of varied forms of ensuring health care for everyone have all been wildly a part of conservative Catholicism- one needs only read your blog and your fanboys at The American Catholic, First Things, Dreher in his Catholic days and so on."

Heh.  I enjoy the world of Social Media.  Again, as my boys say, Donald Trump is everything that the post modern Facebook generation has been laboring for.  Mea culpa. 


  1. Watching Dan Conway say That is a bit of re-writing history again. is overloading my irony meter (especially considering how much re-writing history the rest of the comment does).

  2. Whew. Tell me. My son now will comment on Mark's page (I keep trying to get away and they keep pulling me !). But they are spot on, and Mark's page demonstrates: Donald Trump is the candidate of the Facebook generation. There is nothing on that (or any one of a dozen facebook pages) that is any different than the worst Trump is accused of.

  3. Facebook is evil - it is known

    To bad Mark doesn't know as much about American History as he knows about the Church Fathers. It is like he has created stereotype of a conservative and then applies it to every Catholic who he disagrees with. Hey have you ever been to the New Emangelization website. If you have some time take about an hour. Go to the interviews and listen to the one about the Argument of the Month Club.

  4. I'm actually working on a post that continues my boys' observation that Trump is simply the candidate of the Facebook generation. I'm comparing him to Mark because, let's face it, outside of Mark's sometimes wonderful commentary on Catholic teaching, he can be just as bad as Trump when it comes to his approach to political and social issues. That Mark aligns so strongly to a narrative he once condemned, I personally think, is why he exploits the stereotypes. It validates his change over, at least in his own mind. That's my guess at least.

  5. I think that in Mark's mind he hasn't changed it's everyone else, thus the use of the term "that thing that used to be conservatism". I think the thing that really bothers Mark is that an issue like abortion has seen Catholics vote for people like W Bush, only to be disappointed when he gets us into 2 wars and waterboarding/torture. Then he sees some conservatives not only criticize his position but also a pope he greatly admires. What bothers me about Mark is his refusal to differentiate between people who had thoughtful questions (like yourself) and the trolls and idiots.

  6. I don’t agree. I think Mark has changed and changed radically. Just look at his appraisal of the United States. Years ago, Mark wrote two things after 9/11 that struck me. One was a piece titled ‘Why We Must Fight.’ Its purpose was obvious. The other was an editorial blasting the very unchristian criticisms of the USA that were often employed by the Left. Sure, a fair an honest appraisal of the sins of our past, like the sins of anywhere, is appropriate. But the ‘evil empire of endless racist imperialism’ was roundly condemned, while advocating for the strong defense of our country because of its worth and value. Now? He’s more brutal than most on the radical Left. And that’s just one issue. And in doing so, he does many of the things he once condemned. That’s another flag. No, just why Mark has changed I can only guess. But I think he, for whatever reason, must validate his change by pounding on all things associated with conservatism and traditionalism in order to justify his change. The combination of continuing to change to keep up with liberalism’s demands, the usual zeal one sees in any convert, and the struggle of endorsing and attacking the opposite things that he once embraced or rejected. I mean, when my boys said Trump is the Facebook generation candidate, I immediately thought of Mark. Think on it, and there really isn’t – objectively speaking – that much difference in substance of debate, tone or even behavior.


Let me know your thoughts