Hugh Martin has died

Maybe not a household name, but the man who wrote one of the most recognizable, and one of the most melancholy, Christmas songs of the modern age: Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas.  An interesting story here chronicling the origins and history of the song.  I was taken by some of the original lyrics that were dropped at the insistence of Judy Garland:

"Have yourself a merry little Christmas
It may be your last
Next year we may all be living in the past...
No good times like the olden days
Happy golden days of yore
Faithful friends who were dear to us
Will be near to us no more..."

Whew.  Not exactly the Hallmark happy holiday approach.  And yet, perfectly in keeping with the overall holistic understanding of the Christmas season as it relates to the reality of our lives, and its biblical origins.  An interesting read.  R.I.P. Mr. Martin.  Your contributions are appreciated.

Happy Pi Day!

In honor of the spirit of the season, I dedicate my favorite Calculus problem set to Disco music - I Will Derive!

Speaking of our button down conformist society, Behar and Ecko style

So I caught a brief glimpse of Joy Behar's show the other night.  I know.  She is part of 'stupidity row' among the Left.  That is, those individuals who repeatedly say things so moronic that if Glenn Beck said anything half as dumb, the MSM would be on them like white on rice.  But being Leftists, folks like Behar, Bill Maher, Tavis Smiley, Keith Olbermann, and Ed Schultz are free to wax stupid all day an little is said about it.  That's why I usually move on when I see their group think faces on the tube. 

But I caught this part because the caption on the screen mentioned Corporal Punishment.  Oh no!  Not spanking!  Yeah, spanking in our schools.  Now personally, I don't spank my kids if at all possible.  I've probably spanked the lot of them a half dozen times in their entire lives.  So far, they seem fine.  No desire to hijack planes and fly them into skyscrapers, despite what all the lab coats say.  And having been spanked myself, I find the urge to grab assault rifles and open fire on crowded marketplaces oddly foreign to my way of thinking. On a side note, spanking is one of those issues that, to me, displays the utter ridiculousness of our obsession with research and studies. 

Anyhoo, so she has a fellow on there wanting to wage holy war against spanking in our schools.  This is because we can see our schools are much better off since they started to end spanking decades ago.  Goodness knows when I think of resounding success, I think of our school system over the last couple decades.  So I watch.  And listen.  And despite my wife's objections that this could lead to permanent brain freeze, I watch some more.  And lo and behold!  Who is this sage scholar who has devoted himself to the cause?  Why none other than 'leading fashion designer' Marc Ecko.  Yep, you read that right.

It was funny, but does demonstrate again how the silly notions of liberalism that were peddled by the Left have all but been abandoned.  Think there is no real absolute truth?  No absolute values?  No belief system that has a right to impose itself on others?  Well, you wouldn't have guessed it watching that show. 

President Obama keeping his priorities straight

So yesterday the President addressed the latest issue by which our post-modern world yearns to control more of our lives.  Was it the crisis in the Middle East?  Our staggering economy?  The increased pressure by China on our military?  Continued unemployment?  No. Heck no.  He addressed bullying.

I know, I don't like bullying any more than anyone else.  The fact that we have kids committing suicide in growing numbers, however, probably speaks more for the vacant and rotted culture we have given them than anything to do directly with bullying.  Is it worse than it used to be?  Of course.  What in our culture isn't worse than it used to be?  That's what you get when you throw out the basic foundation for our notions of the dignity of life, the human person, and our role in God's creation, and replaced it with a debauched society that values narcissism lived out through decadent hedonism and greed above all other considerations.

Still, is it really something the President of the United States needs to weigh in on?  You're darn right.  After all, one of the oft repeated lines in the bullying debate is the line 'and making fun of others.'  And what, pray tell, do they intend to do about kids who want to voice their opinions about others?  Control the kids' speech?  Tell them what to think?  Make them devotees of the dogmas of Leftist conformity?  Yeah.  That's my guess. Hence the need for the big guns in this important grab for thought control disguised as concern for our children.  Which is why it truly is more important than all of those other temporary set-backs.  

If you think conservatives are stupid and evil

And liberals are brilliant and beautiful, you could be forgiven if you get your information from the MSM.  Pretty soon, I'm guessing that the MSM will just ditch all pretense and adopt the far more accurate moniker of Glorious Ministry of Propaganda for the Advancement of Secular Leftist Dogmas. Or something less wordy. 

For instance, we all know that the Tuscon shootings were the result of right wing zealotry and conservative rhetoric.  After all, most conservatives are sitting around on the edge of a psychotic meltdown, ready for the queen of diamonds to be shown, sending them into a spiral of destruction and murder.  Or that's how our Propaganda ministries in education, entertainment, and - for want of a better word - journalism portray us. 

Now, in their zeal to advocate post-Christian, post-Western Leftist and secular values, our distributors of right-think are occasionally obliged to sweep unfortunate news stories under the rug.  This is true when events happen that show the falsehood of what they are promoting.  Take this little tidbit about the Wisconsin demonstrations.  If this were the Tea Party?  It makes my head spin to think how it would be the prime focus of every MSM outlet in our nation.  As it is, I have yet to see any of them mention this at all.  Perhaps they have.  I can't read every paper and watch every newscast at once.  But in the days I"ve been following this, I have not heard even a peep about anything other than fair minded and caring people fighting desperately for the rights of the Middle Class.

FWIW, I'm not saying I agree with Governor Walker.  I just recognize propaganda as opposed to actual news when I see it.

Pray for those affected by the Tsunami

Those already hurt, and those who are going to be hit by this.  Lord, be with them in this hour with your protective love and grace!

A beautiful story of courage, kindness, and love

Here is a touching story of a young boy, Brennan Daigle, who got his wish.  He wanted to be in the army.  Sadly, he is suffering from a rare form of cancer.  So rare is it, his doctors believe he has only weeks to live.  When a local chapter of Dreams Come True got in touch with the local army base, a call was put out for soldiers to come to his tenth birthday party.  You'll need to read the full story here to see what happened next.  Death comes to us all.  But the greatest thing we can do in the meantime is reach out and demonstrate the love that God gives us to those around.  Well done everyone.  And God's blessings and grace be upon Brennan and his family.

Happy Ash Wednesday

From the Ash Wednesday Page at Fisheaters.com

Meménto, homo, quia pulvis es, et in púlverem revertéris

We are going to die.  That's the message today.  We live in a fake world, an age dominated by lies we happily believe, despite our boasting of superior knowledge.  We want comfort and happiness.  And we resent the crap out of the fact that we must work to have either.  We don't want inconvenienced.  I've often felt that much of the anti-war sentiment of the 60s was based more on cowardice and selfishness than many will ever admit.  Today, I think it's based on laziness and a general resentment of things like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina interfering with the cocktail hour.

And that resentment of things that continually interfere with our happy little lives extends to death.  Sometimes it's almost as if we resent even death, not for any eternal judgement or separation, but simply because it smacks against this idea we've so desperately tried to build, that life is all about giving me everything I want, with whoever I want, for whatever reason I want, as soon as I want, and without any obligations on my part. 

And yet death does come.  It will.  It's the great equalizer.  A hundred years from now, most who can read this will be dead.  We'll be gone.  And the greater portion of those alive today will have been long forgotten.  A mere stone, chipped and faded, in the back corner of a forgotten cemetery giving any testimony at all to this world that we ever existed. That's it. 

Of course, in the world of faith, we have that next phase of our existence toward which to look.  We have something beyond, a new heaven and a new earth.  An existence unlike what we could ever know today, not if scientists could break every code and solve every physical mystery in the universe.  And that is why we Catholics, and other Christians who celebrate Ash Wednesday, can go to a service centered around telling us to "Remember, man, that thou art dust, and unto dust thou shalt return."  And not only do we go, but we leave with hope as opposed to despair.  A peace rather than a frantic grasp at fleeting fulfillment.  A joy based on Faith in God rather than frustrated attempts at using fun and games to ignore the inevitable.  So happy Ash Wednesday!  If your faith lies not in IPads and post card vacations, but in an eternal existence with an eternal God, then it's a wonderful day to jar ourselves and remember where our peace and joy originate, and why in such a mixed up, crazy world we can be anxious for nothing. 

Taking on a tough tongue twister

Apparently, the toughest tongue twister in the world is this:

The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep's sick.

You know what?  I believe it.

When Mark Shea shines

Is when he explains, in his quick witted and yet deeply moving way, just what the Catholic Church is and isn't.  Now, like anyone, he is not the official mouthpiece of God, co-equal with the Magisterium.  The nice thing is, he doesn't deny it.  Oh, sometimes I can get frustrated with him, like anyone.  But I consider him an apologist on the same line as C.S. Lewis or Chesterton. 

Why?  I'm sure he would fuss at that comparison.  But I do so because, despite not being trained in theology, or having any experience in pastoral care, he has the amazing ability of keeping his writings in the heart and soul of the Faith.  His is usually not reduced to angels on heads of pin or salvation through the cognitively superior adherence to philosophical algorithms.  He, somehow, through some grace, is able to proclaim the Truth of Catholic teaching as he understands it, and yet remembers that it's about the blood and sinews, the muscles and nerves of a faith filled life, not the bare, skeletal structure of cold laws written on stone.   Here, and I've copied it because it's just so good, he gives some quick answers to several misunderstandings and common stereotypes.  The question was asked in good faith and with respect.  

Of course, Mark is not the final say in anything.  As with anything, we are encouraged to go straight to our Church to find out the answers. That's what makes Catholicism so nice.  Unlike Protestants, we have a real, living authority against which to know what our Faith teaches; one willing to admit its Sacred Tradition includes the Scriptures, but are not only the Scriptures.  So here is the questions and answers from his blog Catholic and Enjoying It.  Read and enjoy and maybe even learn something:. 

Tuesday, March 08, 2011

A reader writes...

I am doing a contemporary issues project about the modern day Catholic Church and some problems it faces for my English III AP class. As an insightful and entertaining Catholic writer, I hope that you can answer some questions that I will state below. Thank you for your time. Sincerely,

1. Do you believe women should be ordained into the Catholic priesthood?

The question is not whether they should be, but whether they can be. And the Church has already given its answer: She lacks the authority to do that in the sacrament of Holy Orders, just as she lacks the authority to consecrate chocolate eclairs and milk (which I would much prefer) in the sacrament of the Eucharist. The faith is not the private property of the Pope which he is free to alter on a whim. Jesus and the apostles never ordained women, just as they never baptised in olive oil or wine (though they do use these elements in other sacraments). We can't improve on what they handed down. For more on this from me, go here.

2. Would making priests non-celibate reduce the amount of sex crimes among priests?

Has making public school teachers non-celibate (and female) done that? The sex crime percentages there are much higher.

3.Are Protestants correct when they say that mortal and venial sins are anti-Biblical?

No. Here's why.

4. How is Catholicism unique among other Christian sects?

By not being a sect but the Church Christ founded circa 33 AD.

5. Does science disprove religion? What are your views on scientism?

Science cannot possibly disprove religion. You may as well say that science can use a telescope to scan the face of God for warts or burn a sample of Hitler's hair and release the green fumes of mortal sin for chemical analysis. Science measures time, space, matter and energy. That's it. That's all. Science sucks at dealing with any reality beyond this, such as as "How much do you love your daughter?" or "What is the meaning of the Mona Lisa?" or "How do you know your wife is faithful to you?" or "What is justice and beauty?" There are vast realms of this world that are a closed book to science, let alone the next world.That, by the way, summarizes my answer to your second question: namely, that scientism is one of the many reductionist ideologies of our time that attempt to take all of human experience and cram it into some tiny All Explaining Theory of Everything like "Everything is Class Struggle" (Marxism), "Everything is Profit and Loss" (Capitalism), "Everything is Natural Selection" (Evolutionism), "Everything is Race or Gender or Language as Power, etc." For some narrow minded people "Everything is Science". Such people imprison themselves in the clean well-lit cell of a single idea and are, as Chesterton says in Orthodoxy, mad men.

6. What are your views on the abundance of abortion in the modern world? Can the pro-life movement make a difference?

My views on the abundance of abortion in this world are much like views of most people about the abundance of murder in this world. In answer to your second question, not only *can* the prolife movement do something, it has been and is doing something. Every baby that has ever been born in a crisis pregnancy since Roe v. Wade owes his life to the prolife movement (and, of course, to the grace of Almighty God who inspires that movement).

7. Is Catholicism a repressive religion?

No. Catholicism is the most joyfully liberating thing I have ever encountered. The repression lies in a culture that constantly tells you what you may and may not think, say, and do. My culture tries to squeeze me into a box everyday. Standing alone against all the parties, shibboleths, tribes and code words is one thing: the Catholic faith which, as Chesterton says, alone can save you from the degrading slavery of being a child of your age and which, by the way, is the only thing that can get rid of my sins. If anything, what really terrifies most postmoderns about the Catholic Church is that her intellectual subtlety and freedom of thought is too terrifying for those who are only comfortable with slogans, catch phrases and simplistic labels.

8. Do you believe that the Church eventually accept homosexuality due to society's acceptance of the act?

If by "the act" you mean homogenital sex, then no: the Church will never accept it because it is unnatural, contrary to nature, and cannot be reconciled with Scripture or tradition. If by "homosexual" you mean the homosexual person who feels desires that are intrinsically disordered, then the answer is that the Church always has and always will accept such persons, just as she accepts persons like me, who likewise feel disordered desires in the area of another bodily appetite: eating.

The problem is not that homosexuals feel disordered desires. The problem is when the person with disordered desires demands that the Church and the world pretend those desires are not disordered.

Confronting our culture of narcissism as only a Mom can

Last weekend, I saw this gut churning celebration of the superiority of womanhood at all costs.  It was an article just oozing with glee over a mother's decision to chuck her husband and ditch her kids in order to spend a life focused on the eternal divinity of the Me.  I took some issues with it, focusing on the laughable proposition put forth that this was just righting the hypocrisy of our age, where men can leave their families all over the place and be celebrated for the cause.  Somehow I missed that men who divorce wives and abandon children are considered anything other than scum in our society; an appraisal I'm more than happy to apply across gender lines.

Anyhoo, in the miracle that is the Internet, a real, honest to goodness Mom chimed in and gave me her perspectives.  Better yet, she linked to her own blog where she offers that kind of head-smacking logic that a Mother can demonstrate better than anyone.  Read it here.  Best quote of the post:

"Most kids don't grow up lamenting that they wish their parents had spent LESS time with them, and most parents don't look back wishing that they'd missed more of their kids' childhoods."

In another age I would have laughed at such an obvious statement.  Today, I almost weep that there are so many who call themselves enlightened, and yet have no grasp of the truth behind such a clear fact.

Archbishop Dolan to President Obama

It's not just permissible to defend marriage between a man and a woman, but it's a necessity for the sake of justice.  I love little things like that.  While I was gone tending to important matters of family - matters that will still keep me occupied for the next several weeks - I noticed our illustrious leader basically decided to have his justice departments stop doing what the justice department is supposed to do - and that's enforce the law.  Neither he, nor the justice department, is in the business of solely determining what laws do or don't matter. Even if it's a lost cause, the law is the law.  And yet, for convenience sake, how many Americans even care?

Such a short sighted and ignorant dismissal of grave ramifications is about par for the course in our country today.  It's the very intellectual malaise that President Obama is able to exploit in order to keep attention off of everything else that's falling apart under his watch.  Twenty years ago, had a president - Democrat or Republican - done  the same thing, I couldn't imagine there not being an outrage.  But then, twenty years ago, I imagined that if a president committed perjury on the high court to derail an investigation of his potential abuse of power by way of sexual harassment, there would be a popular uprising as well.  Or a president who sent us to war, insisting that the evidence for war was clear, only to discover the evidence for war not in existence, would receive the proper revolt from the public. Who knows, maybe I should have seen this coming after all.

In any event, Archbishop Dolan sets the record straight, and demonstrates why - against all desires to the contrary - we can find comfort in the fact that, long after America has turned to dust, the Catholic Church will be alive and kicking.  

Sam Harris debunked, phase II

Brian Green, over at The MoralMindField, continues to dissect Harris' latest attempts to establish some rationale for a post-religious world.  As his previous attempt showed, this is no off-the-cuff dig at Harris.  It is a methodical unpacking of where Harris gets it right, and where he gets it wrong. 

It should be no surprise to anyone of faith that, where Harris gets it most wrong, is understanding religion and religious faith.  This, alas, is a hallmark of the 'New Atheist' movement.  Unlike their forebears, folks like Voltaire or Hume, they just don't get it.  In the infancy years of modern Western secular thought, many - like those mentioned - went after religion with a vengeance, but with some knowledge of the facts in question.  Whether the institutional church specifically, or religious thought in general, they hacked and slashed without mercy.  Sometimes, they were right.  But in most cases, they at least knew what they were talking about.  They understood the religion and religious life that they were attacking.

Today, when one listens to or reads Harris, or Christopher Hitchens, or P.Z. Myers, or - I know - Bill Maher, it's clear they don't understand religion at all.  They don't get it.  They don't understand it.  They get things wrong.  They miss actual facts about this religious belief or that religious practice.  Brian points to several cases in Church practice (regarding excommunication) and biblical exegesis (regarding Jesus teaching on hypocrisy) to expose Harris's attempted 'square peg in round hole' end run around the facts. 

No doubt such prolamations as the Church could have excommunicated Hitler but didn't, or that Jesus taught about advocating the killing of children for talking back, appeals to the choir to which Harris preaches.  But as Brian points out in his summation of Harris's laughably inept grasp at religious facts:

“And to what end [does Harris use a non-standard biblical interpretation]?” we might ask. We should already know… to make religions (particularly Christianity), which possess competing worldviews and moral systems, look bad, so that Harris can jump in and can replace them. Harris is spouting political rhetoric, “persuasion” in his words (50), not philosophy or science.

To what end indeed.  Again, the great modern guardians of reason and truth essentially reduce themselves to pseudo-pundits, using half truths, non-truths, and emotional appeals to get the knee jerk reactions their dead end theories are incapable of arousing.  That's what comes of trying to build a worldview on obvious falsehoods.  Even the most passionate disciple will start to scratch his head, unless you toss a few scraps of meat to keep him interested.

The Press doesn't get facts

I've blogged many times on the flagrant advocacy that are our modern propaganda ministries disguised as news outlets.  One of my biggest peeves is that we haven't learned one of the most crucial lessons of the 20th century - that the ability to brainwash the masses through global institutional communications is one of the most powerful weapons ever invented by man.  Not nuclear or biological weapons.  No.  It's the ability to use mass media to sway opinion, even if it is toward opinions based on lies, falsehoods, and evil. 

Much of the time the problems are based on pure propaganda.  Deliberate suppressing of truth, manipulating of truth, twisting of truth, and just ignoring truth in order to advance an agenda.  A great example of that was a previous post's story of a woman who decided to abandon her family to focus on herself.  The author, all awash in admiration for this brave woman's priorities, probably realized that deep down it's a pretty deplorable thing to walk out on one's family.  So rather than wrestle with the ethical implications, the Shine journalist decides to place it against the hypocrisy of our age where, apparently, men are able to abandon their families to indulge in a lifetime of self focus and nobody cares.  Except, or course, that's a lie.  If a man were to divorce wife and abandon kids with the excuse that he wants to focus on himself, he's pretty much toast in the public mindset.  Certainly he's done for in any feminist outlets. 

So that's a great case where the media loves to make a quick false statement as if it's simply common knowledge, then move on in the hope that nobody pays attention.  This happens with the hope that somehow, it just seeps into our collective consciousness.

Of course beyond the obvious agendas, biases, prejudice, bigotry, and beliefs that cause so much just suspicion of the media, are the cases where they just get information wrong.  I remember when I was in middle school.  A local family was traveling in a small plane to Florida when they crashed.  All were killed.  It was pretty big in our school.  We even had a memorial in our gymnasium - a rare thing back then.  The Columbus news channel that reported it said that a family from Marion, Ohio was killed.  They weren't from Marion.  They were from Mt. Gilead.  Just north of Edison to be exact.  Even then, I thought, "How could they get such an easily verifiable fact wrong?"

Well, nothing has really changed.  In this piece on the ever reliable NPR, we are introduced to Jose Gomez, Los Angeles's new Archbishop.  This is the opening sentence:

"Jose Gomez, the first Latino archbishop in the U.S., takes the helm of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angles on Sunday."

The problem?  Jose Gomez is not the first Latino archbishop in the U.S.  That would be Robert Sanchez, a priest of Santa Fe who was made archbishop there in 1974.  He was later forced to resign.  Five years later, Patricio Flores became archbishop of the San Antonio archdiocese in 1979. I know, it seems picky.  But facts are facts.  We are supposed to trust the media to tell us what is happening in the world.  To know what is going on.  To know this and not that is the solution we should pursue.  It's tough enough when every fibre of our being screams that they are not being truthful, that they are manipulating data to advance agendas.  But when you realize that even if they were being truthful, such flagrant and easily remedied factual errors occur, even the most trusting reader and viewer has to approach any media story with a certain level of caution.

An author embraces the ultimate in narcissism

And a media outlet goes gaga.  Not surprising.  The dangling carrot of our dying civilization, the thing that keeps people pressing on toward the ethics of our inevitable doom, is the promise that by focusing exclusively on ourselves we will find ultimate meaning in life.  That our meaning is defined by us focusing on us to the exclusions of all those not-us people in the world. 

It's an intoxicating proposition that has been around for ages.  To think I am the single most important person in the world second to none is appealing to say the least.  Now don't get me wrong.  What Rahna Reiko Rizzuto did is up to her.  I personally find it indicative of the worst, most sickeningly cancerous thinking in our modern world.  But what gets me is the piece itself. 

It's clear that the writer of the Shine article is gushing over her decision to divorce her husband and abandon her kids so she can spend a life completely focused on herself.  This isn't a woman who decided she doesn't want to be a mother, and so avoids having children at all costs.  This is a woman who is a mother who, half way around the track, decides she doesn't want to be one and takes the necessary steps.  Naturally, she says everything is better for it.  Her relationship to her kids, her life, everything.  Personally, I've always been of the feeling that if you improve a relationship by abandoning it, that says more than you want to about your role in the problems..  But that is neither here nor there.

What caught me, in Shine's slobbering adoration of her story, was the typical ability the media has of justifying its shallow promises by setting up untrue realities.  Take this little snippet:

"It also goes against our culture's definition of motherhood. But it shines a light on a glaring double standard: When a man chooses not to be a full-time parent, it's acceptable—or, at least, accepted. But when a woman decides to do so, it's abandonment."

I'm sorry, I missed where, in our culture of despising the delinquent dad, the absent father, the runaway male, that men are somehow off the hook for being a part time dad.  Part time meaning, in this case, essentially abandoning the wife and kids to lead a life focused exclusively on self.  Can someone tell me when this has happened that everyone has said, "Hurray! well done fellow!"?  I can't either.

This is a favorite tactic in the media, to push an agenda in part by subtly stating something that is flat out wrong, and making it an assumed fact.  They might as well have said 2+2=5, the world is flat, or John Smith was our first President.  All wrong.  But slid into the story as if it is obviously a fact.  But it isn't.  A man who would abandon his family to focus on himself would be ostracized by our modern, feminist dominated media and culture.  It makes my head spin to think of how quickly he would be condemned.

Perhaps it's the feminist angle, with the usual 'women rule so there are no rules for women' mantra of radical feminism that the Shine author is promoting.  Perhaps it's the usual desire to promise a Utopian paradise of self focus, a selfish, narcissistic euphoria that caused the piece to gush over this tale.  I don't know.  Certainly there is a segment out there, promoted by the likes of Dan Abrams - American male sans vertebrae - that suggests women are in every way superior therefore some could argue they can do what they wish for themselves beyond any other considerations.  I don't know.

I just know that in decades past, common people with common sense would see something like this and be able to call it for what it was.  But in our age of self-congratulatory high fives over how intellectually and morally superior than any other generation in history, we lack the ability to see the obvious truth.  Or perhaps, we just don't want to, hoping that when it comes time for us to jettison anything and anyone else in our lives to pursue our own self focused lust for pleasure and meaning, those we patted on the back will in turn pat us on the back.  You scratch my deplorably selfish desires, and I'll scratch yours.

The day Gary Gygax died

I didn't have a blog when Gary Gygax died, which was three years ago today.  I don't know if I had a blog if this would have made it onto my radar screen.  But as I've been researching a few things for an upcoming post I've been working on, I've learned quite a bit about this fellow - but no doubt not enough. As many know, he was one of the creators - some would say the creator - of the game Dungeons and Dragons. 

Now as I said,  I've been working up a post on my thoughts about popular culture and the ability of mass media to shape opinions.  In studying a few things here and there, I've been looking at that particular phenomenon, which will feature predominantly in the post.  What amazes me is how much of our modern entertainment, particularly in the realm of computer and video games, owes its basic structure to that game hammered out all those years ago, in a world before personal computers, VCRs (let alone DVDs), cell phones, Internet, or video games.  Amazing how our country, despite its flaws, would allow someone with an undying love of games to create something so amazing that has touched on so many different parts of our lives, even if we would never be caught dead playing the game itself.  The more I read about the history of that hobby, the more impressed I am.  We'll get to that at some point.  But for now, I thought I would take a belated nod to the master of gaming himself, whose love of game play, combined with a country that still encouraged such out of the box thinking, brought so much enjoyment to so many - even if they never make the connection.  Well done Mr. Gygax.  Even if folks didn't play your product, how great and impact it had on our collective consciousness.  I'm sure you are missed.

Arianna Huffington displays the stunning lack of self-awareness that defines the post-modern Left

In this piece for her own Huffpost, she pens a gushing love note about Bill Maher.  Yeah, Bill Maher.  Now don't get me wrong.  Bill Maher may be a brilliant physicist, genetic engineer, economist, biologist, or brain surgeon.  I don't know.  I'm not schooled in any of those subjects.  But in the two subjects I've spent most of my life studying - history and theology - Maher is about as dumb as a hay rake.  The man is about on par with Glen Beck.  Yet he is treated like a serious commentator and brilliant analyst across the MSM, and obviously among folks who frequent places like Huffington Post, precisely in the areas of history and religion.

Why?  Well, I blogged about my thoughts on that already.  Beyond that, however, was Huffington's post.  Sure, there was some sentimentality, and she is obviously friends with Maher.  Birds of a feather after all.  But some of the things in the post caught my attention.  One I posted on at the Huffpost.  For instance, this sentence caught my eye:

"He's hilarious, he's fearless, and he never, ever takes potshots at easy targets, like former witches running for the Senate on an anti-masturbation platform."

He is fearless?  How?  Will someone please tell me how Maher, who is the living, breathing, biological incarnation of the dictionary definition of Political Correctness is fearless?  That's like saying it took courage in the 1950s to oppose Martin Luther King, Jr.  Like saying in the 50s that it was fearless for people to take a public stand against Communism.

Are those on the Left that blind to the self-congratulatory domain of same-think that they have established across popular culture?  Across the media culture?  Across the academic world?  Do they really think it takes courage to stand up and promote homosexuality, abortion rights, and socialism?  Do they actually believe that it's fearless to trash conservatives, Republicans, religion, and traditional values in an HBO comedy show?  I would like to think they know full well that they have the upper hand in our information outlets.  I would like to think they are just putting us on, keeping the entire front as they move to seize more and more control over our culture and society.  But maybe not.  Maybe because they are so incestuous in their desire to be surrounded only by same-think, they really believe that we live in a country dominated by right wing, radical, religious zealotry and they are the brave crusaders for a freedom they otherwise seem to abhor. 

Who knows.  I do know this.  This line:

"Everyone seems to be talking so slow. I know Kirk [Douglas]'s excuse, what's everybody else's? This smells like the trainwreck Oscars to me."

Seemed to make Arianna laugh.  It didn't me.  Somehow I remember the liberals of the 70s who used to say that making fun, no matter how innocently, of the elderly, the crippled, the mentally handicapped, was all just a sad reminder of the deplorable moral trash heap upon which traditional values needed to be thrown.  I can't believe how the post-modern Left is looking more and more like the very thing Liberalism once sought to eliminate.  But that the Left is fast becoming the Napoleon of pigs is for another post.

I worry about how to help send my boys to college

And then I read things like this.  That's why, when people attempt to bolster Harry Potter's image by pointing out that universities have classes on the series, I tend to yawn.  Was a time when that might mean something.  Even twenty years ago, a college course on The Lord of the Rings, or a class that studied The Beatles alongside Mozart or Tchaikovsky, was a nod to their contributions to modern greatness.  But today, being studied alongside things like this, suggests there is little in our culture left worth celebrating.  It certainly confirms my growing suspicions that our institutions of higher education are becoming a joke that will only be laughed at years from now after it's too late for us to get it.

The Media cracks me up

I saw on the CNN ticker, just a minute ago, that jobless claims fell to nearly a three year low.  Nearly a three year low?  What does that mean?  Think about it.  What does it mean by 'nearly'?  Why not just a 2 and a half year low if that's what it was?  Do you get the feeling that it's really wanting the news to be one thing, when the reality isn't quite there?  Like, you know, telling me what it wants me to hear rather than what it is?  The fact that the Market is soaring doesn't help figure the report.  I've watched that for how many months, and notice almost every time employment news isn't the greatest, the Market increases.   Don't know why.  I'm not an economist.  I've just noticed the overall trend.  So I'm stuck trying to figure out what is meant by 'nearly' a three year low.

New traslation of NAB

Says a lot about America's Catholic leadership.  On one hand, it has wisely changed some of the more deplorably limp renderings of the original texts,  such as parts of Psalm 23.  Though I see they are still preferring a more literalistic translation of the final verse - 'to the end of days' - over the traditional, and emotionally powerful, 'I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.'  For some reason there is also much talk about changing the word 'booty' to 'spoils'.  I would think the decision to change 'ass' to 'donkey' would have been focused upon, if indeed it has been changed (I would think that if they changed the word 'booty' because of its contemporary connotations, the translators certainly would have caught the other's alternate meaning in modern discourse!).

And yet, on the other hand, the most controversial of all, is the decision to render Isaiah 7:14 as 'young woman', rather than 'virgin'.  It has long been insisted upon by Jewish scholars, and other critics of the Faith, that the original Hebrew word was misunderstood by the author of Matthew's Gospel, and hence he was wrong about the entire 'virgin shall concieve', which he used from the Old Testament to validate the virgin birth.   Naturally, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth hangs on more than that one passage.  But it is hardly a settled dispute.  Primarily because, idiomatically, the term young maiden may for all intents and purposes still assume a virgin, and therefore the literal translation maybe irrelevant to Matthew's use of the word. 

This is one of those decisions that could have - should have - been solved by leaving the traditionally Christian accepted rendering of 'virgin' in place, with a note underneath explaining that the word could mean young maiden, but the context and usage may not matter after all.  Perhaps even a nod to the Septuagint's usage of the word in its translation to the Greek.  But no.  The new NAB translation will simply opt to change the word to 'youg woman' (not even the usually suggested 'young maiden'), put the word 'virgin' in a footnote, and no doubt cause certain levels of confusion among the faithful. 

As Mark Shea once said many years ago, the Catholic Church has and incorrigible knack of obscuring spiritual truths with confusing terminology.  It also seems to have the knack of taking the least reader friendly approaches to translating the Bible, choosing not ones that help enforce the doctrines of the Faith, but rather seem to give credence to those outside the faith who have long rejected and critiqued those doctrines.  Sigh.