Why I now avoid Mark's writings like the plague is touched upon here. Mark can't join with the secular left which simply disdains all appeals to dumb prayers and a non-existent God. So he appears to take a different approach. Prayers and God are fine as far as they go, but those who appeal to them without deferring to the efficacy of political liberalism only do so because their wretched hearts and souls really worship guns and pine for increased human slaughter. So it's the inner motives that are the problem, rather than appealing to some fairy tale God in deference to the State.
For me and my house, I'd prefer to stand with those appealing to prayer, God, personal responsibility, and a return to better morals and a nation of Faith, rather than hold hands with those willing to whip it out and piss all over the Almighty, and those who were murdered while worshiping Him.
Monday, November 6, 2017
Sunday, November 5, 2017
God be with those killed and wounded in the Texas church shooting
I know nothing about this, except the basics that a church was attacked, a gunman killed multiple victims, the gunman apparently was killed, and others have been wounded. God embrace those whose lives were taken from them this Lord's day, and give peace and strength to those left behind, those wounded, and their loved ones. Be with the police, first responders, doctors, nurses, and all who were impacted by this horrible act of evil.
Friday, November 3, 2017
A spanner in the works
We know that Donald Trump personally worked with Russia in order to hack the election and change the votes so he could win. How else do we explain the greatest candidate in political history losing to someone like Trump?
And after almost a year of some of the most rigorous coverage and investigations, we've been able to prove that Hillary's campaign reached out to foreigners and paid them to dig up any dirt, true or false, on Donald Trump. We also know that a lower level aid in the Trump campaign did try to do the same, but higher level aids appeared to poopoo the idea. Pretty damning stuff.
Now, we've had the woman who once slipped Hillary Clinton questions before a primary debate admit that Hillary and the DNC were in cahoots to ensure Clinton's nomination over Bernie Sanders. Not that Ms. Brazile's word is gospel. After all, she was caught doing something pretty underhanded. This could be a case of trying to deflect back on Clinton in the hopes of making herself look good.
But most of us knew, from the screwed up super delegates, to the press's obvious support through its constant 'can Bernie survive another victory?' coverage, that the jig was up for Sanders and the Machine had ordained that Hillary go down in the history books as America's first woman president.
So I can see why I didn't notice a single evening news broadcast mentioning this story last night, outside of FOX. It's not surprising after all. It's barely news. The DNC and Clintons were in something underhanded together? That's dog bites man if I ever saw it. And it might just bring up ugly memories that remind us how much we suspected about the Clintons, the DNC, the media and the whole machine in the first place.
And after almost a year of some of the most rigorous coverage and investigations, we've been able to prove that Hillary's campaign reached out to foreigners and paid them to dig up any dirt, true or false, on Donald Trump. We also know that a lower level aid in the Trump campaign did try to do the same, but higher level aids appeared to poopoo the idea. Pretty damning stuff.
Now, we've had the woman who once slipped Hillary Clinton questions before a primary debate admit that Hillary and the DNC were in cahoots to ensure Clinton's nomination over Bernie Sanders. Not that Ms. Brazile's word is gospel. After all, she was caught doing something pretty underhanded. This could be a case of trying to deflect back on Clinton in the hopes of making herself look good.
But most of us knew, from the screwed up super delegates, to the press's obvious support through its constant 'can Bernie survive another victory?' coverage, that the jig was up for Sanders and the Machine had ordained that Hillary go down in the history books as America's first woman president.
So I can see why I didn't notice a single evening news broadcast mentioning this story last night, outside of FOX. It's not surprising after all. It's barely news. The DNC and Clintons were in something underhanded together? That's dog bites man if I ever saw it. And it might just bring up ugly memories that remind us how much we suspected about the Clintons, the DNC, the media and the whole machine in the first place.
As a witty and profound analyst of current events
J.K. Rowling makes a decent children's book author. Actually, she makes a great marketer and self promoter.
My boys, including a staunch never-Trumper, say she has been gradually slipping into some half baked madness. Certainly the gap between her and the luminaries that she was constantly compared to, such as Lewis and Tolkien, seems to grow with each passing comment.
My second oldest once said that Rowling made a fictional world that was too big for her abilities to fill. As I've noticed some of her recent observations, I have to say it might be because the real world seems a bit too large for her to grasp.
In this case, her 'take down' would have meant more had Trump claimed calm confidence. As it is, that's just a case of deflection. Why deal with the meat of the issue (are the DNC and Clintons guilty?) when we can deflect to something pointless?
There's an old adage that if you have to resort to pointing out typos or style flaws on social media, it's likely because you have nothing substantial to add to to the debate. In Rowling's case, given other observations of hers that I've read, that's what I'm going with.
My boys, including a staunch never-Trumper, say she has been gradually slipping into some half baked madness. Certainly the gap between her and the luminaries that she was constantly compared to, such as Lewis and Tolkien, seems to grow with each passing comment.
My second oldest once said that Rowling made a fictional world that was too big for her abilities to fill. As I've noticed some of her recent observations, I have to say it might be because the real world seems a bit too large for her to grasp.
In this case, her 'take down' would have meant more had Trump claimed calm confidence. As it is, that's just a case of deflection. Why deal with the meat of the issue (are the DNC and Clintons guilty?) when we can deflect to something pointless?
There's an old adage that if you have to resort to pointing out typos or style flaws on social media, it's likely because you have nothing substantial to add to to the debate. In Rowling's case, given other observations of hers that I've read, that's what I'm going with.
Have I mentioned how much the Left now hates America
I don't visit Catholic and Enjoying It anymore. There is little Catholic there, and almost nothing to enjoy. In an ironic twist, Mark once pointed out how Rush Limbaugh used to be light hearted and fun, but became an interminable crank in his later years. I'd say that describes Mark's blog to a T.
I'm not avoiding it just because of Mark's own approach, which typically involves name calling, insults, accusations and even calumny. But his comments section has become a tempest of insanity, hate, and all things left and anti-Western.
If you hate America, the Church, Jesus, Christians, Western Civilization; if you advocate for contraception, abortion, gay sex, Communism - it matters not. As long as your purpose is to stop by and trash Conservatives, Americans, Conservative American Christians, Republicans or - above all things - Donald Trump, you are given a dispensation.
At least you're not called on it. There was a time when someone posting a pro-abort or pro-gay sex or anti-American post would have been swooped down upon by Mark himself. Not to mention the majority of his readers.
Today? Almost never any push back, and that's when others don't line up and cheer and celebrate such posts. Why go to a "Catholic" blog for that? I can go to atheist, communist, pro-abortion and LGBT sites for that. And sometimes, even those type of blogs are at least fun and light hearted, if not wrapped in hatred and loathing for everything sane and right in the world.
Examples:
That was from the short lived 'John Kelly loves slavery' scandal that the press tried to float. Ever since his smack down of the Urban Cowgirl, the press has tried to do what the press will do to anyone who blasphemes the god of leftism: discredit him. So when he dared to say what historians universally said up until the dark times, that the Civil War might have been the result of many factors, even if slavery was the driving force, of course charges of Nazi and racist and irredeemable deplorable flew like crows. That is, until all but the most zealous and fanatical realized all he was saying was what historians have universally said up until these dark times. Then it went away. Except on places like Mark's blog.
Or we have this little gem:
In case you can't read it, here's what it says:
Yep. In other words, the good commenter hates America and sees it, not Nazi Germany, which was merely inspired by it, as the core evil of the 20th century. And America must be the final end of these things. Exactly how, she doesn't say.
When I was in college in 1988, I took a course on the history of the 20th Century. The professor, during the section on the rise of Nazism, made a quip that 'America, in some ways, was worse than Nazi Germany, because the Nazis were at least true to themselves, not hypocrites.' Pretty shocking, though not as many students were as shocked as you'd think. By then, we were hearing it more and more.
I knew a couple professors by then who took that assessment of things like Christianity, the United States, and Western civilization. One, who was as white as Jim Carrey, dressed only in African garb, to distance herself from any connections to that white, European and American heritage she found so repugnant. There were students who thought that way, too. I knew one young lady who was raised in S. America (her parents were there for reasons I never knew), who shared the 'Hurrah for Che, down with America!' attitude. I knew another girl who had a picture of Lenin in her apartment and indulged in some serious Sovietphilia.
I operate under the notion that I'm not the only one to find the only professors who thought that way, or the only college students who thought that way (though I note it was female students I knew, almost to a person, who were more open to the Communist/death to America chant - I only knew one male student to proudly voice that viewpoint). Since I doubt they were the only ones at my Alma Mater, and that my Alma Mater was not the only university producing such thought, it's not hard to see that, a couple generations later, we've seen exponential growth in people who can't figure out what was so bad about the USSR or Nazi Germany, when obviously the nation that needs eradicated from history is the United States, and every wretched thing it brought with it.
That Mark's blog has become ground zero in the Catholic blogosphere for such thought, in addition to the casual allowance for anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, anti-family, pro-choice, pro-LGBT, pro-socialist voices in the comments, is enough for me. I have no desire to go and see people setting up the future for one of the most catastrophically disastrous displays of stupidity ever visited on the human race.
I'm not avoiding it just because of Mark's own approach, which typically involves name calling, insults, accusations and even calumny. But his comments section has become a tempest of insanity, hate, and all things left and anti-Western.
If you hate America, the Church, Jesus, Christians, Western Civilization; if you advocate for contraception, abortion, gay sex, Communism - it matters not. As long as your purpose is to stop by and trash Conservatives, Americans, Conservative American Christians, Republicans or - above all things - Donald Trump, you are given a dispensation.
At least you're not called on it. There was a time when someone posting a pro-abort or pro-gay sex or anti-American post would have been swooped down upon by Mark himself. Not to mention the majority of his readers.
Today? Almost never any push back, and that's when others don't line up and cheer and celebrate such posts. Why go to a "Catholic" blog for that? I can go to atheist, communist, pro-abortion and LGBT sites for that. And sometimes, even those type of blogs are at least fun and light hearted, if not wrapped in hatred and loathing for everything sane and right in the world.
Examples:
That was from the short lived 'John Kelly loves slavery' scandal that the press tried to float. Ever since his smack down of the Urban Cowgirl, the press has tried to do what the press will do to anyone who blasphemes the god of leftism: discredit him. So when he dared to say what historians universally said up until the dark times, that the Civil War might have been the result of many factors, even if slavery was the driving force, of course charges of Nazi and racist and irredeemable deplorable flew like crows. That is, until all but the most zealous and fanatical realized all he was saying was what historians have universally said up until these dark times. Then it went away. Except on places like Mark's blog.
Or we have this little gem:
In case you can't read it, here's what it says:
"I appreciate his willingness to speak up, but Will is being dishonest (probably with himself first) by pretending that Nazism does not have historical roots in the US. He also soft-pedals the alt-right's open advocacy of ethnic/social cleansing, describing it as mere "identity politics". Denial is dangerous here.
Manifest Destiny was the model for "Lebensraum". Under Jim Crow the US was nothing more or less than an apartheid ethnostate, The German Nazis were very explicit about using Jim Crow and the Native American genocides as their reference for for what they wanted to accomplish, and they used our laws as the model for theirs. Some particulars like the cult of "blood and soil" were German inn ovations, but at the heart of historical German Nazism was a kernel of America-worship.
Modern hardline white supremacists certainly acknowledge the kinship: it's been true for a long time that you could find Confederate and Nazi flags on display together if you moved in those circles. More common now in public too. The rot began here and it will have to end here, or (if the average Americans persist in denial) not at all."
Yep. In other words, the good commenter hates America and sees it, not Nazi Germany, which was merely inspired by it, as the core evil of the 20th century. And America must be the final end of these things. Exactly how, she doesn't say.
When I was in college in 1988, I took a course on the history of the 20th Century. The professor, during the section on the rise of Nazism, made a quip that 'America, in some ways, was worse than Nazi Germany, because the Nazis were at least true to themselves, not hypocrites.' Pretty shocking, though not as many students were as shocked as you'd think. By then, we were hearing it more and more.
I knew a couple professors by then who took that assessment of things like Christianity, the United States, and Western civilization. One, who was as white as Jim Carrey, dressed only in African garb, to distance herself from any connections to that white, European and American heritage she found so repugnant. There were students who thought that way, too. I knew one young lady who was raised in S. America (her parents were there for reasons I never knew), who shared the 'Hurrah for Che, down with America!' attitude. I knew another girl who had a picture of Lenin in her apartment and indulged in some serious Sovietphilia.
I operate under the notion that I'm not the only one to find the only professors who thought that way, or the only college students who thought that way (though I note it was female students I knew, almost to a person, who were more open to the Communist/death to America chant - I only knew one male student to proudly voice that viewpoint). Since I doubt they were the only ones at my Alma Mater, and that my Alma Mater was not the only university producing such thought, it's not hard to see that, a couple generations later, we've seen exponential growth in people who can't figure out what was so bad about the USSR or Nazi Germany, when obviously the nation that needs eradicated from history is the United States, and every wretched thing it brought with it.
That Mark's blog has become ground zero in the Catholic blogosphere for such thought, in addition to the casual allowance for anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, anti-family, pro-choice, pro-LGBT, pro-socialist voices in the comments, is enough for me. I have no desire to go and see people setting up the future for one of the most catastrophically disastrous displays of stupidity ever visited on the human race.
Thursday, November 2, 2017
Ruins from an ancient past
A couple years ago, we went through an old shopping mall that was ground zero for teen life when I was growing up. It's mostly empty now. Exactly what is keeping it alive, I'll never know. We were just driving through the town, saw it, and couldn't resist a peek.
As we walked down alone through the mall, past one closed shop after another, we passed a small room containing some old video game machines. There were probably a half dozen or so, plus a couple arcade style games like pinball. None I had ever heard of.
We explained to our boys that, was a time, such places were teaming with kids, teens, even adults. You had to wait in line for the popular ones (Pac-Man was always standing room only). And they were everywhere. We even had one in our little town, at first near a downtown parking lot, then down a side street beside an old pharmacy. It didn't last more than a couple years. But it was there during the peak.
They say the Arabs used to have an old proverb that goes 'All things fear time, but time fears the pyramids.' That's because even by the time of Moses and the Exodus, the pyramids were relics from thousands of years earlier. Even today, people travel to see the ruins of ancient civilization, medieval castles, even baroque architecture and displays of hundreds of years ago.
I wonder how much of what we have today will last anywhere near that long. Two thousand years from now, the last couple centuries will be part of a larger period, perhaps the 'industrial' or 'technological early years', or something. Maybe the tech dark ages. You never know. Save for the world wars, beginning of nuclear weapons, and possibly the death of 2500 years of growth toward democracy and liberty, I doubt there will be anything to set one century apart from another. Anymore than we reckon periods of ancient Egyptian, Chinese or neolithic Europe by centuries, much less decades.
If the last couple generations are any indications, much of what we cling to now won't last the generation that birthed it. If technology has made change lickety-split for anything and everything imaginable, we seem to discard places and things as antiquated and archaic just as quickly. Things that define culture today are gone tomorrow. Not that change has ever been as slow as we sometimes make it. Believe it or not, on a cultural and social level, things could change fairly quickly, even wtihin decades, back in the day. That's, back in the Medieval or ancient day.
But today, the speed with which so many culturally defining phenomena pass into the shadows is telling. I can't help but wonder how much - if anything - will be left for historians a thousand years to even know about, much less study.
I thought of this when I saw a fun little romp through the history of arcades at the height of video game mania. If you can get past the picture of Spielberg with an open shirt in his office next to a game I never heard of, it's a pretty amusing little trip down memory lane for those who remember when MTV still played videos.
As we walked down alone through the mall, past one closed shop after another, we passed a small room containing some old video game machines. There were probably a half dozen or so, plus a couple arcade style games like pinball. None I had ever heard of.
We explained to our boys that, was a time, such places were teaming with kids, teens, even adults. You had to wait in line for the popular ones (Pac-Man was always standing room only). And they were everywhere. We even had one in our little town, at first near a downtown parking lot, then down a side street beside an old pharmacy. It didn't last more than a couple years. But it was there during the peak.
They say the Arabs used to have an old proverb that goes 'All things fear time, but time fears the pyramids.' That's because even by the time of Moses and the Exodus, the pyramids were relics from thousands of years earlier. Even today, people travel to see the ruins of ancient civilization, medieval castles, even baroque architecture and displays of hundreds of years ago.
I wonder how much of what we have today will last anywhere near that long. Two thousand years from now, the last couple centuries will be part of a larger period, perhaps the 'industrial' or 'technological early years', or something. Maybe the tech dark ages. You never know. Save for the world wars, beginning of nuclear weapons, and possibly the death of 2500 years of growth toward democracy and liberty, I doubt there will be anything to set one century apart from another. Anymore than we reckon periods of ancient Egyptian, Chinese or neolithic Europe by centuries, much less decades.
If the last couple generations are any indications, much of what we cling to now won't last the generation that birthed it. If technology has made change lickety-split for anything and everything imaginable, we seem to discard places and things as antiquated and archaic just as quickly. Things that define culture today are gone tomorrow. Not that change has ever been as slow as we sometimes make it. Believe it or not, on a cultural and social level, things could change fairly quickly, even wtihin decades, back in the day. That's, back in the Medieval or ancient day.
But today, the speed with which so many culturally defining phenomena pass into the shadows is telling. I can't help but wonder how much - if anything - will be left for historians a thousand years to even know about, much less study.
I thought of this when I saw a fun little romp through the history of arcades at the height of video game mania. If you can get past the picture of Spielberg with an open shirt in his office next to a game I never heard of, it's a pretty amusing little trip down memory lane for those who remember when MTV still played videos.
Wednesday, November 1, 2017
Pumpkin with your shadows growing
Unfortunately, the rest were down for weeks at a time, limiting what little time there was. Already, with the two oldest out of school and moving into college and/or full time jobs, they naturally aren't around that much anymore. We're letting them live at home to save money, working full time hours, and avoiding debt for college. Don't worry, the deal was I still get my two cents worth from them, if nothing else by labor and chores.
Still, with social lives, school, jobs and just generally getting older, they aren't around like they used to be, as it should be, though that leaves our youngest adjusting to a house where one after another, his brothers aren't there the way they have been.
Despite that, however, with what time they do have, they devote to him, whether it's showing up for his last soccer game, or taking him out to eat, or making sure they all have time off on Halloween to go around with him for Beggar's Night. I can't complain. Even when they are dating, they tell the girls they need to have one night a week to be with family/their youngest brother. All is right with the world.
Despite it being a lost October, we recovered nicely on the last weekend. The oldest boys managed to make it to his last game and general Halloween fun, and then, even though a couple were still struggling with health, they all managed to have time off Halloween night to go around with him. Somehow, we have the feeling this was likely the last time they'll be able to afford that luxury. Already it was a near run thing. By next year, with all three out of school, going to college, working or doing whatever, it's unlikely they'll all be available again.
But they were this time. And that's what counts. Even if it was crunched into a couple half days, they managed one more time to touch base with all the fun: pumpkin carving and straw mazes, ghost runs at cemeteries, Halloween specials, and our annual Halloween extravaganza of candy and cider, pumpkin donuts and pumpkin seeds (roasted and spiced of course), and silent movies capped off with The Great Pumpkin.
I can say I'm thankful to them for taking me up on my request all those years ago. When we found out about our little Catholic surprise, I charged them to make sure their youngest (nine years younger than our third son) was part of the gang. I didn't want them to move on doing their thing, leaving him in the dust. As I told them, I didn't want them to be the party that our youngest missed. And for eight years, they have more than come through in flying colors. And that, if nothing else, made it a happy Halloween.
 |
| Yes, it was spitting snow at his last soccer game. |
 |
| Off to the old cemetery for the annual ghost run. |
 |
| Splitting up more than they used to, they still gather to explore. |
 |
| Freshly pressed cider and picked apples, straight from the location of my very first field trip in Kindergarten. |
 |
| Straw maze races: Even our youngest is too big, still for old time's sake |
 |
| I'll assume his older brother is letting him win |
 |
| But then sometimes I wonder |
 |
| You just can't have a Tricks or Treats table without pumpkin seeds, pumpkin doughnuts, doughnut holes, and fresh cider. |
 |
| What a lovely night for a curse |
 |
| For last minute, it wasn't horrible |
 |
| It's nice when they get their own pumpkins |
 |
| Turnips: Halloween like they say they did in the old country |
 |
| Our oldest dons his goto Sherlock Holmes get up |
 |
| Our second oldest decided to go as a glitch in the Matrix (that is, two sweatshirts of the same color) |
 |
| He wanted to be Linus, but we had no red striped shirt, and he didn't want to carry a blanket, so with some persuasion he was Kylo-Ren |
 |
| Sometimes I don't think it's all for their youngest's sake |
 |
| It fits his personality |
 |
| The boys together for one last Halloween hurrah...or will it be? Tune in next year... |
Well this is weird
So female porn stars are joining the Weinstain wagon and saying that male porn stars sexually assaulted them (not surprising warning: some graphic descriptions in this ironically headlined article).
No lawyer here, but I'd think on the job assault accusations would be devilishly difficult to prove in these cases. But again, we're watching the West slip into madness, which is the last step before terror and dark ages.
We're already at a point where people increasingly have no problem saying that someone should be punished simply because he is accused (I'm looking at you Tom Steyer). Why wrangle about due process and the rule of law when we can jump to mob rule and move straight to the scaffold?
So you never know. We might be at a stage where a woman's accusation can wait until after the cigarette and still carry weight. Our society has become that stupid. It's almost as if we found freedom too difficult, and will settle for mob rule and tyranny, as long as it applies to everyone else. Just like we approach terrorist attacks - acceptable as long as they strike everyone else.
No lawyer here, but I'd think on the job assault accusations would be devilishly difficult to prove in these cases. But again, we're watching the West slip into madness, which is the last step before terror and dark ages.
We're already at a point where people increasingly have no problem saying that someone should be punished simply because he is accused (I'm looking at you Tom Steyer). Why wrangle about due process and the rule of law when we can jump to mob rule and move straight to the scaffold?
So you never know. We might be at a stage where a woman's accusation can wait until after the cigarette and still carry weight. Our society has become that stupid. It's almost as if we found freedom too difficult, and will settle for mob rule and tyranny, as long as it applies to everyone else. Just like we approach terrorist attacks - acceptable as long as they strike everyone else.
The reason I don't condemn entire organizations
Just because their leader, or even a group of leaders, does something wrong in his or her personal life. That would be stupid. 'Nuff said.
All Saints Day and true diversity
Diversity is one of many words with almost no meaning today. It is supposed to mean something, usually along the lines of 'everyone respect everyone else who is different.' Usually it's just a punch line to win an argument on behalf of liberalism, if that. Diversity in many circles typically means being indoctrinated into various dogmas as prescribed by the Left.
Not that diversity is itself a bad thing. Quite the contrary, it had the potential of making America the great nation it was. Likewise, diversity abused or misused can become the rot which eats away at the same country's foundations. But at its best, diversity is a good thing, since no two of us rascally humans are alike, and acknowledging the fact that we each bring something unique to the table can actually be quite good.
And next to the historic United States, there is no other tradition on Earth where true diversity is demonstrated more obviously than the Communion of Christian Saints. Look across the globe, and there really is no monolith in the Church. That's because the call was to make disciples of the nations. Not just this or that group, or demand others come and be like us.
And so we have a laundry list of diversity in its best form, one that is commonly known as the Communion of Saints. Michael Flynn does a fine job reminding us about just why real diversity is a blessing, and something worth more than just a dashed off after thought following the loot and parties of All Hallow's Eve.
Not that diversity is itself a bad thing. Quite the contrary, it had the potential of making America the great nation it was. Likewise, diversity abused or misused can become the rot which eats away at the same country's foundations. But at its best, diversity is a good thing, since no two of us rascally humans are alike, and acknowledging the fact that we each bring something unique to the table can actually be quite good.
And next to the historic United States, there is no other tradition on Earth where true diversity is demonstrated more obviously than the Communion of Christian Saints. Look across the globe, and there really is no monolith in the Church. That's because the call was to make disciples of the nations. Not just this or that group, or demand others come and be like us.
And so we have a laundry list of diversity in its best form, one that is commonly known as the Communion of Saints. Michael Flynn does a fine job reminding us about just why real diversity is a blessing, and something worth more than just a dashed off after thought following the loot and parties of All Hallow's Eve.
We should not be politicizing the terrorist attack in Manhattan
Those who have made politicizing human suffering their MO are correct in this case, we shouldn't elevate politics to the god which alone can bring salvation. We should come together and mourn, pray, reflect, unify and seek to aid those who are suffering. That is the response of a nation with people of good will.
So this is a time to reflect, mourn, pray and lift up those killed and the families they left behind. Those who are saying we shouldn't politicize this, or that President Trump should back off, are correct. And next time, we'll remember what they said this time. But for now, God's blessings on those who lost their lives to this evil, and may God give peace and strength to the survivors and the loved ones left behind.
So this is a time to reflect, mourn, pray and lift up those killed and the families they left behind. Those who are saying we shouldn't politicize this, or that President Trump should back off, are correct. And next time, we'll remember what they said this time. But for now, God's blessings on those who lost their lives to this evil, and may God give peace and strength to the survivors and the loved ones left behind.
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Pumpkin in the window
Or All Hallow's Eve to us Christians, the kick off to All Saints' and All Souls Days. Here is a splendid little page from Fish Eaters on the holiday as some used to celebrate it. I mused on it here and here some years ago. This being nearing the end of my oldest boys' abilities to be around during these times, we'll be busy with the kids. My wife has the day off, and they all took time off and days to make sure they could be there for our youngest, if just one more time.
Speaking of fun, here's something interesting. It's considered the first ever 'horror' movie. A French film, translated the The House of the Devil. It's from 1896. Think on that. Before Dracula was published. Before the turn of the last century. That's old.
Speaking of fun, here's something interesting. It's considered the first ever 'horror' movie. A French film, translated the The House of the Devil. It's from 1896. Think on that. Before Dracula was published. Before the turn of the last century. That's old.
Monday, October 30, 2017
Sometimes it's easy to believe in God
Like watching the series Closer to Truth on PBS. I know. It's not supposed to do that. It is definitely from a more skeptical, or at least antiseptically secular, viewpoint. Nonetheless, it's well done and the basic programming, like most of what you get on PBS, is high quality.
Today, I saw the episode 'How to Argue for God'. In it, we are led by the host (whose name escapes me), saying he's willing to believe, he just wants a profound argument based on something he's not getting from the arguments he hears.
And he doesn't talk to lightweights. This isn't Religulous by Bill Maher. This fellow goes to to some respectable names to pitch for God, including Alister McGrath, Russell Stannard, and even gives a nod to Islam with Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub. Each one has a chance to unpack the rationale behind God, with McGrath and Stannard paying close attention to understanding God in an age of science.
Nonetheless, by the end of the episode, our intrepid narrator decides he's going with his hero, Steven Weinberg. After listening to some pretty profound arguments, some of which flew north over my own head, he decided that Mr. Weinberg's assessment was the most solid.
And what did atheist Weinberg say that moved him so? He said that looking for the bigger truth was a pointless venture. He found the monotheistic, Abrahamic versions of God repugnant, and certainly felt the emphasis on obedience was flawed. He concluded that we just stop trying to find those big picture truths, which ultimately lead people to God, or Communism, or Free Market Capitalism, or any one of a thousand things that cause people to behave badly. He concluded that these religions have nothing to say to people about being good people, which involves loving each other. That, he decides, is the solution: no more big truth, just love each other.
And that, after an episode of some pretty hefty reasoning for God, looking at the science and the theology and the philosophy, unpacking the strengths and weaknesses of both the religious and the non-religious explanations for reality, our interpret narrator conclude his hero hits the nail on the head by basically telling us to stop seeking for big picture truths and:
Yep. The more our world unravels and the secular left falls into oblivion with such stellar arguments as 'be excellent to each other, dudes', the easier it is to believe in that old time religion.
Today, I saw the episode 'How to Argue for God'. In it, we are led by the host (whose name escapes me), saying he's willing to believe, he just wants a profound argument based on something he's not getting from the arguments he hears.
And he doesn't talk to lightweights. This isn't Religulous by Bill Maher. This fellow goes to to some respectable names to pitch for God, including Alister McGrath, Russell Stannard, and even gives a nod to Islam with Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub. Each one has a chance to unpack the rationale behind God, with McGrath and Stannard paying close attention to understanding God in an age of science.
Nonetheless, by the end of the episode, our intrepid narrator decides he's going with his hero, Steven Weinberg. After listening to some pretty profound arguments, some of which flew north over my own head, he decided that Mr. Weinberg's assessment was the most solid.
And what did atheist Weinberg say that moved him so? He said that looking for the bigger truth was a pointless venture. He found the monotheistic, Abrahamic versions of God repugnant, and certainly felt the emphasis on obedience was flawed. He concluded that we just stop trying to find those big picture truths, which ultimately lead people to God, or Communism, or Free Market Capitalism, or any one of a thousand things that cause people to behave badly. He concluded that these religions have nothing to say to people about being good people, which involves loving each other. That, he decides, is the solution: no more big truth, just love each other.
And that, after an episode of some pretty hefty reasoning for God, looking at the science and the theology and the philosophy, unpacking the strengths and weaknesses of both the religious and the non-religious explanations for reality, our interpret narrator conclude his hero hits the nail on the head by basically telling us to stop seeking for big picture truths and:
Yep. The more our world unravels and the secular left falls into oblivion with such stellar arguments as 'be excellent to each other, dudes', the easier it is to believe in that old time religion.
I remember this
I was about 13 when this was released, and it creeped me out. Never saw the movie in theaters. I had to wait for the advent of the VCR. But the commercial? That was when we moved outside of town, and my 'kid's space' was in the basement. See this at 10:00 PM at night, by myself, in the basement of a lonely house, gave me the willies.
A little Halloween fun.
Saturday, October 28, 2017
Ohio State wins
And Penn State makes it a game to remember. It started ugly. The kickoff led to a Penn State run right back for a touchdown. Then OSU got the ball and promptly fumbled. That set up for Penn State's second touchdown in as many minutes. Before we made it five minutes into the game, we were down two touchdowns to nothing. The only thing we did well was scoring a field goal before the end of the first quarter. That made us the first team this year to score in the first quarter against Penn State.
It didn't get better. Stupid penalties and questionable calls plagued us. At least twice a crucial and controversial call stole victory from us, just as a comeback seemed possible. Our special teams continued to stumble about, and the play calling seemed to be the same we had witnessed the last three seasons - doomed to fail.
Then came our return from halftime and - nothing. It continued. We scored, but Penn State scored again. Against one of the best defenses in the country, and perhaps the best offensive duo in college football, it just didn't seem like it was in the cards. Even if we had dominated every Podunk team we played this year, it seemed we were destined to lose to the big ones.
The only thing I'll say is that, strangely enough, we never seemed to give up. The players didn't appear to lose heart. The fans even stayed in there, as if we were on the edge of victory rather than continually behind. Through the third quarter, the only thing we could hold onto was the fact that we apparently had the will to hold on.
And then something happened. I don't know what. I think it was a botched punt by Penn State. Somehow, that seemed to turn the momentum. Our defense, as always, rose to the occasion and erected the legendary OSU Iron Curtain. Suddenly the best offensive in America was slowed to a crawl. It was three and out and sacks galore.
And Ohio State began pushing back. There was no great rallying play, no big touchdown, no pick six at the last second. Somehow, like so many games won by the Patriots, Ohio State turned it around. J.T. Barrett, who has been questioned by everyone who watches football, came into his own. He has been three hits and two misses for almost his entire career. Often our offensive strategy seemed built around keeping him from passing long down the field.
Tonight, he came out and completed 13 passes in a row. By the end, we were all over them. It still looked long, and we were two scores behind with only minutes left in the game. And yet, when the whistle blew and the clock ran out, we were one point ahead. Don't ask me how. But it was a nail biter to the end, and we did it.
Penn State never gave up either. They played and played again, but it's like something didn't work. Even when they were well ahead, James Franklin seemed perplexed. All we could figure was that he was stunned that our team, and the fans, never let go. Until the end, everyone was invested in winning. And win we did.
It didn't get better. Stupid penalties and questionable calls plagued us. At least twice a crucial and controversial call stole victory from us, just as a comeback seemed possible. Our special teams continued to stumble about, and the play calling seemed to be the same we had witnessed the last three seasons - doomed to fail.
Then came our return from halftime and - nothing. It continued. We scored, but Penn State scored again. Against one of the best defenses in the country, and perhaps the best offensive duo in college football, it just didn't seem like it was in the cards. Even if we had dominated every Podunk team we played this year, it seemed we were destined to lose to the big ones.
The only thing I'll say is that, strangely enough, we never seemed to give up. The players didn't appear to lose heart. The fans even stayed in there, as if we were on the edge of victory rather than continually behind. Through the third quarter, the only thing we could hold onto was the fact that we apparently had the will to hold on.
And then something happened. I don't know what. I think it was a botched punt by Penn State. Somehow, that seemed to turn the momentum. Our defense, as always, rose to the occasion and erected the legendary OSU Iron Curtain. Suddenly the best offensive in America was slowed to a crawl. It was three and out and sacks galore.
And Ohio State began pushing back. There was no great rallying play, no big touchdown, no pick six at the last second. Somehow, like so many games won by the Patriots, Ohio State turned it around. J.T. Barrett, who has been questioned by everyone who watches football, came into his own. He has been three hits and two misses for almost his entire career. Often our offensive strategy seemed built around keeping him from passing long down the field.
Tonight, he came out and completed 13 passes in a row. By the end, we were all over them. It still looked long, and we were two scores behind with only minutes left in the game. And yet, when the whistle blew and the clock ran out, we were one point ahead. Don't ask me how. But it was a nail biter to the end, and we did it.
Penn State never gave up either. They played and played again, but it's like something didn't work. Even when they were well ahead, James Franklin seemed perplexed. All we could figure was that he was stunned that our team, and the fans, never let go. Until the end, everyone was invested in winning. And win we did.
A nation of Draxes
That's Drax the Destroyer, of Guardians of the Galaxy fame. I'm the least capable person in America when it comes to unpacking comics and the whole Comic Universe. Nonetheless, I actually enjoyed GotG, and watched it a couple times.
One thing that came out of it was that old Drax is from a race that takes things literally. No metaphor or figurative language there, he takes everything at face value. And in the movie, that's supposed to be funny. It does lead to some humorous dialogue.
I thought of that as yet another person has violated our Big Politically Correct Brother's sensitivities, speaking words of the English Language, only to find out he has likely revealed his inner racism and has been called to grovel.
What did he say? He said, relative to the kneeling controversy in the dying NFL, that he didn't want the inmates running the prison. Of course that's an old figure of speech that's been around far longer than me. It's a sign of the times that I immediately understood the controversy. I think 20 years ago I would have been confused. Today, I get it. I knew exactly how it should have been taken, but also how stupid we would have to be to get upset about such a thing.
When you shape your nation to be filled with a bunch of people who act like comedy relief in a comic book movie, don't expect much to come from its future.
One thing that came out of it was that old Drax is from a race that takes things literally. No metaphor or figurative language there, he takes everything at face value. And in the movie, that's supposed to be funny. It does lead to some humorous dialogue.
I thought of that as yet another person has violated our Big Politically Correct Brother's sensitivities, speaking words of the English Language, only to find out he has likely revealed his inner racism and has been called to grovel.
What did he say? He said, relative to the kneeling controversy in the dying NFL, that he didn't want the inmates running the prison. Of course that's an old figure of speech that's been around far longer than me. It's a sign of the times that I immediately understood the controversy. I think 20 years ago I would have been confused. Today, I get it. I knew exactly how it should have been taken, but also how stupid we would have to be to get upset about such a thing.
When you shape your nation to be filled with a bunch of people who act like comedy relief in a comic book movie, don't expect much to come from its future.
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
A celebration of slaughter
Dr. Samuel Gregg examines the 100th Anniversary of Russia's October Revolution. This should be bigger than it is, though the Left has always been shy about focusing too much on the horrors of Communism.
Growing up, all the hip shows and movies cast a sympathetic glance over at the legacy of Communism and its prevailing states, whether it be MASH or Reds, you couldn't help but get the feeling that underlying the approach was a secret 'they're better than us' message in it all.
In college, it was the same. Communism, though not without its flaws, was never as bad as - can I say it - the Capitalism of America's industrial war machines. More than one professor took great delight in pointing out that the Communists were often just trying to help, unlike our own government that never seemed to have a pure motive in its history.
The same for Catholics, at least those more hostile to America and the Western tradition. More than once I've been informed that if you take the Trail of Tears, twist and turn the numbers just right, it's clear the US is the most murderous nation state in history, far worse than any Communist state of the 20th century. And that doesn't count the millions of slaves that were murdered, the billions of Native Americans killed, and the tens of millions killed by our military during our endless imperial grabs for power.
Nonetheless, outside of that weird universe of Marxist driven leftist ideology, in what we call the real world, Communism remains perhaps the most evil, murderous, and destructive ideology in the history of the human race. That so many on the Left either try to downplay, or outright deny, this makes you wonder just how passionate the Left is about opposing things like mass slaughter, tyranny, destruction and endless terror.
Nonetheless, this is the big 100th anniversary. We'll see how much it's covered. Kudos to The Catholic World Report for stepping out early and getting a jump on the future reflections.
Growing up, all the hip shows and movies cast a sympathetic glance over at the legacy of Communism and its prevailing states, whether it be MASH or Reds, you couldn't help but get the feeling that underlying the approach was a secret 'they're better than us' message in it all.
In college, it was the same. Communism, though not without its flaws, was never as bad as - can I say it - the Capitalism of America's industrial war machines. More than one professor took great delight in pointing out that the Communists were often just trying to help, unlike our own government that never seemed to have a pure motive in its history.
The same for Catholics, at least those more hostile to America and the Western tradition. More than once I've been informed that if you take the Trail of Tears, twist and turn the numbers just right, it's clear the US is the most murderous nation state in history, far worse than any Communist state of the 20th century. And that doesn't count the millions of slaves that were murdered, the billions of Native Americans killed, and the tens of millions killed by our military during our endless imperial grabs for power.
Nonetheless, outside of that weird universe of Marxist driven leftist ideology, in what we call the real world, Communism remains perhaps the most evil, murderous, and destructive ideology in the history of the human race. That so many on the Left either try to downplay, or outright deny, this makes you wonder just how passionate the Left is about opposing things like mass slaughter, tyranny, destruction and endless terror.
Nonetheless, this is the big 100th anniversary. We'll see how much it's covered. Kudos to The Catholic World Report for stepping out early and getting a jump on the future reflections.
If Republicans had fought for their voters
As boldly and passionately as they have fought Donald Trump, we wouldn't have Donald Trump. I'm not happy about Trump, make no mistake. Trump is the GOP version of everything that progressivism has hoisted on our nation for the last half century or more. In many ways, he epitomizes the worst of what we have become.
Nonetheless, most die hard Trump supporters I know don't hate the Democrats nearly as much as they hate the GOP establishment. That's because they've watched for almost 30 years as the GOP seemed to fall back and surrender on almost every front that mattered. They've even watched as some Republicans increasingly seemed to share the contempt and derision held for conservatives that is common among the Democratic establishment.
They watched election after election of being promised the sky and the stars, only to end up with table scraps, and that's if they were lucky. They watched as time and again, when Republicans held the orb, scepter and crown, the Grand Old Party would almost hand the prizes over to the Democrats in order to get more face time on the news. They watched loss after loss, betrayal after betrayal. They watched a party that, for 30 years, seemed to almost apologize to the media for being anything other than Democrats. In 2016, they had enough.
Trump got to where he got in the primaries because of the media. We all know that. Why the press did it is up to interpretation. I have my ideas. But nobody denies that the press was crucial for Trump's nomination. When he was nominated, the GOP did something that many Republican voters hadn't seen since the Reagan years. It became passionate and committed. Not to the Republican voters, of course, but in their fight against Trump. For the first time in many memories, the GOP was fighting for a cause.
And that, children, is why we have Trump. Many have said that America needs to move past a two party system. But the solution is not a one party system. Through the 90s and in the post-9/11 years, as the GOP made it clear that keeping seats at the insider party was their primary motive, the GOP and the Democrats looked less and less different.
So they turned to someone who would damage the GOP brand as much as possible. Not that I'm glad. I don't like Trump's kindergartner approach to discourse. I didn't like it when the Democrats used the popular culture to do the same with their own good cop/bad cop. When the Democrats let comedians, pundits, and bloggers go out to do worse than Trump ever said, and then yucked it up at parties and dinners for a job well done. Nonetheless, I have to admit why Trump is there. With all the various problems in the world, it's hard to miss that to some Republicans, the biggest problem was their own party. And it was a problem they will be happy to see Trump fix.
Nonetheless, most die hard Trump supporters I know don't hate the Democrats nearly as much as they hate the GOP establishment. That's because they've watched for almost 30 years as the GOP seemed to fall back and surrender on almost every front that mattered. They've even watched as some Republicans increasingly seemed to share the contempt and derision held for conservatives that is common among the Democratic establishment.
They watched election after election of being promised the sky and the stars, only to end up with table scraps, and that's if they were lucky. They watched as time and again, when Republicans held the orb, scepter and crown, the Grand Old Party would almost hand the prizes over to the Democrats in order to get more face time on the news. They watched loss after loss, betrayal after betrayal. They watched a party that, for 30 years, seemed to almost apologize to the media for being anything other than Democrats. In 2016, they had enough.
Trump got to where he got in the primaries because of the media. We all know that. Why the press did it is up to interpretation. I have my ideas. But nobody denies that the press was crucial for Trump's nomination. When he was nominated, the GOP did something that many Republican voters hadn't seen since the Reagan years. It became passionate and committed. Not to the Republican voters, of course, but in their fight against Trump. For the first time in many memories, the GOP was fighting for a cause.
And that, children, is why we have Trump. Many have said that America needs to move past a two party system. But the solution is not a one party system. Through the 90s and in the post-9/11 years, as the GOP made it clear that keeping seats at the insider party was their primary motive, the GOP and the Democrats looked less and less different.
So they turned to someone who would damage the GOP brand as much as possible. Not that I'm glad. I don't like Trump's kindergartner approach to discourse. I didn't like it when the Democrats used the popular culture to do the same with their own good cop/bad cop. When the Democrats let comedians, pundits, and bloggers go out to do worse than Trump ever said, and then yucked it up at parties and dinners for a job well done. Nonetheless, I have to admit why Trump is there. With all the various problems in the world, it's hard to miss that to some Republicans, the biggest problem was their own party. And it was a problem they will be happy to see Trump fix.
Saturday, October 21, 2017
Republicans are why Trump won
I don't mean the usual 'Trump won because Republicans are a bunch of sexist, racist, homophobic deplorables who love their own'. I mean he won because of George Bush's speech. That speech was a long way around demonstrating that he and Hillary Clinton were essentially two sides for the same coin. It was a long winded way of saying the old is over and the new is inevitable, we hope Americans don't get hurt and maybe now we'll spend more time listening and at least saying we'll help, but it is what it is. In this piece, Tucker Carlson gets it (a little vulgarity there, it is about Trump after all).
The GOP has long preferred a more Democratic world view. By the mid 20th century, it was not the party of the blue collar, religious conservative. That was the Democrat Party back in the day. As the Democrats were torn down and reborn in the wake of 1968, those social and religious blue collar types were getting anxious.
Liberals say it was the 'Southern Strategy'. That's a liberal wive's tale where the GOP purposefully chose to embrace Nazi inspired racism to appeal to Southerners who are nothing but racists. There is a shard of truth to that, as there is to most myths. As the Democrats finally gave up on discriminating against Blacks as a core value, and decided to make WASP Americans the New Blacks, the GOP realized that backing off on 'Southerners are a bunch of racist hicks' rhetoric might do them some good voter wise.
It wasn't until 1980, however, and the election of Ronald Reagan, that Democrats came in busloads over to the GOP. And it wasn't because Reagan donned his white hood and swastika. It was Jimmy Carter's failed presidency and the growing radicalism of the Democratic party that had finally pushed them over. As the Democrat Party became more and more about embracing feminism, gay rights, environmentalism and the 'America's best days are behind it' mantra, the Reagan Democrats looked to the Gipper.
Reagan wasn't exactly a life long conservative. Anti-conservative Catholics are more than happy to remind everyone of his earlier sins regarding abortion. He was also the first divorced president in history. But he had changed, and he made social conservative issues a presidential matter, such as opposing abortion, pushing back on radical feminism, and building up America's strength and greatness a cornerstone of his campaign.
Nonetheless, he was not loved among the establishment Republican base, those Republicans who reflect a Hearst like viewpoint: strong military to protect Wall Street interests while going home to the mistress. Things like abortion and homosexuality were off the radar, and they preferred to keep it that way. Hayseeds clinging to their guns and religion were not the people they hung with. But it was the base that Reagan wooed. And the GOP has been at war with that coalition for 30 years.
In 2016, we saw the result of that conflict. Those who voted for Trump were only half opposed to the Democrats. If they didn't want Hillary, they were just as against the GOP establishment represented by the likes of G.W. Bush. Oh sure, he paid lip service to conservatives and religious traditionalists at election time, but never in a way that he thought would sever him from the admiration of the 'Insider.' The same insiders, I should mention, who ravaged and butchered him in the same way they are doing to Trump, or have ever done to any Republican for decades on end. I guess the lure of being liked by the in-people is enough to overcome reality.
By defining himself as a 'compassionate' conservative, Bush already showed the world what he imagined to be a typical conservative, and that was the problem. His whole speech here, with only the slightest modifications, could easily have been given by Obama, Hillary, Biden or anyone on the Left within that circle of beautiful people. He basically as good as said 'This is a progressive world folks, and we have to deal with it. Some might get hurt, and that's a damn shame, and now that they've fussed we're willing to listen a little. But progress is the name, and global liberalism is the game.'
Again, most Trumpsters I know are far less vitriolic toward the Democrats than they are the GOP. Some, I think, don't care what Trump does, as long as he leaves the Republican establishment as a smoldering ruin.
The GOP has long preferred a more Democratic world view. By the mid 20th century, it was not the party of the blue collar, religious conservative. That was the Democrat Party back in the day. As the Democrats were torn down and reborn in the wake of 1968, those social and religious blue collar types were getting anxious.
Liberals say it was the 'Southern Strategy'. That's a liberal wive's tale where the GOP purposefully chose to embrace Nazi inspired racism to appeal to Southerners who are nothing but racists. There is a shard of truth to that, as there is to most myths. As the Democrats finally gave up on discriminating against Blacks as a core value, and decided to make WASP Americans the New Blacks, the GOP realized that backing off on 'Southerners are a bunch of racist hicks' rhetoric might do them some good voter wise.
It wasn't until 1980, however, and the election of Ronald Reagan, that Democrats came in busloads over to the GOP. And it wasn't because Reagan donned his white hood and swastika. It was Jimmy Carter's failed presidency and the growing radicalism of the Democratic party that had finally pushed them over. As the Democrat Party became more and more about embracing feminism, gay rights, environmentalism and the 'America's best days are behind it' mantra, the Reagan Democrats looked to the Gipper.
Reagan wasn't exactly a life long conservative. Anti-conservative Catholics are more than happy to remind everyone of his earlier sins regarding abortion. He was also the first divorced president in history. But he had changed, and he made social conservative issues a presidential matter, such as opposing abortion, pushing back on radical feminism, and building up America's strength and greatness a cornerstone of his campaign.
Nonetheless, he was not loved among the establishment Republican base, those Republicans who reflect a Hearst like viewpoint: strong military to protect Wall Street interests while going home to the mistress. Things like abortion and homosexuality were off the radar, and they preferred to keep it that way. Hayseeds clinging to their guns and religion were not the people they hung with. But it was the base that Reagan wooed. And the GOP has been at war with that coalition for 30 years.
In 2016, we saw the result of that conflict. Those who voted for Trump were only half opposed to the Democrats. If they didn't want Hillary, they were just as against the GOP establishment represented by the likes of G.W. Bush. Oh sure, he paid lip service to conservatives and religious traditionalists at election time, but never in a way that he thought would sever him from the admiration of the 'Insider.' The same insiders, I should mention, who ravaged and butchered him in the same way they are doing to Trump, or have ever done to any Republican for decades on end. I guess the lure of being liked by the in-people is enough to overcome reality.
By defining himself as a 'compassionate' conservative, Bush already showed the world what he imagined to be a typical conservative, and that was the problem. His whole speech here, with only the slightest modifications, could easily have been given by Obama, Hillary, Biden or anyone on the Left within that circle of beautiful people. He basically as good as said 'This is a progressive world folks, and we have to deal with it. Some might get hurt, and that's a damn shame, and now that they've fussed we're willing to listen a little. But progress is the name, and global liberalism is the game.'
Again, most Trumpsters I know are far less vitriolic toward the Democrats than they are the GOP. Some, I think, don't care what Trump does, as long as he leaves the Republican establishment as a smoldering ruin.
The press has already spent more time focusing on Niger than it ever did Benghazi
I don't have time to link to all the sources I've found. This doesn't count the media two step. That's when the press does cover something because it has to, but only in the most basic, shallow and fleeting manner possible. So after Benghazi stopped being about violence provoked by Islamophobic bigotry, the story essentially went away.
No wailing about the dead, no real push back against the administration, no endless geography or history lessons about Benghazi and its place in the region, no media driven probe into who and how the story got it so wrong from the beginning, no household names made of the victims. The only time it would be covered would be under the template 'GOP lawmakers today made more inquires about Benghazi', usually followed by interviews with Democrats insisting it was all political or just a bunch of nothing. End of story, onto the latest fashion show story.
Of course at no point did the press ever link it to Hillary, much less Obama. On those occasions where attempts to link the tragedy to the leadership or hold the Obama administration responsible, the press rushed in like a safety in football running up to tackle the runner. I think we all remember the Candy Crowley incident in 2012.
Compare that to now. John Kelly is a liar they're saying. Trump was disrespectful because a congresswoman in a rhinestone cowboy hat says so. I've learned more about Niger in the last few days than I've ever learned about Idaho. Questions, inquiries, probes, investigations, calls for more information - it's been around the clock. And this is really just week one.
The press says it's Trump's fault for how he responded to a question about why Trump didn't talk about the ambush that the press had barely mentioned. Nonetheless, I think that sane people can see the writing on the wall. Just as we've seen regarding the Weinstein scandal, we no longer have a press. We have a Pravda. And that is not a defender of freedom, but a threat to it.
The best that can happen is that our own Pravda will help be the downfall and end to the American experiment. The worst that can happen is that those Christians who are beholden to the Left will begin to see life, as the press sees it, as something that is not sacred, but is convenient. Just like women being assaulted, soldiers being killed, Blacks being murdered, or whatever.
No wailing about the dead, no real push back against the administration, no endless geography or history lessons about Benghazi and its place in the region, no media driven probe into who and how the story got it so wrong from the beginning, no household names made of the victims. The only time it would be covered would be under the template 'GOP lawmakers today made more inquires about Benghazi', usually followed by interviews with Democrats insisting it was all political or just a bunch of nothing. End of story, onto the latest fashion show story.
Of course at no point did the press ever link it to Hillary, much less Obama. On those occasions where attempts to link the tragedy to the leadership or hold the Obama administration responsible, the press rushed in like a safety in football running up to tackle the runner. I think we all remember the Candy Crowley incident in 2012.
Compare that to now. John Kelly is a liar they're saying. Trump was disrespectful because a congresswoman in a rhinestone cowboy hat says so. I've learned more about Niger in the last few days than I've ever learned about Idaho. Questions, inquiries, probes, investigations, calls for more information - it's been around the clock. And this is really just week one.
The press says it's Trump's fault for how he responded to a question about why Trump didn't talk about the ambush that the press had barely mentioned. Nonetheless, I think that sane people can see the writing on the wall. Just as we've seen regarding the Weinstein scandal, we no longer have a press. We have a Pravda. And that is not a defender of freedom, but a threat to it.
The best that can happen is that our own Pravda will help be the downfall and end to the American experiment. The worst that can happen is that those Christians who are beholden to the Left will begin to see life, as the press sees it, as something that is not sacred, but is convenient. Just like women being assaulted, soldiers being killed, Blacks being murdered, or whatever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)