The Cranky Conservative

A new home

2006-06-08T21:26:00.000-04:00

It's official. I'm tired of blogger and all it's nuisances. So the new home for the Cranky Con is http://crankycon.typepad.com/cranky/. Please mark your links, and come on over to my new digs.

As for the old posts here - well, I'll obviosly still have this domain. If anyone can figure out a way to transport all my new posts to the new place, let me know.

6 foot 8 and he weighed a @#$%ing ton

2006-06-08T16:16:00.000-04:00

Very odd, yet very funny video about George Washington.

Unrelated note: I am thisclose to ditching this freaking blogger account. Can fucking blogger move any slower? I might as well be on dial-up. Sheez.

BUH-BYE!

2006-06-08T07:52:00.000-04:00

Oh yeah

The al Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed in a joint attack by U.S. helicopters and Iraqi forces, ABC news reported on Thursday.

It said U.S. helicopters hit a house near Baquba, 40 miles

north of Baghdad, at 6 p.m. local time on Wednesday.

"Zarqawi was apparently injured at first... The Americans found him. They handed him over to the Iraqis and he later died of his injuries," ABC said.

No doubt the most significant event in the war since the capture of Saddam. As others have said, no, this obviously doesn't end the war, but this is just the greatest possible news at this point.

I hope Zarqawi enjoys those 72 raisins.

I feel so . . . dirty

2006-06-08T01:20:00.000-04:00

For the first time in nearly eight years I've done something that I haven't done, and that's root for the Atlanta Braves. You see, last week I traded for John Smoltz for my fantasy team, and he was on the hill tonight.

In the end it was probably the best result I could have hoped for. Smoltz pitched seven innings, giving up six hits, one walk, three runs and eight strikeouts. He took the loss, but we don't count losses in my league. The Nats won and Chad Cordero got the save, and at this point I need saves slightly more than wins. So, all in all a good night as the Braves move a bit closer to the Nationals and even further away from the Mets.

A Democratic landslide in November - Methinks not

2006-06-07T12:30:00.000-04:00

Few who know me would categorize me as a rah-rah Republican type of guy. Though I'm nowhere as jaded with the GOP as guys like Jeff, I've also been quite critical of the party, particularly when it comes to illegal immigration, spending, education, etc. Part of me is actually rooting for Republicans to lose control of the House in November, though it would ache me to see Nancy Pelosi in charge. Honestly, the Republicans have done nothing to merit another two years of legislative control.

But I also don't really think that they will lose control of the House. I think that Real Clear Politics is right on the money in their analysis of the Bilbray-Busby contest for the special election in California-50. It's not exactly a telling result for either party, but it bodes less well for the Democrats. It's true that this district is a red district, but it's not exactly a deep-red one. Duke Cunningham won re-election in 2004 with 58% of the vote. That's solid, but not overwhelming.

When you think about it, the Democrats should have won this election. Cunningham left the House in disgrace. This was a race that garnered much national attention, and should have been an opportunity for Democrats to take advantage of voter diasaffection with the Republican party. And yet the Republicans held on, albeit with a slightly narrower margin than in previous Congressional elections.

To put in perspective, in 1994 Dan Rostenkowski outright lost his seat in a heavily Democratic district when he faced corruption charges. Granted in that case it was Rostenkowski himself who was running, but one would think that voter anger over Republican politics combined with concerns over corruption should have resulted in a Democratic victory in this special election. It didn't, and if you're a Democrat you have to be a little more concerned about your chances of ultimate victory in Novemver.

The Democrats could wind up winning control of the House, and they should at least pickup a fair number of seat. But, in the end, I don't think they will win enough seats to take back the majority.

Additional thoughts: A few more thoughts came to me after hitting publish. I think my main point is that here we have a district where an individual leaves office in disgrace, and is further part of a general atmosphere of supposed corruption as a member of a party that has angered much of its base, and yet an individual from the very same party winds up winning. It makes you wonder, will voters in New York and Ohio - the states with the most Republican swing districts in play - really throw out their guys because of Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff? If the voters in the district with an actual corrupt member (or former member) can't get worked up enough to change parties, what makes us believe that voters in district where their members themselves are not corrupt are going to rise in revolt?

Sometimes I think we forget that those of us who blog and comment on them are MUCH more intensely involved in and aware of politics than most voters. Yes, there's a general antipathy to Republicans right now, but that antipathy is not as intense as our own because the expectations aren't as high. While voter x in upstate New York might have an unfavorable view of the President and that might color his attitude towards his representative, that negative view is probably not that intense. Thus, in the end, the voting behavior pattern is not so likely to change. Most people just do not pay as close attention to politics as we do, and even if their general impressions of a political party aren't so hot, that intensity of feeling (or lack therof) will not translate into a massive voter revolt this November.

Catholics and Evangelicals, oh my

2006-06-07T08:16:00.000-04:00

In the comments section of this post and this post former (and hopefully also future) guest blogger Big Daddy Jeff has questioned the Catholic committment to social issues. We've had a bit of a back and forth, but I wanted to bring to the fore something he said.

In other areas, though, I'm just not seeing it. The strong defense of illegal immigrants delivered by leading archbishops in big Catholic cities like Los Angeles and Washington seem to reveal their cards to me.

This is an eminently fair point. If you read the St. Blogs Parish (the group of Catholics blogs) regularly as I do, you will see bloggers and commenters alike often bemoaning American bishops. Orthodox Catholics have no particular love for many of our bishops. Just check out, for instance, the Closed Cafeteria to read about Bishops who will steadfastly oppose Rome's attempts to make the English translation of the Mass accurately reflect the Latin, or who mandate that parishoioners remain standing after the Agnus Dei and then accuse kneelers of being immoral, or who dsestroy beautiful Cathedrals, remove all kneelers, and use improper vessels for Holy Communion, among other actions. We are just as upset with their actions as Jeff is.

On one level their actions regarding illegal immigrants are understandable. They are motivated by a biblical exhortation to love our neighbors. What they do not seem to understand or grasp is a basic concept of respect for the law. Theirs is a short-sighted brand of love which misses the bigger picture. This is the same flaw that motivates the "social justice" types who pine for greater social welfare benefits while ignoring the deleterious affects of such an economic system on those it is intended to help. Again, their actions are noble in theory, but not ultimately for the best.

But these bishops represent the old guard. They are the very same people who twisted the ecumenism of Vatican II. Rather than taking Vatican II for what it was intended to be, they used it as an excuse to turn the Roman Catholic Church in America into another brand of high Church Protestantism. These grey-haired geezers are stuck in the 60's, egotistically attempting to mold the Church in their own image. Happily, the old guard is swiftly going away. Attend a Mass celebrated by any of our wonderful young priests, and you will witness an entirely different attitude. These young new priests are filled with the Holy Spirit, and with a zest for orthodoxy. It is these young men that are in touch with traditional Catholcism, and who are at the forefront - on our side - of the culture war. These young men will become bishops one day, Bishops who will not (hopefully) repeat the errors of their predecessors. They are the future, and it's a bright one for the Church.

Furthermore, as Jeff concedes there are many individual Catholics who are fighting the good fight. Again, visit St. Blogs Parish and you'll see many of these people who are at the grassroots and who leading the cultural right. The intellectual firepower of traditional conservatism comes primarily from the Catholic Church.

It is also a bit odd for an Evangelical to exhort the Catholic Church for its non-conservatism. I pointed to this post which capped my seven-part series on American conservatism and which focused on the differences between Evangelical and Catholic conservatives. There is a worldliness to the Evangelical mindset that seems a little, shall we say, utopian. It is the Evangelical mindset which motivates President Bush to engage in the push for democratization, a subject Jeff should be sensitive to. Evangelicals tend more to be of the neoconservative mindset than orthodox Catholics. They tend more often to be at ease with the welfare state.

(These are generalities. Sure, there are people who call themselves Catholic who support abortion and gay marriage, but these cafeteria Catholics do not represent orthodox Catholicism. Not all Evangelicals are as conservative as Jeff, or are of a different stripe.)

I'm also more supportive of the Vatican approach to cultural issues. Pope Benedict is a wonderful champion of orthodoxy, but he is also a man of love who does not engage in the excessive rhetoric of stooges such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. I'll take Benedict and many non-American Catholics over such men all the time.

What should be noted is that these differences do exist. They point out the idiocy of the leftist caricature of the supposed theocratic right. The religious right is no monolith, and that's fine by me. We tend to agree on the larger issues, and we should continue to fight the good fight together.

This doesn't sound soft to me

2006-06-06T15:32:00.000-04:00

So much for the "moderate on social issues" Catholic Church (reference is from comments section below):

The Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family has published a document today which uses some of the strongest language the Vatican has employed in decades. The introduction to "Family and Human Procreation" says: "today man has become a great enigma to himself and lives through the most acute crisis of his history in its family dimension: the family is subject to attack as never before; the new models of the family destroy it; procreation techniques jettison human love; the politics of birth control lead to the current 'demographic winter.' ... Along these paths ... we deviate towards a 'post-human' world. It is necessary to save man."

The document specifies that abortion is a crime which must be punished. "Today people want to trivialise abortion with the claim that authorities must not penalise this abominable crime," says the 57-page document signed by Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, the head of the Pontifical Council. "It is not acceptable that a crime should remain unpunished."

The document also condemns the attack on the family as the "eclipse of God". The five-chapter document says: "Couples made up of homosexuals claim similar rights to those reserved to husband and wife; they even claim the right to adoption. Women who live a lesbian union claim similar rights, demanding laws which give them access to hetero fertilization or embryo implantation. Moreover it is claimed that the help of the law to form these unusual couples goes hand in hand with the help to divorce and repudiate,'' the document said.

The document in its first chapter speaks of "procreation" and "why the family is the only appropriate place for it". It explains that artificial procreation is illicit since "Procreation is the means of transmitting life by the loving union of man and woman," and it "must be truly human."

The philosophical key to moving out of the culture of death, suggests the document, is "an integral understanding of what is human." It explains, "Without a 'meta-anthropology' which touches the being, the substance, the spirit, there can be no integral understanding of what is human, because the concepts of person and being are emptied of content. Morals and religion, which are fundamental and decisive values, are reduced to a 'private matter.' The return of metaphysics is vital in order to regain a sense of what is human in man."

H/t: Gerald at the Cafeteria is Closed.

A Query

2006-06-06T11:25:00.000-04:00

The leftist eggheads are in full whining mode over the "gay marriage" (an oxymoron if there was one) debate. Rather than debating the merits of the proposal or of the issue in general, they have resorted to boilerplate talking points keying on two major themes:

1) We should not enshrine discrimination in the Constitution; and
2) This is all a slick, cynical election year plan by an unpopular administration.

The first point is the standard varioation on the general theme of conservative bigotry, and merits no further consideration. But what about point number two? Well, they might have a point. Republicans know they're in trouble this November, and it can't hurt to push forward a topic that might prevent a Democratic takeover of the House. To be sure, many if not most of those advocating the amendment are eanestly concerned about protecting marriage, and wish to prevent the Courts from getting at this issue and mandating "gay marriage" upon America. But Republican strategists recognize the political advantage of promoting the amendment.

So, the question is, so what? Or, better yet, what does it say that Republicans deem this an issue that will help them come election time? Even if they are cynically pushing this amendment solely because of political gain, doesn't that signal that Republicans realize that most Americans - or at least a significant portion of them - oppose "gay marriage?"

The fact that this is an issue that is electorally beneficial to conservatives and Republicans should signal pretty clearly that people do not wish to see "gay marriage" become sanctified in law. And if most Americans are of this opinion, are not categorizations of amendment supporters as "extremists" rather odd? I mean, are most Americans extremists? Are the citizens of the growing list of states that have passed anti-"gay marriage" amendments all beyond the pale of American political discourse?

I'm not a populist, and I don't think majority support of something signifies that said position is the correct one. But I do think that, if nothing else, majority support of an issue does make it difficult to label a certain stance "extreme." Unless, of course, the Democratic party and leftist sheep are comfortable calling a majority of Americans extremist bigots. Sounds like a great campaign slogan to me.

Does the L stand for liar?

2006-06-05T16:29:00.000-04:00

Dana L, referenced in my post earlier this morning, had an on-line chat with the Washington post this afternoon. It's hard to fathom, but the chat makes matters worse. It seems everyone on planet Earth other than Dana L is responsible for her abortion.

To recap, Dana L. complained that the Bush administration and those scary conservatives had conspired to make it too darned difficult for her to get a hold of plan B emergency contraceptives after she forgot to put in her diaphragm. So, she had to have an abortion because of her forgetfullness and Bush's evil neocon policies. (Okay, she didn't say neocon, but you know she was thinking it).

So, she appeared on-line today. To begin with, the entire premise of the article is complete bunk, and she tacitly admits this right off the bat.

I believe Planned Parenthood distributes Plan B nationwide. Unfortunately for me, in my panic that Friday, I didn't even think of calling them.

Oh, so the thing that was evidently just SO hard to get a hold of because of the evil Bush administration was actually readily available after all. She just plum forgot.

Essentially then, this woman's major problem is not some horrible theocratic administration, but rather the fact that she has the memory of someone with a severe head injury. I suddenly wonder whether they should make a Memento 2, following the hilarious hijinx of Dana L as she is forced to abort her baby due to a faulty memory . . . and an evil cabal of religionists.

Later on in the chat, a reader observes that maybe, just maybe, she should actually just take a bit of responsibility for her own actions. Well Dana L will not abide such a neanderthalish suggestion.

You are missing the entire point. I wanted my doctors to help me prevent a pregnancy through Plan-B so I wouldn't have to abort a pregnancy later. Yes, I made a stupid mistake with my husband--but the diaphragm could just as easily have failed, or I could have been raped by a stranger--and I still would have been in the same place--with the doctors refusing to prescribe me emergency contraception. My point is the Bush administration is unwittingly encouraging abortions through its misguided Plan-B policy!

There's so much wrong with this it's hard to know where to begin. First, as a commenter at Mark Shea's blog notes, how would she have known that the diaphragm had failed within a 72-hour period in order to need the emergency contraception?

Secondly, what a ridiculous comparison to a rape victim. But, wait, she has an explanation for that one.

I am not in any way comparing myself to a rape victim;

You just did! Or did you forget what you wrote like three paragraphs back? Then again, considering the person in question, she probably did.

(Tangent: How the hell is this woman a practicing lawyer? Can you picture having this woman as your attorney? Imagine sitting in Court as your death penalty trial begins, and your lawyer is absent because she just plum forgot that the trial was today. But when she shows up five hours late she'll have plenty of excuses about the Virginia Department of Transportation. And when you're being pumped with a lethal dose a few months later, she'll be apologizing because she "totally forgot" about that little bit of evidence that completely exonerated you, but really it's the DA's fault because he didn't remind her.)

Another reader has this crazy observation:

Seems to me you blame everyone but yourself for your abortion. (Conservative policies of Bush, your doctor, your midwife, your internist, the FDA top Brass, even Religion). I am pro-choice - even more so than you - because I respect your choice to have unprotected sex with your husband - knowing the risks. What I don't respect is your reaction to the consequences. Basically you didn't care to be inconvenienced by your own unborn son or daughter - a child that could have found a loving home with your infertile college friend.

Woh there, big fella. Are you seriously suggesting that Dana, gasp, take responsibility for her own actions. That's just plain silly. And Dana will tell you why.

That is just so silly. Believe me, I thought about it. If society, and people like you weren't so judgmental, I would gladly have borne that child (assuming he/she could have been born healthy what with all the attendant Category X drug health risks) and given the baby to my friend to raise with all my heart.

Read that response again. And again. Now, if you have not completely lost your lunch, consider what this woman is saying. She has now found a completely NEW entity to pin the blame on. You see, it is society's fault for her abortion, because society is just so darned judgmental. And if society was just a little less judgmental then OF COURSE she would have given the baby to a friend. But, tsk tsk, there's just so many judgmental people out there that she couldn't do that to the child. Can you imagine the shame of growing up in a family that is not your biological family because your mother gave you up? That never happens. Adoption? That's just so shameful, because society is full of loathsome malcontents who think giving up one's child to a loving family is a preferrable alternative to killing the child.

Oh, and of course notice the contingency in even this hypothetical. Only if the baby is "healthy." Yes, we don't want any child that is even slightly less than perfect soiling the world with its presence.

And just in case you have any sympathy left for this person, check out this exchange:

Alexandria, Va.: I'm sorry, but I'm supposed to feel sorry for you - an attorney with a comfortable life - because you couldn't terminate a pregnancy you accidentally conceived even though you didn't want more kids? If you didn't want to have to "resort" to an abortion, why didn't you and your husband take more permanent and affirmative steps to ensure that you wouldn't become pregnant? If your medicine would harm a fetus, why weren't you utilizing a more effective form of contraception? In your 40s, if your family is complete, one would have thought a vasectomy, tubal ligation, or even the pill would have been a better choice for you than a diaphragm and crossed fingers. You clearly don't have a moral issue with contraception. Don't try to blame George Bush, the responsibility here is all yours.

Dana L.: Can't take the pill. Tried other methods to no avail. Husband was considering vasectomy, hadn't gotten around to yet. Didn't know about Category Xness of cholesterol drug until pregnancy happened.

I'm glad you've never made a mistake in your life. Good for you. I'm not that lucky. I have flaws.

Oh PUH-LEEZE. What a pathetic comeback. This wasn't a little mistake. This wasn't making a wrong turn off George Washington Parkway. This woman forgot her birth control, then forgot about the readily available alternative, and then decided to abort her unborn child. Spare me the fucking sob story. We all make mistakes, but some of us own up to those mistakes. We don't go blaming everyone else on Earth because we're just too incompetent to take care of ourselves.

One last exchange.

Front Royal, Va.: So, now you say it's not the fault of administration you had an abortion, it's really due to societal judgmentalism? Why would anyone have looked down on you for having a baby and giving it up for adoption? That would presumably have made a couple happy and given a child a chance for life. How is that a bad outcome?

Dana L.: Listen, the focus of the piece isn't the abortion; it's Plan-B and how it should be made more freely available and how sad I am that it wasn't available to me when I needed.

If I were Laura Ingrham and I were on the radio, I would have cued the quacking sound effect, because that was one serious DUCK of the question.

What a proud example for lawyers everwhere.

A new family member

2006-06-05T09:56:00.000-04:00

One of the lessons I will learn after I get married is that there are times when you are supposed to say no, and times when you are supposed to say yes. When my fiance called me on Saturday informing me that her friend had found a kitten, it was my job, evidently, to be the voice of reason. We have a dog, it's a big responsibility, etc.

Being ignorant of this fact, however, I stupidly said it was a great idea. So we went to my friend's apartment to look at the kitten.

So we have a new family member for the family that isn't quite a family yet. We got her checked by the vet yesterday and she got a clean bill of health. She's a little sleepy, but so are all felines. She has managed to jump out of her box, so that mini-phaze of her life is now over.

Oh did I say her? It's actually a him, or so the vet had to inform us after doing a, err, closer inspection.

For now the kitty has run of the bedroom. Lauren's dog Georgia is a six-year old cocker spaniel, and she looooooves the kitty. Loves him perhaps a bit too much as evidenced by her over-enthusiastic smiffing and licking, so maybe they'll be kept separate while they get used to each other.

Dog . . . cat . . . baby. Well, maybe we'll wait on the last one for a bit longer.

Lovely

2006-06-05T09:40:00.000-04:00

Christian charity is the only thing at this point not letting me vent what I truly feel about this article from the Washington Post. It begins this way:

The conservative politics of the Bush administration forced me to have an abortion I didn't want.

And ends this way:

It was a decision I am sorry I had to make. It was awful, painful, sickening. But I feel that this administration gave me practically no choice but to have an unwanted abortion because the way it has politicized religion made it well-nigh impossible for me to get emergency contraception that would have prevented the pregnancy in the first place.

And to think that, all these years after Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, this is what our children have to look forward to as they approach their reproductive years.

Eveidently Dana is a lawyer out of Virginia.

I need out of this town. I need to be removed from neighbors like these.

Live Action Mario

2006-06-03T12:02:00.000-04:00

Some college kid did a live action performance of the first level of Super Mario I. Awesome.

What a putz

2006-06-02T16:58:00.001-04:00

Often times Mike and the Mad Dog irritiate the living hell out of me (I can now hear them over the internet), but for once they're dead on in their crtiticism of this ridiculous Bob Raissman column in the Daily News. Raissman takes Mets announcers Keith Hernandez and Gary Cohen for not delving deep into some issues Lastings Milledge had in the minors - including instigating a bench clearing brawl and allegations of sex with a minor (he was 18, she was 15).

Give me a break. It was the kid's first game in the majors, and they were supposed to dwell on something that happened when he was in the minors? You mean to tell me they had to sully Milledge's first game by bringing up the fact that he once spiked a guy . . . in the freaking minors? Gosh, what a scandal.

Raissman usually does a good job pointing out bad local New York broadcasting, but this is absurd.

Amen

2006-06-02T10:02:00.000-04:00

Gerald at the Cafeteria is Closed says it better than I could. I won't selectively quote, so you just have to click on the link and read it.

There's not much to add. Even as a kid there was a part of me that knew there was something not quite right whenever I visted a new parish that departed from the atmosphere of my home Church. For a couple of years I endured the tedium of the "I wanna hold your hands" student Mass at Emory. Deep down though there was always something missing. The guitar playing, the holding hands, the looooooong homilies of the progressive Priest. All of it so . . . empty.

It's hard to put into words why the watered-down Masses of the modern age are so bad and devoid of spiritual meaning. Gerald does his best, and his best is good.

Awww, so sad

2006-06-01T23:37:00.000-04:00

When did the Yankees become Spinal Tap? What's going to happen next? Alex Rodriguez is going to pull a groin muscle reaching for his purse?

Man, I almost feel sorry for them.

Nah, no I don't.

Of course the Yanks will probably find some kid no one's ever heard of and he'll close out like fifteen games in the row and lead the Yankees to yet another fucking division title.

But at least they'll still lose in the post season.

The Narcissist Speaks

2006-06-01T20:15:00.000-04:00

As a general rule I do not blog about Andrew Sullivan. At this point his hate-filled screeds do more to make me laugh than to anger me. But he's written something that is so dumb and evil that I must pass it along:

For me the interesting point came when Dan and I agreed that moderate hypocrisy - especially in marriages - is often the best policy. Momogamy is very hard for men, straight or gay, and if one partner falters occasionally (and I don't mean regularly), sometimes discretion is perfectly acceptable. You could see Jong bridle at the thought of such dishonesty. But I think the post-seventies generation - those of us who grew up while our parents were having a sexual revolution - both appreciate the gains for sexual and emotional freedom, while being a little more aware of their potential hazards. An acceptance of mild hypocrisy as essential social and marital glue is not a revolutionary statement. It's a post-revolutionary one. As is, I'd say, my generation as a whole.

So Pope Sullivan, the same man who had the cajones to criticize Pope Benedict for insufficently decrying Catholic complicity during the Nazi Regime (which of course is itself a bullshit charge anyway) is now openly endorsing breaking two commandments while singing praise to the most selfish generation in human history.

Sullivan has become such a parody that it's almost not worth wasting breath on him. Seriously, can we just stop paying attention to him now? Please.

Speaking of moderation . . .

2006-05-31T10:26:00.000-04:00

Jeff Jacoby explains why conservative anger will cost the Republicans the election in November. As usual, he nails it.

Reaganite conservatives have been the mainstay of the GOP for more than 20 years, and many of them are disgusted with the abandonment of Reaganite principles at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. If they had wanted skyrocketing budgets, new federal bureaucracies, more regulation of political speech, and stalemates on immigration, energy, and Social Security, they say, they would have voted for Democrats. Instead they voted for Republicans -- and what did they get? Skyrocketing budgets, new federal bureaucracies, more regulation of political speech, and stalemates on immigration, energy, and Social Security.

Sadly, David Hill misses the mark, and very badly. Channelling Dick Morris, he suggests the Republicans need to move to the, sigh, center.

There are essentially two lines of argument that Hill makes: 1) Republicans mocked the left when they decried Kerry's inability to move left.

After John Kerry lost the 2004 presidential election to Bush, many Democrats excoriated Kerry for his failure to excite his base. Kerry was Bush lite, they mocked, and that supposedly explained his fate. Kerry’s Democratic critics seemed to be saying that if he had just campaigned on a platform of sharply higher taxes, increased entitlements and pacifism, Bush would have fallen like a house of cards. Of course, when we Republicans hear talk like that we’re inclined to behave like an unruly crowd in the streets below someone on a top-floor window ledge threatening suicide. We’re yelling, “Jump!”

2) Hill then notes Dole's failure to woo people with his tax cute proposal during the 1996 election.

Here's the problem. In the first place, Americans gernally do shun leftist politics. It makes sense for Democratic candidates to move right because America is essentially a center-right nation. That's not to say that America is a solidly Reaganite conservative country, but the Nation's center of gravity is right-tilting. The left is so far outside the mainstream that it's difficult to fathom an unabashed leftist winning a national election. Bill Clinton only won as a "new Democrat" (and with less than majority support both times). But Reagan easily won as a solid concervative. Conservatives can win while campaigning as fortright conservatives - see also Newt Gingrich and the 1994 Congressional campaign. The left cannot.

Furthermore, Hill's Dole example is a weak one. No one bought into the squishy Dole's newfound conservative rhetoric in 1996. He wasn't fooling anyone with his tax cut pledge. Moreover, he was squaring off with a fairly popular incumbent during a time of remarkable economic growth, an incumbent who ran charismatic rings around him. Does any reasonably astute political pundit think that Dole would have won had he campaigned on a more moderate platform? Meanwhile Hill ignores the examples of Reagan and Bush - they promised to cut taxes, and they won.

Hill rationalizes his strategy this way:

Do the math. Though numbers vary across the country, the typical scenario is that about 35 to 40 percent of likely voters are Republicans. Democrats control a comparable percentage of the electorate. So 20 to 30 percent of voters are independent ticket splitters. If Bush builds everything around “the base,” Republicans won’t muster a minimum winning coalition of 50 percent plus 1.

Well Dave, here's some more math for you. If conservatives stay at home, that 20-30% in the middle can all vote Republican, and it won't amount to a hill of beans. Conservatives tend to vote in higher proportions than other groups every election cycle, thus conservative support is absolutely critical to Republican chances of success. It's this simple: Republicans absolutely cannot win without an energized base, and a run to the middle will only further anger an already disillusioned base. If enough conservatives come out to vote, you don't need to draw as many moderate/independent votes In fact the GOP can win while losing this vote. Hill's strategy is a terrible one, which makes this biographical note:

Hill is director of Hill Research Consultants, a Texas-based firm that has polled for GOP candidates and causes since 1988.

all the more disturbing. If this is the advice Republicans on the Hill are getting, no wonder the party is going down in flames.

A couple of good reads

2006-05-31T10:06:00.000-04:00

Robert Samuelson might be one of the most underappreciated writers in America. He's not mentioned as often as people like George Will, Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Richard Cohen and others, but his is some of the most consistently solid political commentary I have ever read, and as usual he does not disappoint today with this column on the woeful media coverage of the immigration debate.

Also always good is Jonah Goldberg, and today's column reflects something I have been saying for years: we overvalue political "moderation" without ever stopping to realize that what is called "moderation" is often just a lot of hooey. I honestly respect unabashed leftists more than those who try so hard to cling to the political center in most cases. There are people who are somewhat in the middle of the spectrum - probably Samuelson, for example - that I respect. But their moderation is an earnest one. But for so many being "moderate" is a virtue in and of itself, and is often just a means to show oneself to be an independent thinker. Unfortunately, the so-called moderate is often a more hard-headed ideologue than the self-professed ideologue.

Anyway, I'll let Jonah explain in greater detail.

Milledge AB #4

2006-05-30T21:46:00.000-04:00

- Takes a pitch for a strike.

- Fouls one off.

- Grounds out to short.

So, 1-4 with a double in his first game as a Met.

Milledge AB#3

2006-05-30T21:16:00.000-04:00

Leading off, down 7-1.

- Takes first pitch for a ball.

- Drives one into the gap for his first hit, a stand up double.

Milledge AB #2

2006-05-30T20:24:00.000-04:00

He comes up with a Floyd on first with one out, Mets down 3-1. Another nice hand for him as he steps to the plate.

- He grounds the first pitch foul.

- Breaking ball bounced to third, and Milledge is out.

Milledge's First AB

2006-05-30T19:55:00.000-04:00

-Takes first pitch from Batista for a called strike.

- Hit a rope to the shortstop. Counsell was knocked off balance, but they make the out.

Milledge received a rousing ovation from the crowd. Plenty of hype, hope he lives up to it.

Celebrating the mundane

2006-05-30T17:14:00.000-04:00

Gerald links to the latest book from Church wreckovator Dick Vosko. Doesn't this just scream "BUY ME?"

Father Vosko is notorious for taking beautiful, traditional Churches and turning them into disgusting, inornate monstrosities as depicted on the cover of the book.

Here's Amazon's description of the book, with my comments interspersed:

God’s House Is Our House serves as a platform for rethinking the Catholic environment for worship.

In other words, it's a way for rethinking two millennia worth of traditional and worship in the interests of modern conceptions of "worship."

Father Vosko provides a theoretical foundation for building or renovating a worship space, by drawing upon biblical, theological, and ecclesiological sources as well as studies on architecture, spatial settings, and creative problem solving.

Biblical? I must have missed that bit in Leviticus - maybe it's contained in the Gnostic manuscripts - about creating butt ugly, bland, sterile, unholy spaces in which to worship the Lord. I imagine the now discarded passage reads: And the Lord said, "Make unto me a bland space, in which my people can gather round and hold hands and sing really bad songs in my honor. Lay down the carpet onto which you shall stand (not kneel, that's just wrong). And hold up your hands and lift up your voices in joyous, atonal melodies bereft of any meaning. I shall be your God if you will be my people who maketh a mockery of worship."
And creative problem solving? It's supposed to be a Church, not a Dan Brown novel. Then again . . .

Since Vatican II,

Uh oh, you know this isn't going to be good.

changes have occurred in liturgical texts, music, and life-cycle rituals, especially the Eucharist.

And all of it for the worse. And Dick Vosko's here to make the changes even more deleterious to the Roman Catholic religion.

Cathedrals and churches have also been transformed, making a formative impact on the life of the church. Some say that new and renovated churches no longer feel like God’s house.

Now who would say such a thing? I'm sure God's house is replete with shag carpeting, giant baptismal fonts that look more like indoor swimming pools, and tacky post-modern sculptures. And the complete lack of any ornate paintings or stained glass windows makes it as unwelcoming and sterile as my baceholor pad studio apartment. Sureley God's house must be as ugly as a Silver Spring apartment, because God loves me, and he wouldn't want to make me feel bad by having a nicer place to live than me.

Others maintain that a developed understanding of liturgy requires worship settings that accommodate the ritual making of the community.

In other words, modern Churches should reflect the modernist obsession with changing all things that smack of tradition. We've moved on from those kooky ways of yesteryear. We don't need no stinking Latin, or kneeling, or worship music that actually inspires prayerful meditation. No, what we need are Churches that reflect our selfish need to complement the unspiritual atmosphere of the modern Liturgy. Mission Accomplished.

The liturgical reforms that have guided Catholic, Episcopal, and Lutheran congregations over the last half-century have transformed what these denominations know about worship.

Shouldn't that ring alarm bells right there? Why exactly should we be doing what the Protestants are doing? Are we not a distinct Church? If not, then what was the point of that whole Reformation/Counter-Reformation thing?

At least it's nice to see them express out in the open Vosko and his ilk's desire to transform the American Catholic Church into just another form of high-Church Protestantism.

Worshipers are no longer spectators, but active participants in the ritual acts that once were the sole possession of the clergy.

What a load of hooey. Evidently unless we're all opening our yaps at Mass we're not really "participating." Excuse me, but as someone who has attended both the Old and New Rites, I can tell you that I very much was able to particpate under the old Rite. You know how? It's called praying. It's an incredibly novel concept I know, but by opening my heart to God and focusing in on the words of the Liturgy I was able to "participate" in a much more meaningful way than by robotically reciting bad English translations of the Mass.

As the liturgy is modified, church buildings are altered. Almost overnight God’s house has new owners and users and, once again, is known as a house for the church.

I've never seen a sentence that more perfectly encapsulates the narcissism and self-absorbtion of the Church progressives. Ah yes, WE are the owners of the Church. WE are what the worhship is supposed to be all about. Forget that crazy God character, WE have to have Churches that cater to OUR whims and serve OUR interests and make us feel all good about OURSELVES. Lovely.

How does all such change affect the architectural style of church buildings? Here Father Vosko considers worship space dilemmas and offers practical advice. This book is for faith communities and design professionals. It addresses diverse opinions regarding the environment for worship and through photography and illustration features award-winning examples of new and renovated places of worship.

Thrilling. I'll be sure to pick up a copy. I haven't vomited in a while, and I can use the help.

Childishness is not a grave sin

2006-05-30T15:18:00.000-04:00

Gerald at the Cafeteria is Closed, Amy Welborn, and Jimmy Akin have all commented on this LA Times story on a row between some parishioners and the local pastor in Orange County. The priest in question - Fr. Tran - has forbidden people to kneel after the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) and before reception of the Eucharist. In a bit of rebellion, some parishioners have insisted on kneeling. In response, Fr. Tran has written a rather "un-pastoral" letter that has stated that those acting out in rebelllion are committing a grave and mortal sin.

Ah, what to make of all this. First of all, Jimmy notes that, as usual, the MSM has misreported the issue. (I know, it's shocking to think that the MSM could have been innaccurate in reporting on a religious issue, but suspend your disbelief). Fr. Tran did not say that kneeling per se was a mortal sin, but that disregarding the norms established by the Bishop constitutes grave and mortal sin. Of course, as Jimmy astutely observes, this is utter hogwash.

So whether one would insist that it is mortally sinful to kneel or not to kneel at particular points in Mass, one would be misreading liturgical law. The Church simply has not invested the regulation of posture with grave matter and it intends only to establish "a certain uniformity" that has "broad limits" and it does not intend to "regulate posture rigidly."

Fr. Tran has essentially threatened his parishioners with bad theology.

But that doesn't leave the parishioners off the hook. Jimmy in a previous post had quoted Section 43 of the GIRM and the relevent passage:

In the dioceses of the United States of America, they [the faithful] should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.

In this case, the Diocesan Bishop (Brown) had decreed otherwise and, like it or not, he has the full authority to decree as he did. Thus those that are acting in open defiance are guilty of childishness. However, I am not entirely sure that childishness is a mortal sin. (And as Mark Shea suggests, all sides are guilty of that behavior.)

Oddly enough while on vacation I attended a Mass where all the local regulars stood after the Agnus Dei while my friends and I kneeled. Looking back it may have seemed an act of rebellion, but we were honestly unaware of the norms of said diocese, and nobody said anything afterwards (I'm sure they're used to out of towners).

Though we ought to respect the Bishop's decree, the outrage is understandable. The rationalization for this particular norm is just bunk:

Lesa Truxaw, the Orange Diocese director of worship, said Bishop Tod D. Brown banned kneeling because standing "reflects our human dignity. It's not that we think we're equal to God, but we recognize that we are made in the image and likeness of God."

Really? There's someone who might just disagree with that asertion. You might have heard of him - he goes by the name Pope Benedict XVI nowadays.

No less an authority than the pope is on record as favoring kneeling. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI last year, wrote in "The Spirit of the Liturgy," published in 2000, that the gesture, "comes from the Bible and the knowledge of God." He has not addressed the issue as pope.

But I guess Bishop Brown knows better than the Pope. I mean, of course he does - he's a progressive, and progressives always know better than us stick-in-the-mud traditionalists.

The whole situation is terribly sad. It's sad to see a Church community driven apart because of such mutual hard-headedness. It's sad to see another "Spirit of Vatican II" Bishop defy centuries of tradition in the interests of ego gratificiation. It's sad to see a local Priest misuse theology and act in such a non-pastoral manner.

And it's sad because we just know this well all end badly.

It's Mill-edge time

2006-05-30T14:41:00.000-04:00

Xavier Nady had to undergo an emergency appendectomy and will be out of action for a month. In his stead, the Mets have called up Lastings Milledge to start in rightfield.

Okay, it's his time to shine. Let's see what this kid is made of.

In memorial

2006-05-29T15:02:00.000-04:00

My apologies for putting this up much too late today, but let's remember everyone who has put on a uniform in defense of (and in the case of the American revolutionaries - to create) this great republic. I personally would like to single out one of those vets - Joseph Thomas Zummo. He missed service in the Korean War by about a year, but he spent a couple of years in Europe. I wish that I had had the opportunity to discuss my father's military experience with him in greater detail while he was still alive. Now all I have are photos and a couple of other mementos. But I would like to thank him, and all of our heroic vets for all they have done. God bless you all.

The attack of the crunchy cons

2006-05-26T01:09:00.000-04:00

Halfway through reading Rod Dreher’s Crunchy Cons I turned to one of my vacation mates and told him that reading this is like reading Pat Buchanan – I agree wholeheartedly with half of it, and the other half makes me want to pull my hair out.  But at least the part that makes me want to pull my hair out with Rod’s book does not repulse me, so he’s got that going for him.

Rod Dreher has penned a book that is both enlightening in its call for a less materialistic style of living, and yet maddening for its overbroad generalizations and crass use of straw men.  If Dreher had just stuck to describing his “crunchy” lifestyle and arguing the benefits of said lifestyle, it would have been a worthwhile endeavor.  But such a book would not have sold, so instead he sold it as an alternative style of conservatism, one that surely repulses those greedy materialists that make up the bulk of the conservative movement, at least as Dreher describes it.

Dreher fetishizes his “alternative” lifestyle and revels in being a “countercultural” warrior.  In fact, I stopped circling every use of the word “countercultural” basically because I feared running out of ink.  He so glorifies in being different that it seems as though he were Peter Vierek on steroids.

(Note from here on in – numbers in parentheses refer to page numbers.)

And how is Dreher and family “countercultural.”  In one stunning passage he recounts  how he and his wife “taught ourselves how to cook simple but delicious meals using fresh ingredients, and took great joy in the act of preparing meals.” (9)  If learning how to cook tasty meals on a budget isn’t countercultural, I don’t know what is.  Dreher does indeed spend an entire chapter on food, and while there’s nothing wrong per se in advocating a diet consisting of organic and wholesome food, one wonders what in the hell this has to do with conservatism.  Dreher discusses the “sacramental” aspects of life, and while that is a beautiful notion on some level, we’re just talking about freaking food here.  But according to Rod’s friend Kathy, “it’s hard to separate your cultural and religious conservatism from your shopping list.” (80)  Rrrrriiiiiiight.  Rod thinks conservatives who don’t appreciate his “good” food obsession are just materialistic snobs, but in reality we just don’t want to spend half our lives in the kitchen.

As I said, Dreher gets off on being “countercultural,” and he is confident that his is a lifestyle that most of us greedy materialistic conservatives shun.  He asserts this so often that I almost started to buy into it, before I realized that it is only that – an assertion.  In fact one of the most contradictory passages in the book comes early on.  He states that though most conservatives would agree to the statement that “accumulating wealth and power is not the point of life,” but then he casually states that’s not how they truly live.(15)  But then he immediately he dives into a discussion of how he penned his original crunchy con article in National Review, and how he “never received a favorable response to anything I’ve written like I did with the ‘Birkenstocked Burkeans’ article.” (16)  He then discusses the thousands of letters he received basically agreeing with him.  So, on the one hand we are to believe that a majority of American conservatives are truly materialistic pigs, but then we are told that the greatest outpouring of positive feedback was in response to his declaration of being a crunchy con..  Which is it?

Much of the rest of the book, in its description of the majority of conservatives, relies on these baseless crass generalizations.  Rod basically regurgitates the typical leftist bullshit about conservative hypocrisy, never once providing a scintilla of evidence other than a couple of offhand anecdotes.

Rod’s offers a description of conservative meanness in describing the sad situation of one his neighbors who hit a rough patch during the early part of the decade.  They were small business owners who found themselves having to enter their children into a state child welfare program (CHIP), and who were forced to scramble when Texas made cutbacks into the program.  Dreher states that he offered to help the Kimbers financially, but they refused his offer.  Dreher then was moved to write a letter bitching about the cutbacks, and then relates the nasty feedback he got after he published the letter.(29) But Dreher admits that this friends refused his offer of financial assistance.  Evidently his friends had no problem receiving help from the government, but it was not so noble to take the money directly from friends.  Well I wonder where the government gets the money to dole out in welfare programs?  Better to take money from some amorphous blob known as the government, ignoring all along that the money the government collects comes from taxpayers and not from some magical money tree.  So much for subsidiarity.

That’s not to say that all the book is this bad.  As I mentioned, there’s much to admire and appreciate.  In fact, there’s not much generally wrong with the sort of living he advocates.  There is a problem with consumerism.  I have racked up enough debt myself to appreciate this fact, and we should do a better job of living more austere lifestyles.  But I also do not think that racking up consumer debt is itself a wholesale repudiation of conservative principles, or a signal that I or anyone else is just an absolute materialist.  It just means that I haven’t been as wise with my money.

Dreher does manage some insightful commentary.  I think he oversells the importance in living in a unique or non suburban home, but his point that where we live does matter on a psychological level is well taken.  And within the chapter entitled “Home,” Rod makes an excellent point regarding the difference in attending Mass at a beautiful gothic cathedral in Europe and an “American suburban megachurch, which looks like an expensively built gymnasium or theater.” (100)  It is in the former, not the latter, where we feel closer to God.  Style does matter. (My favorite line in the book comes a few pages earlier when he talks about “crapped-out Our Lady of Pizza Hut churches.” (95)  That’s one to remember.)

And I’m certainly with Rod when it comes to home schooling.  He’s got me even more convinced about the pernicious effects of public schools, and how they were deliberately designed to render the family and mitigate parental influence.

All in all, as I said, I don’t disagree with the lifestyle. Rod lives in a bungalow in the city (not suburbs) of Dallas, eats fresh organic food, home schools his children, and seems content with what he has.  Sign me up.

But that’s the thing.  It’s a lifestyle.  Yeah, there are certainly partial elements that reflect a conservative appreciation for the “little platoons.”  The local is to be preferred over the distant.  But Dreher makes the same assumptions that leftists make, namely that most conservatives don’t share these same values.  And while I agree that there’s nothing wrong with a little elitism, he seems to have a horrible disdain for those that do not live quite like he and his family.  Not all people have the means for the lifestyle he enjoys.  And even if means are not an issue, I do not think that there is anything so horribly unconservative in shopping at Safeway instead of Whole Foods, or in living in a suburban cookie cutter home, though that’s certainly not where I’d like to live.

Ultimately, Dreher tries so hard to play the rebel that he doesn’t realize he’s not that much of a rebel.  But at least he gets to sleep well in the cozy warmth of his own sanctimony.

Remixed Commandments

2006-05-25T16:53:00.000-04:00

Here's a new twist on an old classic, as the movie the Ten Commandments is given a modern twist. And check out the new voice of the burning bush.

Open mouth, remove all doubt

2006-05-25T14:54:00.000-04:00

Elton John blames the death of his AIDS afflicted friends on . . . the Roman Catholic Church.

British pop music star Elton John has attacked the Catholic Church and its position on condom use as a reason for the demise of 60 of his friends to the sexually-transmitted disease, AIDS.

Speaking at a business awards ceremony, he said, "We don't have a medical vaccine but we have a social vaccine and it's called education." He failed to include in his so-called education platform that condoms may be a leading reason for the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Even leading health experts at the United Nations have acknowledged that condoms have an estimated 10% failure rate.

Of course I've heard this ass-backwards (no pun intended) complaint before in other quarters. So, we're to believe that the Church is at fault in the spread of AIDS because it refuses to promote condom use. You see, if only the Church would speak out and promote condom use people would naturally use condoms because people always do just what the Church asks.

Which explains why people engage in homosexual or other non/extra-marital relations.

This is so utterly pathetic. I'm sorry for your losses, Elton, but perhaps the blames lies with people like you, Elton. We have been fed this pack of lies for decades that we should just do whatever we want sexually, consequences be damned. The sexual revolution taught a generation that they no longer really had to keep it in their pants, that hopping from bed to bed to bed, from man to woman to transgendered who knows what was just hippy-skippy. Well surprise, surprise, there were consequences to such an attitude, including the unleashing of this horrifying, deadly virus.

No Elton, the reason your friends died has nothing to do with the Church. In fact, the Church does so much more than people like you to help AIDS victims that it's not even funny (though, to be fair, Sir Elton does even more than most of his hedonistic pals, many of whom think that wearing a ribbon and feeling really bad for AIDS patients constitutes a deep level of action). If you want to know who bares at least some responsibility for AIDS deaths and continued HIV transmission, pick up a mirror.

HT: Southern Appeal

As if I need more reasons to shun populism

2006-05-24T14:17:00.000-04:00

Rick Moran posts on these stunning poll numbers suggesting that nearly half of all Americans sense a conspiracy surrounding 9/11:

In the telephone survey of 1200 individuals, just 47% agreed that "the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense." Almost as many, 45%, indicated they were more likely to agree "that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success."

I am not sure if I completely agree with Moran's assessment that it has to do with the barrage of moonbat conspiracy blogs. There are any number of possible explanations: general idiocy, the need for people to shun simple answers in favor of more convuluted and non-sensical but intriguing conspiracy theories (see Davinci Code), or . . . general idiocy.

People are attracted to conspiracy theories for the same reasons that people like to call themselves "moderates." It's cool and hip to be different. Simple, rational explanations for events are not cool because they're, well, simple. But conspiracy theories allow people to think "outside the box." It makes them feel special to think that they have some special knowledge, or at least know more than the average person. Similarly, calling oneself a moderate allows one to feel superior to the rest of the population. You haven't allowed yourself to be chained to one particular ideology. Oh no, you're an independent thinker. Moreover, you're counter-cultural, and there is no greater bliss in life than to be counter-cultural because being counter-cultural is cool. (And for more on that, I will be reviewing Crunchy Cons before long.)

Suddenly the success of the Davinci Code makes sense. It feeds people's desire for conspiracies and complex explanations. One person in the comments section of Moaran's blog noted the success of 24, though I just think the show's popularity owes more to the non-stop action and kick-ass character of Jack Bauer than a desire to dig into a bunch of conspiracy theories. But the DVC feeds into that conspiracy mindset, even if the conspiracies make no sense (and for more on that, see Jimmy Akin's review of the movie).

But whatever the reason for the 45% number, it's enough to make one weep for the country.

In a similar vein, Ace reports on these interesting set of poll results indicating that while Washington state residents largely disapprove of President Bush, they would nonetheless support other Republican statewide candidates. But what struck me are these two poll questions:

19. Would you like to see Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice run for President in 2008? (Republicans only)
Yes 45%
No 32%
Undecided 23%

20. If Condoleeza Rice were to run for President in 2008, whom would you support for the Republican nomination in 2008? (Republicans only)
Rudy Giuliani 35%
John McCain 22%
Condoleezza Rice 12%
Newt Gingrich 5%
Mitt Romney 4%
Bill Frist 2%
George Pataki 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Allen 1%
Chuck Hagel 1%
Undecided 16%

Umm, if 45% want Rice to run, why would only 12% then vote for her? Is it sheer amusement? Because they prefer to see many names on the ballot? Because they're stup-endously confused?

Note the disparity

2006-05-24T10:49:00.000-04:00

Here's New York's "Republican" Nanny, err Mayor Mike Bloomberg on the immigration issue:

In New York City, 500,000 of our more than three million immigrants are here illegally. Although they broke the law by illegally crossing our borders or overstaying their visas, our economy would be a shell of itself had they not, and it would collapse if they were deported. The same holds true for the nation. Yet in a post-9/11 world, the federal government can no longer wink at illegal immigration. To ensure our national security and keep our economy growing, it is essential that immigration reform embody four key principles:

How does someone so rich utter such a ridiculously idiotic comment about the economy? Aside from the fact that there generally has NOT been a call to deport all illegal immigrants, would our economy really collapse if they all vanished overnight?

To his credit, Bloomberg does offer some helpful suggestions, but then he returns to the tired straw man argument:

The idea of deporting 11 million people, nearly as many as live in the entire state of Illinois, is pure fantasy. It is physically impossible to carry out, though if it were attempted, it would devastate both families and our economy.

It is of course fitting that Bloomberg pens this for the Journal, which continues its assault on those who have this crazy notion about defending our borders. In an op-ed yesterday it continued to mischaracterize those who want to toughen the borders as "anti-immigrant." Typical demagoguery and deceit from the open borders crowd.

On the other hand, we have former Democratic Mayor Ed Koch actually making sense:

Is it really xenophobic to protect our borders and regulate entry into the U.S.? I don't think so.

Tierney's language is offensive to the very people he supports, as well as to defenders of reasonable and responsible immigration. Every immigrant has aspirations to eventually work his or her way up the ladder and become, or have their children become, professionals, and that is the way it should be.

Does Tierney really believe that open borders will enhance that opportunity for the millions of American workers, many black and Hispanic now legally here as the result of birth or lawful entry? I don't. I am for immigration. How could I not be? I am the son of immigrants and became Mayor of the greatest city in the world -- New York City -- as a first generation American. Mario Cuomo, also a child of immigrants, became the governor of the Empire State -- New York. Wouldn't The Times be performing a public service and the job of the newspaper of record by informing us on how the Mexicans control immigration into their country, and how our current practices compare with the rest of the nations represented at the United Nations?

Yes, we can and we should improve our immigration laws. But to open borders and no controls, I say, No. The 11 million illegals should not and will not be put on buses and sent home. What should happen is the sending to prison for at least six months or longer every U.S. employer that is knowingly or without doing due diligence hiring illegals. If no jobs are available, the illegals will leave and go home on their own.

Mayor Koch, you're doing just fine.

Thinking about trades

2006-05-23T16:26:00.000-04:00

Here's one for fellow fantasy baseball players and baseball fans. Right my team is doing rather well. I've been trading places with another team for first and second, and right now I've regained the lead. My offense is sick - consider that Matt Holliday and Vernon Wells are only in the middle of the pack on my team for homers. I've even lucked into a wire pickup in Jose Lopez (Seattle middleman) who has played way beyond expectations, and a guy who started the year on my bench - Casey Blake - is leading the league in hitting. The front-end of my rotation - Pedro, Mussina, and Brandon Webb - has been great, though the back-end, featuring Livian Hernandez, Doug Davis, Jason Marquis and Miguel Batista, has been inconsistent at best.

Right now my main weakness is speed, exacerbated by the fact that I've got my only two semi-steal threats on the bench in the persons of Omar Vizquel and Adam Kennedy because I can't really bench Renteria or Lopez, and I just activated Kinsler off of the DL. (It's amazing to think that in the pre-season I more or less advocated punting the middle-men positions, and now I've got five - or really four - quality players.) I'm also only in the middle of the pack in ERA and WHIP, and I've grown out of patience waiting for Hernandez and Davis to start pitching well consistently.

So now I have to decide if I want to go for the jugular and get speed and least one more front-line pitcher. I am so ridiculously out in front in homers and rbi's that I can trade Adam Dunn or Troy Glaus (or even Berkman) without really losing anything in terms of power. I propsed one deal which would send Dunn or Glaus as well as a back-end pitcher for Smoltz and Kenny Lofton, a trade which definitely helps me where I need help and also gives the other team a power lift. Other players have speed/pitching combos that I'm considering, such as Schmidt/Chone Figgins and Tim Hudson/Scott Podsednik, though I think I'd have to give up more in those deals.

The question of course is whether to wait and see which teams fall out of it and make dump trades (I am in a keeper league), or try for the Smoltz/Lofton thing now and also go for more speed down the road in another dump deal.

Thoughts?

It's about time

2006-05-23T16:16:00.000-04:00

Via Jimmy Akin here is a story on the Vatican's insistence on getting out a new translation of the Mass, one which in a sense is an old translation in that it would more accurately reflect the Latin. For instance, the invocation before Communion: Domine non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea should be translated, "Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed." Instead it is currently translated as "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed." The former actually represents the biblical text, and is much more meaningful. There are similar poor translations of the Gloria and the Creed, and we've even mistranslated "et cum spiritu tuo" as "and also with you" rather than the accurate "and with thine spirit." Etc.

Perhaps it seems like nitpicking, but often the current translations are just poor expressions that miss a vital element. Of course, considering the number of Priests who feel it acceptable to simply ad lib (like the Priest on the Outer Banks who did one of those hokey crowd participation Masses of the Faithful that went on and on and on), we might consider tempering our enthusiasm. Still, it's good to see that the Vatican means business.

That's great it starts with an earthquake, birds and snakes, an aeroplane

2006-05-22T19:41:00.000-04:00

Fiance: I was thinking we could stop by the deli and pick up some beers.

Me (face wincing, grasping stomach): NOOOOOOOOO.

A week on the beach, ten cases of beer (at least) consumed by five people, on top of sangria and scotch, and almost 30 years of living = the unthinkable.

United 93

2006-05-22T17:25:00.000-04:00

It was probably not the most enjoyable way to kick off a vacation, but I decided to watch United 93 last weekend before I met up with everyone.

I didn't think it was possible to cry for two hours, but such was my experience watching this film. It was just emotionally gut-wrenching, and it's amazing that after almost five years the events of 9/11 still have a profound effect on me.

In many ways it was more like watching a documentary than a movie. There really wasn't much in the way of a "plot." We catch just bits of conversation between those on board. In fact, the film makers almost do a more thorough job of establishing the hijackers as "characters." We can see that at least one of them has . . . doubts? Fears? We're not really sure, but the camera focuses on the would-be pilot and makes him into something approaching a human being.

But even the little snatches of conversation are enough. Suddenly the victims of United 83 aren't just statistics or abstract beings who only distantly occupy our minds. These are people, people who have jobs, families, and vacations that they are flying to. They're annoyed when the flight is a little delayed getting off the ground - just as were get a little antsy when our flights linger in the airport. They don't know what's to happen - how could they? Whoever thought that an American flight could be hijacked?

Certainly not the air traffic controllers. As has been explained, they didn't get actors to portray those at the airports, in the Air Force, or at ATA. These are the actual people who had to make decisions on 9/11, further enhancing the "documentary" feel of the film. We can see as the events unfold how they were both stunned and yet able to make quick decisions that potentially saved even more lives. Much of the first half of United 93 focuses on the events behind the scenes rather than the doings on board.

And as the film moved into its second act I couldn't help but feel sick. On the one hand, I almost was wishing for the film to get to the point - to get to the hijacking. And then, as it did approach zero hour, I suddenly wanted it all to stop - to not have to see it.

And then it happened. Several sickening actions all within a few minutes, and the bastards are in control of the plane. And then it was time to root for the heroes - the first American heroes of this most recent world war. The passengers began to realize that the maniacs had no intention of simnply flying back to an airport, and they intended to kill others, and then they acted. And I clapped my hands a bit - only for a bit, because this didn't really have a happy ending. But they fought back, but they couldn't prevent the plane from going down, though at least not into the White House, or Capitol Hill - where I had been but a few short minutes before United 93 crashed into Pennsylvania soil.

I suppose you're not really going to learn something new by watching this film. You might just chalk it up to being nothing more than a visual reenactment of a horrible tragedy. It may not be unfair to call this a quasi "snuff" film. But at least for two hours I was reminded of what great evil lurks out there. Sick people who caused so much suffering, all in the name of "Allah." I think I can guess what Allah would think of those actions carried out in his name.

Go see this movie. Go see what heroism is all about.

"The Church has NO INTENTION of adapting herself" to the times

2006-05-22T13:14:00.000-04:00

So says Pope Benedict XVI. He also added:

"Authentic love transforms itself into a light that guides one's life to fullness, generating a society that man can live within. The communion of life and love that is marriage thus configures as an authentic good for society. Avoiding confusion with other types of union based on a weak love is of special urgency today. Only the rock of total and irrevocable love between man and woman is capable of founding the construction of a society that becomes a home for all mankind."

In another speech, the Pope declared:

"Family, established on marriage, is a 'heritage of mankind', a fundamental social institution; it is the vital cell and the pillar of society, and that is of interest to believers and non-believers. This is the reality which all States must hold in utmost consideration. ...

"In the modern world, in which some equivocal conceptions of men, of liberty, of human love are being spread, we must not prevent ourselves anymore from the portrayal of the truth of the familial institution, as it was willed by God since Creation.

"The historical moment we are living demands Christian families to witness with courageous coherence that procreation is the fruit of love. A similar testimony shall not be lacking so that politicians and legislators may be inspired to safeguard the rights of the family. It is well known, in fact, how legal solutions for the so-called 'civil unions' are being discussed, rejecting the duties of matrimony while intending to enjoy similar rights."

Thank God - literally - for the Holy Father.

HT: Southern Appeal

Enter Sandman

2006-05-22T09:57:00.000-04:00

I'm back and (farmer) tanned from the beautiful shores of the Outer Banks. After a week of continuous sunshine and lazy lounging around, eating copious amount of bbq and seafood, and drinking an incalculable number of alcoholic beverages, it's just a joy to be back here in DC.

First of all, thanks to Big Daddy Jeff for filling in. Jeff put me to shame with the volume and quality of his posts, so maybe I should hand this little enterprise over to him.

Nah, not yet. I do have a ton to post about after having read four weighty books over the vacation, including what should be a multi-post critique (good and bad) of Rod Dreher's Crunchy Cons.

But I should first say kudos to Willie Randolph, Billy Wagner, and the Mets for bouncing back after Saturday's excruciating meltdown against the Yankees. I still have no clue why Willie put in his closer in a 4-0 game after he had pitched the previous night, but Wagner showed that the game would not have long-term repurcussions.

The win keeps the Mets three up on the only team we really have to worry about - the Phils - entering the three game series starting tomorrow night. Mercifully, Lima time is over, so we will see the debut of Cuban prospect Alay Soler. If he can pitch even halfway decently it will do much to calm Mets' fans nervousness regarding the starting rotation. Soler has looked good in Binghamton, and you gotta figure that his professional experience in Cuba makes him a little more seasoned than your average rookie.

Oh, and I guess I should tip my hat to the Braves for managing to get back to .500. At least now they've put that critical distance between themselves and the Marlins so they won't have to sweat too much.

Farewell

2006-05-21T14:15:00.000-04:00

Well, I hope you've enjoyed reading about some of my favorite things - auto racing, Jesus, and country music. Am I a hick or what? Yeah, baby!

I trust Paul is somewhere in the parking lot of a North Carolina beach with his trunk open and he's reluctantly putting up the beach chair, putting out the cigar, and putting down the last of the sangria! I hope you had a great vacation, buddy. Thanks for the opportunity to keep things rolling here at the Cranky Con. It's been a blast!

And thanks to all my readers and commenters, old friends and new friends alike. It's been a very productive week. My kids afforded me enough semi-quiet moments to scribe 21 very diverse posts - and only 1 of them was about the Atlanta Braves! We got some good hits from all around America and, indeed, the world - here's to you, Sao Paolo! We covered a broad array of news-worthy and otherwise interesting topics ranging from George Bush to George Jones. From the Mexican border and immigration reform to The DaVinci Code and an ex-Beatle's young wife's inability to properly spread her one leg for the old man. From Harry Reid and Russ Feingold being continuing threats to civility in the Senate to Sunny Delight being the new capitalist-pig threat to our environment.

I look forward to another opportunity to blog for ya'll more in the future. Especially now that we've all discovered that there are things other than Danica Patrick and Chipper Jones floating around in my mind afterall! My humble thanks once again to Paul and everyone else participating out there. Happy Sunday. Have a great day!

Danica's Still #1 To Me

2006-05-20T20:34:00.000-04:00

I've noticed there's a fairly loyal reader out there from Sao Paolo, Brazil. Well this post is dedicated to you, my friend, as most everybody else will likely skim right over it until they reach the picture below of Danica Patrick. However, when Brazilians aren't watching soccer, their sports fans are generally very enthusiastic about open wheel Indy-car style racing. Afterall, Brazil has contributed such legends to the world of Indy racing as Emerson Fittipaldi, Ayrton Senna, Gil de Ferren, and the always smiling Helio Castroneves.

Today Penske Racing's Sam Hornish, Jr. captured the pole for the 90th running of the Indianapolis 500 to be held on Sunday, May 28th. Hornish is very talented driver and former two-time series champion who is hungry to win this crown jewel for the first time. For those who may not be familiar with racing terminology, the driver in the pole position starts his or her car from the inside spot of the front row among the 33 car field which will compete in the legendary race next week.

In recent years Indy car racing has taken a place on the sidelines of American sport. I'd rank it somewhere between hockey and competitive eating! Actually, the sport hasn't fallen that far. Nearly a quarter of a million people will attend this year's Indy 500 and several million more will attend other races held this year on the Indy Racing League and Champ Car World Series schedules. Worldwide the interest American-based Indy car racing is even greater, as millions more will attend events held in countries like Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, and Korea.

In fact, for those who care, Indy racing is providing its fans a great product these days. The competition only appears to be suffering when compared to the flourishing interest in its bigger cousin who has become the golden child of American sports, Nascar. Nascar is indeed widely popular and I too enjoy watching Nextel Cup races as well. But I've also found that there's nothing quite like the hum of an 3.0 liter ethanol-powered V8 engine generating 650 horsepower as it reaches speeds of 230 mph in a near instant.

Oh yeah. I've yet to mention the best part. The IRL has Danica Patrick! She's gorgeous and actually very good at what she does. The 24 year-old from Ohio nearly won the Indy 500 last year and would be even more of a favorite to win this year were her Bobby Rahal/David Letterman team performing better. However, this is where the potential for a future growth in fan interest of Indy racing in America exists. Indy racing is much more technical and the skills involved are generally mental when compared to Nascar or any major other American sport for that matter.

As a result, I look forward to the possibility of women competing side-by-side with men in this unique arena. You know who'd I rather look at anyway, right? And, may I also add, I look forward to them doing so on an even level - there are no handicap accomodations like girlie golf tee shots. And finally, if these girls happen look as good as Danica Patrick when they compete with the big boys, all the more better for us racing fans!

10 Passages of Inspiration

2006-05-20T17:09:00.000-04:00

With all the heathens out there celebrating the release of The DaVinci Code, let's fight back here at The Cranky Con by breaking out some of J.C.'s heavy artillery. Let's move seamlessly from the country music you may (or may not) listen to on Saturday night to some of the old-time religion you may (or may not) hear on Sunday morning. Here are ten of my favorite passages from the Bible in the order that they appear in the New International Version:

Pslam 150 Praise the Lord. Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens. Praise him for his acts of power; praise him for his surpassing greatness. Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet, praise him with the harp and lyre, praise him with tambourine and dancing, praise him with the strings and flute, praise him with the clash of cymbals, praise him with resounding cymbals. Let everything that has breath praise the Lord. Praise the Lord.

Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.

Mark 11:23 I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, "Go, throw yourself into the sea," and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him.

Luke 9:25 What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?

Luke 17:33 Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.

John 3:3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

John 21:15-17 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs." Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep." The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep."

2 Corinthians 4:1 Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart.

2 Corinthians 4:16-18 Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

As you may have surmised, no one book of the Bible does more for me than Second Corinthians. And no other chapter of Paul's writings better serves as that often needed "injection of strength" for me better than 2 Corinthians 4. But I won't be so presumptuous as to offer my own meager commentary on the above passages. Rather, I simply list them here so as to share some of the words to which I turn for a glimpse of God's love, faith, and strength that has been given to us. Perhaps they may help you too. But if anyone needs analysis beyond that, you're just going to have to see your local preacher or priest tomorrow morning!

A Country Boy Can Survive

2006-05-20T15:30:00.000-04:00

With my time at the Cranky Con nearing an end, I figured I'd step away from current events, and share some of my favorite things. Country music has long been my preferential form of song. I well remember the jeers in years past by such friends as the Geek from Geek Soap Box who mocked me for trying to be an Urban Cowboy in New York City. I've long since left New York. But the music of the heartland will never leave me. Here are my top 25 country songs spanning six decades of music and listed alphabetically by song title. Be sure to let me below know which ones I've foolishly overlooked.

Anything But Mine, Kenny Chesney - The most recent entry to my list. I love that moment-in-time feel of this song. Plus it's a Florida thing.
Cold Kentucky Rain, Elvis Presley - The rock-n-roll legend's best pure country song.
Dust On The Bottle, David Lee Murphy - An early 90's gem about 'Creole Williams' and his muscadine wine.
El Paso, Marty Robbins - What a voice. The ultimate cowboy song.
Everywhere, Tim McGraw - My favorite McGraw song. Released right as he was on the cusp of superstardom.
Heartland, George Strait - From the movie Pure Country. I think that says it all.
He Stopped Loving Her Today, George Jones - Pretty much regarded as the definitive country song by most critics.
Highwayman, The Highwaymen - From a collaboration of Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Kris Kristofferson, and Waylon Jennings. Wow.
Little Rock, Collin Raye - Why there are no direct references to Bill Clinton in this chilling song about recovery from alcoholism set in the Razorback state is beyond me.
Midnight in Montgomery, Alan Jackson - AJ's tribute to Hank Sr.
Mr. Lincoln, Hank Williams Jr. - I'm sure Honest Abe would agree, the republic sure has changed a lot in a hundred years.
Much Too Young to Feel This Damn Old, Garth Brooks - Garth's first hit and the one with that great Chris Ledoux reference.
Okie From Muskogee, Merle Haggard - The Hagg takes on the hippies. Guess who wins?
Poncho and Lefty, Willie Nelson with Merle Haggard - Another great cowboy song by the legendary duo who recorded so many together.
Rhinestone Cowboy, Glen Campbell - Campbell truly has lived up to the lifestyle of this song for a few decades now.
Small Town, Saturday Night, Hal Ketchum - Life in LaGrange, GA. Where the world's not round, it drops off sharp at the edge of town, cause when people leave here they ain't never coming back.
Smoky Mountain Rain, Ronnie Milsap - My personal favorite song set in Gatlinburg, TN. A Boy Named Sue isn't a bad one either!
Something in Red, Lorrie Morgan - The country vixen whose golden voice is only matched by her ageless beauty.
Song of the South, Alabama - A Dixie anthem.
Strawberry Wine, Deanna Carter - A tale of the great things in life that begin with a glass of wine.
Swingin', John Anderson - A song that just makes you want to be sitting on that old front porch.
That's My Job, Conway Twitty - A great song for dads.
There's a Tear in My Beer, Hank Williams - The legend who perfected a genre in his brief career.
Walking After Midnight, Patsy Cline - What a voice! My top Patsy song.
Where the Stars and Stripes and the Eagles Fly, Aaron Tippin - A patriotic anthem for post 9/11 America.

It's Not Pee, But It's Close!

2006-05-19T18:13:00.000-04:00

The Legend of the Yellow River

From the British Daily Mail:

Around 8,000 litres of concentrate used to make the drink Sunny Delight leaked into a watercourse on Wednesday morning, turning the river bright yellow. Dozens of fish were found floating on the surface, poisoned by the lurid mixture. The spill of sub-standard juice was a category one pollution incident, the most serious kind, according to the Environment Agency.

This is one of the best stories I've seen posted on The Drudge Report in quite awhile. I initially felt sympathy for the affected kids, but maybe it does make sense to take soft drinks out of school cafeterias afterall? Who would've thought that even fish, who otherwise pee and poop into the water they drink, can't stand that fake orange juice stuff either?

And not to speak out here for polluters, but once again we have to question the science (or perhaps the sanity) of those who protect our environment by working for these EPA type agencies. Does Sunny Delight really belong in the category of "the most serious kind" of pollution that can be dumped into a river? So where does that leave the old standards like Chernobyl-style nuclear waste, Exxon Valdez-style crude oil, and even those old Goodyears that you had to get rid in a hurry when you cleaned out the garage years ago?

They Just Don't Get It

2006-05-19T17:22:00.000-04:00

(And They Never Will)

Today the Senate approved a largely symbolic measure to promote English as the official language of the United States by a healthy 63-34 margin. Following the national attention recently given to the illegal-immigration debate, many politicans are now lining up before the cameras to appear solidly on the winning side of a hot issue.

But that's not true of everyone. Now we already know where Teddy Kennedy stands on an issue such as this. The Swimmer's opposition is hardly news at all. But what about the new Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada? Reid was elected to that post following Tom Daschle's defeat in 2004 and the mainstream media quickly praised him as being another one of those New Democrats or even, dare I say it, a Conservative Democrat.

Uh oh, I think we've heard those words before.

And like Slick Willie before him, Reid too has since proven to his liberal base that such a description is anything but accurate. However, this time he truly has topped himself, no less Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy. During the Senate debate this morning, the Honorable Mr. Reid declared:

"This amendment is racist. I think it's directed basically to people who speak Spanish."

Harry just couldn't resist. But it's not his fault. That "R" word just comes out of your mouth so easily when you're a liberal. That's why I don't even care anymore about being labeled as one. It doesn't mean anything anymore when those like Reid throw the ominous label around so liberally. So why take offense? But not everyone is going to think like me. Reid, who on second thought realized he didn't want to appear to be taking on and labeling as a racist the sponsor of the bill, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, quickly backtracked:

"Even though I feel this amendment is unfair, I don't in any way suggest that Jim Inhofe is a racist. I don't believe that at all. I just believe that this amendment has, to some people, that connotation - not that he's a racist, but that the amendment is."

Show some balls, Harry!!! This part of the story pisses me off more than anything else that Reid did. Harry, if you believe this bill is RACIST than you have no choice but to call the man who advocates this bill a RACIST! What a typical liberal. Everything is a shade of gray. But I should make one correction. These days Harry Reid is no typical liberal - he's become the protypical liberal. Let's give credit where credit is due. And he's what we have to look forward to as the Senate Majority Leader of the future.

Thanks Frist and Hasert and Georgie Boy! With friends like you guys and enemies like Harry Reid.... we are flat-out f-cked!

Dearly Beloved, We Are Gathered Here Today for the Marriage of Arlen and Russell...

2006-05-19T02:10:00.000-04:00

Even liberal Republican Senator Arlen Specter realizes the GOP has only a scant few hopes to change its fortunes before the November elections. Tax cuts have always topped that old faithful list in the past. But given the lack of inertia generated by the recent passage of the President's tax bill, I don't think that's the answer this time to win those all-important swing votes. With record deficits flourishing again under another President Bush, the GOP has absolutely lost the right to campaign as the part of fiscal responsibility. Sad.

Personally, I think it is only through a sincere Republican emphasis on strong social conservatism that they can bring doubters like me home to the Grand Old Party. And no single issue has the potential to spark more fires in bellies like mine than a full-blown attack on the same sex marriage movement.

Perhaps that is why this story from the Associated Press caught my attention:

A Senate committee approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage Thursday, after a shouting match that ended when one Democrat strode out and the Republican chairman bid him "good riddance."

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution, and his intention to leave the meeting.

"If you want to leave, good riddance," Specter finished.

"I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman," replied Feingold, D- Wis., who is considering a run for president in 2008. "See ya."

Arlen Specter is a lot of things: a hack, a liberal, a Republican, a 30 year veteran of the Senate, an asshole, and, finally, a political realist. I think his little hissy fit is reflective of a broader realization that the success of making a national issue out of a ban on same-sex marriage is essential to potential Republican victories in close Congressional races.

Ironically, Specter himself has already admitted his strong opposition to any constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriages. His reputation therefore will be safe in the eyes of Democrats, the ACLU, Log Cabin Republicans, and Congressman Barney ~~Fag~~Frank. However, Arlen is also completely in favor of this issue getting to the Senate floor. "Good riddance," he shouted to the objecting Senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold, who himself can spot a cheap political ploy from a mile away. And once the issue does get to the Senate floor, Specter would like nothing more than to see it fail to get the needed 67% of votes through an opposing coalition of liberal Republicans (like him) and a united front of Democrats.

Not surprisingly, Arlen isn't up for election this time around. President Bush took care of that back in 2004 when Bush foolishly supported Specter in his narrow victory over Congressman Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania's Republican primary. Specter prevailed in that race by a mere 16,000 votes out of a total of one million casted. Grrrr!

Unlike Specter, I don't think this should merely be an issue to be exploited for votes (and sadly since his words differ from his actions, I no longer know where our born-again Christian president stands either). You see, I actually believe in this rather strongly. I think the words of such a potential Constitutional amendment are nothing more than ordinary common sense. And I also think they are words that would appeal to at least 75% of Americans if they were to consider this importance of this issue as they cast their votes in November:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

I'll save a debate on the specifics of the issue for another day or for another forum. But don't think that pro-gay marriage Specter has overlooked how successful such amendments like this have already been in state elections. And certainly don't think old Arlen wants to let go of that Chairmanship either. The GOP is suddenly showing signs that they still realize it is only through such social issues that they can hold any hope of keeping Congress. Sadly, since the party of Reagan has become so watered down, social conservatives like me know this issue is likely only getting to the Senate floor this June so that Republicans have an issue to take to the local debate floor this November. Will the strategy work again? We shall see.

....If anyone shall see a reason why these two Senators should not join in holy matrimony, then let them speak now or forever hold their peace!

Cheeburger Cheeburger

2006-05-18T17:46:00.000-04:00

Following up on my previous post, my 4 year-old stepson's favorite food is hamburgers. Pizza is a close second, but he loves his burgers better than anything else. He is my child, afterall!

So to celebrate his birthday tonight, we've decided to make the 45 minute drive to Sarasota in order to try the burger joint highly recommended by Francase called Cheeburger Cheeburger. We've never been there before but they're headquartered in nearby Fort Myers and are apparently popping up all around the Southeast and beyond.

In honor of my forthcoming weight gain, I'll throw the question out there for you readers: who makes your favorite burger? No Whoppers or Big Macs, people. I'm talking who cooks your favorite freshly made, big, juicy, fall-off-the bun burger with all the fixins slopped on too?

My personal favorite has long been those made by Fuddruckers. I loved them years ago as a child in NY and later savored their 2/3 pounders in several locations throughout Georgia. But I have high hopes for Cheeburger Cheeburger and reserve the right to change my mind later tonight.

Happy Birthday Jimmy!

2006-05-18T12:33:00.000-04:00

Today is my stepson Jimmy's 4th birthday. And we're celebrating it Sponge Bob style. Plates, cups, steamers, signs, hats, and balloons - in every way possible that lovable sponge who lives under the sea has invaded our home to adequately wish the youngster a happy birthday. Us dutiful parents only have remaining to pick up a big yellow cake for him from Dairy Queen.

Jimmy entered my life when he was 15 months old. He has come so far since and is excited about starting full-time pre-K in the fall. Jimmy is really growing up fast and will soon be a big brother to two younger siblings. We're very proud of him!

Jimmy shares his birthday with several luminaries from the past including the late Pope John Paul 2, philosopher Bertrand Russell, and crooner Perry Como. On this day in years past Napoleon Bonaparte was proclaimed Emperor of France in 1804, the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson decision of the Supreme Court that established the notion of 'separate but equal' was decided in 1898, and in 1980 Mt. St. Helens erupted in Washington State killing 57 and destroying 210 square miles of land.

Hopefully there will be no volcanoes erupting in Southwest Florida today. Or anywhere else. Happy Birthday to Jimmy!

One Instance We May Wish Marines Had "Cut and Run"

2006-05-17T21:34:00.000-04:00

Murtha Says Marines Killed Iraqis in Cold Blood

Congressman John Murtha is back in the news. The media darling is again getting a lot of calls for those talking-head cable tv interviews. This time Murtha is worked up about reports of the shooting deaths of 15 Iraqi civilians at the hands of US Marines in November 2005. The story was first reported in Time Magazine and was initially denied by military brass as having actually been a roadside bombing.

The Marines' official story has since changed and an investigation is now underway to see what caused the deaths. But Murtha has already made up his mind. He stated today, "There was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

Though I stand strongly against this war, I refuse to become an anti-war protestor in the spirit of Vietnam. I will not condemn our troops without knowing the full story. And even if I do learn what happened, I will still look for reasons why this might have been a unintentional mistake and not a cold-blooded decision to kill.

We owe that much to our troops.

However, as a war critic, I also understand where Murtha is coming from on this story. And I'm very aware that having served in Vietnam Murtha might have a better perspective on these things than I do. Afterall, we know tragedies like this have happened before.

This is the type of evil that nobody could defend if proven to be true:

One young Iraqi girl said the Marines killed six members of her family, including her parents. “The Americans came into the room where my father was praying and shot him.”

Since this particular issue is such a no-brainer, Let's put it into the broader picture. It's now been 6 months since Congressman Murtha first put himself forth as the leading Congressional critic of the Iraqi war. And when he did, Murtha brought some degree of credibility to the issue because not only was he a Vietnam vet, but the Congressman from Pennsylvania was also someone who had voted to support the war.

Last November Murtha called an immediate exit from Iraq. He asked the President to think of the great costs America has already borne and to put the lives of our troops first. He said this was a war that could not be won.

But the President has stuck to his guns - at the tune of spending one billion dollars for every week we remain in Iraq.

So tell me then. Take a look at what's happened in these past 6 months. Is the Bush administration really waging this war any better than it is in defending our borders? Any better than it is at cleaning up corruption in Washington? Any better than it is at reigning in spending and balancing the budget?

I just don't think so. I may not like Murtha's style but I understand his passion.

She Doesn't Love You, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah

2006-05-17T14:13:00.000-04:00

Let's turn now to another flakey topic and look at the gossip on the latest big celebrity breakup. Reports hit the media on both sides of the Atlantic this morning that ex-Beatle Paul McCartney and his wife Heather were separating after four years of marriage.

I generally have a positive image of McCartney. He has never tried to be the far-left hippie hero that former colleague John Lennon was before his untimely death. McCartney actually fits the modern artist-as-businessman image quite nicely. On a personal note, he sings my favorite Beatle's song in Hey Jude and also cut what I consider the quintessential James Bond anthem in Live and Let Die. Everyone mourned for McCartney when he lost longtime wife Linda in 1998 and felt equally happy for him when he discovered love again and married British model Heather Mills in 2002.

However, it appears that McCartney can be something of the celebrity snob as well. In announcing his breakup, McCartney's press statement blamed the media (and by definition the public's continuing interest in the former Beatle) for the couple's separation.

"Having tried exceptionally hard to make our relationship work given the daily pressures surrounding us, it is with sadness that we have decided to go our separate ways."

So let's take a closer look at this: McCartney is 25 years older than his wife Heather. I know modern medicine has done wonders in this department, but am I wrong to presume there might have been some differences in the bedroom? And then there's the whole Cary Grant syndrome. The couple has a two-year-old baby girl, Beatrice. So the grandfatherly-aged Beatle suddenly has had to endure recent Hard Day's Nights awaking from his beauty sleep to soothe a crying baby, change her diapers (or should I say nappies?), and her fix bottles.

And yet it was media pressure that did the couple in?

I'm not necessarily a gossip junkie, but I sometimes like to hear about the wacky trouble our favorite musicians and movie stars get into when the cameras aren't rolling. And this is one of my pet peeves.... when they blame us for their problems. If anything, I would think that media pressure would create a bond between a couple. It's not as if the paparazzi only care about Paul and their flashing lenses ignore poor Heather. I propose that media pressure is only a source of marital problems when it gets in the way of one or both spouses trying to hide something. Hmmmm? Do you think someone might want her own boy toy afterall? Does McCartney really think the media will no longer be interested in his life once he is separated from Heather Mills? No way. Whenever McCartney does get himself a new Ticket To Ride, I'm sure the newsmedia will still be interested.

Sir Paul, I don't think media pressure led to your breakup at all. Please don't insult our intelligence, especially since I've always thought of you as the smart Beatle. Instead, maybe it had something to do with an unnamed friend of the musician telling a British paper, "He and Heather were getting on so badly it became impossible for them to sleep under the same roof." And if that's not the problem, maybe you should look into that modern medicine stuff I was talking about.

But don't feel bad for Heather Mills. She's not the one who is pushing Social Security age. Rather she's a very nice 38 years-old and is still hanging on those good looks. And soon she'll be hanging on to a lot more than that. In an interview with Vanity Fair Mills noted that she offered to sign a pre-nuptial agreement with McCartney but he turned her offer down.

Four words Heather Mills will never again be heard to say: Can't Buy Me Love.

There Are No Wave Runners in Football!

2006-05-16T20:40:00.000-04:00

Recently my dad complained to me how he detested ESPN's endless pre-NFL draft hype. This year the all sports network of record devoted countless hours to covering the annual selection of millionaires. And I'm not even talking about their coverage of the actual two day event. The draft has become an affair that generates copious fodder for "pre-game" and "post-game" talk. ESPN uses this time of year to really get their money out of Mel Kiper, Jr.

I love college football more than most. But I couldn't disagree with him. It's too much. Especially to the extent that it interferes with ESPN's ability to hype baseball's opening month when even teams like the Reds and Tigers have hope.

But forget about that. Is there a worse an ESPN event than the network's recent 'Battle of the Gridiron Stars'??? This thing has been running constantly on both ESPN networks ever since they were forced finally to stop talking about the 2006 draft. Personally, I just don't get anything out of seeing Anquan Boldin on a wave runner. I'd rather see the Mannings battle it out next fall on Monday Night Football than watching them take turns this spring in a girlie homerun hitting contest with those Little League style artifical fences.

Please, ESPN. I'm begging you. Give me sumo wrestling, Stump the Schwab, hot dog eating contests.... hell, I'd even settle for hockey while I'm watching your networks merely to follow the scores going by on the ticker at the bottom of the screen. I won't ever complain again. Just no more football players running around on the beack, ok?

My Take on DaVinci

2006-05-16T15:44:00.000-04:00

I'm one of the 40 million who have read The DaVinci Code. With all the controversy over the best-selling book's movie release later this week, I figured this would be a good time to jump into the debate with my own two cents.

Firstly, let's start with the actual book. For me, it was an 'ok' read. The entire story transpires in one night. I thought author Dan Brown attempted to do too much with his plot development too quickly. I couldn't properly get inside the minds of his characters well enough to sympathize with their struggle. The book became merely a good pageturner - the type that you read cover-to-cover in a plane ride. The type where you consistently find yourself skimming over background details in order to get to the dialogue. The quality of Brown's work certainly doesn't match the quantity of his book sales.

However, we know Hollywood can fix all that. Professional screenwriters, editors, and a director like Ron Howard can touch it up. And I'm certain I'll find the movie to be much more polished than I did the book.

But the real controversy is over The DaVinci Code's storyline. The book is a work of fiction and Dan Brown admits as much. But in the novel's opening note, Brown also asserts that his storyline is premised around three key facts:

1.) The Priory of Sion is a secret society to which many famous Europeans have belonged, including Isaac Newton and Leonardo da Vinci.

2.) Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic society with ties to the Vatican.

3.) Brown's descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in the book are accurate.

So let's look at those three assertions. The existence of Opus Dei is not questioned by even the most ardent critic of the book. Perhaps these critics don't like the way in which Brown has used Opus Dei. (N.B. He makes Opus Dei and its fictional leader Bishop Aringarosa into the book's villain) But such is merely a writer's prerogative - to employ real people and real groups that we all know from real life as characters in a made-up work of fiction.

Similarly, I don't think Brown's third assertion is very problematic. Personally, I disagree with many of his characters' analysis of the various art and architecture in the book (such as hero Robert Langdon believing the portrait of St. John in DaVinci's painting The Last Supper is really meant to portray Mary Magdalene). But I don't recall the book's mere descriptions of artwork being misleading. Again I think this falls under the category of writer's prerogative.

So that leaves only Brown's first assertion. And this is indeed my 'Yeah, right' moment. The premise is based on the claims of a book called Holy Blood, Holy Grail which describes a 1000 year-old secret French society, The Priory of Sion. In the past 25 years, most historians who have analyzed these claims have thoroughly debunked the existence of such a society. In fact, the Priory of Sion appears to have merely been a lame, fraudulent attempt by a daydreaming 20th century French civil servant to link his family tree to that of the Merovingian kings of early France.

So I simply think there's no reason for even the most dedicated Christian to get all worked up about The DaVinci Code. I can understand an actual member of Opus Dei perhaps objecting to the novel's treatment of that particular group (not the Catholic Church as a whole), but that's about it. I try to be a pretty vocal Christian myself. But I can handle it when Madonna and other rock stars try to shake our faith through their occasional anti-Christian lyrics. Heck, sometimes I even enjoy this music on a certain level - and I know there are a few self-described "metalheads" out there who read (and post?) this site. So why should this be any different? Historical fiction can be fun. If you see this book as much more than that, you're either a conspiracy theorist who ranks Oliver Stone's JFK amongst your favorite films or you're playing right into Hollywood's hands by feeding it more publicity for this movie.

I do think there's evidence that the early Christian church likely made a decision to repress the broader role Mary Magdalene may have played as a follower of Christ in the gospels. It's too odd for me how she goes from being merely the prostitute in the story about the fallen woman that Jesus saves from stoning, to being one of only three who stand faithfully by Jesus' side under the cross as he dies. And then Mary Magdalene is also the first person the risen Christ chooses to appear before on Easter Sunday.

All this means to me that she was probably much closer to Jesus than the four chosen gospels explain. I think it's reasonable to think she was at the Last Supper - though not as the feminine persona of St. John. She probably would have helped prepare the Sedar.

But I'm not making Brown's leap of faith that it's all a sign of a Church conspiracy to hide Jesus' human marriage and bloodline. There's just no evidence for that. Instead, I think it's merely consistent with the Church's (and society's in general) decision to consolidate power in the hands of men - popes, bishops, priests, kings, knights, even mere heads of households - they were all men. I don't think those same men wanted to hear in their Gospels how Jesus treated a woman as equal to his other apostles. And in the early Church's defense, there was indeed much more important work to do then begin the women's lib movement!

Just like there are more important religious crusades today than boycotting The DaVinci Code. Trust me - when the dust settles, this will be just another best-selling book and hit movie. Hollywood loves to take a cheap shot at Christianity, but they love it even better when you buy some popcorn and the DVD. Just speak with your wallet. Did historical fiction like The Hunt For Red October rock our international foreign policy? No way. And neither will this rock our 2000 year-old faith. Just rent Forrest Gump if you need that Tom Hanks fix!

Let the Polling Begin!

2006-05-16T15:28:00.000-04:00

So as not to be accused of exclusively Bush bashing during my time at The Cranky Con, I wanted to post this story:

Poll Suggests Bush Address Swayed Viewers

In a CNN snap poll of 461 people who watched Monday's speech, 42 percent said they had a positive opinion of the president's immigration policies before they heard him speak. Afterward, 67 percent said they had a positive view, a jump of 25 percentage points.

The polled audience was 41 percent Republican, 23 percent Democratic, and 36 percent independent. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

"People who watch the speech do tend to be somewhat more Republican than the voters as a whole," CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider said. "But that wasn't the best response he's gotten compared to other speeches, in fact it was lower than any speech we've measured since he took office."

Firstly, we must consider the source: CNN. Indeed, Bill Schneider waited all of two sentences in the text to put a damper on the prior admission which indicated a jump in approval of 25% in the sample audience following the speech. But I'm not going to be hypocritical and simply discount their polling data because they are CNN.

In fact, I have no doubt that Bush's speech probably did sway a decent percentage of moderates in the immigration debate. And I'm afraid he won over a lot of Democrats too. I guess that's what his legacy has been reduced to these days: appealing to liberals for a lifeline. But here's hoping the Republican House can hold their ground and not go along with bogus immigration reform. They are, as usual, our last best chance. Initial comments from guys like Tom Tancredo and J.D. Hayworth not surprisingly sound good. Which way will the Haserts and Sensenbrenners sway in the wind this time? We shall see.

Bush's Speech

2006-05-15T21:44:00.000-04:00

I'm trying to find the motivation to disect throughly tonight's speech. It's just not coming that easily. Let's face it, love him or hate him, we already never expect very much from the President's actual delivery of words before an audience or a camera. And, like usual, we didn't get very much in that department. Bush did not strike me as particularly passionate on the issue. The speech sounded like one he felt he had to make. Perhaps that is why he's waited nearly 5 years after 9/11 to deliver it. So ask yourself, did he sound as passionate as he has in speeches past when defending his war in Iraq?

I don't think so. But I guess you can't expect too much from someone who probably thinks of Kuwait when we start talking about defending the southern border!

As to the substance of the speech, I don't think I have much of a different take than you can find elsewhere. Despite its 5 part framework, the speech only had 2 real parts. The first half of Bush's speech talked security. And it was aimed squarely at his conservative base.

The second part of the speech talked of what I'd like to call, "Amnesty and the American dream." And this part of the speech was aimed at everyone else in American politics but for his conservative base. He told us twice, "This is not amnesty." But his guest-worker proposal will continue to sound like just that to those of us who are hawks on immigration reform.

How insulting of Mr. Bush to compare our modern day Mexican immigrants to all those immigrants of years past who prided themselves on assimilating into American culture! And he did just that in his last of the speech's five parts. In doing so Bush revealed his cards and, yet again, let us again know from where he is coming.

But that aside. I'll take the bait. Was I, the hawk, impressed by the first part of the speech? He knew he'd lose people like me with the 2nd part of the speech. But did he do enough in the 1st to make up for it? Quite simply, no.

Yes, I'll admit he's no longer in favor of doing nothing. But let's put this in perspective. He's proposing to send 6,000 unfamiliar National Guard troops from all around American to do some work at the border for 2-3 week intervals at a time during the next 2 years. They won't have the training to become effective at border security because after a couple of weeks in McAllen, Texas it'll be time to go home to Topeka, Kansas. So these men and women will likely be used to clear brush, install some fences, work on vehicles, and simply drill as they would back in Kansas.

But let's really put this in perspective: funding for the National Guard project will be 1.9 billion, according to the supplemental spending bill that just passed Congress and earmarked extra money to be used for border security. Well, the U.S. currently spends 2 billion dollars in Iraq every two weeks. So do we have our priorities in order? You tell me?

Dick Durbin's rebuttal sounded like a speech Bush could have delivered, granted probably without W speaking quite as clearly. Durbin's only real bone to pick was that the National Guard was already stretched too thin. But overall his message was friendly and aimed at Bush:

Mr. President, we Democrats will work with you. Fight with your Republican friends in Congress. Get enough of them into line with you and let's hammer out a dovish bill that we can pass off as tough because we'll cave on your National Guard issue. That's why I'm bitching about it now so we'll look better when we compromise later. Just twist some arms get your allies in Congress to go along with this bill and give up their remaining principles. This way guys like Jeff Briscoe will stay home in November or maybe he'll even throw away his vote to a 3rd party. And then we'll have a Democrtic Congress for sure. In return, Mr. President, we promise to propose merely censure, not impeachment, for that whole domestic spying thing. We don't want to be stuck with Uncle Dick, afterall!

Still Not Believing Those Polls

2006-05-15T13:35:00.000-04:00

Quote courtesy of the Associated Press....

First lady Laura Bush isn't worrying much about President Bush's low poll ratings — she says they're wrong.

"I don't really believe those polls," said Bush, who added that the news media seem to have "a lot of fun" writing front-page stories when ratings are low but ignoring the numbers when they are high.

I couldn't resist posting Laura's quote for you here myself. I like Laura Bush. I really do. I think she probably would make a great librarian. But, Georgie Boy, please don't send your poor little wife out there to defend you in your freefall. I've enjoyed some hearty debate with GOP loyalists over at The Political Spectrum, such as this one from March, who have been telling us not to believe Bush's low poll numbers over the past year.

I guess Laura doesn't remember those months after 9/11 when the news media most certainly reported Bush's skyrocketing poll numbers. Now don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of the MSM, but I'm also not going to blame them in this instance when the problem is Bush himself. You can't blame the MSM for not reporting good news about George Bush when W hasn't done anything good in about 2 years!

In other news, I think Laura Bush must have added, "I don't believe in the Earth being round. I know some scientists have had "a lot of fun" describing it that way. But I still think it's flat."

Ok. Enough Bush bashing from me for now. We'll save the rest for AFTER tonight's speech!

Anniversary Time

2006-05-15T02:08:00.000-04:00

Did ya'll celebrate over the weekend?

No, I'm not talking about Mother's Day. I'm talking about this past Saturday, May 13 having been the 160th anniversary of the U.S. formally declaring war on Mexico in 1846.

I wonder if Bush is going to do anything special in tonight's primetime speech to commemorate the occasion? Because I'm not counting on him proposing much meaningful reform in order to actually protect our citizenry, borders, culture, or language.

What do you think? Any predictions out there for the speech?

The White House has been floating the idea of the National Guard temporarily working the border. Bush will do so hoping thoughts of such a supposed show of American strength will ease the sting felt by conservatives when he admits his support for amnesty and a fast-track to citizenship for our current batch of Mexican ~~lawbreakers~~ ~~illegal aliens~~ freedom seeking immigrants.

Me personally, I figure a tribute to Zachary Taylor would be nice.

ADD makes Braves' fans MAD

2006-05-14T18:57:00.000-04:00

So did you watch today's Braves game on TBS with Skip and Joe handling the play by play? Ok. Don't answer that question. I already know the answer.

It's not very often when you have to cite mental health as the reason for a loss. However, that was indeed the case in today's Braves 8-1 loss to the Nationals. While it's true that more ordinary issues such anger management and lack of concentration frequently plague our noble sports heroes (often not the brightest bulbs coming out of the GE factory), today it was Attention Deficit Disorder that did in the 3rd place Braves.

With two outs in the top of the 5th inning, Nick Johnson hit a rally-killing soft grounder to Braves' 1st baseman Adam LaRoche. The Braves were down 1-0 but John Thomson was pitching well. They'd surely now have a good shot to tie it up in the bottom of the 5th and perhaps sweep the 3 game series.

LaRoche had a couple of options. Upon fielding the ball, he could have stopped right there by the baseline. He would have then easily tagged Johnson as the runner approached. But LaRoche passed on that option. Instead, with the ball tucked safely inside his glove, the 1st baseman put his head down and began a slow trot to the base.

It was a pleasant Sunday afternoon in Atlanta. What better time for a nice little jog?

But the batter had a better idea. After initially slowing down, Johnson noticed what LaRoche was doing and began to sprint down the line in an attempt to beat LaRoche to the base. But, c'mon now, this was like a handicapped 3 legged race. Johnson had 75 feet to go, LaRoche had about 10.

So who do you think won?

Johnson, of course! And the embarassing moment deflated the Braves. The Nationals immediately put up 4 unearned runs after being given the extra out and never looked back.

After the game, and to his credit, LaRoche did man up and admit, "It's lack of focus and lack of hustle."

No doubt. But the interesting part of this story is that, unlike other such notorious moments orchestrated by players including Chuck Knoblauch and Chris Webber, LaRoche actually has a doctor's note to get out of trouble!

The 1st baseman has been diagnosed with suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder. He's said typically to nap before a game and need to be reminded when it's time to bat. And the symptoms certainly appeared to be on display during this bonehead moment. LaRoche seemed to be in his own little world.

Perhaps fiery Braves' manager Bobby Cox had the ADD thing in his own mind too. He did not yank LaRoche from the field mid-inning, as he once did to Andruw Jones after a lazy mishap. On this day Cox chose instead to argue the call with the umpire. He is so good at that, afterall. Bobby proceeded to get ejected from the game mid-inning in order to continue his assault on the all-time record for ejections from a baseball game.

In other news, Paul's Mets lost 6-5 in 10 innings to the Brewers. The Braves thus remain 6 games behind. However, the red hot Phillies won again. They now stand only 1 game behind the Amazings. It's a long season, Met fans.

Happy Mother's Day!

2006-05-14T02:36:00.000-04:00

To any of the readership here who are blessed to be mothers, Happy Mother's Day!

To rest of the readership here who are equally blessed to have wives and moms and grandmas, make sure you show those wonderful ladies some love on their special day.

There are a lot of Hallmark Holidays out there these days. This is certainly NOT one of them. I'm so grateful for my own wife who has given our family the greatest gift in our two (and soon to be three) children. Happy Mother's Day, Dana Marie!

And remember guys, a lot of florists stay open today. Plus there's always the grocery store. Not to mention the jewelry store or her favorite restaurant. I of course like the latter option because you get to eat too!

Some Credit and Some Blame

2006-05-13T16:03:00.000-04:00

For my first 'take-on-the-news' type post, I wanted to touch on a subject that I know is dear to the hearts of many of the readers of this blog - the Catholic Church. This story out of Wisconsin recently caught my attention:

Catholic School Teacher Fired for Having In Vitro

"After five years trying to conceive, Kelly and Eric Romenesko decided to try in vitro fertilization. Their twins, Alexandria and Allison, were born last year. It was a joyous event in the couple's life. "They're miracles. They're precious," Kelly Romenesko said.

The couple were not prepared for what came next. When Kelly, a teacher at two Catholic schools in Wisconsin, told her bosses she had gotten pregnant through in vitro, they handed her a pink slip. "I was in tears," she said. "I remember asking, 'Is this the only reason why I'm being fired?' They stated, 'Yes.'

The schools say Romenesko agreed to follow church teachings when she was hired. One of those teachings was that the in vitro technique was morally wrong because it replaced natural conception. "I did not know what the Catholic doctrine stated against in vitro fertilization. Yes, I signed a contract, but the contract was vague in my opinion. I didn't know what I was doing as far as in vitro goes that that went against doctrine. My understanding was it was the Ten Commandments."

Firstly, I should lay out my own background. I consider myself a Bible first, born-again Christian who attends church services only occasionally. I've been a on-and-off regular over the years to Southern Baptist, Presbyterian (PCA), and Assembly of God services. If I had to choose, I think I feel most comfortable with the traditions, doctrines, and practices of the Baptists.

However, my parents were Roman Catholic and as a child they raised me as such. I attended a Catholic middle school and a Jesuit high school. I also went to a Jesuit University, even though it was hardly a faith-based one at all. So I'm fairly well versed in the traditions, doctrines, and practices of the Catholic church as well.

I'm going to defend absolutely this Catholic school's right to dismiss Mrs. Romenesko from her position. And I sure hope that she doesn't have any legal remedy through a workplace discrimination or 1st ammendment type suit (and don't think that she does, but I'm very unpolished in labor law myself). Shame on Mrs. Romenesko for treating her contract like a powerless piece of paper - that it only meant she had to be "good" or something. Shame on her for teaching to Catholic students in two Catholic schools and being so completely unaware of the Catholic doctrine on in vitro fertilization.

Furthermore, I applaud the school for holding their teachers to the same standard that is preached by their religious doctrine. This very concept has proved to be troubling in the past with the Church's sometime coverup for some priests who proved to be closeted homosexuals, sexual predators, and alcoholics. So I think in many ways this is a healthy sign. Afterall, how sad the day will be when such private, Christian schools have external values forced upon them through the guise of various equal rights movements. The Boy Scouts have certainly waged that good fight all these years.

However, on the other hand, I think this story is a perfect example of how out-of-touch the Catholic Church can be in choosing which battles to fight here in the 21st century. Most Christian faiths have narrowed the battlefield and identified specific evils in our society which they choice to tackle through preaching, prayer, activism, and doctrine. Topping this list are things like abortion, drugs, alcoholism, euthenasia, and the breakdown of the nuclear family.

Yet the Catholic Church insists on its followers living that perfectly normal 17th century lifestyle. Who doesn't sympathize with the Romeneskos trying to have a baby unsuccessfully for 5 years? Is in vitro fertilization really so wrong? Is using a condom when having sex really so wrong? Is living together with someone you intend to marry in a committed loving relationship really so wrong?

Catholic social doctrine needs to be updated. The challenge is to be user-friendly without surrendering the core of your beliefs. I hope Rome will soon look at itself in the mirror and realize that the Romeneskos aren't the problem. There are real problems out there. And those of us both inside and outside of the Church could surely use some more effective help on the frontlines of real fights like the one against abortion.

I think the new pope has a great opportunity to take this step. Given his overall reputation, I remain skeptical. But I do think with the likelihood of a future 3rd world papacy, the day is coming.

Introductions

2006-05-13T12:00:00.000-04:00

Firstly, I want to start by thanking Paul for the opportunity to guest blog this week at his site. While the original Cranky Con is getting some R&R beachside in North Carolina, I'm going to try to stir up the pot here for the next week.

I think it's very appropriate that this blog marks my foray into the other side of the blogosphere. I've been a frequent commentator in the ''comments" section of a several politically-based blogs. And that's been a lot of fun. But this is my first time trying to control conent.

A couple of years ago, Paul first described my brand of conservatism as that of a "Cranky Con" - one of those conservatives who always seemed to find a problem with things and served as a general nay-sayer to the Republican leadership in Washington. While not necessarily flattering, I have to admit that he coined a great term to capture this mindset. For awhile it sort of put me in the GOP corner as a black sheep. But I think more and more would agree that these days the tide has certainly turned. It's actually somewhat trendy now!

I've always identified with guys like Pat Buchanan. In spite of Pat's penchant for foot-in-mouth disease, I think he's a brilliant thinker - one who is consistently ahead of his time. It's funny, because his rap is for being years behind the times. Remember how the media mocked the folks in New Hampshire and South Carolina showing up at his rallies with pitchforks? How we were labeled and dismissed as everything from John Birchers to outright racists?

But what's the #1 topic in Washington and, indeed, in just about every corner of America these days? Immigration reform, of course. Well back in 1992 there was only major political figure talking about it. And he wasn't named Bush nor Clinton, Quayle nor Gore. Following that election both political parties decided to practice that age old fool's belief that if you ignore a problem long enough, maybe it would just go away. Yet again, that didn't work.

Let's fast forward about 10 years or so to 2002. Republicans were so grateful for the Clinton years to be over and to have recaptured the all powerful White House. Outside of a few lone voices like Pat Buchanan and Mike Savage, everyone conservative was generally happy with the second President George Bush. W was strong in his resolve that he had fairly won a close election in 2000, was working hard to further Republican gains in Congress in midterm elections, had provided solid leadership for the nation through the tragedy that was 9/11, and seemed to possess an unprecedented opportunity to change the direction America was heading with a friendly GOP House and Senate by his side.

But the Cranky Cons knew better. For these were not your daddy's Republicans. They were actually your granddaddy's Republicans reborn, literally. A mix of the old Rockefeller Republicans - always unquestioningly on the side of big money and big business - merged with the ideals of the modern Evangelical movement, which couldn't wait to use the new found power of this Republican big government to push its own agenda.

And what hurt so badly was that all this was a true bastardization of Reagan's movement. Bush rode it to victory and then used, misled, and betrayed the very same base. He acted ever the wolf in sheep's clothes. And very few initially recognized it. So that's why I give the Cranky Cons credit, to borrow Paul's term, and will always be proud to be called such. Because guys like Pat have been saying for years that if this is going to be the ship we sail, then I want off. Even if it means jumping into the water alone to my political death. And I'm taking my principles with me.

So that's my overview. I'll have some new posts coming soon. And I'm certainly looking forward to tackling Bush's primetime address to the nation next week. Let's get it going. I'll be expecting some good comebacks (including those fun ad hominem insults) in the comments sections to follow below!

La Vacance

2006-05-13T01:38:00.000-04:00

And not a second too soon. I'm off for a week on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. It'll pretty much be a week of sangria, Gispert cigars, soaking in the sun, and some light reading like the Davinci Hoax (not Code), the Party of Death, and Crunchy Cons. So at least I should have some post fodder when I return.

In the meantime, do not fret, because I will not be leaving you all by your lonesome. Frequent commenter and fellow Sports Corner alum Jeff Briscoe or, as he seems to prefer, Big Daddy Jeff, will be filling in and guest blogging. Jeff - the the illest motherfucker from here to gardena - and pretty much the proptype of the true cranky con, promises to rock the boat.

I'll be checking in from time to time, but in the meantime, it's all you Jeff.

A comment Ray Bolger would be proud of

2006-05-12T23:02:00.000-04:00

Or maybe someone who used to wear #18 for the Mets.

National Review's resident neocon (note: here I am using the term properly) John Podhoretz offers this observation:

As for dealing with the illegals already here, there's a sense in which this debate has been radicalized to such an extent that the Right won't be satisfied with a policy that does not explicitly advocate expulsion - all other policies being dubbed "amnesty" and therefore illegitimate - while the Left refuses to consider any policy other than special-treatment affirmative-action line-jumping legalization. In other words, there is nothing our politicians can do, absolutely nothing, to satisfy the activists - because neither extreme will be reflected in any kind of law or policy that emerges even from a Washington energized to deal with them.

Thanks for that sober analysis, John. While I certainly wouldn't support amnesty, I acknowledge that it's probably not feasible to deport the 12 million already here. Admittedly, it's tough coming up with a plan that doesn't exactly reward lawbreakers while simultaneously not sending them all back. But the idea that this is really what the argument has boiled down to is . . . well, not exactly on point.

All this is to warn the right of the spooky specter of a - cue the Imperial March - Hillary Clinton presidency.

If a more sober reckoning of political reality does not intrude here, the Right will hurtle headlong toward schism, division, a third party and all sorts of other "pox on all your houses" actions. The cost of this is what I detail in the direst parts of my book Can She Be Stopped? — the easy transfer of power on Capitol Hill and the White House to the Democrats, and particularly to Hillary Clinton.

It's doubtful the policies she will follow as president on immigration will please anyone on the Right. It's certain that the policies she will follow on courts, on social issues, on foreign policy, on taxes, on regulation and on almost everything else you can think of will be deeply displeasing to people on the Right. And then, as a result of the pursuit of an impossible policy of purity on immigration, the country and the world will suffer the consequences.

The potential for self-destruction is terrifying. The potential for grave national harm is worse. Please, you guys, pull back from the edge.

Nicely done, John. You've managed to:

1) Throw a cheap plug for your book,
2) Staked your claim as the singular voice for moderation and sanity, and
3) Confirmed your place as the most worthless commentator on NRO.

Congrats on the trifecta.

It's LimaZima time

2006-05-12T22:59:00.000-04:00

Yeah, so maybe it's time to promote Heilman to the starting rotation. Or Darren Oliver. Or anyone whose name is not Jose Lima.

Ummm, no

2006-05-10T10:29:00.000-04:00

I'm often perplexed by the fawning respect for Dick Morris's political savvy. Supposedly we're supposed to be impressed by his keen instincts. After all, he managed to guide an incumbent president overseeing a booming economy in a time of peace to almost 49% of the popular vote in 1996. Surely the man must know a lot about politics, right? Wrong.

So very wrong, as this silly piece aptly demonstrates. He advises the Republicans to run . . . LEFT in the upcoming election, and to be more like Democrats.

Hello, Dick. Earth to Dick. The reason the Republicans are in trouble is precisely because they've acted like Democrats going on four years. As if spending like drunken sailors, adding more and more pork to the budget, kow-towing to the illegal alien invasion, creating a massive new entitlement and a hideous new bureaucracy was not enough, Morris encourages Republicans to kiss up to environmentalists and idiotcally demogogue the oil issue (as if they haven't already acted stupidly enough on this issue).

Why do people even take this man seriously?

Time to sniff some shoes, Dick. It's about the only thing in life you're good at.

On the other hand . . .

2006-05-10T00:38:00.000-04:00

While Howard Dean and the gang of idiots on the left is doing everything in their power to make sure I go to the polls this November and pull the lever for Republicans, George Bush is seemingly doing everything in his power to make sure that I just stay home. Or vote for Michael Steele and just ignore the rest of the ballot. As Confederate Yankee reports (via Daily Bulletin):

While Minuteman civilian patrols are keeping an eye out for illegal border crossers, the U.S. Border Patrol is keeping an eye out for Minutemen -- and telling the Mexican government where they are.
According to three documents on the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Web site, the U.S. Border Patrol is to notify the Mexican government as to the location of Minutemen and other civilian border patrol groups when they participate in apprehending illegal immigrants -- and if and when violence is used against border crossers.

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman confirmed the notification process, describing it as a standard procedure meant to reassure the Mexican government that migrants' rights are being observed.

"It's not a secret where the Minuteman volunteers are going to be," Mario Martinez said Monday.

"This ... simply makes two basic statements -- that we will not allow any lawlessness of any type, and that if an alien is encountered by a Minuteman or arrested by the Minuteman, then we will allow that government to interview the person."

Umm, excuse me, but this makes the statement that we won't allow any lawlessness? Then please explain why you are permitting millions of Mexicans to hop into this country illegally, and you're not doing a damned thing to stop it.

I'm not exactly going to go so far as the Confederate Yankee in suggesting that the President should perhaps be impeached over this mess, but the man has lost all touch with reality. We have a very serious problem with people illegally flooding our country, and his only response has been to belittle those Americans who are actually trying to do something to curtail the problem. Meanwhile, his poll numbers sink deeper and deeper into oblivion, and it's not because a bunh of moonbats are fed up with him. No, it's the right that has lost all patience with a President who seemingly has absolutely no appreciation of conservative principles, and who has abandonned his duty to defend our nation's borders all in an effort to suck up to an interest group that can't even vote yet. And while he's sucking up to these lawbreakers, those who do have the ability to vote are getting more and more pissed off.

This issue is a political slam dunk for Republicans. If they showed even the slightest backbone they'd have the support of a large segment of the population. And lest I be called out for hypocritcally abandonning my opposition to populism, sometimes the people are in fact right. But even if it weren't the politically popular thing to do, getting tougher on the issue of border security would be the right thing to do.

Instead the President kow-tows to one of the most corrupt governments on the face of the Earth. He seems unable to grasp the fact that we're not helping those that are fleeing Mexico to come the United States. In fact, this action is counter-productive to helping those who admittedly only want a better life. Mexico has betrayed its own people, and rather than looking to reform within, it seeks to export its problems to another country, and we're obliging the Mexican government's shirking of its duty to its own people.

Such is the tragic story of our time. In our short-sighted but noble attempts to assist the downtrodden, we only manage to prolong their suffering because we cannot think about long-term consequences. It's like the people I see after Church who always gove money to the homeless people outside. I understand and completely sympathize with the desire to help a fellow human being, but does not anybody recognize that these same people have been begging for over three years? By enabling them, we prevent them from getting the real help they need so that they don't need to beg anymore. Similarly, in aiding the Mexican government's efforts to drop its people into our country, we prevent the Mexican government - and moreover, Mexican society - from reforming. We keep giving them crutches, but in reality all we're doing is giving them a bit more rope to hang themselves with. Unfortunately, we've given them so much that we have enough leftover to hang ourselves alongside them.

Populism

2006-05-10T00:23:00.000-04:00

As if I don't have enough random paper strewn about my floor, all containing notes for that dissertation thing I've been working on, (It's going well. There's no timetable, but I hope to be done in a year. It's going well. There's no timetable, but I hope to be done in a year. It's going well. There's no timetable, but I hope to be done in a year. There. Now I've got my daily quotient of responses to questions about my progress out of the way.) here comes Jonah Goldberg's G-File on why conservatism and populism don't mix. So far I have one chapter leading with a Metallica quote, so there seems nothing wrong with adding a G-File to the mix.

There's too much here to selectively quote, so just read it and I think you'll understand the basic theme of what I've been researching and writing on for the better part of two and half years.

Anger

2006-05-09T17:26:00.000-04:00

Richard Cohen wrote about Stephen Colbert's subpar performance at the National Press dinner, and in response he received thousands of vitriolic e-mails. He writes:

But the message in this case truly is the medium. The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred. This spells trouble -- not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats. The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out Hillary!) I have seen this anger before -- back in the Vietnam War era. That's when the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated.

The hatred is back. I know it's only words now appearing on my computer screen, but the words are so angry, so roiled with rage, that they are the functional equivalent of rocks once so furiously hurled during anti-war demonstrations. They hurt in a different way.

I can appreciate some of it. Institution after institution failed America -- the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have. Now, though, that gullibility is being matched by war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies. If that's going to be the case, then Iraq is a war its critics will lose twice -- once because they couldn't stop it, and once more at the polls.

So true. It's not that the right is without its angry voices, but the left has become so unhinged, so detached from reality, that e-mails like the one the Digital Brownshirt received , as well as this one addressed to Jonah Goldberg, are unfortunately more representative of leftist thought than we'd hope.

Such thoughtless meandering clearly indicates a warped and useless mind, but I've even talked with very intelligent left-wing friends whose "thoughts" on the war indicate that they really have no clue about what they're talking about. They have grown so embittered, so full of rage at the current administration, that they are willing to entertain the most preposterous conspiracy theories. I'm talking with people who have advanced degrees, and all I'm hearing in return is a parotting of a Michael Moore screed.

What's both infuriating and hilarious is that while legions of leftists mock the supposed intellectual inferiority of our President, they seem oblivious to the idiocy coming from Howard Dean on a near daily basis. And then they write these e-mail screeds - lacking in both substance and proper grammar. And then I listen to my friends discuss how stupid the President is, meanwhile it's apparent to me that they have absolutely no grasp of current events other than reading the occasional feature article in Time Magazine. Whenever pressed for facts to back up their assertions, the response is akin to a deer in headlights.

And the grasp on history shown by these e-mailers is . . . faulty. This country was founded by extreme liberals? While Thomas Jefferson may have been a Rousseauean ideologue caught up in an abstract and idealized dream world that fancied a series of revolutions, the remainder of the Founders were leery of the sort of social engineering that many leftists gladly endorse. The Founders were indeed liberals - but liberal in the proper sense of the term. These folks, meanwhile, are leftists, not liberals. And the distinction is enormous when contemplating political thought.

Perhaps fodder for a future post?

The wonder of it all

2006-05-08T22:35:00.001-04:00

Well, I gotta say Foxwood's wasn't all that bad. Of course, I'm not exactly a big time gambler, though I managed to walk out plus-thirty after hitting a fifty dollar jackpot at the slots. So far in my life I've managed to walk out of the Connecticut casinos both of the times I've been there with more in my pocket than I walked in with. ( Well, really that's not true because we spent about 150 bucks on the room and food, but you catch my drift.)

Oh, and Peter Luger's is still the best steak house on the planet.

Additional thoughts on the rotation

2006-05-08T22:25:00.000-04:00

TSL thinks he's committing a major act of blasphemy, but I'd have no problem with the Mets signing Roger Clemens. But it is not going to happen, so they'd be best to stay within the organization.

Let's look at the situation this way. Pedro Martinez will win roughly 20 games, and the team should win at least 2/3 of the game he starts, if not more. Let's say they go 22-10 in his starts (and that's a conservatively pessimistic prediction). I also think it's safe to say they should be at least ten over in all of Glavine's starts. That would put them at 20-25 games over .500 in Glavine and Martinez' starts. All they'd need out of the rest of the rotation is to go moderately over .500 (just a few games over) and they'd be in the mid 90's win wise. As up-and-down as Traschel has been, they should probably also win a majority of his starts. Therefore, we really just need the four and five spots to hold the line. Admittedly, if Lima is the guy we have to rely on, he might just be bad enough to bring the team's record down. But Lima won't get enough starts to seriously hamper the team's efforts. I've seen enough out of Bannister to expect no worse than about .500, so all we're really hoping for is the fifth starter not to be seriously sub-.500.

And if Aaron Heilman is the fifth starter, then we can be pretty sure they'd avoid a big hole in that final slot in the rotation. That's all I am saying.

Look, if the Mets can land a Zito, Clemens, Willis or someone along those lines, there's no doubt they'd easily sew up this division and likely land a pennant. But they should probably win this division without literally giving up the farm. Wouldn't it be nice to win the division and still have a future?

Sometimes you can have your cake and eat it, too. You just need to be a little patient.

Gone-brano

2006-05-08T10:15:00.000-04:00

It's sometimes tough to tell what's happening when you're at a baseball game. On Saturday, Victor Zambrano had run the count to 2-2 on Andrew Jones when all of a sudden there was a conference on the mound. We figured something must be bothering Zambrano, but he stayed in the game. On the next pitch he k'd Jones, but then he ran off in hurry, past the dugout and into the clubhouse, and we all knew something must be wrong.

Well, we later found it it was his elbow, and Victor Zambrano is done for the season. The Mets recalled Jeremi Gonzalez from Norfolk to take his place in the rotation.

So Zambrano is done. And we should be concerned why? Yes, he was coming off a decent start against the Nationals, and he had struckout three of four to start the game, but come on. He was a disaster waiting to happen every time he took the mound. Have our pennant hopes been dashed because we lost this headcase?

More troubling is the concern over what the Mets will do next. It seems they are reluctant to bump Heilman up to the starting rotation, and with Wagner's finger still bothering him, that's understandable. But the Mets' bullpen is fairly strong. Sanchez has been great, Bradford has been very good, and Oliver and Feliciano seem like they can handle the long-man duties. So why not give Heilman a few starts and see what he can do? He's a better option than Lima.

The other option being bandied about is a deal for Barry Zito featuring Lastings Milledge.

Don't do it Omar. Zito is still living off the reputation of his 2002 season. Now, I know that his statistics mask his performance to some degree, but he has never been a top-line starter since 2002. He's been good - very good in some respects - since then, but does he merit a trade of your best prospect? Let's take a closer look.

He's been a bulldog, never missing a start. He's thrown over 200 innings every full season of his career. He also seems to have mental toughness. He hasn't allowed bad starts to affect his performance. After getting rocked in the first month of the season last year, he rebounded with a strong final five months. And he clearly still has good stuff, witness by K totals of 146, 163, 171. He's really only had one bad year ERA wise - 2004 he had a 4.48 - otherwise, he 's been a sub 4.00 guy. And his WHIP has been consistently been below 1.2.

He's had an up-and-down season thus far. His ERA hovers in the 4-range, but his WHIP is a very good 1.12. His K-rate is basically the same as it's ever been. But he's been very inconsistent. He's started seven games, and has been rocked in three of them, though none have been as bad as his opening day disaster against the Yankees. On the other hand, his other four starts have been phenomenal. In those four good starts he went at least seven in three of the four (and six in the other), and gave up a total of two runs, allowing a total of 21 runners to reach base in those starts. His opponents were Seattle, Detrot, LAnaheim, and Tampa Bay, so no schlub teams exactly. And in two of the bad starts he still went at least six innings.

It's a tough call, and there's slim pickings out there. But just because he's the best of a bad lot does not mean the Mets should give up their prize prospect for him. He's just not worth it.

So suck it up for now, and then examine the situation in another month. But now is not the time for a panic trade that they'll come to regret.

A helpful reminder

2006-05-07T22:07:00.000-04:00

As disgusted as I have been with the Republican party, and as almost willing as I am to see the Democrats actually win in November, I am reminded why the Democrats cannot win. Courtesy of Jonah Goldberg, here's the latest from the idiot in charge of the DNC.

"I was recently asked about the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties," Dean said. "When it comes right down to it, the essential difference is that the Democrats fundamentally believe it is important to make sure that American Jews feel comfortable being American Jews."

Thanks Howard. You're the sole inspiration making sure I don't stay at home this November.

Off to NYC

2006-05-05T11:52:00.000-04:00

Speaking of over-consumption of material goods, I am headed to New York City for a bachelor party. Tonight's it the greatest steak place on the planet: Peter Luger. Tomorrow it's tailgating at the Braves-Mets game (the pitching matchup is Zambrano vs. Hundson. At least we'll have fun before the game). And to cap it all off, a night at Foxwood's Casino. So I'm wondering if I'll run into this bloke while I'm there.

Have a good weekend, all.

Personal responsibility

2006-05-05T09:54:00.000-04:00

Francase is on the case of Dick Durbin and his comments about oil company profits. Again, I am pretty much in agreement with his assessment.

In the comments section Jeff wrote a reply that I started to reply to myself, but it got too long so I'll just post it here. Jeff wrote:

Personally, I don't think it's any greater an offense on my freedom for the government to tell me what kind of guns I can and cannot own than for the government to tell me what kind of cars I can and cannot drive. It is no greater offense for the government to tell me where I can or cannot smoke (btw, I quit 15 mos ago) nor for the government to claimn that it may now seize my property for any reason at all and merely reimburse me the fair market value of the land as I used it.

My point is, fellow conservatives, if we can't do something about the supply, I'm real close to giving in to the Al Gores of the world and agreeing to do something about the demand.

I'm sort of with Jeff, but I'd also say that it's time for people themselves to make that choice. I think that anyone bitching about high gas prices who also happens to be an SUV owner is a hypocrite of the first magnitude. But it's not time for the government to step in and tell them that they shouldn't drive those vehicles.

I am by no means a libertarian, but we keep digging ourselves into deeper holes every time the government mandates x, y and z. At some point we just have to instill a personal responsibility ethic, or else we'll just have a government that steps in to solve every single problem that we face in our lives.

Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but last week I heard an economist talk, and he was pretty bullish on the American economy. But he expressed grave concerns about our domestic savings rate. The problem is people are so determined to "keep up with the Joneses" that they will go into heavy debt just in order to buy big screen tvs, cars, electronic equipment, etc. And we, as a culture, have allowed this to happen because we have no sense of shame. We're a purchase-happy society, and there's absolutely no concept of saving money.

And I'm certainly as guilty as anyone of not saving enough and of desiring consumer goods. I've managed to pay off a lot of credit card debt, but there's still some more ahead.

But there is no government program that can really fix that. We have to change as a culture. Unfortunately, our government has ennervated our sense of personal responsibility. We're always waiting for the next govrnment bailout.

Well I say enough. If people are going to continue to shell out thousands of dollars for these over-priced monstrosities that cost them $80 a week to fill-up, I say let them. If we, as a society, are going to do nothing ourselves to fix the problem, we deserve the punishment that is due.

Today government mandates the purchase of more Hondas. What's next? Mandating how often I can go to McDonalds? How often I am allowed to drink Budweiser? There has got to be a limit somewhere, because we are careening out of control with a government that feels it must fix every problem, and a society so damned lazy that it is happy to let the government be this intrusive.

As I said, we get the government and the society we deserve.

Beauty

2006-05-04T15:18:00.000-04:00

Gerald at the Cafeteria is Closed has been running a series on tabernacles to love, posting pictures of some of the most beautiful tabnernacles from around the globe. Check out his site (which is excellent anyway) and scroll down to see some of the tremendous photos.

It does get me to reflecting a bit on the tabernacles from parishes that I have been a part of. My hometown Church in Ridgewood, Queens is St. Aloysius, and it is an astoundingly beautiful old Church built in the late 19th century. Unfortunately, in the early nineties they rearranged the altar so that it was brought forward and they put pews on the side. At the time it happened I didn't really think much of the change, but now I see that it has negatively affected the appearance of the Church. It's not as bad as some of the Vosko-ized Churches, but the plain wooden table in the middle of the table is a poor replacement for the beautiful tabernacle that I believe still largely is in place in the background.

Even St. Matthews, my current parish in DC, can't really compete with these glorious tabernacles. Again, St. Matt's is a wonderful Church, but something seems . . . missing.

Anyway, go check out the tabernacles.

Moonbat article of the day

2006-05-03T11:04:00.000-04:00

Courtesy of the Philadelphia Inquirer, an article on why Bush should be impeached.

It's actually too stupid to comment upon, but I thought I'd pass it along for your amusement.

And as usual, I must ask the question: What color is the sky in their world?

And now for that clarification

2006-05-03T00:21:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I left a sort of cryptic note on my last post about "my future home state." Let me now explain.

Last week I travelled to Austin for a business trip, though it was also personal because my fiance also happens to have family there. It was five days in the rip-roaring capital of the great state of Texas. Tons of barbecue, Mexican food, and other high-calorie food, cheap beer, as well as consistently warm-to-hot weather. In other words, my description of heaven. Last Wednesday I enjoyed an evening in Schultz' Beer Garden, $11 pitcher of Shiner in hand, watching some country rock band whose name escapes me for the moment, all the while thinking "I want to live here."

And no I don't mean that I want to live in Schultz' Beer Garden (though it would be kind of cool). I mean that I want to live in Texas.

This is not some spur of the moment thinking on my part. I've been thinking about where I'd like to live in the future for some time, and Texas has been at the forefront.

I've lived in the DC area for almost five years. I have seen housing prices escalate to the point where I have to wonder how any human being making under $250,000 per year can possibly afford to buy a decent-sized home. As it is, I live in a shoebox apartment in Silver Spring, and I'm still paying as much for it as my roommate and I did for a 1100 square-foot, 2-bedroom apartment in Atlanta (which also featured a barbecue pit, swimming pool, and tennis courts). In about nine months I will be married, and you can bet your sweet ass my wife and I won't be able to cram even into her one-bedroom.

And that's just for starters. You want to buy a lunch at some place other than McDonalds? Yeah, okay, then that's another ten bucks or so. Throw in crappy restaurants that charge an obscene amount of money for a dish that should come with a microscope so that you can find the food on your plate. And $11 for a pitcher? First you have to find a place that serves pitchers, and then maybe you can get half of one for that price if it's not happy hour. And don't even think of lighting up come January 1, because the smoking nazis have infested this city as well. (For the record, I only smoke cigars, and as it is I can only smoke those in select bars, but the law still pisses me off).

Yeah, there's culture here, but how many fucking times can I really visit the Lincoln Memorial?

And then of course there are the socialists that are the majority of my neighbors, but I won't even go there for now.

Long story short, I'm growing tired of this town, and frankly I've grown tired of the northeast. I don't want to freeze my butt of in the winter. I don't want to pay a gazillion dollars for some two-bit shack. I don't want to have to send my future children to some crappy public school.

I never thought I would ever say this. I grew up in New York city, and I still love the town. It's the greatest city in the country. You can feel how alive the city is just by stepping foot in Manhattan. The saying is true - the city does not sleep.

But I'm not a college kid anymore, and now I'm looking to raise a family. And to be honest, I don't think New York is all that bad a place to raise kids. Contrary to popular belief, there are trees and green spaces in the city - lots more, in fact, than you have in your average suburban community. (Ever heard of Central Park?) It's wonderful to have so many great cultural locations - museums, libraries, theaters, etc. - and I believe that I was lucky to be able to spend my childhood there.

But it's freaking expensive. And quite frankly - well, look, I'm not exactly ever going to wind up being represented by someone who shares my political leanings living in DC or New York, am I?

And I'm just tired of the attitude. The obnoxious, superior attitude of the typical northeasterner to everyone who is not like them is beginning to grate just a bit more and more. And believe me, I know a thing about such an attitude considering I am one of those obnoxious, arrogant northeasterners. But for God's sake there's a country outside of the Boston-New York-Philadelphia-DC axis people, and the rest of the country is not just filled with ignorant, country bumpkins. These are good people - people who still have a fresh perspective on life, who understand that there's more to living than appearing to be rich. These folks don't need to spend ten bucks on a cocktail at some "hip" trendy bar decorated with pictures of cows in various poses.

Lest I leave the impression that I think everyone in this corner is an obnoxious prick, please understand that's not the case. I am blessed with friends who are very down-to-earth and share many of my values (and I'm not necessarily talking about politics). But the overwhelming trend in this part of the country is to think that everyone who lives in the southeast is some boob married to his cousin.

But again, it's not just the people - or even primarily the people. Texas is a wide open state, with space to live without being on top of your neighbor. It's actually possible to buy a house and have a mortgage payment that is low enough for you to be able to have meals that do not just feature ramen noodles.

I want to be able to go out on my porch in January and not freeze my ass off. I want to be able to go to a restaurant without applying for a bank loan. I want to live in an area of the country where more people share my values.

And again, before people misinterpret, no I do not have to live in a place where all my neighbors share my political leanings. But you know what? It would be nice to live somewhere where at least some of the people are at least a little ideologically sympathetic. Where I have a chance to actually vote for someone who has more than a snowball chance in hell of winning.

But it all comes down to family. Where can I raise a family affordably, and in an atmosphere that is comfortable and welcoming? And the more I visit Texas, the more I see it as that place.

I'd still need something of a big city atmosphere, so Houston and Dallas are my likely choices.

But how does that become a reality? I've chosen a career path that lends itself to being in DC. And frankly, I like my job. It's a wonderful place to work. I'm surrounded by lots of good people (and almost all fellow yankees, so again, we're not all bad). The hours are good, and so is the pay.

But in five years? Who knows.

I guess I'm just thinking out loud, and who knows how I'll feel in the coming months and years. Heck, I might find myself in Alaska for all I know. Really, the only certainty in my life is this -

I ain't ever moving back to fucking Atlanta. Other than that . . . ?

A patch of blue in a sea of red

2006-05-01T11:59:00.000-04:00

I'm back from Austin, but catching up on a few things, so I won't be blogging much for another day. Expect a very long post detailing some thoughts I had after spending a few days in the Lone Star state, but there was one funny moment I had to relate.

Yesterday we had brunch at a very busy Mexican place downtown, and posted on the front was a sign indicating that this restaurant would be closed Monday (today) to support "immigrant rights." Immediately below this announcement the poster said "protest Exxon's record profits."

Okay. First of all, pick one thing to protest and go with it. Now perhaps you can argue that the two issues are inter-related, but that would be a bit of a stretch. Generally speaking, it would help the left's credibility a whole heckuva lot if they decided to concentrate their attention one issue at a time rather than trying to attack all the evils of the world at once.

Second, I've been gone a while and really only had time to catch up on a few things - mainly baseball (speaking of which, anybody catch any good games this weekend? Particularly in the southeastern portion of the United States, and even more particularly in the "city" of Atlanta?) But I did catch Francase's post on big oil. I agree with much of it, but I would simply say this. Yes, the the "big oil" big profits look a little, well, unseemly. But might the gas price increases have a bit more to do with the fact that two countries - with a combined population of over two billion people - suddenly crave A LOT of oil? Throw in the madman in Iran, a war in the Middle East, and people continuing to buy these gas guzzling SUVs, and it becomes apparent that oil company greed is not the most pressing of concerns. But I do sympathize.

It does strike me that Austin tries almost a bit too hard to be weird and different, and striking a collective "progressive" political pose is keeping with the spirit.

But more on my future home state in an upcoming post.

Off to Texas

2006-04-24T22:20:00.000-04:00

I'm leaving for a conference in Austin, and I won't have much access to the internet until I get back on Sunday.

So, play nice in the comments section. And I'll see you when I see you.

Wilkerson's op-ed

2006-04-23T15:01:00.000-04:00

Courtesy of Lawrence Wilkerson, here is one of the most embarassingly bad editorials that I have ever read.

Methinks it's time for a little Sunday fisking.

We Americans came not from a revolution but from an evolution.

That is essentially correct. This is also pretty much the only correct thing Wilkerson writes.

That is in large part why our so-called revolution produced success while most throughout history did not. We came as much from the Magna Carta as from our own doings, as much from British common law and parliamentary development as from the Declaration of Independence and Continental Congress.

This is also generally correct, but Wilkerson also technically contradicts himself. In the first sentence, he states that we came from evolution not revolution, and in the next he explains why our revolution was a success. I also think he overstates thing s bit much, but I can't quibble with him on these points. There's much more to quibble with, like

Unlike the true revolution on the other side of the Atlantic that led to Napoleon's dictatorship and strife and conflict all across Europe, our evolution founded the greatest country the world has ever seen. That was true in every element of power and in the uniqueness that makes us great, our constant striving for "a more perfect union" and, as we do so, our open arms for the other peoples of the world "yearning to be free."

All that's missing is some Yankee Doodle Dandy patriotic music, and you've got yourself one hekuva stirring statement.

As Alexis de Tocqueville once said: "America is great because she is good. If America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."

In January 2001, with the inauguration of George W. Bush as president, America set on a path to cease being good; America became a revolutionary nation, a radical republic. If our country continues on this path, it will cease to be great - as happened to all great powers before it, without exception.

And it here where this editorial goes careening off the rails, into a one of the most patently absurd and hyperbolic screeds I've read in some time.

From the Kyoto accords to the International Criminal Court, from torture and cruel and unusual treatment of prisoners to rendition of innocent civilians, from illegal domestic surveillance to lies about leaking, from energy ineptitude to denial of global warming, from cherry-picking intelligence to appointing a martinet and a tyrant to run the Defense Department, the Bush administration, in the name of fighting terrorism, has put America on the radical path to ruin.

What exactly is revolutionary about any of the above? These aren't revolutionary actions, these are things Larry Wilkerson didn't approve of. While we can certainly argue over a) whether or not the above-mentioned policies were wise and prudential or, b) whether all of the above-mentioned are true or occurred as has been reported in the media, what is not self-evidently true is that any of this litany of the awful is per se revolutionary.

Here's a tip from a guy writing a dissertation - if you establish a thesis, the supporting evidence should, well, support the thesis. It also helps to avoid hyperbole and straw men, like the following:

Unprecedented interpretations of the Constitution that holds the president as commander in chief to be all-powerful and without checks and balances marks the hubris and unparalleled radicalism of this administration.

Yes, I truly recall the President's mad-cap speech before the Union, where he held Denny Hastert's severed head in his hands and, his eyes gleaming with satanic delight, declared to be the all-powerul and benificent dictator of these United States.

Oh wait . . . that didn't happen.

By the way, has Wilkerson ever read about a President named Abraham Lincoln? He took unto himself far, far more power than President Bush has, at least relative to their repective time periods. Last time I checked, habeas corpus has not been suspended.

Moreover, fiscal profligacy of an order never seen before has brought America trade deficits that boggle the mind and a federal deficit that, when stripped of the gimmickry used to make it appear more tolerable, will leave every child and grandchild in this nation a debt that will weigh upon their generations like a ball and chain around every neck. Imagine owing $150,000 from the cradle. That is radical irresponsibility.

Can't really defend the President too much on this score, but I also have a hard time faulting President Bush more than his predecessors. Wilkerson ignores what is a deeply troubling political problem that has much more to do with a political culture that has been rotting for a century.

This administration has expanded government - creation of the Homeland Security Department alone puts it in the record books - and government intrusiveness. It has brought a new level of sleaze and corruption to Washington (difficult to do, to be sure). And it has done the impossible in war-waging: put in motion a conflict in Iraq that in terms of colossal incompetence, civilian and military, and unbridled arrogance portends to top the Vietnam era, a truly radical feat.

Look, Larry, merely repeating the work radical over and over again is not proof that your thesis is correct. Thus far you have offered no substantive proof that the current administration has done anything more radical or more poorly than his predecessors. You have taken some minor - and some admittedly serious problems - and have turned tham into something far worse than they truly are. I mean, have you even ever read a history book. Is this a more scandalous administration that that of Nixon? or Harding? Grant? LBJ? Clinton? Is the Iraq War truly another Vietnam? With 1/25th the amount of fatalities we have toppled a dictator and have started to slowly - and again, with admitted difficulty - implanted the seeds of democracy. To compare this with Vietnam is a joke, and demonstrates that you have nothing left in the intellectual tank. When the only thing you can do is spout tired cliches and inapt analogies, you've already demonstrated that you are an utter fool - a bitter one at that.

In Eugene Jarecki's documentary Why We Fight, Richard Perle, head theoretician for the neo-Jacobins who masquerade under the title "neoconservatives,"

Hey, how original. I wonder where you got the idea to call them neo-Jacobins?

There is an element of the American right that has a somewhat naive aspiration that resembles, in some ways, the Rousseauistic parasites of the French Revolution, but their dominance is VASTLY overstated. But let's continue.

claims that America was changed forever by 9/11. He tells us that those attacks are responsible for all this radicalism. The Jacobins were members of a radical political club during the French Revolution that instituted brutal repression in what became known as the "reign of terror."

That last sentence doesn't even follow from the preceding one. I have not seen this documentary, but I have a pretty good idea that the "radicalism" that Perele talks about is a far cry from the brutal radicalism of the French revolutionaries.

I know a thing or two about the Jacobins and the Jacobin mindset. The children of the French Enlightenment desired to overthrow entirely the existing social order. They disdained organized religion, the elite, traditionalism, and all of those things that conservatives tend to hold deal. Unlike the theorists of the Scottish Enlightenment, the Jacobins as children of the French Enlightenment wanted to completely uproot the social order. They didn't want to build upon the existing stores of knowledge bequeathed to them from their ancestors, but rather they wanted to destroy everything that their ancestors gave to them. The Jacobins uprooted the clergy, and hoped to foist upon France a secular model - and an age of reason that worshipped the cult of man and disparaged all organized religion.

Tell me something - is that what Bush has done? Has he uprooted the existing social order? Has he stripped the clergy of their position? In fact, isn't the opposite often accused of Bush? How does running a high budget deficit and walking away from a disastrous environmental treaty signal a modern day Jacobinism? It doesn't. While the desire to export democracy to other nations has some revolutionary and radical overtones, it is beyond exaggeration to compare the Bush foreign policy (or domestic policy) with neo-Jacobinism.

There has been no effort by the current administration to uproot the cultural norms of Middle Easterners. We have respected their Muslim heritage, so much so that other critics have lamented the inclusion of elements of Shar'ia law into the Iraqui constitution. Have we tried to ban Islam? Have we insisted on transferring American culture? Not to the extent - in fact nowhere near the extent - to which the Jacobins attempted uproot their cultural norms.

Mr. Perle says that we may think we can go back, but we cannot. "We are not the same people we were before," he says emphatically, as if he were our king.

What an odd criticism. What is kingly about Perle's comment?

If he's correct, then our country is as spent as was Rome, Spain, the Netherlands, Britain and a host of other great powers before each toppled from the mountain.

Mr. Perle is not correct.

First, it was Mr. Perle and people such as he who put us where we are today, not the terrorists of 9/11. A somnolent Congress assisted - a Congress that, as Democratic Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia said as the Senate failed to debate in the run-up to the Iraq war, was "ominously, ominously, dreadfully silent."

Even granting Wilkerson's ludicrous accusation - if the Senate was "somnolent" then it's their own damned fault. Where was Byrd up until now? Was he protesting the administration's decision to remove the Taliban? Where were his voiciferous attacks? Of course, more than that, Wilkerson misses the blidingly ovious.

It was terrorist who flew jet airliners into the Twin Towers and killed 3,000 people. If Congerss was somnulent, so was the entire country for the decade leading up to the event as we sat and did nothing to combat bin Laden and his minions. It was the Clinton administration that ineptly dealt with the problem, preferring a policy of sticking our heads in the sand and hoping the terrorists did nothing. Well they didn't just go away, and we paid the price for our collective somnolence. Thank God we had a President who was willing to wake us up from our sleep and take the jackals head on. But you and your boss would have preffered to keep sleeping - to do nothing. To "negotiate" with these maniacs. It is your worthless boss and the foreign policy ideal that he represents that allowed 9/11 to happen.

Second, people such as Mr. Perle do not represent the bulk of Americans, who are anything but radical. Instead, they represent the Robespierres and Napoleons of this world, the neo-Jacobins of today. Robespierre was a leader of the reign of terror.

Did a five-year old write this paragraph? Did Col. Wilkerson walk away from the computer and let his child take over, because this is an incoherent non-sequiter.

We can turn back; moreover, we must if the world is to continue on a trajectory of more freedom and more prosperity for increasing numbers of people. Without American leadership - the good America - the world cannot progress.

If we are in some way the indispensable nation that a few Americans have said we are, then that is why. And it is no arrogance of power to say it; rather, it is to admit abiding reverence for the way the world works.

He's just spent an entire article creating a giant straw man of some American Jacobin colossus radically trying to ignite a worldwide democratic revolution, and now he's critical of this Jacobin plan because it will arrest the spread of democracy? How big is this man's mouth, because he's doing a lot of talking out of both sides of it.

Such awesome responsibility generates not the swaggering ineptitude of which we have witnessed so much of late, but the abject humility that should flood us when we confront such unprecedented responsibility. I imagine the feeling to be something akin to what Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower felt moments before the invasion of Normandy began June 6, 1944.

What the fuck is he talking about? What does the invasion of Normandy have to do with any of this? This is maddening. Was he drunk when he wrote this, because it's getting more and more absurd by the sentence.

Congress can awaken and discover that the Constitution is correct, that Congress is in fact a separate and equal branch of government. The American people will find a way to deal with the remainder of the radicals, whether at the ballot box, in the courts or in the Senate.

We can halt the precipitate slide in our standing around the world, convince the majority of the Islamic world that we can and must co-exist - and eventually prosper together - and at the same time confront, confound and defeat the small element in Islam's midst that lives to murder innocents, Christian, Jew and Muslim alike.

All we need do, in reality, is return to our roots. Never in our almost 800-year history since the Magna Carta have we been radicals.

Never in my years of readfing editorials have I read something this horribly incoherent.

What was the point of what he just wrote? Seriously, I am at a complete loss to figure out what this man's argument is. We're radical revolutionaries for . . . for what? Being incompetent? If he wants to argue that this administration has been incompetent - an argument, by the way, that I would have much more sympathy with - then make that argument. But that's not what this op-ed is about. Wilkerson's thesis is that this administration has radicalized the country, but nothing that he writes about even remotely supports or proves this thesis. Re-typing the word radical is not exactly what we'd call good academic analysis.

But merely calling the administration incompetent would not have been a sexy enough op-ed, so Wilkerson had to devise some grandiose criticism alleging that Bush and company are akin to the Jacobinite French terrorists. He completely failed to make the case, but at least he gets a huge screaming headline that charges the administration with overturning 800 years of Anglo-American history.

What's mind boggling is that Wilkerson can claim that Bush's presidency has been the most radical shock to the nation's system since our evoliution (not a revolution). During the 60's we had a sexual revolution that tore down all existing sexual mores, the result of which has been the legalization of abortion and the mass murder of millions of unborn children. Franklin Roosevelt tore through the Constitution like a would-be dictator, laying the foundations of the utter ruination of our federalist frmework and our system checks and balances, while commencing the onslaught of the federal welfare state. The progressives destroyed an entire Congressional institution by passing the 17th amendment, and set in motion the rise of a degenerate populism that has swallowed our nation whole and made a mockery of the carefully balanced republic that our Framers created.

But Bush is the radical revolutionary never before seen in our history.

Retired Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a visiting professor of government at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell from 2002 to 2005.

And we wondered why the State Department was such an unmitigated disaster. Pity the poor students at William and Mary.

The most holy generic trinity

2006-04-23T14:53:00.000-04:00

Courtesy of the Cafeteria is Closed is the schedule of the next meeting of the General Assembly of Presbyterian church USA.

No. 4
Church Orders - Repeal G-6.0106b and the current Authoritative Interpretation on ordaining homosexuals.

No. 11
Peacemaking and International Issues - Divestment of PCUSA holdings in corporations that do business with Israel.

No. 13
Theological Issues and Institutions - Trinity doctrinal statement calls for using traditional and new language - Father, Son and Holy Spirit and alternatives such as "Mother, Child and Womb."

Good to seem some good old-fashioned anti-Semitism to go along with a re-working of the trinity.

As a commenter at Gerald's place, it's also interesting that they mention the womb, especially considering PC-USA's support for abortion.

Poor Mikey

2006-04-22T16:23:00.000-04:00

"They're ain't no island left for Islanders like me. Ai-ai-aia-oh!"- Billy Joel

There was a feature article in this week's SI on Jaromir Jagr. I was surprised to see they had had a quote from Islanders' GM Mike Milbury - surprised because I had no idea the Islanders still were around. Anyay, here's what Mike had to say about Jgr:

"For four years he's been an underachieving superstar with all sorts of issues, and he goes someplace where they show him the love, and he's happy and he decides to play hard," says Mike Milbury, general manager of the rival New York Islanders (ed. note: Emphasis mine. Exactly who's rival are they? I don't hear too many "Lets Go Islanders!" chants at MSG when they play the Rangers. On the other hand, it's nice for the league to schedule those extra home games for the Rangers on Long Island.)

"He's had a marvelous, spectacular year. He's one of the greatest players ever. Remarkable story of the turnoaround of a franchise, which is clearly good for the league. But forgive me my little reservations on this thing because I have colleagues in this business [G.M.'s George McPhee in Washington and Craig Patrick in Pittsburgh] who could have looked a lot better and slept a lot better at night if their star player had shown up for work on time and worked for 60 minutes, which he didn't because he wasn't feeling the love. I mean, grow up. Come to the rink and have a professional attitude."

Looks like someone's got a little sand in their vagina.

His point is not altogether without some validity. Jagr's beem a bit of a spoiled brat over the years. But I can't help but chuckle over the GM of the Islanders get a little bitchy. How's that team of yours doing, Mikey?

Actually, I do feel a little sorry for poor Mikey. It can't be an easy job he's got there on the Island. You wake up in your ranch house on the Island to the smell of putrid fish - and it's not just your wife. You drive to work and freaking Jebediah's parked his tractor in your spot. You sit in the office all day and the only thing you can think about is that you might die at any second because the arena might collapse to the ground. The game starts and you can hear the snide remark of every fan - all five of them - and the ushers are pissed because they can't sell enough fishsticks, which means the guys from Gordon's might break your legs for lack of sales.

It's a tough life.

Boo me

2006-04-21T00:43:00.000-04:00

It's a lovely night here in the hopping city of Silver Spring - a good night to sit on my balcony to smoke a fine El Rey del Mundo. Actually, pretty much any night is good for a cigar - I've been out there in gloves and a jacket smoking. Anyway, with the Mets on the left coast playing the Padres, I decided to stretch out my computer speaker to the balcony so that I could listen to the game on MLB game day audio. I listened to the game as the Mets flailed away at Jake Peavy for seven innings. Having finished my cigar, and listening as the Padres loaded the bases with none out in the bottom of the seventh, I decided the game was probably not going to go as I would like, so I clicked off the link and shut off the game.

So I scrolled the net a little bit. Read about the schmuck from the L.A. Times who blogged under several pseudonyms. Funny reading - although not as funny as his "self-defense." It boggles the mind that someone could just so blatantly disregard all ethical norms, and then construct a pathetic strawman in some lame attempt to defend their actions. The issue isn't blogging under a pseudonym, but I think that Hiltzik knew that, but he was desperate and needed an out to cover his sorry ass. Thankfully, no one bought it, and he his blog has been suspended.

I've never been much for blog anonymity. For most of my blog "career" I only used my first name, but that was really only because it seemed somehow pretentious to use my full name on a blog comment. But since I've started this little blog, I decided to go ahead and use my full name. I can understand why people want to remain sort of hidden. Even if you don't think it will necessarily negatively impact your career, there's some comfort in remaining somewhat anonymous. And even though I've always used at least my first name, and have always had my e-mail address linked to my name, somehow adding the Zummo after the Paul makes me feel somehow more exposed. But whatever.

Again, that's not really the issue. If I blogged and then wrote as some dude named Zaul Pummo, saying how smart I was, that would obviously be a bit disingenuous. That's why Hiltzik got nailed, and bully for the L.A. Times for doing something about it.

Anyway, after going through the usual blog roundup, I checked back with ESPN's scoreboard (please refer to my previous post) to see how my fantasy players were doing. I can actually do this by going to my league's homepage and clicking on the live stats section of the site to see how my players are doing, but somehow it seems more fun to just check the boxscores.

And then I glanced up. Mets 4, Padres 2. I blinked. Hit refresh. Mets 6, Padres 2. By the time my pathetic self had run back to mlb.com, the score was already 7-2.

Oh ye of little faith.

Right now Jorge Julio is wrapping things up. You know, they should just really just make it official and send the guy out there with a mop in hand.

And a 1-2-3 inning means the apocalypse is upon us, so let me hit publish before the rapture begins.

Memo:

2006-04-21T00:39:00.000-04:00

Dear ESPN.com

Do you think you might be able to construct your page in some way so that it doesn't take me several minutes to get to your content? I mean, it's not like you're a poor institution that doesn't have a lot of money to spend on servers. It would be nice to click on your scoreboard section and not wait while your page takes its sweet time as I wait . . . and wait . . . and wait for the thing to load so that I can click on the appropriate box score.

Just a minor request from a reader.

Thanks.

Interesting

2006-04-20T16:30:00.000-04:00

Ramesh Ponnuru links to this press release from the Catholic League, and I find it interesting on a couple of levels.

First, I'm glad Opie and Anthony have patched things up with Donohue. They seemed to really regret the St. Patrick's Cathedral incident, and apparently there is no ill will on either side.

Second, I'm just glad O&A are returning to free radio. They were hitting their stride when they got thrown off the air in 2002. I haven't heard them on XM - and apparently very others have (just like Stern), but it'll be nice to have them back, though according to the Wikiepedia article, they won't be on in the DC market. Yet. (That will change, I'm sure, once their ratings quadruple that of David Lee Roth.)

A petition of sorts to sign

2006-04-20T09:46:00.000-04:00

Jeff Goldstein's got a "petition of sorts" and its realted to the Michelle Malkin mess. For those unaware of the situation, the background is here. Long story short: Malkin had written about a group of anti-war moonbats at UC-Santa Cruz who assaulted a military recruiter. She posted contact information for the group - information which was publicly made available through a press release. In retaliation, several lefty blogs have posted Malkin's personal information, and she has also received very charming email.

I'm not a particular fan of Malkin, nor do I read her very much anymore, but this is so reprehensible that it defies logic that anyone can defend the actions of these sniveling, braindead idiots. But I suppose if you're a bitter, angry left-winger yourself, so embroiled in your own hatred of all things conservative to the point where you fashion Malkin to be some sort of neo-Nazi - or something along those lines, you'll defend anything.

Update: Ace says it all:

What I despise about liberals most of all is their cowardice. These cocksuckers stroke themselves off over thoughts of possible violence against their enemies -- masturbating to murder. They're all in a big vicious circle-jerk, trying to egg each other on, like a bunch of fairies getting ready to slap-fight, trying to provoke one of their own into actually acting upon what most of them are too chickenshit to actually do.

They are giving moral support for those among them so unbalanced as to commit crimes based on political differences, letting them know in advance, Do this thing for us and you will be hailed among us as Hero.

Well, pussies, keep it up. You can push this society ever and ever closer to open political violence, but it's about time you took a look at your sorry fat asses in the mirror and remembered all the ass-kickings you suffered through in your years of miserable alienation in high school. You want this, tough guys? Last time I looked at the lot of you you looked like the sort of half-a-fags even I could kick the shit out of.

Okay, maybe a bit over the top, but the basic essence is there. Of course the comments section there and at Jeff's site are littered with the occasional realtivistic naval gazer who can't quite seem to grasp the concept that Malkin posted publicly available information while the nutters at Kos and DUmmy Underground are posting private information and encouraging, and not so subtly, violence against Malkin. Unreal.

Hypocrites indeed

2006-04-19T00:44:00.000-04:00

Courtesy of the Digital Brownshirt is this story about how Mexico deals with its illegal immigrants.

Mexico to US: You have a moral obligation to take our poorest people. And we will aid these individuals in their attempts to steal accross your border.

Mexico to its neighbors to the south: Stay the fuck away from our land, you cretins.

Side note: How hardup do you have to be as a human being to flee TO Mexico?

Why?

2006-04-18T19:43:00.000-04:00

It's the year 2006. We are firmly in the grasp of the 21st Century. Technology is advancing at a rapid clip. The very fact that you are able to read this little post of mine mere seconds after I type it out is a testament to the advances of the communications era. Computers relay bits of information from one corner of the earth to the other in fractions of seconds.

So why do people still write checks at the supermarket?

Excuse me, I should clarify. Why do women still write checks at the supermarket?

Wait, wait. One more time.

Why do middle-aged or older women still write checks at the supermarket? One day I expect some woman to dig through her purse and try to pay in gold bouillon.

(It's an interesting phenomenon, actually. I worked at the Basillica bookstore for about a year, and in all that time perhaps one man ever payed with a check.)

Look, I know the world is moving fast, and these changes can be confusing. But debit cards - as good as a check and they take 1/10 of the time to process.

Just something to consider.

Well, I guess that explains the Soriano trade

2006-04-18T17:32:00.000-04:00

Jim Bowden arrested for DUI.

I bet you think this Mass is about you

2006-04-17T17:23:00.000-04:00

Amy Welborn has a semi-open thread going about liturgical abuses over the Easter Triduum. I personally went to three different Churches over the Triduum (St. Matt's for Holy Thursday, Basillica of the National Shrine for Good Friday, and St. Aloysius in New York for Easter), and was blessed by beautiful services, save for the washing of women's feet at the Holy Thursday service (it's supposed to recall the instiution of the priesthood. Know any female priests?) Reading through the comments I feel even more blessed, because I just don't know how I would deal with the awful liturgical abuses perpetuated at so many parishes. As Father Bloomfield said in the comments section, it's pretty simple: Say what's printed in black; do what's printed in red. But that seems to be too tough a command for some people to follow.

But later in the comments section a person made what is the most galling argument about these abuses - and it is one commonly made by those who think it's a-ok to change the rubrics at will.

My parish in Washington, DC has permitted "communal foot washing" for many years. And, egads, it even permits women -- including my 16-year-old daughter -- to have their feet washed by the pastor. The 12 whose feet are washed then go into the aisles and wash the feet of those in the congregation who are interested. I like the practice.

As for the time it takes? Who cares, it is the evening service on Holy Thursday. The church is packed to the rafters ... each year, I get there 2 hours early to save a seat. It is that or stand up. So what if it takes 2 hours? No one complains.

As for Good Friday's veneration of the cross: many years ago during a Church restoration, two large beams were put together to create a cross. During Lent, this very plain wooden cross hangs where our "Crux Gloriosa" hangs during the regular Church year, high above the altar. Volunteers from the parish -- three at a time --(yes, including women and children) rotate holding the cross on the steps of the altar during veneration. No nails used.

This service, too, is standing room only.

We are just as Catholic as you, too! We even welcomed 35 new members to the Catholic faith at the Easter vigil. Not bad. Not bad at all.

You see, it's popular and people like it, so that justifies it.

Hogwash. The Church isn't running a popularity contest. The Mass is not about what you like, it's about God. It is about worshipping HIM, and doing so in the way it has been done. Another commenter explained it very well:

The General Instruction exists for a reason, so that there is no doubt about who says and does what when during the mass. It exists for all of us, not just for those of us who choose to follow it. The liturgy is not about us, it is about God. Cardinal Arinze recently spoke about this. He said the liturgy is to be used only for the worship of God, not for community building or other human purposes.

Exactly. Moreover, what people don't seem to understand is that these practices were not just put in place for the heck of it. A well-done traditional Mass puts us in a closer communion with God. When you start changing things on a whim - doing just whatever you feel like doing - you make it less about God and more about you. Well, sorry, that's not what it's about.

Jimmy Akin tackles a similar subject: hand-holding during the "Our Father." Again, I know it seems stody to have these rubrics, but they're there for a reason. People justify this by stating that it's a wonderful symbol of community. There is a beautiful moment of community that takes place at Mass : it's called Communion.

It begins

2006-04-17T16:49:00.000-04:00

Is there such a thing as a critical series in the middle of April? Tonight the Mets and Braves begin what might be considered such a series. The Mets stand at 9-2, while the Braves are 6-7. The Mets are rolling, getting timely hits, great pitching and sound defense. The Braves . . . who ever would have thought that it would be the offense that would be their saving grace?

The Braves have been the Moby Dick to the Mets' Ahab. They've had seasons collapse (1997, 1998, 2001) in the cozy confines of the "The Ted." They have been unable to provide any meaningful competition to the Braves. Oddly enough, the Mets have played best against the Braves when they've not been close in the standings.

So here is an opportunity to put quite a bit of distance between the two teams. Obviously, even the Mets somehow sweep this series, the season is a loooooooooong way from being over. But a decisive series victory could go a long way towards eliminating that aura of invincibility.

And tonight is a golden opportunity to begin the series on the right note. It's Pedro vs. Jorge Sosa. It's a classic matchup that probably means the Mets are doomed to lose. We'll see.

Let the game begin.

Happy Easter

2006-04-15T07:50:00.000-04:00

I'm off to New York for the weekend, so I want to wish all of you a happy and bessed Easter. I would also like to extend my congratulations and warm wishes to Mrs. Francase, who will be baptized into the Roman Catholic faith tonight at the Easter Vigil.

A night at the game

2006-04-12T23:27:00.000-04:00

I've just come from my first game of the year, a lovely game at RFK which the Mets won 3-1. A few observations:

On the Mets - This is a new club. Yes, it's only a week in and they've only beaten the lower-rung of the division, but good teams beat up on the bad ones, and that's what they've done. But it's not just the wins. When the middle of the order comes up you actually feel like they'll put runs on the board, and that's what they did tonight. They left a bunch of runners on base, but in previous years they would have left them all on base.

Pedro - what can I say? Even when he does not have his best stuff he's still dominating. I've seen him pitch in person four or five times in my life, a couple of times with the Sox and twice with the Mets, and he has a presence that is unmatched. And what can I say about a guy who faces a bases loaded, none out jam, with a 2-0 count on Jose Vidro - who has already homered off of him in the game - and he somehow pitches out of it by coming back to strike out Vidro and then getting Guillen to ground into a double play. Just awesome.

The bullpen - And this is what separates this team from the rest. It's over once they have a lead after seven. Yes, Heilman got the shaft by being relegated to the bullpen, but the team is better with him slamming the door in the eight inning. And what a change of pace with Wagner. After years of Franco, Benitez and Looper it may take a while before we feel comfortable and relax in the ninth. But whatever questions there were about Wagner's velocity can be laid to rest. 99 on the radar gun says all you need to know.

And as for the Nats - my negative feelings about the Soriano trade were confirmed. He loafed after not one but two balls tonight. The double that started the Mets go ahead rally in the sixth was a lazy fly ball that Soriano just stared at. I mean he literally just stared at the ball as it plopped to his right, and he walked over to retrieve the ball as though he could hardly be bothered. And then he loafed after another double in the corner when the Mets scored their third run. Everyone around me commented on his lacidasical play. I don't care what kind of numbers he puts up for fantasy baseball - the guy is an absolutely worthless real baseball player.

Concessions - Hey, beer man, how about checking in on section 468 a little more often. Two innings and no service? You gotta do better than that,

Metro - What a nightmare. They have got to figure out a way to streamline the crowd. I think I spent more time travelling from the park to the Metro than I did at the game.

The crowd - Nice representation from Mets Nation.

Ola, Speaker Pelosi

2006-04-12T09:53:00.000-04:00

Speaker of the House Denny Hastert (Panderer - IL) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Laughably incompetent buffoon who makes me pine for the days Trent Lott ran the Senate - TN) held a joint press conference where thay said nothing while also guaranteeing that the Republicans go down to defeat this November.

First, let's check out this stirring statement:

America is a nation with borders and borders matter. We are a nation of citizens and citizenship matters. We are also a nation of laws and laws matter. We have an important immigrant heritage and honoring that heritage matters.

Daniel Webster and John Calhoun had nothing on these two. Though I do believe Kodos was a good role model for them:

Abortions for all! Booo.

Abortions for none! Booooo.

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for everyone else. Hurray!

But seriously, Frist is right, and I'd like to add to the list.

We are a nation with air, and air matters. We are a nation with lots of Starbucks and Starbucks matters. We are a nation with words, and words matter. We are a nation with books, and books matter. We are a nation with feet, and feet matter. We are a nation with a nation, and nations matter.

Sorry, let's get back to the press conference. You see, it's not the GOP's fault that a tough border security bill hasn't passed. Oh no! It's big bad Harry Reid.

“While we are disappointed with the House Democrat’s lack of compassion and the continued efforts by Senator Reid to block action on immigration legislation so that Congress can proceed to conference, it remains our intent to produce a strong border security bill that will not make unlawful presence in the United States a felony.”

Wow. Frist and Hastert have managed to make Harry Freaking Reid look postively statesmanlike by comparison. Do they have any idea how pissed off they've just made the base of their party? Do they have any clue whatsoever that this is a slam dunk issue which the Republicans could easily take advantage of?

But the White House will surely make things right? Right?

Weep. Wrong. The White House has e-mailed this column by Ruben Navarrette in the San Diego Union-Tribune pinning the blame on . . . everyone who doesn't reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Who killed immigration reform? The autopsy shows it was Senate Democrats.

It's tempting to put a pox on both parties. But it wouldn't be fair. Republicans were tireless in search of comprehensive, and bipartisan, reform. Sen. John McCain of Arizona joined with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., to draft the guest-worker legislation, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter made that legislation central to what his committee sent to the full Senate. Sens. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina and Sam Brownback of Kansas were vocal in their support. Sens. Mel Martinez of Florida and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska offered a helpful compromise. And Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist showed leadership by reaching out to the other side.

Too bad you can't say the same for Democratic leader Harry Reid, who was the villain in this drama.

Umm, Mr. Navarrette, it's "tempting to put a pox on both parties" because both parties deserve the blame. Democrats are pandering to illegals in the hopes that this will one day become a solid Democratic voting bloc. Republicans are just trying to do the same. In the meantime, both parties have ignored the overwhelming majority of Americans who want to see greater enforcement, and a significant curtailment of illegal entry into this country. And while I'm normally opposed to Democratic obstructionism, for once they're right because we've somehow manage to concoct legislation that would make matters worse than they already are.

And since the White House Communications department sent this out to us happy bloggers, I can only assume they support this Pilate-esque passing of the buck.

What a disgrace.

Language

2006-04-12T01:11:00.000-04:00

It's been a while since I picked apart obnoxious liberals, so I thought I'd devote this post to two of the more inane comments I've read on the internet. The first comes from the Park Slope thread I linked to last night. Here is "Liza":

I have been a little bit saddened by the tone of the boys’ hat discussion.

You already know you're in trouble when "saddened" is thrown out there. Saddened is the lefty equivalent of "I am a morally superior person to all of you. Any person holding an opinion that differs from mine is a clearly soulless human being that cannot possibly have the intelligence to breath the same air as me."

As someone else pointed out, this was the very same forum where, just recently, all kinds of people wrote of the anguish they felt about their young children already acting in gender-stereotyped ways.

Oh man. Anguish pretty much is on par with "sadness" in claiming the moral high ground. And what does dear Liza feel anguished about? Why, it's children acting in gender-stereotyped ways. I cannot possibly comprehend how little children are so malicious as to act out their sexist notions of how to act. One suddenly pictures little two-year old Billy perversely taking pleasure in holding up his GI Joe action figure, taunting his one-year old sister and forcing her to play with her Barbie.

Note to Liza: Men have penises, testicles, and a y-chromosome. Is this a stereotype? You betcha. You wanna know why? It's a little thing called biology. Now I know I'm just caving into the male patriarchy by noting that men and women are actually different, but sometimes you just can't overcome millions of years of natural history.

Although I myself did not realize at first that there was anything amiss about saying “boys’ hat,” and I say things like that, unwittingly, all the time,

What is this, some new form of tourrette's? "Hi, I'd like a large number two and . . . boy's hat. Oh, I'm so sorry. You see, I have this condition and . . . boy's hat. I am so sorry for that . . . boy's hat."

Without people to point this out to us, how do we change our language, and thereby change the way our children perceive gender?

How they perceive gender? You mean how children perceive masculine and feminine verbs? Is this really a problem in the English language? I often get confused and say things like "Je vois aller a la w-c, but I get over it and use the masculine gender.

Oh, you're talking about sex? You see, you had me confused. Gender refers to words. Men and women, however, are different sexes. I know sex is a difficult subject to tackle, and maybe it's a lack of the aforementioned that leads people to leave messages like this one on internet message boards, but let's use some proper terminology, 'kay?

Feminism frequently provokes both mockery and hostility, and I was sorry to see those very reactions in this forum

You're sorry? Did you mock feminism yourself? I didn't see your name in any of the previous messages, so why exactly are you apologizing? Or is this some sort of noble Christ-like act wherein you've taken the sin of the internet message board upon your shoulders and atoned for all the previous comments to wipe away their sins? How noble, particularly during Holy Week.

In a recent book review in the New York Times, Anthony Lewis

Oh this is not going to be good.

reminisced about how conservative southerners tacked a provision about sex discrimination onto the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Why? To make the bill look so ludicrious that it would never pass. Here’s a quote from his piece: “A page 1 article in the NYT in 1965 raised the question whether executives must let a ‘dizzy blonde’ drive a tugboat or pitch for the Mets.”

This comment has been sent to NASA scientists, and they've been working around the clock non-stop to figure out

1) What this has to do with anything thus far discussed;
2) Why anyone anywhere should care what Anthony Lewis has to say about anything;
3) Why anyone still reads the New York Times, and especially the Times review of books.

But thanks for sharing the fact that you're a litterate human being that managed to unquestioningly share a completely useless fact with a bunch of stangers in some sort of futile attempt to sound well-educated.

Full disclosure: both of my daughters have taken their sweet time growing a full head of hair and are frequently mistaken for boys. I, their feminist mother, have tried to cajole my 3 year old into wearing barrettes many times, even though I really should know better. Gender stereotyping is powerful stuff, and while I don’t like being corrected any more than anyone else, I appreciate the effort to interrupt some deep-seated assumptions. Sure, equal pay and childcare might be more important issues in the short term, but language defines our reality for the long haul.

I just think you need to take in the full final paragraph in all its insipidity. Ms. Liza has already destroyed her entire argument by demonstrating that all human beings, no matter how much they've been brainwashed by the New York culture, recognize basic biological and social differences between males and females. But the last sentence is just too stupid not to go unnoticed. "Language defines our reality." Does Liza even know what the fuck that's even supposed to mean. That's on par with Bailey's quip that "The highest expression of human nature and dignity is to strive to overcome the limitations imposed on us by our genes, our evolution and our environment."

I mean, really, are you sure you want to stand by that comment? Maybe you should consult some Anthony Lewis before going with that assertion.

The second comment comes from someone calling themself "A Philosopher" in Mark Shea's comment box. The comment came in a thread in this post discussing some loony academic raving about how the London bombings were not acts of terrorism, but rather they were a "demonstration." A Philopher decides to "philosophize." Here is his comment in full:

Just for the record, Professor Geaves doesn't appear to be a philosopher. Not that the Cicero comment doesn't make a legitimate general poinr, but this isn't an instance of it.

That said, I should say that I don't think that the demonstration vs. terrorism distinction is obviously a silly one. The London bombings were, of course, horrible actions. However, not all horrible actions are acts of terrorism. There may be insights to be gained from asking whether the purpose of the bombings was to create terror in the civilian population or to express various attitudes. That's not to say that the purpose was expression rather than fear-induction (I'm skeptical, and particularly skeptical that a clean choice between the two motives exists); it's just to say that there's a question that might deserve examination.

Similarly, I think the "demonization" point can have a legitimate purpose. There is, after all, a difference between severe moral condemnation and demonization. The appropriateness of the first doesn't entail the appropriateness of the second. It is, of course, possible that Geaves wants to argue modus tollens-style from the inappropriateness of demonization to the inappropriateness of moral condemnation, but it's the illicit conditional that should be first rejected in that move, not automatically the explicit point about demonization.

Really, I don't have a snarky, point-for-point reply. I just think you'd appreciate this comment in all its pretentiousness. Hey, a few dozen people died, but now's a great time to argue some idiotic and arcane "philosophic" points. It simply amazes me how certain people can so easily take leave of their humanity and ramble on so idiotically as though the world is nothing but some great abstraction.

The rest of you can sleep well knowing that at least your head is not a permanent part of your ass.

Could it be?

2006-04-11T17:08:00.000-04:00

There has been a lot of speculation all over St. Blogs, particularly over at Amy Welborn's site, that the Pope is prepared to grant universal permission to celebrate the Tridentine (1962 Rite) Mass. This is welcome news for many, worrying for others.

This will not be the magical cure all for the Church, but I don't think many are saying that it will be. What it will do, hopefully, is break the anti-Tridentine bias held by - not necessarily dissident Catholics - but those Catholics who have been brought up in the Novus Ordo era and who think the Mass is some sort of alien celebration where no person save the priest understands what is taking place. Judging by the comments on Amy's post, there are people who have never attended and think that it's a hopelessly complicated matter. It's not. For any Catholic who has spent a lifetime attending Mass, it won't be significantly different - but they will find it more reverent.

Besides, for centuries illiterate peasants managed to make their way through entire liturgies done in Latin. Are, say, highly educated Americans - armed if they so desire with missal translations - so incapable of picking up on what's going on?

It is true that this will not lead to a massive increase in the number of such services offered. Not many seminarians are trained in Latin, though there seems to be a slight increase in the number of seminarians who are taking in interest in the traditional Mass. It will probably lead to a greater availability of such a service in areas where it is not currently readily available.

Of course, all of this is speculation. We'll see what the Holy Father has to say in the coming days.

Note to self: don't move to Park Slope

2006-04-10T23:20:00.000-04:00

A woman found a (boy's) hat in park Slope, and posted a message to the List Serve. The initial response was indignant that the poster could have used a non gender-neutral term. The rest of the exchange is posted by the Gawker. This is some funny - and really sad - stuff.

Kudos to Bob, whoever you are.

Fun moments in fantasy baseball

2006-04-10T16:59:00.000-04:00

Morgan Ensberg - a member of my fantasy team - homers off of Chad Cordero - also a member of my fantasy team - to tie the game in the 10th. Ah well, at least I got a save earlier from Jenks. I'll take the homer (and run and RBI).

Now I need some runs in the 11th and I wind up with a win instead. Again, I'll take it.

The most awesomest video ever

2006-04-10T14:21:00.000-04:00

Conor at San Diego Serenade recreated the entire bottom of the tenth inning of the sixth game of the '86 Series - using Nintendo's RBI Baseball. You really have to watch it.

HT: Mets Blog

Defender of (his) faith

2006-04-10T08:28:00.000-04:00

Today hundreds of thousands of ~~lawbreakers~~ undocumented workers will be holding a massive rally in DC. Unfortunately I have work to do, so I can't attend. But have no fear. Theodore Cardinal McCarrick will be there to offer a blessing.

Ah, Cardinal McCarrick. When it comes to pro-choice, "Catholic" politicians he is Helen Keller. But he's sure to make his voice heard when it comes to defending people illegally crossing our borders.

Thank you, Cardinal. It's good to know the Archdiocese is in such capable hands.

Why?

2006-04-09T13:11:00.000-04:00

The free preview of MLB Extra Innings expires today. For some reason, the Mets-Marlins game is blacked out. I could understand the blackout against the Nationals, but why is this game blacked out?

$160 for this package? Thanks, but no thanks.

Update Flipping around, and now the game has materialized. I still think I'll pass on the MLB package,

The seeds of benevolence, or totalitarianism?

2006-04-08T13:58:00.000-04:00

Aids and Sars will be horrific historical curiosities for the family to chat about over their plates of superfat farm-raised salmon. Surrounding them will be a world that’s greener and cleaner, more abundant in natural vegetation, with less of an obvious human footprint, than the one we live in today. It will be a remarkably peaceful and pleasant world even beyond their health and wealth — antisocial tendencies and crippling depression will all be managed by individual choice through biotech pharmaceuticals and even genetic treatments.

So writes Ron Bailey in the Times of London.

A grand and noble vision of the world to come, a world in which we've largely conquered death?

Or the mad scribblings of a utopian who would use biotechnology in a manner that would further dehumanize us, turning us more and more into slaves to this world while all the while shaking our fists and thumbing our noses at God?

There is nothing wrong with using science to improve our lives. If we can fight diseases and live a little longer, then the advances that we make are worth it. But how far are we willing to go? Should we sacrifice human dignity just to live further into dotage? Should we experiment on the cells of the unborn just to eek out a few more years of existence? Should we really toy with God's plans, making clones of ourselves in order to harvest spare body parts?

Here's what Bailey writes close to the end of his column:

The highest expression of human nature and dignity is to strive to overcome the limitations imposed on us by our genes, our evolution and our environment.

Is this really true? Is this truly the highest striving of our nature? What of God? What of family? What of any of the other myriad ways we can express our humanity?

I get the strong feeling that Bailey would fit well in N.I.C.E. (Read C.S. Lewis' That Hideous Strength if you don't understand my meaning.) But it is highly ironic that Bailey should snottiliy write of "well-meaning and intelligent people [who] actually wanted to stop biomedical research just to protect their cramped and limited vision of human nature." Let me ask you something. Who possesses a more cramped and limited view of humanity? Those who have moral qualms about tampering with nature, who do not fear death so much that they would put it off as long as possible no matter the consequences? Or is it those who have no concerns about eternity or the afterlife, and whose range of vision cannot expand beyond this mortal coil?

Update: It seems this old post of mine fits here as well.

Avoiding RadTradism

2006-04-07T15:39:00.000-04:00

Michelle Arnold at Jimmy Akin's site, motivated by a bad experience at Mass, has written a couple of posts on avoiding the Rad Trad Temptations. The first post is here, second here.

I'm particularly interested in this subject because that temptation has certainly overwhelmed me at times. I've been blessed with a fairly traditional parish in Washington - the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle. But while I can always attend a 10:00 Latin Mass - usually presided over by the terrific new young priest, Fr. Caulfield - if you oversleep a while or have some other morning obligation, you get stuck with the 5:30 "Rogers and Hammerstein" Mass. Let me put it this way: "On Eagle's Wings" is generally the best song you will hear at that particular Mass. Generally it's not nearly as bad as some of the abuses I've heard as decribed by Michelle, but even some of the more minor abuses - or even the quasi-large ones, like changing the words of the Agnus Dei - can drive me crazy. Often enough I can get over these somewhat petty liturgical abuses, but it can bug me over the course of a Mass.

Things get much worse when I travel. Almost inevitably when I'm visiting friends in the south we get stuck attending those awful 1970's styled "Churches" with seating in the round, a lack of kneelers, a baptismal font that almost looks like an Olympic-styled swimming pool, a lackluster homily or, even worse, a "homily" given by a layperson. And don't get me started on the EMC abuse.

So I can understand the pull to "Rad" Tradism. For a year or so I exclusively attended on Sundays an INDULT (an important distinction) Tridentine Mass (or whatever it is technically called, but the pre Vatican II rite). Currently I still attend the High Mass celebrated every second Sunday of the month, including this coming Palm Sunday. The old Mass is a much more sacred, prayerful, and powerful Liturgy. It really feels as though you are connected with the Apostles and with centuries worth of fellow Roman Catholics. I've heard that there were abuses even in the days before Vatican II, but it's difficult to fathom how you can screw that liturgy up too badly.

But I do not reject the authority of the Vatican. I do not consider the Novus Ordo to be a "Micky Mouse" Mass, as one rad trad customer at the Shrine bookstore once called called it. I would never attend a schismatic Mass. There is a limit to how far I would go to express my dissatisfaction regarding liturgical or other abuses.

Michelle does well to distinguish between traditionalism and radical traditionalism. One can certainly expect better of their parish, but one must also have patience. I particularly applaud this passage:

Accept that you don’t Know It All. In my original article in this series, Surviving Sunday Mass, I led into this series by recalling the problems at a recent Sunday Mass in my parish. Turns out, not all of the problems that bothered me actually were problems. At least one thing that occurred was a legitimate option. Which goes to show that however well informed you think you are about the Catholic faith, it is possible (indeed, even likely) that you may have some misconceptions. When you become upset at a perceived abuse in the Church, assuming that there is a possibility that you could be mistaken about what the faith requires can spare you a lot of frustration and resentment. And acknowledging that popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, and religious are more likely than you to be better informed about what the faith requires is a simple act of humility.

Amen. It's very easy to become a know-it-all. I know, I do it all the time. But the Church is 2,000 years old, or roughly 1,971 years older than me.

Of course, therein lies the problem. The very priests and Bishops who drive people to rad tradism are the ones who themmselves forget that little nugget. The Curt Jester today linked to this Father McBrien commentary. Fr. McBrien is one of those priests who seems to believe principally in the magisterium of . . . Fr. McBrien. The Jesuit order, in particular, has become infested with this type of attitude. Those who hype the "Spirit of Vatican II" are of the opinion that Vatican II marked an even more radical shift than even the Rad Trads would grant.

This is perhaps the common link between Rad Trads and Heterodox Catholics. Both believe themselves to possess a superior understanding of the Church than the Church itself. Both see Vatican II as a radical shift. The Rad Trads see it as a lamentable occurrence, the heterodox see it as a revolution not yet completed. Traditionalists view it - properly - as a needed reinvigoration that has been abused by wily progressives in an attempt to develop their own brand of Catholic Protestantism.

There are so many problems with both the Rad Trad and heterodox/progressive approach aside from the aforementioned. It sets one up for a fall - a big fall. In some measure it demonstrates an attitude of arrogant superiority. But let he who is without sin . . .

Moreover it is a rash denial of Christ. Rad Trads would seem to subvert the authority given to the Apostles through Chirst. Progressives would do the same, but in an even more malicious way. The Rad Trads have a loud bark, but the Progressive bite is much worse because you don't see it coming. Cloaked in an attitude of understanding and open-mindedness, the heterodox would deny all the essential tenets of our faith.

Yes, liberal Catholics drive me insane. But patience is a virtue - and fortitude a cardinal one. There are elements of my local parish community that I dislike, but I'd rather try to be an agent of change from within than a dissident who just walks away and embraces schism from Rome. It is a fine line, just like the cranky cons walk a fine line between conservatism and reactionarianism. It's good to be cranky, just so long as you remember not to lose your head in the sin of pride.