Have some extra brie? John Chisholm has a lot of whine.
...The court in July declared
the campaign finance investigation into 29 conservative groups and
Walker’s campaign unconstitutional and ordered it shut down. In December,
the court ruled that the position of the probe’s special prosecutor was
invalid since its inception and that his only remaining duties were to
inform the people he and his fellow prosecutors spied on and to return
the property seized....
So the Attorney General went before the court:
...Schimel argues the defendants in the civil rights case
filed by Cindy Archer, a former aide to Gov. Scott Walker, seek to
“directly contradict” the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s order requiring the
“evidence unlawfully seized by John Doe investigators be kept under
seal.”...
And Chisholm began to cry:
...the investigators claim that Schimel has publicly besmirched the
reputations of such upstanding “lifelong civil servants,” and they “do
not deserve to be the target of the Attorney General’s defamatory
attacks.”
“It is shameful that law enforcement officers have to fear that their
own attorney general will trample on their reputations in the media
just to score political points,”...
Quick! Get to the fainting couch!! The nasty man called NAMES!!
Sum & substance:
...The question is: Why should investigators found to have conducted an
unconstitutional investigation be allowed to hold on to those records
while the citizens they illegally targeted have to continue to wait for
the return of what is rightfully theirs?
“One more note: the legal position taken by the John Doe prosecutors
and investigators is that the lawful owners of the property in question
should be required to use the civil court discovery process to be able
to have access to their own property,” the attorney general said....
Note to Chisholm: Wisconsin is not a police state and you aren't Checka. Find a life.
Monday, February 22, 2016
Sunday, February 21, 2016
Yup. Pp. Francis Screwed It Up
The current Pope has a bad case of logorrhea--too much talking. So on occasion (more often than not) the current Pope says something the meaning of which is impossible to decipher; or, as on this occasion, flat-out gets it wrong.
Paul VI – the great one! – in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted sisters to use contraceptives for cases of violenze. [sic]
The whole story is here. There are two different instances wherein "the Pope" or "Rome" (note that inconsistency) allegedly allowed nuns who legitimately feared rape to take contraceptives, thus avoiding pregnancy. The first story was about the Congo; the second was about Bosnia.
Cutting to the chase:
...vice-director of the Press Office of the Holy See, Fr. Piero Pennacchini. His words:
“The Holy See never issued texts authorizing women religious to make use of contraceptives, even if they run the risk of being raped”. “I know of no official document by the Holy See on this”.
One final note: a Jesuit priest started this whole thing with the Congo flimflammery; a Franciscan resurrected it regarding Bosnia.
We pray that Pp. Francis give up press conferences for Lent. And for the Easter Season, the season of Pentecost, Ordinary time, Advent, and Christmastide.
Paul VI – the great one! – in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted sisters to use contraceptives for cases of violenze. [sic]
The whole story is here. There are two different instances wherein "the Pope" or "Rome" (note that inconsistency) allegedly allowed nuns who legitimately feared rape to take contraceptives, thus avoiding pregnancy. The first story was about the Congo; the second was about Bosnia.
Cutting to the chase:
...vice-director of the Press Office of the Holy See, Fr. Piero Pennacchini. His words:
“The Holy See never issued texts authorizing women religious to make use of contraceptives, even if they run the risk of being raped”. “I know of no official document by the Holy See on this”.
One final note: a Jesuit priest started this whole thing with the Congo flimflammery; a Franciscan resurrected it regarding Bosnia.
We pray that Pp. Francis give up press conferences for Lent. And for the Easter Season, the season of Pentecost, Ordinary time, Advent, and Christmastide.
Throwdown to Reince & Co.
The Treehouse defends Trump-ism with a barrage of 16" shells.
*Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO
• Did the GOP even pass a FY 2016 budget with control of the House and Senate? NO.
• Who gave us a $2.5 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill in December 2015? The GOP
• Who eliminated, not just raise but eliminated, the debt ceiling? The GOP
• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP
• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP
• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP
• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP
• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP
• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP
• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP
• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP
• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP
• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP
• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP
• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP
• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP
• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP
• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP
• Who is working against Donald Trump? The GOP
• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)
Well. The question is very clear, indeed. I don't think the answer is "Trump," but there's no doubt that the answer is NOT "Reince, the Chamber of Commerce Lapdog and His Oleagenous Lying Friend McConnell."
HT: ColdFury
*Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO
• Did the GOP even pass a FY 2016 budget with control of the House and Senate? NO.
• Who gave us a $2.5 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill in December 2015? The GOP
• Who eliminated, not just raise but eliminated, the debt ceiling? The GOP
• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP
• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP
• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP
• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP
• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP
• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP
• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP
• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP
• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP
• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP
• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP
• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP
• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP
• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP
• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP
• Who is working against Donald Trump? The GOP
• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)
Well. The question is very clear, indeed. I don't think the answer is "Trump," but there's no doubt that the answer is NOT "Reince, the Chamber of Commerce Lapdog and His Oleagenous Lying Friend McConnell."
HT: ColdFury
What Really Counts for Cruz?
When one takes the measure of a man, one looks at the man's actions.
...It is thus worth noting, in this context, that on the very day of the highly important South Carolina Republican Presidential primary, only Ted Cruz made it a point to be at Justice Scalia’s funeral this morning....
Not likely that his campaign staffers encouraged that move.
...It is thus worth noting, in this context, that on the very day of the highly important South Carolina Republican Presidential primary, only Ted Cruz made it a point to be at Justice Scalia’s funeral this morning....
Not likely that his campaign staffers encouraged that move.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Rubio, The Earnest Young Liar
Yes, he speaks from both sides of his lingual abilities. With forked tongue!
Well, DACA is going to have to end at some point. I wouldn't undo it immediately. The reason is that there are already people who have that permission, who are working, who are studying, and I don't think it would be fair to cancel it suddenly.
But I do think it is going to have to end. And, God willing, it's going to end because immigration reform is going to pass. DAPA hasn’t yet taken effect, and I think it has impeded progress on immigration, on immigration reform. And since that program hasn’t taken effect yet, I would cancel it. But DACA, I think it is important; it can't be cancelled suddenly because there are already people who are benefiting from it. But it is going to have to end. It cannot be the permanent policy of the United States. And I don't think that's what they’re asking for, either. I think that everyone prefers immigration reform....
Thus he spake--in Spanish--on Univision.
But his English? Altogether different.
...In English, he only talks about border security and DACA "ending." In Spanish, he says it will have to end at some point to be determined, and also says that won't matter much anyway, because we'll have a permanent legislative amnesty in place by then. (He also speaks of it ending in the third person -- he won't end it. It will just "end" itself, somehow. If we're doing a close parsing.)...
When Ted Cruz called him on it, he called Cruz a 'liar.' Trump-esque, eh?
And when Fox News interviews the Earnest Young Liar, they don't ask the question. Hmmmm.
Well, DACA is going to have to end at some point. I wouldn't undo it immediately. The reason is that there are already people who have that permission, who are working, who are studying, and I don't think it would be fair to cancel it suddenly.
But I do think it is going to have to end. And, God willing, it's going to end because immigration reform is going to pass. DAPA hasn’t yet taken effect, and I think it has impeded progress on immigration, on immigration reform. And since that program hasn’t taken effect yet, I would cancel it. But DACA, I think it is important; it can't be cancelled suddenly because there are already people who are benefiting from it. But it is going to have to end. It cannot be the permanent policy of the United States. And I don't think that's what they’re asking for, either. I think that everyone prefers immigration reform....
Thus he spake--in Spanish--on Univision.
But his English? Altogether different.
...In English, he only talks about border security and DACA "ending." In Spanish, he says it will have to end at some point to be determined, and also says that won't matter much anyway, because we'll have a permanent legislative amnesty in place by then. (He also speaks of it ending in the third person -- he won't end it. It will just "end" itself, somehow. If we're doing a close parsing.)...
When Ted Cruz called him on it, he called Cruz a 'liar.' Trump-esque, eh?
And when Fox News interviews the Earnest Young Liar, they don't ask the question. Hmmmm.
Friday, February 19, 2016
Dole, a Loser to Clinton, Drools Out Spite
Bob Dole, loser, speaking of Cruz:
He’s self-absorbed. He’s got this giant ego. He’s overly ambitious.
That from a guy who needs Viagra and who could not defeat the world's second-most prolific liar.
He’s self-absorbed. He’s got this giant ego. He’s overly ambitious.
That from a guy who needs Viagra and who could not defeat the world's second-most prolific liar.
Sacred Art
Another essay which makes distinctions and has import.
...Church architecture and other sacred arts, says Fr. Lang, are different from “spiritual” art. What is spiritual reflects the personal, individual experience of the artist, but what is sacred must be a means for others to reflect on a revealed, universal truth. As such, the object or goal of the sacred arts is to reveal or teach about something that is a fixed part of the Christian, catholic, apostolic tradition. Ultimately that tradition must be at unity with itself... the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church is founded on one Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. In other words, because sacred art serves public, didactic purpose (as opposed to “spiritual” art), it must be timeless and universal. It’s both a sign and a tool....
Consider music in the church in light of the above.
...Church architecture and other sacred arts, says Fr. Lang, are different from “spiritual” art. What is spiritual reflects the personal, individual experience of the artist, but what is sacred must be a means for others to reflect on a revealed, universal truth. As such, the object or goal of the sacred arts is to reveal or teach about something that is a fixed part of the Christian, catholic, apostolic tradition. Ultimately that tradition must be at unity with itself... the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church is founded on one Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. In other words, because sacred art serves public, didactic purpose (as opposed to “spiritual” art), it must be timeless and universal. It’s both a sign and a tool....
Consider music in the church in light of the above.
The Realities of Catholic Moral Teaching
Whether Pp Francis' remarks are "meaningless" or not (see below post), the realities of Catholic moral teachings remain unchanged, no matter who says what.
...Pope Paul VI, as I understand it, did approve of religious women threatened by rape using contraceptives. It is obvious, though, that such measures were taken in self-defense against criminal acts and, more importantly, would have occurred outside the context of conjugal relations. Avoiding pregnancy under outlaw circumstances is not only ‘not an absolute evil’, it’s not an evil act at all....
...An individual becomes “Christian” by, and only by, (valid) baptism. Donald Trump was apparently baptized Presbyterian, which faith community has valid baptism. Donald Trump is, therefore, as a matter of canon law (c. 204), Christian....
...There is no legitimate “principle” by which a “lesser of two evils” may ever be licitly engaged in. It is fundamental moral theology that even a small evil action may never be licitly engaged in—no matter how much good might seem to result therefrom and no matter how much evil might seem to be avoided thereby. There are, to be sure, principles by which a good or neutral action that has two effects, one good and one evil, might be licitly engaged in under certain circumstances despite the evil effects; and there are principles by which “lesser evils” may be tolerated (not chosen)....
...Abortion (assuming we are talking about doing an action intended to kill a human being prior to birth, and not just suffering ‘abortion’, i.e., miscarriage) is, Francis observed, always evil. Abortion is not, however, “evil” because it is a “crime”. Not all criminal acts are by nature evil and not all evil acts are crimes. Other factors must be considered lest moral principles and legal principles become confused....
...It is important (though some might say it is too late) to distinguish between a Catholic’s stance toward “same-sex unions” and that toward “same-sex marriage”. These are not equivalent terms. Legal recognition of “same-sex unions” might be a good idea, a tolerable idea, or a bad idea, but, per se, “same-sex unions” are things over which reasonable minds (including Catholic minds) may differ; in contrast, Catholics may never approve or support “same-sex marriage”,...
Yes, that was more than "fair use," and there's more at the link. But this is stuff that must be known.
...Pope Paul VI, as I understand it, did approve of religious women threatened by rape using contraceptives. It is obvious, though, that such measures were taken in self-defense against criminal acts and, more importantly, would have occurred outside the context of conjugal relations. Avoiding pregnancy under outlaw circumstances is not only ‘not an absolute evil’, it’s not an evil act at all....
...An individual becomes “Christian” by, and only by, (valid) baptism. Donald Trump was apparently baptized Presbyterian, which faith community has valid baptism. Donald Trump is, therefore, as a matter of canon law (c. 204), Christian....
...There is no legitimate “principle” by which a “lesser of two evils” may ever be licitly engaged in. It is fundamental moral theology that even a small evil action may never be licitly engaged in—no matter how much good might seem to result therefrom and no matter how much evil might seem to be avoided thereby. There are, to be sure, principles by which a good or neutral action that has two effects, one good and one evil, might be licitly engaged in under certain circumstances despite the evil effects; and there are principles by which “lesser evils” may be tolerated (not chosen)....
...Abortion (assuming we are talking about doing an action intended to kill a human being prior to birth, and not just suffering ‘abortion’, i.e., miscarriage) is, Francis observed, always evil. Abortion is not, however, “evil” because it is a “crime”. Not all criminal acts are by nature evil and not all evil acts are crimes. Other factors must be considered lest moral principles and legal principles become confused....
...It is important (though some might say it is too late) to distinguish between a Catholic’s stance toward “same-sex unions” and that toward “same-sex marriage”. These are not equivalent terms. Legal recognition of “same-sex unions” might be a good idea, a tolerable idea, or a bad idea, but, per se, “same-sex unions” are things over which reasonable minds (including Catholic minds) may differ; in contrast, Catholics may never approve or support “same-sex marriage”,...
Yes, that was more than "fair use," and there's more at the link. But this is stuff that must be known.
Well, Well. Mahound Meets "Fr. Z"
A controversial statement from Pp. Francis leads to a Happy Days moment.
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Why Levin Is Wrong on Apple
Mark Levin thinks Apple is wrong because Apple told a Fed judge to stick it where the sun never shines after that judge ordered Apple to provide the Feds E-Z access to ALL Apple phones.
While the Feds are pretending that this is about only one terrorist s*&^ball, it is not. What they are asking for is the key to the front door for every Apple phone made.
...the Bill of Rights does not empower the government to unlock the iPhones of all Americans, in order to go after one filthy terrorist. This is exactly contrary to every principle we have...
Mostly the Fourth Amendment's 'unreasonable search' prohibition.
Ten years ago, most of us would grudgingly concede that the Feds should get that info.
Now that we know all about the NSA, however, we won't go silently into that night, ever again. And here in Wisconsin, we have the Chisholm/Schmitz Cabal as a landmark. Remember, they still have FOUR YEARS' worth of every email and phone call made by the political opposition--which includes names, addresses, phone numbers, and lots of other information on all the friends, relatives, and casual acquaintances of those political opponents.
Screw the Feds--and Chisholm/Schmitz, too. Apple is right, Levin is living in the Reagan era which--he should know--is long dead.
While the Feds are pretending that this is about only one terrorist s*&^ball, it is not. What they are asking for is the key to the front door for every Apple phone made.
...the Bill of Rights does not empower the government to unlock the iPhones of all Americans, in order to go after one filthy terrorist. This is exactly contrary to every principle we have...
Mostly the Fourth Amendment's 'unreasonable search' prohibition.
Ten years ago, most of us would grudgingly concede that the Feds should get that info.
Now that we know all about the NSA, however, we won't go silently into that night, ever again. And here in Wisconsin, we have the Chisholm/Schmitz Cabal as a landmark. Remember, they still have FOUR YEARS' worth of every email and phone call made by the political opposition--which includes names, addresses, phone numbers, and lots of other information on all the friends, relatives, and casual acquaintances of those political opponents.
Screw the Feds--and Chisholm/Schmitz, too. Apple is right, Levin is living in the Reagan era which--he should know--is long dead.
"Birds of a Feather..."
You know the old saying, right?
President Barack Obama will pay a historic visit to Cuba in the coming weeks, senior Obama administration officials said, becoming the first president to set foot on the island in nearly seven decades....
Think that's an unfair conclusion?
Well, then, we can provide evidence from the contrary!!
President Barack Obama is [...] not planning to attend Justice Antonin Scalia’s funeral...
The kind of bird Obozo is?
Utterly class-less.
President Barack Obama will pay a historic visit to Cuba in the coming weeks, senior Obama administration officials said, becoming the first president to set foot on the island in nearly seven decades....
Think that's an unfair conclusion?
Well, then, we can provide evidence from the contrary!!
President Barack Obama is [...] not planning to attend Justice Antonin Scalia’s funeral...
The kind of bird Obozo is?
Utterly class-less.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
The Donald: A Blowhard S*&^ Sandwich Who Lies
There has always been some speculation that The Donald is really a stalking-horse for Hildebeeste Clinton.
I disagree, only because two such egos could not possibly occupy the same room, no matter its size.
What The Donald really is, however, is a monumental liar. He is a liar so monumental that he has taken the title from Bill Clinton, which places him above Olympic-class.
Kevin Williamson reviews the record.
First off, Trump is a banko-artist:
I disagree, only because two such egos could not possibly occupy the same room, no matter its size.
What The Donald really is, however, is a monumental liar. He is a liar so monumental that he has taken the title from Bill Clinton, which places him above Olympic-class.
Kevin Williamson reviews the record.
First off, Trump is a banko-artist:
...Trump insisted that he’d never gone bankrupt, and that claims to
the contrary are a lie. That’s the Trump magic right there: Lying about
your business history is one thing, lying that your critics are lying
about it is another.
Then, he lies about 'self-funding' his campaign.
He also lies about his "charity for veterans."
He lies about being 'pro-life.' He lies about being 'pro-gun.' He lies about Cruz, Rubio, and Carson.
When all is said and done, The Donald will have ruined the reputations of countless real-estate developers. But he will have boosted the standings of Congressmen and used-car salesmen in the liars' index.
Surprise!! Gov. Haley Endorses Rubio
Ace ruminates on the Establishment's pocket lady Governor and her...ahh...stinking Establishment endorsement.
The Archdiocesan "Plan": Will It Work?
Following the Archdiocesan synod, a new plan for evangelization has been issued by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. The intrepid folks at Cream City Catholic reviewed the plan and found it.....ahhhh.....businesslike.
In a recent article from the Milwaukee Catholic Herald published on February 11, 2016, we are subjected to a breakdown of ideas that were offered up from the recent Archdiocesan Synod which, in part, was called to determine the causes of and solutions for low Mass attendance across the Archdiocese.
... “Direct our primary attention and strategic efforts to the weekend so that the music, message, and ministries form a high-impact, integrated evangelizing message of Good News, especially to the lost and seekers.” –Third key initiative on liturgy, 2014 Archdiocesan Synod.
Direct, strategic efforts, high-impact, integrated. . . message.
Sounds like textbook words right out of Marketing 101. If a marketing director wanted to capture more “market share” of a given target audience, these are the words that would be used....
(To me, "high impact" is a 60 MPH collision with a tree, a howitzer round landing within 10 yards, or a lightning strike. None of them happen inside Catholic churches on Sunday. But I digress.)
Cream City's author highlights an interesting point here:
...in true “marketing” strategy, the adherents of fixing problems have identified the problem areas and laid out a strategy to make it all better. McNeil states that, “If we want people to come, then it has to be attractive; we have to have good quality preaching.” She continues, “When we say good quality music, we’re not talking about a specific genre; we’re saying it needs to be well done. And (we need) good ministries that help people participate.”...
[But] ...Much... liturgical music has been replaced with “genres” that are more modern, upbeat, and coated with sugar. The choir and musicians, with instruments ranging from guitar to trumpet, are now placed just off-center stage and in many cases, they write their own music and lyrics to serve an audience that may well get caught up in the moment and burst out with clapping and sing-a-longs....
If we understand the Mass as the re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Calvary; the Mystery of Faith and the cause of our redemption, then true Ms. McNeil's demand for "integration" would call for music which reflects those realities, right? If we understand the Mass, specifically Communion, as Christ's gift of Self to us as spiritual food, "integration" would call for music which reflects that, right? Even more to the point: when the Church provides specific texts to be used at every Mass, it would seem that "integrity" is best served by using those texts, right?? RIGHT???
Well, "hymns" are NOT those texts. Surprise!!
In general, the 'marketing plan' fails, for as Cream City points out,
...Doesn’t it trouble you that an article about Mass has overlooked the most compelling reason any Catholic attends Mass? Where is the Eucharist in all of this discussion? The Eucharist is not mentioned even once in the article about Mass. Not once....
Doh.
What is this 'Good News' about which we speak? The death, resurrection, and self-gift of Christ, Who overcame sin! What 'genre' of music is best for that? The 'genre' of chant which--by the way--is utilized by the entire Eastern church, (uniate or not), by Jews and Muslims, and by Hindus (each mutatis mutandis, of course). The Anglicans also use chant, sung in English. It also happens to be the 'genre' mentioned FIRST by every authoritative Church document on the topic.
"Integrity" demands it, ya'know. Evangelization is not a marketing plan, and the music of the Church is not in place to feed anything but the soul.
In a recent article from the Milwaukee Catholic Herald published on February 11, 2016, we are subjected to a breakdown of ideas that were offered up from the recent Archdiocesan Synod which, in part, was called to determine the causes of and solutions for low Mass attendance across the Archdiocese.
... “Direct our primary attention and strategic efforts to the weekend so that the music, message, and ministries form a high-impact, integrated evangelizing message of Good News, especially to the lost and seekers.” –Third key initiative on liturgy, 2014 Archdiocesan Synod.
Direct, strategic efforts, high-impact, integrated. . . message.
Sounds like textbook words right out of Marketing 101. If a marketing director wanted to capture more “market share” of a given target audience, these are the words that would be used....
(To me, "high impact" is a 60 MPH collision with a tree, a howitzer round landing within 10 yards, or a lightning strike. None of them happen inside Catholic churches on Sunday. But I digress.)
Cream City's author highlights an interesting point here:
...in true “marketing” strategy, the adherents of fixing problems have identified the problem areas and laid out a strategy to make it all better. McNeil states that, “If we want people to come, then it has to be attractive; we have to have good quality preaching.” She continues, “When we say good quality music, we’re not talking about a specific genre; we’re saying it needs to be well done. And (we need) good ministries that help people participate.”...
[But] ...Much... liturgical music has been replaced with “genres” that are more modern, upbeat, and coated with sugar. The choir and musicians, with instruments ranging from guitar to trumpet, are now placed just off-center stage and in many cases, they write their own music and lyrics to serve an audience that may well get caught up in the moment and burst out with clapping and sing-a-longs....
If we understand the Mass as the re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Calvary; the Mystery of Faith and the cause of our redemption, then true Ms. McNeil's demand for "integration" would call for music which reflects those realities, right? If we understand the Mass, specifically Communion, as Christ's gift of Self to us as spiritual food, "integration" would call for music which reflects that, right? Even more to the point: when the Church provides specific texts to be used at every Mass, it would seem that "integrity" is best served by using those texts, right?? RIGHT???
Well, "hymns" are NOT those texts. Surprise!!
In general, the 'marketing plan' fails, for as Cream City points out,
...Doesn’t it trouble you that an article about Mass has overlooked the most compelling reason any Catholic attends Mass? Where is the Eucharist in all of this discussion? The Eucharist is not mentioned even once in the article about Mass. Not once....
Doh.
What is this 'Good News' about which we speak? The death, resurrection, and self-gift of Christ, Who overcame sin! What 'genre' of music is best for that? The 'genre' of chant which--by the way--is utilized by the entire Eastern church, (uniate or not), by Jews and Muslims, and by Hindus (each mutatis mutandis, of course). The Anglicans also use chant, sung in English. It also happens to be the 'genre' mentioned FIRST by every authoritative Church document on the topic.
"Integrity" demands it, ya'know. Evangelization is not a marketing plan, and the music of the Church is not in place to feed anything but the soul.
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Marco's Strange Behavior Over Huma Abedin
Should Huma Abedin be considered as much a threat to national security as her boss?
Umnnnhhhh......why not?
The Muslim Brotherhood connections are, at the very least, a matter of concern. So if they are a concern (or worse), then why did Marco Rubio defend Abedin?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Umnnnhhhh......why not?
The Muslim Brotherhood connections are, at the very least, a matter of concern. So if they are a concern (or worse), then why did Marco Rubio defend Abedin?
Inquiring minds want to know.
How
do we know, as events unfold, that the very emails deemed too
classified for investigators and congressional staffers to even analyze
were not, in fact, passed on to another server maintained by the very
Muslim Brotherhood - See more at:
http://moonbattery.com/#sthash.ydZusyhE.dpuf
How
do we know, as events unfold, that the very emails deemed too
classified for investigators and congressional staffers to even analyze
were not, in fact, passed on to another server maintained by the very
Muslim Brotherhood - See more at:
http://moonbattery.com/#sthash.ydZusyhE.dpuf
How
do we know, as events unfold, that the very emails deemed too
classified for investigators and congressional staffers to even analyze
were not, in fact, passed on to another server maintained by the very
Muslim Brotherhood - See more at:
http://moonbattery.com/#sthash.ydZusyhE.dpuf
A Word to the Wise About SCOTUS
Grim makes a very important point here.
...Nothing could be clearer than that the Federal courts have become too powerful. Admittedly, this is an old argument for me. I've been arguing it probably since I've been writing here, certainly since 2006 (see "The Judiciary" here). The most important work we could do right now would be to strip the Federal courts, and the Supreme Court, of much of their authority. The Supreme Court's ability to amend the Constitution on the fly has risen at the same time that increasing diversity in the nation has made amending the Constitution legitimately, through Article V, more and more difficult to accomplish.
The Supreme Court has become much like the One Ring. Instead of trying to use that concentrated power to defend our position, we need to destroy the power lest it fall into other hands....
...It is in the interest of nearly every American to disperse this concentrated power, which is a threat to the peace and stability of the Republic. Unfortunately, I suspect the siren song of power -- of finally being able to force the other side to submit and obey -- will prove too strong.
The alternative is a giant bowl of Not Good.
By the way, if you think Grim is not your brand of thinker, how about Abe Lincoln?
...Perhaps the most famous opponent of judicial supremacy in our nation’s history was Abraham Lincoln, who as President directly defied the abominable and inhuman monstrosity that was Chief Justice Taney’s ruling in 1857’s Dred Scott v. Sandford.
"...the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
Hmmmmmm?
...Nothing could be clearer than that the Federal courts have become too powerful. Admittedly, this is an old argument for me. I've been arguing it probably since I've been writing here, certainly since 2006 (see "The Judiciary" here). The most important work we could do right now would be to strip the Federal courts, and the Supreme Court, of much of their authority. The Supreme Court's ability to amend the Constitution on the fly has risen at the same time that increasing diversity in the nation has made amending the Constitution legitimately, through Article V, more and more difficult to accomplish.
The Supreme Court has become much like the One Ring. Instead of trying to use that concentrated power to defend our position, we need to destroy the power lest it fall into other hands....
...It is in the interest of nearly every American to disperse this concentrated power, which is a threat to the peace and stability of the Republic. Unfortunately, I suspect the siren song of power -- of finally being able to force the other side to submit and obey -- will prove too strong.
The alternative is a giant bowl of Not Good.
By the way, if you think Grim is not your brand of thinker, how about Abe Lincoln?
...Perhaps the most famous opponent of judicial supremacy in our nation’s history was Abraham Lincoln, who as President directly defied the abominable and inhuman monstrosity that was Chief Justice Taney’s ruling in 1857’s Dred Scott v. Sandford.
"...the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
Hmmmmmm?
Sunday, February 14, 2016
Scalia: "Remember Polonius Was an Idiot"
Something that high-school lit teachers forget is that ol' Bill Shakespeare cast Polonius as an idiot, not a sage. In fact, Plotonius was a suck-up.
Scalia:
“[A] platitude I want discuss comes in many flavors. It can be variously delivered as, ‘Follow your star,’ or ‘Never compromise your principles.’ Or, quoting Polonius in ‘Hamlet’ — who people forget was supposed to be an idiot — ‘To thine ownself be true.’ Now this can be very good or very bad advice. Indeed, follow your star if you want to head north and it’s the North Star. But if you want to head north and it’s Mars, you had better follow somebody else’s star.
“And indeed, to thine own self be true, depending upon who you think you are. It’s a belief that seems particularly to beset modern society, that believing deeply in something, and following that belief, is the most important thing a person could do. Get out there and picket, or boycott, or electioneer, or whatever. I am here to tell you that it is much less important how committed you are, than what you are committed to...Quoted at Cold Fury
Damn, that guy was smart!
Scalia:
“[A] platitude I want discuss comes in many flavors. It can be variously delivered as, ‘Follow your star,’ or ‘Never compromise your principles.’ Or, quoting Polonius in ‘Hamlet’ — who people forget was supposed to be an idiot — ‘To thine ownself be true.’ Now this can be very good or very bad advice. Indeed, follow your star if you want to head north and it’s the North Star. But if you want to head north and it’s Mars, you had better follow somebody else’s star.
“And indeed, to thine own self be true, depending upon who you think you are. It’s a belief that seems particularly to beset modern society, that believing deeply in something, and following that belief, is the most important thing a person could do. Get out there and picket, or boycott, or electioneer, or whatever. I am here to tell you that it is much less important how committed you are, than what you are committed to...Quoted at Cold Fury
Damn, that guy was smart!
How's Your Spanish, Marco?
The Earnest Young Man tried to score a point by arguing that Ted Cruz doesn't speak Spanish.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTT
Cruz does speak Spanish, and Cruz does know what Marco said about immigration (in Spanish) on TV--which is not what The Earnest Young Man says in English.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTT
Cruz does speak Spanish, and Cruz does know what Marco said about immigration (in Spanish) on TV--which is not what The Earnest Young Man says in English.
Everybody Lies (Except The Donald). Really??
The Donald has now declared that G W Bush lied to get us into the Iraq war.
Hmmmmmm.
I was never a fanboy of that war. I think that John Paul II's warnings about taking out Saddam were based on much better on-the-ground humint and a far, far, better understanding of the geo-politics (and of Mohammedanism) than G W Bush had; and I think that Bush made a judgment call which was not well-founded.
But G W Bush is not a "liar," particularly about Great Matters such as war.
The Donald is apparently a resident of wacko-ville. This happens to people who are oversaturated with adulation (see damn near anyone on the Hollywood "A" list, e.g.)
In the case of The Donald, it's self-adulation.
Hmmmmmm.
I was never a fanboy of that war. I think that John Paul II's warnings about taking out Saddam were based on much better on-the-ground humint and a far, far, better understanding of the geo-politics (and of Mohammedanism) than G W Bush had; and I think that Bush made a judgment call which was not well-founded.
But G W Bush is not a "liar," particularly about Great Matters such as war.
The Donald is apparently a resident of wacko-ville. This happens to people who are oversaturated with adulation (see damn near anyone on the Hollywood "A" list, e.g.)
In the case of The Donald, it's self-adulation.
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Crime Story: Serve Spotted Cow
In Minnesota, it is a felony to serve Spotted Cow beer.
So. Should it be a felony to wear Vikings gear in Wisconsin?
Why not?
Discuss.
So. Should it be a felony to wear Vikings gear in Wisconsin?
Why not?
Discuss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
