Friday, February 6, 2009
Where do you start with these idiots? Commercial wasn't overbuilt... what a knee-slapper.
Just so no one thinks I'm a sexist, I think Charles sounded the stupidest to my ears.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
I got an announcement regarding this interview with a friend of mine, Paul Kengor, in an email today, but I'm busy at the time of broadcast. Maybe one o' you can check it out. Should be a great interview, better than whatever schlock is on TV at the time.
If you can’t attend the Reagan town hall forum tonight featuring renowned Reagan biographer Paul Kengor interviewing Reagan’s trusted CIA operative Herb Meyer, watch it live at this link. You can connect as early as 6:45 p.m. EST. You'll witness a fascinatin gdiscussion about Reagan’s decisive Cold War policy summarized in the 40th President’s own words as “We win, they lose.” Until Reagan, America's policy toward the Soviets was détente, which meant a policy of managing, not winning, the Cold War. The CIA was a major player in Reagan's victory strategy.
Email your questions for Herb Meyer
If you have a question you'd like Herb Meyer to address during the Q&Asession, please click on this link and send it to us.
Meyer, the CIA operative, and Kengor promise to be an intriguing once-in-a-lifetime combination.
An economist and Soviet specialist, Meyer was handpicked by CIA director Bill Casey to serve as his aide. Reagan knew in his gut and by principle what few others knew: The Soviet Union was weak and could be pushed to the brink of collapse. In a striking November 1983 memo, Meyer forecast, correctly, what Reagan had been hoping and working toward: The Soviet Union was entering a "terminal phase." "If the present trend continues," predicted Meyer, "we're going to win the Cold War." In his book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, Kengor writes, "That November, Reagan and his contingent of underminers got an exciting glimpse of Soviet desperation, courtesy of Herb Meyer. Meyer was special assistant to Bill Casey and vice chair of the National Intelligence Council, a prestigious seat at the CIA, where he observed the full brunt of Reagan strategy. That strategy, said Meyer, citing the tandem of Reagan and Casey, was "very dangerous, very gutsy."
Meyer was a central player in the economic-warfare "take-down" strategy to undermine the Soviet Union. He remains a top analyst on Russia, energy policy, and defense and foreign affairs.
Paul Kengor, one of the top Reagan biographers
Speaking of Kengor's book God and Ronald Reagan, Michael Reagan said, "Finally, a book that not only focuses on my dad's faith but gets it right." Moreover, endorsing The Crusader, Herb Meyer said, "In one beautifully written volume Paul Kengor got the whole story--complete, accurate, and never-before-reported details about how Ronald Reagan succeeded than any other Cold War historian. This is far and away the best book about how President Reagan fought and won the Cold War. Centuries from now, The Crusader will be read by anyone who wants to know how the Cold War really
Not only does Kengor know Reagan well, he does an engaging job conducting live interviews with those who knew the 40th president personally. If you missed our two previous Ronald Reagan Lectures, featuring Michael Reagan and Edwin Meese, you missed remarkable evenings. Don’t miss this year, watch via the web!
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
More inadvertant comedy from big Catholic Obama supporter, Morning's Minion. Come join the pile-on.
Even if you can't bear to comment on a topic that's as old and stale as Arnold's Hummer joke, the comment thread is a great read. It's also more evidence of why Vox Nervosa can only be taken seriously about 3% of the time. I don't know why Mr. Minion doesn't just tape a kick me sign to his back.
Thanks for reading my blog. For current commentary and what-not, visit the Est Quod Est homepage
Tom's latest insightful commentary on Mary Kochan's analysis of Cd. Rigali's reaction to President Obama's reversal of the Mexico City policy is a good example of why we're happy that all those internets were invented by Al Gore.
There are good points on both sides, to be sure, but my favorite is the one with which Tom concludes.
Cardinal Rigali's use of "disappointing" is not the baffling mystery Kochan paints it to be. I think it's time that we―by "we," I mean not honest, plain-spoken people, but the tiny fraction of Catholics who read USCCB statements―stop pretending that we expect USCCB statements to be indistinguishable from fiery sermons, and simply admit, honestly and plain-spokenly, that we just want them to be fiery sermons (by "we" I mean the people who want USCCB statements to be fiery sermons). Then we can move on to the question of whether we should want that.
Emphasis mine. Because I think a fiery sermon should be a fiery sermon, and diplomatic language should be diplomatic language. Certainly if there is a "time to be silent", shouldn't there be an appointed time for both of these contrasting modes of speech "under Heaven" as it is written? Obviously the question is one of prudence and not one of belief. Back on October 29, I linked to this article written by Cardinal Rigali in my "Pile of Stuff" section in the sidebar. Excerpt:
The transcending issue of our day is the intentional destruction of innocent human life, as in abortion. We wish with all our hearts that no candidate and no party were advocating this heinous act against the human person. However, since it is a transcending issue, and even supported in its most extreme and horrific forms, we must proclaim time and time again that no intrinsic evil can ever be supported in any way, most especially when it concerns the gravest of all intrinsic evils: the taking of an innocent life.
I'm with Tom with regards to the word disappointing. There are definitely many implications to it. Like, for example, if you're an Arizona Cardinals fan, you're probably very disappointed that they lost the Superbowl. One could say "Well, you shouldn't be disappointed; they were expected to lose by 6-1/2 points by the oddsmakers." But the person saying that is probably planning to study Icelandic instead of actually watching the Superbowl, so they will never experience the moment when Arizona is up by 3 points. Similarly, Barack Obama's promise to sign FOCA on his first day as POTUS should not give us false hope, but we may hope guardedly since this has not happened quite yet. And pray.
If the Cardinal had used the word "appalling" rather than "very disappointing", don't you think someone could make a similar accusation of naivete, and "You should have been prepared for this"? The comeback is the same, that is "Of course I'm not completely surprised, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm completely appalled / horrified / dismayed / very disappointed, etc."
And just for the record, I wouldn't mind a fiery sermon from a bishop with regards to abortion. In fact, I'd welcome it. Obama would probably deny he heard it as he's done in the past vis-à-vis fiery sermons, but it would provide more evidence to the bystanders that a prophetic voice has spoken on the matter. I think there's plenty of evidence already, but that's just me.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Although most people living near the capital of Steeler Nation watched the hometown heroes take on the Arizona Cardinals last night, some read books, sipped lattes or watched movies.
University of Pittsburgh student Sam Pittman, 22, of Squirrel Hill spent the game at a cozy table in his neighborhood cafe, Arefa's Espresso, learning to speak Icelandic.
"I'm not really into football," Pittman said. "And I have too much studying to do."
Fellow Pitt student Chad Vogler, 30, of Shadyside agreed.
"I don't care in the slightest" who wins, he said, opening a textbook.
Is this a news story? You hang around the Oakland area, my old nabe, talking to Pitt students and you're surprised to find folks who don't care about professional football. Come on... Shadyside is where they have the gay pride parade. Don't be dumb.
Title of Heinrich's next piece: Some Roman Catholics Don't Practice 2000-year-old Religion
In my journalism class last semester, my professor brought a blog expert in. I revealed my true feelings of Twitter, pretty much speaking for the whole class: what's the point? This man, a professional blogger, kind of flipped out. It's his livelihood, people pay him blah blah...yes yes sir, I understand but really, what's the point? Who needs to know what you are doing every six seconds. In fact, who the hell cares? People are so wrapped up in themselves they believe that other people are truly interested in what they ate for breakfast or what their inner thoughts are in regards to...oh, i don't know...fruitcake or something ridiculous along those lines.
Good use of the strawman fallacy. And thanks for sharing your inner thoughts, Grasshopper, with everyone in your little journalism dojo. You are so obviously not "wrapped up in yourself", are you.
I'm getting anxiety just writing about this right now.
Ha, ha, ha, ha...
I am really not sure why blogs anger me so much.
Ahhhh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
In another class we discussed whether or not shield laws for journalists should protect bloggers. I say no. Journalists have a degree and learn their trade.
Ha, ha, ha... oh! their TRADE he says! Ha, Ha, ha....
I'm spending four years in school and a ton of money to become a journalist and then to group some whiney emo bastard on the internet who has lots of feelings with ME? I don't think so.
HA, HA-HA... he's afraid of getting grouped with amateurs?? OMG Stop, ha, ha you're hurting me!
People can get mad at this, people can say, oh mah gawwwd! bloggers are journalists, too!
ROTFL. Mad? Right―I am soooo furious. [BTW, editing provided for free, courtesy this Philistine blogger.]
Well... let us pray.
Thou art so great, O Journalist. We are but tiny parasitic worms next to thee. And this thy great blog post is like unto Lance Armstrong when he shalt make a visitation upon my humble subsection to pass judgement upon the small tricycles of my children and likewise snort at my $300.00 mountain bike. Or Dustin Hoffman who shalt ridicule the high school play with great seriousness and a straight face. Or the great Reginald Jackson who shalt be consumed with fury by the countless errors committed by the so-called infielders at the T-ball match. Thou hast truly shown us how 'tis done. Forgive us in thy great mercy, and help us to emulate thy money-spending, thy degree-getting and thy professional gravitas. Amen.
But honestly, if this Journaliste ever gets a column in the paper I hope it's 4.25 column inches wide. For you metric system users, that's the width of a sheet of TP.
A commenter calling himself/herself "Cathlicks SHURE are dum" has a great response to Rod Dreher's latest Catholic bash which features hot chicks doing liturgical dance in a Cathlick church.
What an absurd post. The SSPX certainly was not created in reaction to and did not break away from the church over such liturgies.
Rod has explained time and again that he is by nature incapable of presenting a balanced picture of Catholicism. He is psychologically incapable of passing up any opportunity to make Catholics look foolish and backward (see, they're not only corrupt as in the previous post they are also a bunch of clowns). Therefore, there is absolutely no point in saying (as likely 99% of Catholics would truthfully say) that they have never once in their life encountered a liturgy like this one even one time in their life. Nor is there a point in explaining that there is a debate about the legitimacy of "inculturating" catholicism to embrace elements of cultures other than Western European ones. He don't care folks. He like to laugh at Catholics and deride their leaders. It's his shtick, and as he has explained many times, it's his blog. Therefore, just grin and nod and move on.
How grateful you must be to have joined a perfect Church Rod. And how grateful Catholics will be when you finally get over your need to continuously pat yourself on the back for your wise choice. You've left the Catholic Church, Rod. Congratulations. Now see if you can somehow let go of your need to continuously harp on its many, many, many failures. Then you will truly be free of its perfidious influence.
This brings up an interesting point to me. Maybe Dreher doesn't really have a problem with Catholics, but with "Cathlicks". Or possibly "Catlicks"? Maybe even "Ca'lix"? Which leads me to wonder, is Dreher an Orthodox or is he an "Ort'docks"?
But seriously, this response to Dreher's Catholic-bashing is the kind that I like the best. We could also read this, I suppose, for balance. But after numerous unanswered requests for suggestions of how exactly I should adequately express my rage over the sexual molestation of boys by perverted Catholic priests, I assume God is letting me off the hook regarding anger at perverted Orthodox priests.
When you don't have professional anger training and you're not naturally predisposed to wrath, face it―you're limited as to what you can do with or without the megaphone. Of course a lot has to do with how you answer this quiz question about what Christ suggested for getting out the most stubborn demons:
c) Getting really angry
d) A and B
e) All of the above