Monday, August 3, 2015

Open Comment Thread (2015-08)

by Pauli

Haven't posted one of these in awhile. Mea culpa. Have at it....


Bookmark and Share

Posted by Pauli at 8/03/2015 10:56:00 AM

Labels: , , , , ,

57 comments:

  1. pikkumattiAugust 3, 2015 at 12:00 PM

    First!

    ReplyDelete
  2. KeithAugust 3, 2015 at 2:48 PM

    So you thought all I could write about is Rod Dreher & the hijacking of Catholicism...nuh-uh!

    Microsoft will NOT email you Windows 10, it's ransomware

    H/T rdbrewer at AOSHQ

    ReplyDelete
  3. KeithAugust 3, 2015 at 3:33 PM

    From Forbes, re: Windows 10:

    Privacy -If the enforcement policies were tough, however, they have nothing on the privacy violations Microsoft requests in the Windows 10 EULA. A notable section reads:

    “We will access, disclose and preserve personal data, including your content (such as the content of your emails, other private communications or files in private folders), when we have a good faith belief that doing so is necessary.”

    Needless to say “necessary” is a crucial qualifier and this should mean Microsoft won’t violate your privacy for no reason, but that all comes down to trust – and there’s not a great deal of that going around in a post-Snowden world.

    Yeah, you betcha!

    ReplyDelete
  4. pikkumattiAugust 3, 2015 at 4:09 PM

    Wisdom regarding the Boy Scouts' change in policy (emphasis in original):

    Once Scout Master Ken can arrive in camp all joyous and gay talking about the new knot — the one he fancies he’s tied with his “significant other” Lloyd — it’s clear that basically anything goes sexually. Hey, if he can indulge his passions, why can’t I indulge mine? In other words, the acceptance of homosexuality means the complete collapse of the traditional sexual model.

    What does this mean for being “morally straight” in general? C.S. Lewis once noted (I’m paraphrasing), “Sex is not messed up because it was put in the closet; it was put in the closet because it was messed up.” And opening that stuffed closet messes everything else up. Similar to how you can’t compartmentalize accepted homosexuality and keep the traditionalist sexual model intact, it’s essentially impossible to compartmentalize widespread sexual vice and keep general virtue intact. ... This is not to say, lest I be misunderstood, that a sexually corrupt people can’t have its virtues. It is to say they can’t be virtuous.

    And that is the issue. None of this would be happening if the BSA’s leadership, reflecting moderns in general, weren’t lacking in virtue themselves and hadn’t descended into vice-enabling relativism. Even years ago I fully expected their surrender because I understood that, as Lewis also said, you cannot “make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. KeithAugust 3, 2015 at 5:38 PM

      Given that the policy change won't have any effect on the 70% of the troops run by churches or other religious organizations and given that for the remaining 30% the scoutmaster-as-boy-lover meme already predates the policy change by over 20 years, I would expect the actual effects in the off-blog real world to be rather interesting.

      I have no doubt that a minority of Rainbow Troops in San Francisco and the environs will celebrate while a majority of moral, religious troops will just laugh. I also expect the majority of parents in between, able to pick which of any troop to let their sons join, to ask themselves, "Hmmm. What do we want for our boy? Gay, man-sex-practicing scout master, or non-gay, non-man-sex-practicing scout master? Decisions, decisions."

      Still, I could be wrong, and we could see a stampede of parents politically correctly placing their sons in gay, man-sex-practicing scout master-led troops within a widespread Drehery meltdown of faith in the Boy Scouts overall.

      It all really depends on what the unaffected religious-moral 70% choose to do next.

      Delete
    2. pikkumattiAugust 4, 2015 at 12:48 PM

      It all really depends on what the unaffected religious-moral 70% choose to do next.

      Indeed. And we will find out when the inevitable Christian-baker-pizza-shop test cases pops up. If the attacked sponsors knuckle under, then the rest of the dominos will be under enormous pressure and attack. But if they stand strong and defend themselves, perhaps it will end with that.

      On the remaining 30%, I suspect there will be a few like this one who will send their kids to the "right" units to feel good about themselves as parents:

      Recently when watching the news, [her 10-year old son] Breckan said, “Mom, why are they talking so much about boys marrying boys lately. Why is that on the news?”

      “Because it just became legal.”

      “What?!” he said. “They couldn’t do that before? Why?”

      “Because so many people think it’s wrong.” Then I told him what the Bible says about homosexuality.

      “Well, I don’t know if God is right about that. If a boy loves a boy and they get married, that shouldn’t be other people’s business.”

      Though a bit blasphemous and irreverent, my son’s comment made me realize that he was developing a mind of his own. He’s no longer the blob of neediness he was as a baby; he’s a person with a perspective, and if you ask me, he’s a really cool one.

      As the song goes, "you've got to be carefully taught". Our local daily rag is doing its damndest to do exactly that to us.

      Delete
  5. TomAugust 11, 2015 at 7:25 AM

    Cardinal Chaput's column on Planned Parenthood, abortion, politics, the duty of Christians, and the duty of men.

    ReplyDelete
  6. KeithAugust 11, 2015 at 5:44 PM

    A primer on how Rod Dreher uses invisible friends like Harvey the Rabbit to add externally rooted pseudo-objectivity and credibility to posts that would flounder without them.

    The exemplary post is Tinder Mercenaries (Get it? Tender Mercies? Eh? Eh?), in which Rod's invisible professor friend Harvey (my name for him) offered

    Not too long ago, a college professor told me that the dating app Tinder was popular on his Christian campus. Students used it to set up casual sex dates. Not just a few students, he said; most of them. He explained to me how it worked, and to my middle-aged ears, it sounded barbaric, inhuman. Could young people really be doing this?

    He then links Harvey as an agent to universalize sensational anecdotes from a Vanity Fair article:

    This is exactly what the college professor told me interactions on Tinder are like for undergraduates at his university.

    Let's start walking through Rod's Three Card Monte from this point.

    Move one - Rod's invisible professor (because an invisible HVAC tech friend wouldn't offer the same juice) friend declares - solely via Rod - that most of the students on his Christian college campus are using Tinder to set up casual sex dates. Unless Harvey himself is the other party to these sex dates with male and female alike, it's hard to understand how he acquires this impressive knowledge.

    Move two - But what Harvey told Rod is exactly what the Vanity Fair Article described - which also means that the limited anecdotes described in Vanity Fair are also exactly what most of the students on Harvey's campus, with whose sex lives he is intimately and, one must say, peculiarly familiar, are engaged in via Tinder.

    Lo, from little acorns what mighty oaks can grow.

    When called upon this house of cards, Rod naturally begins to whine and prevaricate.

    Here's the fun in slo-mo:

    Todd says:
    August 10, 2015 at 5:15 pm

    That is the Dreherbaitiest Dreherbait I’ve seen in a while. The scary part is how easily you buy into it. If it didn’t confirm your biases you’d instantly find 1000 things wrong with the story. But, since it confirms your worst fears, you buy it hook line and sinker.

    [NFR: It confirms exactly what a professor friend said to me about what he’s seeing among the students at his college. Tell me, do you think this Vanity Fair article is untrue? Why do you think so? — RD]

    (Continues)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousAugust 11, 2015 at 7:17 PM

      That is the Dreherbaitiest Dreherbait I’ve seen in a while. The scary part is how easily you buy into it. If it didn’t confirm your biases....

      Of course the greatest Dreherbait of all time was the Rolling Stone UVa rape story. First he fell for if hook line and sinker because he sat alone in the freshman dorms listening to the Smiths during pledge week at LSU silently hating all the guys who picked on him (sorry...tortured him) in junior high who were now popular athletic frat boy types who could talk to girls without stammering then running away.

      Then once his original narrative was disproved, he pulled a slick 180 and was suddenly now outraged about the feminist persecution of poor defenseless fraternities.

      -the other anonymous guy

      Delete
  7. KeithAugust 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM

    JonF says:
    August 10, 2015 at 7:19 pm

    Re: It confirms exactly what a professor friend said to me about what he’s seeing among the students at his college.

    A good rule of thumb in most things in the 80/20 rule: in this case 20% of the people are having 80% of the sex. I strongly suspect that’s true here too. Your professor friend is not an all-seeing god. He sees some people hooking up and assumes everyone is doing it. (Studies show people are really bad about overestimating how common things are when the numbers exceed what they can count on their fingers and toes. Remember the article showing that many people thought some ludicrous fraction– 40%?– of the population was gay?)

    [NFR: You have no idea what conversation I had with my professor friend. Believe me, it was far more detailed than you surmise. I can’t get into any more details without revealing confidences. You are free to doubt me, and it won’t hurt my feelings, but honestly, you don’t know at what level of detail we spoke. — RD]

    Gee, Rod, no we don't. Nor do we know if Harvey was also enjoying a frosty carrot cocktail at the time.

    - - -

    JonF says:
    August 11, 2015 at 6:06 am

    Re: You have no idea what conversation I had with my professor friend

    True, but irrelevant. No matter how much and how long you talked about this, it doesn’t mean that the professor has godlike powers where he can know what you state. None of us could. The most carefully designed scientific survey on this matter would come with large error bars given the nature of the topic and the ease of lying and exaggeration. And again, people are notorious for overestimating numbers when they go beyond the lowest digits. Examples of this abound.

    [NFR: Again, and with respect, you don’t know what you’re talking about. The professor sometimes reads this blog. I hope he will explain how he arrived at that conclusion — meaning that I hope he tells readers here what he told me. I’m not sure how much of it I am at liberty to discuss. Again, I have no problem if you discount what I’m saying, but this guy is not pulling it out of his hat. — RD]

    And finally

    UPDATE.2: I’m not posting comments that lay into my unnamed professor friend, because I can’t defend him without risking disclosing information that I don’t have the right to disclose. He sometimes reads this blog, so maybe he will come here and defend himself. To clarify, he was talking about what he sees and hears about on his campus, not among all college students everywhere. I perfectly well understand you readers who disbelieve him based on the description I’ve given here; I’ve got no problem with that. But it would be wrong of me to have his character held up to criticism here when I cannot give more information about the situation than I’ve already given.

    And that's how you do it, folks. That's how you bluff your way into a position of credibility among credulous people who will then put you on a panel to discuss your Benedict Option which will in turn help you sell your book proposal.

    All it takes is an invisible rabbit named Harvey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. pikkumattiAugust 11, 2015 at 6:45 PM

      The beautiful part is that the Harvey Ph.D. story cannot be disproven. Of course it can't be proven, either -- unless Prof. Harvey is tagging along on all these Tinder dates to witness physical mating in the same manner as a dog breeder.

      Of course, the vehement defense raised by Dreher is a good amount of proof that the whole thing is bogus.

      Delete
    2. KeithAugust 11, 2015 at 8:32 PM

      Remember, none of this stuff is a clown show performed in a bubble. This is deliberately, calculatingly engineered to gull fellow Christians into anointing him a Thought Leader of Culture and co-promoting him. We see how effortlessly a Marvin Olasky can be turned into an obedient prop to showcase good ole down home Rod who would visit with you, too, any ole time to took a notion to stoppin' by.

      That charitable, hospitable, good ole Rod would never cut corners with fellow Christians by inventing things that never happened just to separate them from their book buying money. Would he? Course not. Pitchers don't lie.

      Guess what? The threat to Christians today doesn't come from naughty 21-year-old chicks using their smart phones for occasional moments of sin. It comes from the crocodiles who've made a comfortable home in the moat and don't really care all that much which bank they feed from.

      Delete
    3. pikkumattiAugust 11, 2015 at 10:51 PM

      The joke used to be that naughty 21-year-olds act and talk about sex as though they invented it. In Dreher's case, we have a 50-year-old talking about another (possibly fictitious) middle-aged man talking about naughty 21-year-olds acting and talking about sex as though those 21-year-olds invented it.

      Those who believe Dreher do so because people believe what they want to believe.

      Delete
    4. Somenonymous or otherAugust 12, 2015 at 12:12 AM

      "But it would be wrong of me to have his character held up to criticism here when I cannot give more information about the situation than I’ve already given."

      And still Rod doesn't see that readers don't care about "Harvey" and aren't so much criticizing his character as they are trying to point out to Rod, that middle-school drama queen, that it's HIM they're criticizing for his embarrassing insistence that his readers respect his gossip-mongering.

      Delete
    5. DianeAugust 13, 2015 at 1:28 PM

      Yikes. Talk about digging yourself in deeper.

      Delete
    6. PauliAugust 13, 2015 at 2:07 PM

      "All the news that's fit to CLICK."

      Clucking about clicking.

      Cluck, cluck. Click, click. Click bait. Clicksterbation.

      Delete
  8. KeithAugust 13, 2015 at 11:24 AM

    Although I get the sense this article is coming out of the so-called "Manosphere" (readers should know the only "manosphere" of any real interest to me is a modest 21 foot Tueller radius), I found it interesting nonetheless because its author hails from down under and has also spotted the same Benedict Option Catch-22 (bolded by me in brackets) all intelligent people immediately pick up on.

    Our Social Pathologist is "a Family Physician working in Australia. Catholic in my religion, Austrian in my economics." Below, a couple interesting paragraphs from his recent Rod Dreher, Christian Masculinity and the Benedict Option:

    Which brings me to Rod Dreher.

    Rod Dreher typifies this form of passive "chivalric" man. I know he is Orthodox now, but Rod Dreher is typical of the serious Christian types that now occupy positions of authority in "conservative" Christian Churches. Pious, gentlemanly and chivalric he prefers to "reasonably" deal with opponents, and suffer for the Faith rather than take the battle to the enemy. Niceness is akin to goodness and rude virtue is to be deplored as much as polite vice is to be pardoned. Low class women have a greater moral worth than boorish yet effective billionaires. His approach to the onslaught of the enemy is one of passivity and hoping that the problem will go away. His "strength" lays in his capacity to suffer and bear "his cross".

    This passive approach to things has led Dreher to advocate the "Benedict" option when it comes to dealing with the Leftist onslaught. In essence this option involves pious Christian types forming little communities which are culturally separated from the rest of the surrounding climate. As the idea goes, these small communities will form small nuclei which will re-evangalise the surrounding communities once the leftist menace has been spent. Effectively it is a strategy of running away and hoping that things will pass over.

    Unfortunately this displays an extraordinary naivete with regard to 20th Century. A cursory study of this period makes one aware of the fact that when the Left is out for blood there is no place to hide. They will not leave you alone to form your communities. In many ways the Benedict option is what the leaders of the Church did when it came to handling the pedophilia scandal. They hoped it would blow over and failed to do the things they needed to do. It has now come to bite them on the arse.

    Many pious Christian types seem to forget that the monasteries thrived [in a peace secured by armed Christians, those who were prepared to defend the Christians from armed attack.] I wonder how many monasteries would have survived in Charles Martel had not stopped the Muslim tide? And though Martel was a pious man, he had to resort to the force of arms to get things done. The Siege of Vienna and the Battle of Lepanto weren't spiritual ones.

    (Continues)

    ReplyDelete
  9. KeithAugust 13, 2015 at 11:24 AM

    Has Dreher learnerd nothing from his own, self-described "torture"?

    Some interesting comment excerpts as well:

    Julian O'Dea: The real problem Christian men face these days is being confused with Ned Flanders.

    August: Building communities means a lot more than what Dreher is suggesting, I think. I don't know- does he start with easily defensible land? Is he committed to developing an economy capable of sustaining real family formation?
    I suspect it would just be more of church as a luxury good, which it is already. Doctors and Lawyers can make themselves feel better on the weekends, after a week of compromising with modernity to get the big paycheck. So the Benedict option would likely just turn into a pricey housing development for the upper middle classes with particular aesthetics.

    ReplyDelete
  10. PauliAugust 13, 2015 at 12:05 PM

    Nota bene: I'm tagging this post with Benedict Option. A lot of good stuff here, especially that link to the Social Pathology blog.

    ReplyDelete
  11. KeithAugust 13, 2015 at 4:49 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. KeithAugust 13, 2015 at 4:51 PM

    There is something that will probably continue to sail completely over the heads of those across the Internet who mindlessly refer to Rod Dreher's "Benedict Option", but I'll try to make the point anyway (stop me if I've said this already).

    As soon as you embrace the words "Benedict Option" you've already left any sort of substantial disengagement from the world behind, particularly any traditional Christian one. What you have embraced in its place is the all-consuming world of modern marketing by voluntarily entering its Orwellian language bubble.

    The entirety of the concept framing "the Benedict Option" is that it is some separate contingency plan, like your sealed Mission Impossible orders, just waiting for you to break the seal and - engage! - as they say in politically correct science fiction.

    To get a better sense of how thoroughly you've inhaled the pure modernity of "the Benedict Option" (bum-bum, bum-BUM-bum-bum, bum-BUM-bum-bum...), just imagine one of the Disciples or early Popes even using the same language:

    "Uh, Jesus, Dude? Yeah, me and some of the guys - we've been talking. Just brainstorming, understand? Thinking about maybe taking what we're gonna call a "Benedict Option" if things go south for you. Whaddya think?"

    As soon as you even say the words "Benedict Option" - presto! - you're an extra in some one else's most-modern spy thriller concept. Good luck with that.

    ReplyDelete
  13. UnknownAugust 14, 2015 at 12:44 AM

    Did you see this column? http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/jeb-bush-deal-breaker-foreign-policy/#post-comments

    As if anyone would believe he would every vote Republican. It rivals the time he assured everyone in 2006 that he was still a "Loyal Catholic" when he had jumped ship to the OCA Church months before.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. KeithAugust 14, 2015 at 7:43 AM

      The word that immediately leaps to mind to describe Rod Dreher's relationship with the truth is "Clintonian". And yet neither Rod nor Hillary seem to lack for faithful followers.

      This leaves us with an interesting syllogism. If what each says is infinitely mutable and, thus, the true faith of their followers is really to be found only in the reassurance that each is saying something, then "BenOpper" and "Clintonista" become effectively synonyms, not because of the particular talking points of either, but only because each in turn is simply a synonym for "opiate".

      Delete
  14. pikkumattiAugust 14, 2015 at 6:58 PM

    In which our Cub Reporter posts a nearly 8000 word(!) piece on the recent book by his buddy "TNC" as the wrapper. The payload is a pre-publication sales pitch for an upcoming book on which Dreher was a non-ghost-writer ghost writer (according to him), as well as the first sales pitch for his book-to-be-written-after-the-BO-book-once-the-BO-is-maybe-defined-by-others:

    What this means for me, I’m not yet sure. I have a book project in mind after the Benedict Option, one that will tell a story about racial injustice — a lynching — and the way our roots, white and black, become tangled in time.

    And no, I didn't read the post. Life is way too short for that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. KeithAugust 14, 2015 at 10:56 PM

      I wonder if Julie Dreher realizes her husband protests like a 6-year-old caught with his hand in the cookie jar:

      UPDATE: Because one commenter (whose remarks I didn’t publish, because they were nasty and inaccurate) raised the idea that I’m criticizing Coates’s book because I’m “self-promoting,” let me assure you that I don’t stand to make a penny off the sales of Wendell’s book. I was paid a standard fee for my work. I won’t get rich if the book becomes a bestseller — but the book should become a bestseller, because the story of Wendell’s family is extraordinary.

      The man is simply pathological. Why would he believe that anyone would equate not making a fortune with not doing the very self-promotion they just read through to get to the denial?

      Delete
    2. pikkumattiAugust 16, 2015 at 10:47 AM

      Indeed, Keith. Responding to a comment that he didn't publish exposes quite a raw nerve.

      And for our Catholic readers, I'll reprint the second paragraph of that update:

      I should also say, because it occurred to me after posting this, that had I been raised under Coates’s circumstances, and without religious faith, it’s likely that I would have ended up with his point of view on things. Again, I think about how my anger at the injustices in the Roman Catholic Church destroyed my ability to believe as a Catholic Christian. It is entirely possible that were I black, and had I grown up with so much fear, and no Christian faith to teach me how to deal with it, my anger would easily have destroyed my faith in America — and my ability to analyze conditions with any kind of balance.

      Dreher must have re-read that 8000-word-and-counting post, and wondered how he could have left a swipe at the Church out of so long a piece. He probably hasn't gone 8000 consecutive words without one since he left the Church.

      Delete
    3. TomAugust 16, 2015 at 11:05 AM

      Does Rod realize he's just admitted that his anger at the Catholic Church has destroyed his ability to analyze conditions related to the Church with any kind of balance?

      Delete
    4. PauliAugust 20, 2015 at 4:21 PM

      Pik: Responding to a comment that he didn't publish exposes quite a raw nerve.

      I remember he had done that at least once before on the Beliefnet blog to Diane and/or Bubba.

      Does Rod realize he's just admitted that his anger at the Catholic Church has destroyed his ability to analyze conditions related to the Church with any kind of balance?

      Hmmmmm..... probably not. This has pretty much been my contention all along and why I keep pointing out his tendency to criticize the Catholic church reflexively and give everyone else a pass for exactly the same things. He can be charitable and understanding to everyone else and every other group... except for the Catholic Church.

      Delete
  15. pikkumattiAugust 20, 2015 at 3:11 PM

    Well, I guess this is one way for a candidate to distinguish himself from the other 15. Not a good way, mind you ....

    ReplyDelete
  16. KeithAugust 27, 2015 at 3:09 PM

    There’s 17 candidates and nothing on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. KeithAugust 27, 2015 at 3:44 PM

      aka the Greg Marmalard effect

      Delete
    2. pikkumattiAugust 27, 2015 at 6:37 PM

      "Fox News Channel" might as well rename itself as "Trump News Channel", with the wrinkle that the Megyn Kelly vs. Trump faux-feud is working out great for both of them.

      Just like the Jorge Ramos vs. Trump feud is benefiting both Ramos and Trump.

      P.S. Sounds like Trump's speech in Mobile played far better in the media characterization than it actually was.

      Delete
    3. KeithAugust 27, 2015 at 8:37 PM

      The difference at this point is that the rest of the Republican field is by comparison selling sensible, nutritious protein bars while Trump is selling steak hot off the grill - or at least the irresistible scent of steak hot off the grill.

      No one, least of all me, expects Trump to last, but one would have expected at least some of the other candidates, kindly Professor Turtle Jeb Bush among them, to have realized by now that politics of all professions does not live by sensible, nutritious protein bars alone.

      Delete
    4. pikkumattiAugust 28, 2015 at 5:12 PM

      Here's a little insight into the type of judge that Trump finds suitable for the Supreme Court.

      Meaning (1) connected to Trump, and (2) in this case, capable of finding that laws prohibiting partial-birth abortion are unconstitutional.

      Don't know whether #2 is a bug or a feature for Trump. Hopefully we'll never find out ...

      Delete
    5. KeithAugust 28, 2015 at 6:23 PM

      Pik, are you under the impression I'm supporting Trump for President? I'm not. I'm trying to make sense of why Trump is polling between 24-28% while Rick Perry is cashing out at 1%.

      What seems to be the case is that our fine array of Republican candidates are thinking "What a fine array of candidates we are!" while those being polled are saying instead "Not entirely."

      Delete
    6. pikkumattiAugust 28, 2015 at 6:53 PM

      Not in the least, Keith. My intent in that last comment was merely for the general information of the readers.

      On your second paragraph, I'm not sure I buy that the problem is weakness of the candidates. I think it is more that the party brand has been tarnished by the feebleness of congressional leadership. They begged the country to vote GOP in the last midterm so that the Senate would be won, the voters delivered, and with the exception of Cruz himself, they have shrunk from every battle.

      Just watch next week. No Senate vote will happen on the Iran deal due to threatened filibuster. So the entire foofraw over the past few months will have been entirely irrelevant, except as a vehicle for posturing.

      Little wonder that the Republican base is clamoring for someone, anyone, who hasn't collected a salary because they had an (R) after their name. Too bad that today's champion is a Big Government guy, with a pitch that he'll be the one to make Big Government work better. We got that same pitch last time with Romney, and look how that worked out.

      Delete
  17. KeithSeptember 1, 2015 at 10:35 PM

    Religious liberty is hugely important, but it’s not a trump card.

    See, the fear of losing religious liberty is crucial to herding the sheep into the pen of the Benedict Option. But if people like Kim Davis continue to act, they reveal that the Benedict Option is even worse than irrelevant. So while the rhetorical fear remains crucial, all actionable alternatives to the Benedict Option must be foreclosed in one way or other. Otherwise, who's going to have time to buy and read the book about it?

    ReplyDelete
  18. pikkumattiSeptember 3, 2015 at 9:00 AM

    Middle class civil disobedience update and prediction.

    ReplyDelete
  19. pikkumattiSeptember 17, 2015 at 10:13 AM

    Ann Coulter, please just go away.

    Or if you won't, then it's time for you to play the Jenny McCarthy role to support your preferred candidate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. pikkumattiSeptember 28, 2015 at 11:23 AM

      PJ O'Rourke agrees with me on Ann Coulter. More accurately, I agree with him and what he says here.

      P.S. The Weekly Standard might be setting the bar for pop-up ads to fight through.

      Delete
  20. AnonymousSeptember 17, 2015 at 5:44 PM

    Guess who is at the Oldest Southern Baptist University pushing his book?https://www.uu.edu/news/release.cfm?ID=237
    Jonathan Carpenter

    ReplyDelete
  21. pikkumattiSeptember 28, 2015 at 1:02 PM

    An excellent comment on the tenure of John Boehner.

    Good riddance, Boehner. I'm sure things worked out just fine for you.

    ReplyDelete
  22. pikkumattiSeptember 30, 2015 at 7:23 PM

    Dreher posts a question today to his trained seals: Which books would you like to see banned? In the sense of wishing they'd never been published, that is.

    I can think of one book that, had it not been published, I'd have a good number of hours of my life back. For a hint, that title begins with "How Dante"...

    ReplyDelete
  23. UnknownOctober 3, 2015 at 10:32 PM

    Did anyone see this column? http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-chaotic-pope-francis/#post-comments
    Anyone taking bets on him twisting the knife into the Pope when he retires or dies?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. KeithOctober 5, 2015 at 10:43 AM

      The two engines driving the Benedict Option are correct belief and the purity of that correct belief. Here's Dreher explaining how to be sure you're thinking of Orthodoxy as really your only refuge after MTD Protestantism and that inevitably apostatic Catholicism.

      Dreher:

      Let me ask my Roman Catholic readers: if MBD is correct, and the Synod ends with what you sincerely believe constitutes apostasy — and, to put a fine point on it, if it ends with this Pope teaching apostasy — what does that mean for you going forward? Stay put and wait? Affiliate with SSPX? Go Orthodox? Something else? I’m not trolling; I’d really like to know.

      Commenter dominic1955 isn't buying, however

      The findings or schemata of a synod like this have no infallible bearing. Like many stupid statements from Rome or from local episcopal conferences-meh.

      As a Catholic, I believe that the Church’s Magisterium is truly infallible and protected by the Holy Ghost. Ye of little faith that think machinations of men will really sink the Church into heresy.

      Delete
    2. DianeOctober 5, 2015 at 11:11 AM

      Dreher is truly a despicable human being. Lord. Have. Mercy.

      Delete
    3. PauliOctober 5, 2015 at 11:25 AM

      What dominic1955 said. Part of me smiles when Dreher gets his hopes up for the imminent collapse of the Church. That's 'cause it ain't gonna happen.The Browns might go to the superbowl someday, but the Church will never sink into heresy.

      Delete
    4. KeithOctober 5, 2015 at 12:04 PM

      I don't think that all that many Protestants out there like Jake Meador and others who get all wriggly when Dreher ostentatiously fawns over them realize he plays them just as much as he plays Catholics.

      OTOH, for warming up the crowd in the cheap seats, burning the witch Doug Wilson was a no-brainer. OTOH, it was just another dog whistle for the inevitable disappointment one can expect to reap from a non-Orthodox communion: at heart, if they're not bureaucratic apostates and child molesters, they're corrupt backwoods renegades and child molestors. Big Protestantism: gay Episcopalians; little Protestantism, Doug Wilson & co.

      Best to just take off and nuke the entire non-Orthodox site from BO orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

      Delete
    5. KeithOctober 5, 2015 at 12:36 PM

      The comments to that post and the number of NFRs trying to herd the little dogie seals back into line are worth a read in themselves.

      There appear to be more than one Catholic there unwilling to let Rod lecture them on their Church.

      Delete
    6. PauliOctober 5, 2015 at 1:04 PM

      Here a typical remark from an NFR: [T]he Orthodox Church permits divorce within strict guidelines, which are not worth exploring in depth here....

      Q: What is, pray tell, "worth exploring in depth here" on Dreher's blog?
      A: Anything that has to do with the Catholic church.

      It's really just as absurd as if I decided to pick on Hindus, Methodists or Baptists and did so in the name of greater understanding about religion, and yet never mentioned my own beliefs. People would rightly conclude that I had something stuck in my craw.

      Delete
    7. KeithOctober 5, 2015 at 3:48 PM

      Watchful observers will notice that the comments to the "Does the Pope Fear God" Catholic post have been jumping up by the tens, not at all subservient to Dreher's baiting, while at the same time the comments to the "Benedict Option and Balance" post just below it have been leaping by the ones.

      One gets the nagging suspicion, comparing these latter numbers to similar ones on other BO posts, that commenters on Dreher's BO may in fact be treating him with the same kind politeness they reserve for their Uncle Pookie's big plans for that miniature golf park. That is, where they're not saying outright: give it up, extended family is really the only roots of such community you can depend on.

      One wonders if Dreher, having already replaced the organic family and community relationships he previously poisoned with his ongoing Internet blog family-community, is searching for a similar personal salvation with his Benedict Option to heal his similarly self-inflicted religious wounds.

      Delete
    8. KeithOctober 5, 2015 at 4:33 PM

      Maggie Smith says:
      October 5, 2015 at 2:15 pm

      As others above have suggested, your question is so loaded as to be unanswerable. It’s about like asking whether on coming home and finding your wife in bed with another man, you would then seriously consider that some other woman was really your wife.

      And it only gets more interesting from there.

      Delete
    9. Somenonymous or otherOctober 5, 2015 at 6:29 PM

      Rod's scurrilous, rude, speculative question deserves Maggie's answer, which is perfect; and it deserves just about no other answer at all.

      I did go and read the rest of Maggie's answer, which is a lot longer than your excerpt, and all worthwhile, as you indicate.

      Delete
    10. DianeOctober 6, 2015 at 10:18 AM

      Except that Maggie's too nice.

      Seriously. If Rod descends much lower into despicability. we'll have to get him his own set of minions.

      Oh wait. He already has them. Why oh why does Erin Manning play the role of useful idiot to this clown? Her chirpy little comment about the "lively and interesting thread" just about had me losing my breakfast. Lively and interesting my foot. It's a thread with an inexcusably loaded and uncharitable OP -- a tendentious, question-begging, self-serving...oh what can I say! You said it best: rude and scurrilous!

      So, Orthodox divorce is not worth exploring (well, say, *that's* convenient!), but every twitch of the pope's nose is worth scrutinizing in minute detail (and always in very bad faith)? Words fail me.

      What will Rod do when the Synod ringingly reaffirms Catholic Church Teaching and praxis? Probably fall conveniently silent on that topic and pick another nose-twitch to scrutinize.

      Despicable.

      Delete
    11. KeithOctober 6, 2015 at 12:03 PM

      Diane, I hope you realize you are speaking of the Rod Dreher, Chosen Vessel of the Lord:

      AKindredSpirit says:
      October 6, 2015 at 9:30 am

      You have to be familiar with the “culture” to understand any of it. I’m am so grateful that God used Rod to bring Doug Wilson (and others like him) to this readership’s attention. I have been praying for YEARS that someone respectable and capable would do so. Doug Wilson is quite the wordsmith and has been able to silence those who have dared to challenge him. Great discussion and exposure is taking place here. I pray everyone will keep digging and connecting. This is a “movement” with many faces and branches but they all stem from the same root. Christian Reconstruction (in varying degrees and forms) is a big part of that root.

      It's too bad Rod can't lead similar great discussion and exposure can't take place in Rod's own communion which he must certainly know better, but I guess that might be illegal, like trying to marry your sister or scratch your own spine.

      The most important thing to always remember with these great discussions and exposures Dreher hosts to serve man is that "It's a cookbook!"

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)