Dude goes ripping on the Havona solo

...and has the Jaco tone down cold.



Nice work, dog.

"You can't figure out the bag l'm in"

Rod Dreher and I had a rare exchange in the combox over here. I commented on someone else's reporting that Wendell Berry was kind of a globetrotter before he became a staunch localista. My original comment was this:

It's funny that Wendell Berry lived all over the world and writes romantically about people who live in one place their whole life. Not right, not wrong, not good, not evil, not "hypocritical" -- whatever that means... just FUNNY. I hope he makes millions of dollars selling his books and farm produce and has a very happy life. To me he's a very funny guy.

To which Rod responded:

Pauli, I don't think that's fair to Berry. He did live elsewhere as a young man, but chose to move back to his family home in rural Kentucky and take up farming and writing. He could have had a great career had he chosen to stay in New York or in some academic center -- but he had the conviction that he should return home. Why is that wrong? It's an overblown analogy, I concede, but isn't this the same logic that would damn the repentant sinner for urging people to choose to follow Christ, on the grounds that he had his fun, and has no grounds on which to deny the same experience to others?

Anyway, I'd be real surprised if Berry was getting rich off his books, or doing much more than breaking even, if that. The overwhelming majority of books published today lose money.

For what it's worth, Rod Dreher is a much better writer than Wendell Berry. But this was my response to his comment in multi-part format with his remarks in Italics:

Pauli, I don't think that's fair to Berry. He did live elsewhere as a young man, but chose to move back to his family home in rural Kentucky and take up farming and writing.

And there was nothing wrong with what he chose to do.

He could have had a great career had he chosen to stay in New York or in some academic center -- but he had the conviction that he should return home.

Well, it sounds to me like does have a great career. And insofar as he followed his own personal conviction, great.

Why is that wrong?

Re-read my post. I specifically stated that it's not wrong, whatever he did or does.

It's an overblown analogy, I concede, but isn't this the same logic that would damn the repentant sinner for urging people to choose to follow Christ, on the grounds that he had his fun, and has no grounds on which to deny the same experience to others?

It's an overblown analogy because living a bunch of places and then moving back home isn't repenting simply because you haven't sinned to begin with.

Anyway, I'd be real surprised if Berry was getting rich off his books, or doing much more than breaking even, if that. The overwhelming majority of books published today lose money.

OK — my overblown remark was talking about making millions of dollars. My bad. What I mean is that Wendell Berry should live and be well and ride horses and roll his own smokes and have a kick-ass farm. That is his choice.

Judging from what I've read, his material is chock full of over-the-top condemnation of people's lifestyle choices and a tendency to manufacture pharisaical moral dilemmas in a kind of pre-Christian cult of blood and soil. So my main point is still that it is funny to me that he went Bilbo-like off on adventures elsewhere and returned home enlightened. He should certainly suffer all others to choose the same path, or those equally licit.

I then apologized for saying "cult of blood and soil" because of the connotations. But if you want to talk about overblown analogies, the "bloom where you're planted" is a good place to start. Everyone know what it means generally, but the fact remains that people aren't plants. We are made to move around. Some people don't have a family farm to move back to and others are called to serve their fellowman elsewhere.

Well, anyway, this explains it all:

Bush, Benedict and Babies

Here's an NCR article written by a friend of mine, Dr. Paul Kengor. Excerpt:

In fact, the big story between this president and this Pope — as it was with this president and the last Pope — has been their remarkable unity on the sanctity and dignity of human life.

Neither man majored in math in college, but they easily understand that 1,000 tragic deaths per year among enlisted soldiers in an American military operation is a smaller number than 1 million deaths per year among innocent babies in American abortion businesses.

Then Dr. Kengor goes on to remind us of the awkwardness of the former President's meeting with John Paul II and that President Bush banned all US funding of international abortion groups on his first day in office. He concludes:

The United States of America is the world’s most influential nation. The Catholic Church is the world’s most influential church. Abortion is the world’s most destructive force, and one that must be stopped, not encouraged — the leader of America and the Catholic Church, mercifully, agree on that.

Update: Dr. Kengor is currently on Michael Medved's show. Check it out.

Some Improvisation based on the traditional Regina Caeli chant

These cats are rippers on the organ, dog. Resurrexit sicut dixit, baby.

Awesome Flag Jump

Sorry, "awesome" is a word I try to use infrequently, but it's the best one in this case.



That flag weighs 140 pounds. Amazing.

Another one from Dianne M., thank you, ma'am.

Chávez bans the Simpsons; show replaced by Baywatch

This article is good, linked by Jonah, about how dictators have no sense of humor. I mean, think about it... as an American, are you more proud that we've come up with clever material like the Simpsons where we laugh at ourselves (in addition to everyone else) or Baywatch which is just lust candy for the male animal? Besides, I always thought Lisa Simpson was hot. Smart, too.


I've never seen BW, but I'm fairly sure I'm not misrepresenting it if I suggest the dialogue is disposable, whereas the dialogue in the Simpsons is precious. It could almost survive as a radio show, the stuff that guy comes up with. Here's one of my favorites:

Homer: So wait a minute, you mean you'll never eat meat again. What about Pork Chops?
Lisa: No
Homer: Ham?
Lisa: No!
Homer: Bacon?!
Lisa: Dad those all come from the same animal!
Homer: Oh right, Lisa! hehe, one big magical animal!

This Joe is funny

Cup O' Joe presents March 08 in pictures. Very creative captioning. My fave:

"New technology allows animals to see in advance what they might look like after a species change operation."

Also John Kerry making out with Barack Obama is good.

A Clear, Concise and Thoughtful Answer

Over on the Catholic Answer forum, a question is asked:

Although the Pope is opposed to the war in Iraq, what is its position on supporting our troops? Isn't it possible to be in support of the men and women of our military regardless of one's position on the war itself? Would it be against the Church to have a soldier ready to be deployed in Iraq soon, visit a Catholic Middle School class to answer questions?

Father Vincent Serpa provides a good and short answer:

Although Pope John Paul was personally opposed to the war in Iraq, the Church has no official position on it. It is certainly praiseworthy to support fellow citizens who are willing to risk their lives for what they believe is the protection of others from the evils of terrorism. The Church encourages all selfless concern for others. Children need to be exposed to such selflessness.

The priesthood is, of course, another example of a selfless profession.

Rick Monday's Famous "Play"

Dianne from the Prager Group just sent me this.



Wonder what happened to those two pyro jagoffs. Did they get a free haircut at the jail? Did they OD? Did they steal the flag from a social worker? Are their bell-bottoms in a museum somewhere?

Blogging Up the Arteries

Kudos to Kathleen for pointing out this amazing article to me. I'm glad blogging is basically just a hobby for me.

I could make comments about every part of this piece which I found myself laughing at, even when it talked about people developing severe health issues from excessive blogging. What are they thinking? People working themselves to death in the office isn't really anything new, although blogging is. You weren't designed to be on your ass for days on end.

But this part caught my eye:

Mr. Lam said he has worried his blogging staff might be burning out, and he urges them to take breaks, even vacations. But he said they face tremendous pressure — external, internal and financial. He said the evolution of the “pay-per-click” economy has put the emphasis on reader traffic and financial return, not journalism.

Does anyone truly think that in old-fashioned journalism there was no emphasis on financial returns? I'm sure the pace is more insane now. Furthermore, due to hit-counters, it's no longer a likelihoood but a provable fact that no one read your well-researched animal psychology piece which you posted a minute after the Paris Hilton perp walk photos came out. However I think it's absurd to suggest that for this reason blogging is ruining "quality journalism". Journalism is already ruined and "if it bleeds, it leads" is a concept predating the roller mouse. Who is actually reading what is simply more accurate to gauge now, and I prefer the animal psych piece. You just have to find a creative way to fit the words "paris" and "hilton" in there and maybe a picture of animals doing it. Or something.