Rubio is not Bush

Good article about Jeb and Marco. Excerpt:

Primary seasons, though, are when the tectonic undercurrents of our politics reveal themselves. And what’s become clear in the months since is that Bush fundamentally misread the seismic signs of the moment.

Having been out of elective office for eight years, Bush took too long to grasp that the anger fueling conservative revolt was as much about the Republican establishment — with which the Bush name had become synonymous — as it was about Obama.

He entered the race without even thinking through a response to questions about his brother’s foreign policy. Somehow he conceived of his own candidacy as tangential to the family legacy.

It would be hard as a politician to see yourself the way others see you, and in the case of Jeb Bush, he never seemed to grasp the infamy of his last name with certain people.

I make no secret I support Marco Rubio at this point. I like him better on immigration and domestic policy than Ted Cruz, he has a better temperament and he's more electable.

As regards "maturing as a person"

This was posted by my bro-in-law on his Facebook page. Very fny, imho.

If you ever receive an e-mail/message/text/etc. from me saying that I'm stranded in Europe and need your financial assistance because I've lost my important documents – I don't want you to help me EVEN if you find out it's legit and not a scam. The only way I'll learn anything from that situation and mature as a person...

Ain't too proud to bleg

The Wikipedia glossary of blogging terms defines the noun bleg as follows:

A blog entry consisting of a request to the readers, such as for information or contributions. A portmanteau of "blog" and "beg". Also called "Lazyweb."

Sounds like me; I work really hard on this blog to make sure everyone knows how lazy I am. That's why I took some time off from watching television and eating Ruffles to put together the K Street Bleg to invite the mysterious blog commenter named "The Man from K Street" to start a blog.

I just think his comments are so dead on and cut through the digestive by-product of the pessimistas and the ivory tower condescension which is so prevalent in certain corners of the blogosphere. It's unfair that a lazy ass, or as I like to call myself, an "ambition-challenged person", has to wait so long inbetween K Street fixes.

So how about it, Mr. Man?

Ann Coulter on "Cruising while Republican"

LOL. For starters, nice blast at Chris Matthews:

Chris Matthews opened his "Hardball" program on Aug. 28 by saying Larry Craig had been "exposed as both a sexual deviant and a world-class hypocrite."

Normally, using the word "deviant" in reference to any form of sodomy would be a linguistic crime worse than calling someone a "nappy headed ho." Luckily, Craig is a Republican.

As a backup precaution, Matthews has worked to ensure that there is virtually no audience for "Hardball." I shudder to think of the damage such a remark might have done if uttered about a non-Republican on a TV show with actual viewers.

Her next move simultaneously pinions the hypocrisy accusation against Craig and the "gays-just-want-to-be-like-normal-people" canard.

Liberals don't even know what they mean by "hypocrite" anymore. It's just a word they throw out in a moment of womanly pique, like "extremist" -- or, come to think of it, "gay." How is Craig a "hypocrite," much less a "blatant hypocrite"?

Assuming the worst about Craig, the Senate has not held a vote on outlawing homosexual impulses. It voted on gay marriage. Craig not only opposes gay marriage, he's in a heterosexual marriage with kids. Talk about walking the walk! Did Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I'm not seeing the "hypocrisy."

And why is it "homophobic" for Senate Republicans to look askance at sex in public bathrooms? Is the Times claiming that sodomy in public bathrooms is the essence of being gay? I thought gays just wanted to get married to one another and settle down in the suburbs so they could visit each other in the hospital.

This whole affair is a cartoonish illustration of the American political fact that nothing happens in August. Craig might be a big liar and the jerk-of-the-universe for all I know or care. But I love to watch Coulter run circles around the cross-eyed mediatards. And she is sooooo fun-ny!! Be honest; aren't you embarrassed when you read some folks' lame attempt at humor? (Wait -- don't answer that if I'm one of aforesaid folks!)

If any writer deserves to be called a 21st Century Chesterton, Ann Coulter does.

I've seen this more than twice

I have noticed that when people who are Christians cannot or do not want to engage the substance of an attack on the actions of a Christian friend that they often say things like "I don't think attacks should be made against [this person]. After all, he/she is a brother/sister Christian. We should show them respect and love."

Sure I'll buy the love part, but hold the mayo and the respect. It's always good to have respect and love for people as humans, but do I have to have respect for, say, Jesse Jackson as a Christian when he engages in extortion against other human beings? Or consider that many people have big problems with the actions of President Bush and they claim he should be tried for war crimes, etc. I myself would never say "Lay off the guy, he's a Christian, dammit!" I mean, if a Christian commits a crime he should do the time, right? And though most of the regular readers know that I'm being facetious here I use that example to accentuate the grounds on which I would not defend the President.

I have gone around and around with people on the whole issue of cutting Christians an extra break for screwing up, the practice of -- aside from any merits -- giving business people your patronage just because they go to your church, etc. I totally recoil from this type of ghetto behavior which really should be seen as alien to the Gospel.

Give Up the Funk!

Michael Barone writes a short piece about the "National Funk". Bootsy Collins is not mentioned, so here is a picture to help all y'all get down with it, baby.


The last part mirrors how I feel about the self-indulgence in what many Americans consider to be a well-earned bad mood.

But what basis do Americans have to suppose that, for the first time in history, a younger generation will be worse off than their parents? Perhaps it's just a feeling that things cannot possibly get any better. In any case, we seem to be in a pronounced national funk.

We might take some comfort in some of the trends of opinion in the rest of the world. In China and India, large majorities think the next generation will be better off -- a vote of confidence in their surging economies, which are providing cheaper products for us and are growing as markets for American goods and services. In Latin America, most believe that people are better off with free markets. (The highest percentage was in Hugo Chavez's socialist Venezuela!) In Africa, most express great optimism in the future -- a sign that the world's most troubled continent may be at last turning around.

Perhaps most importantly, the Pew Global survey showed sharply reduced numbers of Muslims saying that suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified as compared with 2002. That's still the view of 70 percent in the Palestinian territories. But that percentage has declined from 74 percent to 34 percent in Lebanon, from 43 percent to 23 percent in Jordan, and from 33 percent to 9 percent in Pakistan.

We've been instructed by many sages that the rest of the world hates us and does not want to follow our example. The Pew Global numbers tell us something different.

People around the world may oppose American intervention in Iraq, but they also want many of the things we do. Perhaps we should take a cue from the optimism of the developing world and appreciate what we have -- and get out of our national funk.

Good news on the dramatic opinion changes regarding the justifiability of suicide bombings. And it seems like people in China and India know how to make that all important Mothership Connection to optimistic thinking.

And y'all know I'd like to see another Clinton in the White House. (Not that white girl from Chi-town!) But their ain't no chance; no amount of optimistic vibes could make the "The King of Interplanetary Funksmanship" accept such a demotion.

(Yeah, tear the roof off the sucker!)

What's Wrong With Yins Guys?

Why hasn't anyone voted in my new importnat poll? Cheese whiz!

Also... what do yins all think of the picture of me as a Simpson?

(See, yins guys have me so flustered that my Pittsburgh is all coming out, although I might add that there's an ongoing argument about whether it's spelled "yins" or "yuns".)

Carp & Cube

Jonathan comments to the last post:

I do not think writing for the National Review is what it used to be anymore. Sure, Dreher wrote for the Review but so did Gary Wills. He came up with concept of "Mater Si! Magistra No!" Look also what he had to do to get on the News Hours. He has checked his values at the door. Tell me the last article he wrote supporting Pro-Life views or for diversity in the media? Never! However, because he is against the war and tells enough Bush bashing jokes he gets included in with the other elites. Quite an example if you ask me.

Also can someone tell me of a Conservative Catholic who gets the status of Dreher, Kuo et.al.? Their isn't any. It has all the diversity of the Pravda.

Cubeland Mystic responds:

Jonathan, A liberal friend once said to me "Why do gay people want the Catholic Church to accept them? They should just go off and do their own thing. It is so much easier."

Well she was right. They should do their own thing, and start their own institutions rather than anger the people who dominate the institution they are trying to corrupt.

We should do the same thing here. We should have our own institutions including the media. Pauli posted on a man who is buying a radio station in San Fran. Are we all supporting him? Do we all support EWTN?

I get some of my news here at Est Quod Est. Why do we even care about diversity and liberal hypocrisy? We should apply ourselves to making the institutions we have successful.

I've mentioned to Jonathan in public posts and private emails in the past that I agree whole-heartedly with his assessment of the MSM. But I think Cubeland's point need to really be taken to heart. The "media" as a whole is diverse, probably moreso now than ever. Sure, it's irritating that the old liberal dinosaurs still have plenty of power and are too stubborn to change much. They're all like "dogs who returneth to their own vomit" in this regard, Dreher's vomit is Catholic Church bashing, Kuo's vomit is outright liberal goofiness posing as Christian charity.... Big name media clowns like Chris Matthews have even more disgusting rainbow-colored vomit featuring abortion rights pimping, military bashing, Republican baiting, Clinton-worship and those are just the big chunks....

Sorry, getting a little too realistic there. We can only spend so much time cursing the darkness before we get back to lighting candles. Or M-80's. (Wow, haven't seen one of those suckers in a while.)

I'm one to also predict the new push for the so-called "fairness doctine" is going to ultimately end up in nowheresville. There are many reasons for this, but the most blatant one to me is MONEY. If anyone thinks that all the people pulling down the swag from the El Rushbo/El Hannitybo Industrial Complex are conservative Republicans then you know less about American business than Wendell Berry.

"Do as I do, not as I say"

File under "heh".

Hey, I'm all for Democrats shooting bad guys in their private lives even if they have to oppose deadly force in their public life to be politically correct. Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, and justice is a virtue, last time I checked. Justice is what the man was dealing out here.


Plus the robber threw a pocket knife at him? What a moron, he deserved to get shot.

Last Pre-release Post on the Universal Indult

Dan from the Shrine of the Holy Whapping delivers a very thoughtful piece called "Motu Proprio as Ressourcement". I love this paragraph:

The "Tridentine" Mass confronts us, then, with tradition - tradition in need of revitalization in many ways, but a great tradition nonetheless. It confronts us also in a tradition in which we are not defined by being particular sorts of Catholics but by being Catholic, and invites us to learn how to do this again without grinding our ideological axe. It invites us to return to the moment when it began to be violently abolished rather than gently modified, and to bury the pain and fear that have resulted on all sides since then, rather than to take it out on others. To forgive absolutely and free of charge, despite temptations to hold grudges and to speak bitter words. Such actions would only confirm and deepen the notion that tradition is equal to traditionalism, something that comes off as negative and ideological, unwelcoming and with an axe to grind.

I think he understands the mind of Pope Benedict more than people on either of the "sides" and effectively shows that the Holy Father is not taking sides but merely giving a part of the Church's tradition back to the Church.


I come to the Latin Mass as someone who doesn't "feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition" in the words of JP2's Motu Proprio. But I have always liked the contribution it makes to the Church's "liturgical portfolio", and I've always thought that it's wrong to treat it as a museum piece from another era.

A Musing on Chesterton

The thought just came to me: would G. K. Chesterton be happy or appalled to know that there is a group of folks who read him fairly selectively and then sew their favorite aspects of his thought, along with a few perceived conclusions, into an ideological crazy quilt resembling what he might call an "insane simplification"?

Just wondering.

A Valid Concern

"Catholic and Jewish experts are concerned about relations between their faiths if Vatican plans to revive the old Latin mass include long-forgotten prayers for converting the Jews or roll back respect for their heritage."

First of all, let me say that I believe it's a valid concern. Many Jews applaud the changes in the Catholic liturgy made in the 20th century. Michael Medved recently talked about this at a lunch at the conference I attended in Grove City, commending the removal of the accusation of perfidy ("Oremus et pro perfidis Judæis") from the Good Friday Prayers.

In regards to the words themselves, I would rather have someone praying for me who believed I was a faithless wretch than have no prayers from someone who wrongly assumed I was a living saint. Although pogroms and Good Friday killings of Jews cannot and should not be denied, I'm not sure that the peasants who murdered a Jew on Good Friday afternoon would have been stopped if an earlier Pope had made the liturgical changes which Pope John XXIII did in 1960, removing the adjective "perfidious". But that is speculation on my part; words do have consequences. And either way, the adjective is unnecessary for a valid prayer, so good call, J23, on removing the phrase "perfidious Jews".

It is interesting to note the earlier changes made in regards to these prayers which took place before and leading up to the institution of the Novus Ordo. The missal which is used in the Tridentine Indult Mass is from 1962, so the removal of perfidious had already taken place. This should be pointed out to anyone who makes a dichotomy of the two liturgies. There are still quite a few Catholics alive who went to mass pre-1955, but the indult masses being celebrated now have the new wording in place.


Now I'm not an expert in these matters, but if a reader (Andy?) knows more, please chime in. I will probably consult with a priest friend of mine on this who celebrates both masses and is very balanced on the matter. The above cited article does not point out the distinction between 1962 and 1955, so I feel as if someone did not do their homework on this issue. So ignorance might be responsible for this, but I suggest there might be at least a teensy-weensy bit of bias in the mix here. Some Catholics are embarrassed by the traditionalists and the Latin Mass and face it -- the so-called "rad-trads" have made the whole Latin Mass movement more controversial than it need be. One reason is that some of those people are without a doubt anti-Semitic. But let's try to avoid a "baby/bathwater backlash" which will impoverish the rich liturgical tradition of the Roman Catholic church.

Jackie M on Food Snobbery

Everyone needs to read Schmucks by Jackie Mason and Raoul Felder before they die. Luckily I didn't die laughing while reading it, but it is very funny. The duo takes on everyone from Bill Clinton to Larry Silverstein and every group from TV Weathermen to the ACLU.

Here's a short excerpt from his "Dumb Schmucks" section, the chapter entitled "Restaurant Critics. Talk about food and whine":

Food critics changed forever dining out from a pleasant, non-challenging, no-nonsense family gathering to a fancy-schmancy, status-conscious event where you had to have spent a year at Berlitz to understand the menu.

Waiters turned into poets, describing the dishes as "The lamb is boiled in a reduction of Australian beetle juice, and then is basted with a turkey gizzard mélange and lovingly caressed by an open flame for 30 seconds before being bathed in a 1946 crapola red wine which is assertive without being impertinent."

Suddenly, Da Bella Gypolla, out local Italian restaurant, became a "ristorante" and overnight, spaghetti became pasta, cheese transformed into formaggio, and every shmo diner started using the phrase "Al dente, per favore."

Later in the chapter he explains that burnt fish magically becomes "blackened" if it's served in the "dingy, depressing swamp country of southern Louisiana".

It's odd, but nobody eats a burnt bagel. The fad has stayed mainly in the fish area. But, as this concept becomes trendier, we envision the Cajun bagel, burnt to a crisp.

Funny. Well...OK. His food sensibility is probably not amusing to everyone.

Ave Maria, Fla.

Here's a piece about Tom Monaghan, Ave Maria, Fla., and some silly people and lawyers who have some kind of problem with him/it.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and other groups have criticized Monaghan for what they say is his attempt to impose his conservative religious ideology on residents.

"This is not a debate about whether people who are of similar religious or ethnic or racial background have a right to live in the same community," said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida.

I say it's America and multi-millionaires can do whatever they want. Besides, I don't remember the ACLU or any other liberal frowning clowns getting upset about Donald Trump building monuments to sin and decadence in Vegas. Maybe I have a bad memory.

Hannity Solo

I put off commenting about the whole Hannity/priest/contraception thing for awhile and by now it's totally old news. But I finally realized why it reminded me of the first Star Wars, and by the first I mean the first one that guy made and now says is the fourth one, not the fourth one he made and now claims is the first. I saw it when it first came out, so there. Please don't interrupt my mid-life crisis, OK?

In short, Hannity was wrong on contraception, the church is right. Television being probably the wrong place to have an argument about it is beside the point. It's too bad because Hannity is a popular figure in the media and in the culture and as a Catholic, he should at least be quiet and more respectful if he dissents from this important teaching. So I want to make sure I'm clear on this point; this is Lesson 1, if you will, to take away from the interchange. I don't want to be accused of defending Hannity, he's not my fave radio talker (although not my least favorite either); I think that whole "you're a great American" thing chafes me at the taste level.



Remember the robots... OK, droids.... the droids are playing some kind of chess-variant game where the pieces are monsters which beat the crap out of each other when the players move them. Ostensibly, R2D2 and Chewbacca -- probably the two most famous non-verbal film characters since Harpo Marx -- are engaged in playing the game and Chewbacca is whining because he's not winning. Han Solo, the only person who understands the wookiee, and C3PO, the only robot who understands R2D2...

...I meant droid. According to the experts, C3PO is a droid. You have to admit though, C3PO looks like a gold-plated robot. R2D2, OTOH, looked like a tank vacuum cleaner to me the first time I saw him. (Uh.... ShopVac is a brand name, doofus. That's why I wrote tank vacuum cleaner, FYI.) Now kids think tank vacuums look like R2D2. Life is funny.

Some of you are no doubt thinking "man, this post is getting long. Where is this going? I don't even like Star Wars and jaws was never my scene either, come to think of it." You ought to hang in there because this might be as close as I get to bashing the Catholic clergy on this blog.

Anyway, Solo and C3PO have a conversation which everyone remembers:

3P0: He made a fair move. Screaming about it won't help you.
Solo: Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee.
3PO: But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid.
Solo: That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that.
3PO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, Artoo. Let the Wookiee win.

Hannity is the droid in this case; nothing really is going to happen to a priest or bishop who goes after him. He may be a bit egotistical and annoying, but I don't think he poses any threat. I'd be willing to bet that a good portion of Hannity's Catholic fans even agree with the priest, even if they think his tone and manner might have been more pastoral.

But has that priest gone after Nancy Pelosi or other major public officials who support abortion in the same way? Good for him if he has. Father said that he was concerned about Hannity being a public heretic. I think this statement from NP might tip the needle on the heresy meter into the red zone: "I believe that my position on choice [i.e., abortion] is one that is consistent with my Catholic upbringing, which said that every person has a free will and has the responsibility to live their own lives in a way that they would have to account for in the end." (source Matt Abbott)

I know that the "concern about sanctions against Catholic public officials" House Speaker Pelosi mentions doesn't necessarily lead to "pulling people's arms out of their sockets". Further to the point, I don't even think the pro-abortion politicians would even show up for this kind of candid discussion. So is it possible that the clergy in the Catholic Church do go after these high value political targets all the time and I just miss it because I don't watch much TV?

No! Are you kidding? Sean Hannity argues for 6 minutes with a priest and it's news for a week! Can you imagine what would happen if a priest did stand up to a major abortion supporter on the left and go head-to-head with him/her on national television? John McG rightly points out that this kind of thing is the dream of many Catholics. I get stuff all the time (not in comments here, but in email lists I'm on) asking me to help pressure the Vatican to call for dismissal of Bishops (which by the way has been proven to be counterproductive) who won't challenge pro-abort Catholic politicians. What I do agree with those well-meaning folks on is that this is a matter which needs more clarity and attention regardless of general statements issued in the past.

Therefore I conclude with Lesson 2: The calling out of Hannity in regards to a heterodox position establishes a fortiori the case for calling out elected political leaders, of all political parties, who do not follow the Catholic Church's teaching on Abortion.

Maybe it will console members of the Catholic clergy that Chewbacca turned out to be an all around good fellow, despite the hairiness and poor sportsmanship. In fact, in the second movie... yes, episode 5, whatever... he reassembles C3PO after some other nasties rip him apart. He doesn't do a perfect job, granted; probably about as good a performance as Pelosi or Kucinich might deliver if asked to recite the Ten Commandments or maybe this prayer.

Clarification Regarding Kids' Safety and Fear

Someone responded a bit wildly in a recent post when I was trying to merely urge caution when posting personal details in the strongest possible terms. Hot-button concepts were mentioned -- racism, rape and homophobia -- and I suppose that the commenter wanted to stress that we shouldn't have to live in fear even though, he later admits, we do anyway. ("When I was a child, my parents let me play in the front yard, ride my bike across town, walk home from school alone... now, I'd be a fool to allow my kids to do that...")

I'll restate and reiterate: the new version of blogger has a "By Invitation Only" security feature. Use it. You can invite as many people to have access as you want to via email. Just like you can give out keys to your deadbolt locks to anyone you trust.

I don't let fear "govern my every move." I'm very much against what Dennis Prager refers to as the "stranger danger" programs that infected schools in the silly seventies. I'm not going to teach my kids to beware so-called strangers in general; it's counter-productive at best. But the world wide web is the Wild West at best and a wild wasteland at worst.

The Abject Failure of First Things

Nowadays I open up my issues of First Things with more and more disappointment. What do you find in there? An Alexandr Solzhenitsyn thing, stuff on the Church Fathers' resurgence, Cardinal Dulles on Pope Benedict, ok, ok, yawn, yawn. I get it; this is important stuff, no argument.

But nowhere within it's pages does anyone provide even an opinion on other important stuff I'd really like to see covered. Just a fer instance, couldn't one of the smart guys over there give his take on the S&W Model 640 for concealed carry? I mean, it's macho to pack something big, but cheesy Louisy! Only five rounds and loud as a frickin' Sherman tank is going to get you out of a hole in the wall bar, but kind of on the heavy side, right, even for us "revolver guys". And what's with the stainless steel? I'm inclined to think that Chuck Hawks is right -- why use a .357 for a concealed carry when it's going to "kick like hell", and I'm right there with him when he expertly states, "For the person who prefers to carry a revolver, a .38 Special snubby is hard to beat." Damn straight, Chuck.

And I don't even know what Father Neuhaus is currently packing, man. He never mentions it. Isn't that crazy? It's not even in Damon Linker's book, or so I've heard from people willing to take the proper amount of NoDoz to get through it. And what about Joey Bottum? Someone with that cool a name... I'll bet whatever it is it's got to be heavy.

And what does Hawks think about abortion? Or Ed Lovette? Beats me. And that's what's so troubling about the silence of FT on these issues. Also -- book reviews out the wazoo, but no review of Ghost Rider... what's with that? To be sure, the SCCB is silent on these things as well, but I've come to expect more from FT, maybe I'm naïve.