ohhh, ohhh, ohhh...

Michael Dubriel's Last Column

It's a must-read.

"It's a people business ultimately..."

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.

Hundreds Attend Global Warming Protest

Not a very diverse crowd. Basically a bunch of white people.


Click on the picture for a bigger view. It's pretty impressive.

I can't watch this, maybe you can

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
ended."

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!

Whoopsey...

Source

Great comment thread over at Vox Nervosa

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

A Very Interesting Disputation

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.