They killed our ambassador in Libya. They stormed our embassy in Cairo and replaced our flag with Al Qaeda's. On September 11.
Naturally, our fearless leader apologizes to them for not being sufficiently humble in our dhimmitude. This was an act of war, and our president is shouldering the blame (or rather, dumping it on us).
Meanwhile, our guardians of free speech are calling for Christians here in America (who actually had nothing to do with it anyway) to be prosecuted for the whole disgusting spectacle.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Just in time for the 9/11 anniversary...
Egyptian protesters are scaling the walls of the American embassy and Libyans have burned the American consulate, because some Christians over here have offended them.
Here's where we find out whether the Muslim Brotherhood's promises to protect Copts actually mean diddly. I'm predicting a bloodbath, but obviously I hope I'm wrong.
Here's where we find out whether the Muslim Brotherhood's promises to protect Copts actually mean diddly. I'm predicting a bloodbath, but obviously I hope I'm wrong.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Friday, September 07, 2012
Chele
Chele is my second cousin, although genetically I suppose she's more my first cousin. Or one-and-a-halfth, maybe? Her grandfather and mine were brothers, and our grandmothers were sisters. Someday I'll sit down and puzzle it out.
Anyway, I met Chele and her brother when they visited my grandparents in Goldendale around 1980 or so. She was two years older than I was and he was right in between, so we hit it off pretty well. Chele's family had been in Germany at the same time my grandparents were, so they'd grown pretty close. In fact, to hear my grandpa talk, Chele and her brother were the best grandchildren they'd ever had. (I mentioned them here.) She was a nice girl, if somewhat reserved. Being the hyperactive boy I was, I didn't really notice.
I saw Chele off and on at family functions over our teenage years. She shows up in this video a couple of times: a pretty, dark-haired 19- or 20-year-old. The last time I actually saw her was in 1994, when my dad was in the hospital for the last time. She looked nothing like the girl I remembered. She was wearing heavy makeup and tight clothing, and she generally had the look of an angry woman who had grown up too quickly and with too little self-worth. I was kind of sad for her. I didn't know why.
Now I know why.
I read her blog from beginning to end this morning with my jaw dropped. I had no idea.
Chele has been through hell and come out singed but standing tall. I'm proud that she's my kin.
Anyway, I met Chele and her brother when they visited my grandparents in Goldendale around 1980 or so. She was two years older than I was and he was right in between, so we hit it off pretty well. Chele's family had been in Germany at the same time my grandparents were, so they'd grown pretty close. In fact, to hear my grandpa talk, Chele and her brother were the best grandchildren they'd ever had. (I mentioned them here.) She was a nice girl, if somewhat reserved. Being the hyperactive boy I was, I didn't really notice.
I saw Chele off and on at family functions over our teenage years. She shows up in this video a couple of times: a pretty, dark-haired 19- or 20-year-old. The last time I actually saw her was in 1994, when my dad was in the hospital for the last time. She looked nothing like the girl I remembered. She was wearing heavy makeup and tight clothing, and she generally had the look of an angry woman who had grown up too quickly and with too little self-worth. I was kind of sad for her. I didn't know why.
Now I know why.
I read her blog from beginning to end this morning with my jaw dropped. I had no idea.
Chele has been through hell and come out singed but standing tall. I'm proud that she's my kin.
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
Comment issues
Okay, I have the old Haloscan comments imported into Disqus. They show up on my admin site, but not on the actual blog. Still trying to figure out why.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Once upon a time, a junkman had a dream...
With the passing of both Andy Griffith and Neil Armstrong this summer, this film has been at the top of my mind lately. I just rewatched it (along with several episodes of the mediocre spin-off TV series) during my vacation last week. Here's the whole thing:
I remember watching "Salvage" when it aired on TV, my best friend and I spread out in our sleeping bags on the living room floor with popcorn and cheap-o candy, being fascinated with the special effects and the thought that, darn it, this was possible.
Y'know, the 1970s get a bad rap for being a time of malaise and diffidence for America, but that's not how I remember them. In 1979, we were three years past the rah-rah of the bicentennial and still confident with the feeling that America could do anything it wanted to. The Cold War was a background fact of life, but the nihilism that would shape the 1980s hadn't affected us pre-teens yet. In that world, a junkman could still use his know-how and moxie and go to the moon. And if anyone could do it, it would be Andy Griffith. Everybody else remembers him as Sheriff Taylor or Matlock, but to me, he'll always be Harry.
I remember watching "Salvage" when it aired on TV, my best friend and I spread out in our sleeping bags on the living room floor with popcorn and cheap-o candy, being fascinated with the special effects and the thought that, darn it, this was possible.
Y'know, the 1970s get a bad rap for being a time of malaise and diffidence for America, but that's not how I remember them. In 1979, we were three years past the rah-rah of the bicentennial and still confident with the feeling that America could do anything it wanted to. The Cold War was a background fact of life, but the nihilism that would shape the 1980s hadn't affected us pre-teens yet. In that world, a junkman could still use his know-how and moxie and go to the moon. And if anyone could do it, it would be Andy Griffith. Everybody else remembers him as Sheriff Taylor or Matlock, but to me, he'll always be Harry.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Amish population increasing
Let's see... they have sex that isn't sterile, raise their children with a strong faith structure, and live out what they believe under the surface as well as on it. And they're flourishing.
Could there be a connection there?
Nah.
Akubra tip to Tim Challies.
Nah.
Akubra tip to Tim Challies.
Comments should be working now
But I still haven't figured out how to import the old ones from Echo. Let me know if the new system gives you grief.
Prayers for a shepherd
Cardinal George, the brilliant former bishop of Yakima who went on to some obscure place called Chicago, has had his second cancer diagnosis. We need more leaders like him.
So where's the problem?
Our elders are perfectly copacetic with sucking up all the resources and leaving us to clean up the mess and pay the bills. After all, isn't that why they let some of us live to be born?
Friday, August 17, 2012
Not dead yet!
Although it probably looks that way. Bit by bit I'm resurrecting my blog. I lost my sidebar in the changeover to the new template (thank you, Blogger!), so I'm plugging links back in as I remember them. If you used to be there, or just ought to be, leave me a comment and I'll rectify the situation.
Which reminds me: I need to reopen comments as well. If anyone is still reading this (besides Graveyard Dog - thanks for the holler!), I'd love to know. Boost an old blogger's ego a bit, why don't you?
Thursday, June 28, 2012
A little maintenance
On the off-chance anybody is still coming by and reading this blog, you will have noticed the new template. I'm still updating it along with trying to get comments imported, as Echo is shutting down its comment system in October and I want to get a jump on it. So far I have Disqus more or less installed, but I'm still trying to import the old comments into it.
Meanwhile, I'm disabling commenting until I can get it straightened out. I'll also be replenishing my sidebar as soon as time allows.
Of course, given how seldom I've been posting lately, who's likely to notice anyway?
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Who was Hiram Cronk?
The last man alive to have taken up arms for the United States against the British Empire, that's who. His funeral procession was preserved on film in 1905:
I have to wonder what he would have thought a dozen years later when American boys fought alongside British soldiers. More good stuff about the War of 1812 here.
I have to wonder what he would have thought a dozen years later when American boys fought alongside British soldiers. More good stuff about the War of 1812 here.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Gotta love bullies... or else!
So it seems a fast-food company has been making donations to pro-gay-marriage organization. In retaliation, Fundamentalists are demanding that public universities ban the chain from their campuses. They basically can't stand the idea that anyone who doesn't follow their narrow, self-righteous superstitions could be allowed to do business at government-supported schools. Trying to force their beliefs on us all and push an agenda of discrimination and hate. What's worse, these schools are knuckling under. Who the hell do these people think they are to tell us who we can do business with?
Angry? Of course you are.
How about now?
Addendum: The last thing we need is voices of so-called "reason" like this guy claiming that the Civil Rights Act applies to bitter-clinging godbotherers. The h8er.
Angry? Of course you are.
How about now?
Addendum: The last thing we need is voices of so-called "reason" like this guy claiming that the Civil Rights Act applies to bitter-clinging godbotherers. The h8er.
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
A little presidential history
Do you realize that (barring a last-minute miracle for Ron Paul) this year will mark the first presidential election since 1924 in which neither candidate has seen military service?
There was a spate of service-less elections in the early twentieth century, but those were all contests between men who had come of age in the late 1800s, when the military was mostly composed of professional soldiers and it was unusual for a young man to serve and then go on with his life.
Heck, the latter half of the nineteenth century and most of the twentieth were dominated by veterans of the War Between the States and the Second World War, respectively. Every president between 1945 and 1980 was a combat veteran. (To his credit, President Reagan served but was not allowed into combat service.)
Newt, Rick, Mitt and Barack are all guys who had ample opportunity to serve their country and instead stayed home safe. Embarrassing. I hope it's not going to be a trend. The willingness to place one's body between one's home and danger is a crucial part of what makes a good statesman. And a man who is going to be the commander-in-chief of the armed forces ought to have done his time in those forces.
Disclaimer: I never served myself. I paid a visit to an army recruiter in high school, but was turned down because of my childhood asthma, and I never made any further effort to enlist. To my lasting regret.
There was a spate of service-less elections in the early twentieth century, but those were all contests between men who had come of age in the late 1800s, when the military was mostly composed of professional soldiers and it was unusual for a young man to serve and then go on with his life.
Heck, the latter half of the nineteenth century and most of the twentieth were dominated by veterans of the War Between the States and the Second World War, respectively. Every president between 1945 and 1980 was a combat veteran. (To his credit, President Reagan served but was not allowed into combat service.)
Newt, Rick, Mitt and Barack are all guys who had ample opportunity to serve their country and instead stayed home safe. Embarrassing. I hope it's not going to be a trend. The willingness to place one's body between one's home and danger is a crucial part of what makes a good statesman. And a man who is going to be the commander-in-chief of the armed forces ought to have done his time in those forces.
Disclaimer: I never served myself. I paid a visit to an army recruiter in high school, but was turned down because of my childhood asthma, and I never made any further effort to enlist. To my lasting regret.
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
A chilling thought
Up to now, I've been assuming that the HHS mandate was simply a colossal misstep on the president's part, thinking that because so many Catholics contracept, he could get away with demanding that the Church buy them contraception. I figured it was going to backfire on him in the election. We make up a fifth of the country, after all, and a majority of Catholics voted for him the last time around. Depriving them of their first amendment rights seems like a sure-fire way to lose in November.
But last night, it occurred to me: what if the president has been reading history and knows exactly what he's doing? What if he's familiar with the Edmunds-Tucker Act?
For those who are maybe less brushed up on religious suppression than our Dear Leader, the Edmunds-Tucker Act outlawed the Mormon church, allowed the government to confiscate its property, and denied the franchise to any practicing Mormon. Incredibly, it was upheld by the Supreme Court, and remained on the books until 1978, although the 1890 manifesto renouncing polygamy made it irrelevant. (Incidentally, one of the petitioners in the case was Mitt Romney's great-uncle.)
Currently, the Catholic Church operates 625 hospitals, 230 colleges and universities and God only knows how many charities (adoption agencies, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, hospices, and so on). What's to stop our Democratic Overlords from confiscating all those institutions and using them as building blocks for a single-payer system? He's already shown that he thinks of the First Amendment as legal Charmin. Why should he respect any of our other rights if he gets away with it the first time?
I suspected this might be coming three years ago, but I didn't think it would ever get to this point, and certainly not on a federal level.
As much as I hate to say it, if the administration won't back down on this point, then the bishops need to close the institutions that aren't covered. Immediately, so that the government doesn't have a chance to seize them. If Obama wants to get us out of the charity field, he's welcome to try, but under no circumstances should we provide him with the facilities he so desperately wants to pervert to immoral uses. I know it's harsh to withdraw so much good from the needy (who aren't to blame for this whole disaster in the first place), but if the alternative is to render unto Caesar the things that are God's, then I don't see that we have much choice.
But last night, it occurred to me: what if the president has been reading history and knows exactly what he's doing? What if he's familiar with the Edmunds-Tucker Act?
For those who are maybe less brushed up on religious suppression than our Dear Leader, the Edmunds-Tucker Act outlawed the Mormon church, allowed the government to confiscate its property, and denied the franchise to any practicing Mormon. Incredibly, it was upheld by the Supreme Court, and remained on the books until 1978, although the 1890 manifesto renouncing polygamy made it irrelevant. (Incidentally, one of the petitioners in the case was Mitt Romney's great-uncle.)
Currently, the Catholic Church operates 625 hospitals, 230 colleges and universities and God only knows how many charities (adoption agencies, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, hospices, and so on). What's to stop our Democratic Overlords from confiscating all those institutions and using them as building blocks for a single-payer system? He's already shown that he thinks of the First Amendment as legal Charmin. Why should he respect any of our other rights if he gets away with it the first time?
I suspected this might be coming three years ago, but I didn't think it would ever get to this point, and certainly not on a federal level.
As much as I hate to say it, if the administration won't back down on this point, then the bishops need to close the institutions that aren't covered. Immediately, so that the government doesn't have a chance to seize them. If Obama wants to get us out of the charity field, he's welcome to try, but under no circumstances should we provide him with the facilities he so desperately wants to pervert to immoral uses. I know it's harsh to withdraw so much good from the needy (who aren't to blame for this whole disaster in the first place), but if the alternative is to render unto Caesar the things that are God's, then I don't see that we have much choice.
Friday, February 03, 2012
Pissed off to the point of derangement
(Sorry for the language in this one. But I think it's warranted.)
You know, I promised when he was elected that I wouldn't succumb to Obama Derangement Syndrome. And I think I've stuck pretty well to that. I haven't mocked his teleprompter or claimed that he really was so stupid that he thought there were 57 states. I haven't freaked out at his every move and shouted that he was going to clap us all into concentration camps. Overall, I think I've been pretty respectful to the president.
But that ends now. I want that back-stabbing sonofabitch out of office, whether by election or impeachment. I want his name so besmirched that Democratic politicians will beg him not to endorse them. I want his legacy to be on a par with Nixon's. Catholics (not me, but plenty of others) tipped the scales in his favor in the election, and this is how he repays them?
On second thought, forget the Catholic part. I'm not angry on behalf of my church, but of my country. We're American citizens, God damn it, and we will not be stripped of our guarantee of free exercise of religion. Not by Barack Obama, and not by anybody else. If this be derangement, so be it.
You know, I promised when he was elected that I wouldn't succumb to Obama Derangement Syndrome. And I think I've stuck pretty well to that. I haven't mocked his teleprompter or claimed that he really was so stupid that he thought there were 57 states. I haven't freaked out at his every move and shouted that he was going to clap us all into concentration camps. Overall, I think I've been pretty respectful to the president.
But that ends now. I want that back-stabbing sonofabitch out of office, whether by election or impeachment. I want his name so besmirched that Democratic politicians will beg him not to endorse them. I want his legacy to be on a par with Nixon's. Catholics (not me, but plenty of others) tipped the scales in his favor in the election, and this is how he repays them?
On second thought, forget the Catholic part. I'm not angry on behalf of my church, but of my country. We're American citizens, God damn it, and we will not be stripped of our guarantee of free exercise of religion. Not by Barack Obama, and not by anybody else. If this be derangement, so be it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)