Archive for October 4, 2009

On Sept 30th I wrote this:

I personally would be shocked if MSNBC doesn’t pick this up sometime before the week is out.

5 days later we see Rachel Maddow using it without mentioning Robert Stacy by name on Meet the Press. Clever move too, by being ambiguous it allows the accusation to dangle there against Palin and her co-author and doesn’t require any of the people present to confirm her opinion on Robert Stacy she states it as a fact and instead of people having to say it’s BS they talk about “association” as if the charge was true.

Now because it was on Meet the Press it gives MSNBC an excuse to cover it and assures Charles of some screen time.

What a bunch of dishonorable people.

Update: If it only takes place online does it count as a Lesbian Rule 5 Catfight?

One of the things that fascinated me during the Iraq war was the amount of bad information and press that was coming from the MSM.

Basically the media relied on stringers (of dubious source and allegiance) to get general information that could be spun any way that the media desired.

Reading these threads concerning the Sparkman murder it was like those days of yesteryear when the media still thought the war could be lost.

While the SPLC sees little evidence of hate groups targeting the Census Bureau, there isn’t much sympathy for Sparkman on those groups’ Web sites.

Got that even though the Charles’s favorite “civil rights” group says there there is little evidence of the census being targeted Newsweek manages to paint the picture they want to paint.

God forbid they actually deal with someone who was actually there as the Sundries Shack points out:

What is the difference between those two journalists? One of them actually went to Kentucky for three days, spoke to people in Clay and Laurel Counties and filed no fewer than four stories while there.

Guess which one of the two wasn’t in Kentucky? If you said the highly-paid so-called journalist for Newsweek, you win a cookie!

And despite the late Mr. Johnson (when I say the late Mr. Johnson I’m referring to his credibility) says he was not trying to pick up girls he was instead, wait for it…Reporting:

Baseless speculation about this case — and particularly, the attempt by some to make a political symbol of Sparkman’s death — was what motivated me to travel this past week to Kentucky, where I spent three days in Clay County and neighboring Laurel County, where Sparkman lived.

The involvement of the FBI in the case has resulted in an almost complete official silence from state and local law enforcement. However, residents of the area (including local journalists I interviewed at length) are profoundly skeptical of any suggestion that Sparkman was killed because of general “anti-government sentiment” (as the Associated Press was first to suggest) or the more specific “anti-Census sentiment” that is the subject of this Newsweek story.

He elaborates further on his blog which is nice of him since unlike his spectator article it doesn’t guarantee a paycheck for what he says:

It’s a free country, which means everyone is free to speculate how and why Bill Sparkman died. But ill-informed speculation and assumptions are no substitute for facts, and there are still too many unknown facts for anyone to pretend to know the motives of whoever put Sparkman’s body in that cemetery.

If the editors of Newsweek don’t want to pay for solid, sensible, accurate reporting, they need to grab themselves a fresh, hot cup of delicious STFU.

Ah Robert Stacy you forget, Newsweek is not in the business of printing facts, they are in the business of selling magazines to a rapidly diminishing segment of the population that has a particular set of prejudices. If they are not given what they want or expect will the magazine sell? Will their people be interviewed on the talk show circuit? Will they be invited to all the right parties?

It is that same sycophancy that drives Newsweek in this case and Hollywood in the Polanski case. The desire to fit in with the chosen group or the determination that their gravy train is best served by being acceptable to said group.

As for Charles, well I remember the old days when the left figured he was paid, some bloggers have suggested it and it would explain much but I don’t buy it. Why see a conspiracy that there is no evidence for when there is ample evidence of an angry jealous snit?

And have you noticed he always waits till Robert Stacy is out of town or unavailable to launch his attacks?

What a Maroon!

Oh and I didn’t see the Rachel Maddow stuff but anyone who takes her anything resembling seriously is not someone who should be taken seriously either. As Cynthia Yockey says

If Maddow wants to work guilt-by-association on anyone, why didn’t she start with Moammar Gaddafi’s testimonial for Obama when he was running for president, complete with the assertion that he believes Obama is a Muslim? Or Louis Farrakhan’s testimonial for Obama? The last I looked they were on YouTube, fer cryin’ out loud. And isn’t Gaddafi a Muslim supremacist — commanded by Allah to kill all unbelievers? And isn’t Farrakhan a Muslim black supremacist, commanded by Allah to … say really mean things about white people and unbelievers? Why is there no guilt-by-association for Obama with ANY of the murderers, crooks, Commies, kooks, anti-Semites and tax-evaders that comprise the rogues’ gallery of his life-long bosom friends and fellow travelers? Why is there no guilt-by-association for Obama due to his intimate ties to Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn — who missed killing ME by 10 minutes in 1970, Valerie Jarrett, Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Franklin Marshall Davis, just to name a few?

What a joke.

I just listened to the clip, you know when you don’t want to book real conservatives it really limits the number of different people you can have on. I can’t wait till 2010 & 2012. Proving those jokers wrong will be a great pleasure.

…and it was interesting.

When we entered the church I had expected more people since it is the only mass of it’s type in the area but attendance seemed sparse, lower than what I would expect at the regular 8 a.m. mass at my own church. (then again Immaculate Conception is a weaker and smaller parish.)

There were veils available for the women at the entrance to Mass. I was unaware that women were expected to either wear hats or veils when attending, that caught me by surprise.

My mother attended ahead of us and unfortunately sat in a location that put me behind a pillar during most of the mass so it was harder to see what was going on.

A very helpful young lady gave us new Mass books with the Latin/English pages. I actually had two of the old ones from the 40’s on me. The old ones were useful because they had the reference reading for the particular week as opposed to a generic reading at the various locations.

There were a LOT of alter boys and they were kept busy all during mass.

Since there is no alter rail a series of kneelers were lined up at the front during communion.

The mass ran 90 minutes considerably longer than a vernacular mass. The sermon was long as well. The mass was celebrated not by the pastor of the parish but by another priest who I never saw before.

My impressions.

Most of what the priest said was inaudible, I’m still unsure if that was by design or just the acoustics.

The choir was nice and the changes echoed well.

I like receiving kneeling down it reinforces the solemnity of communion and the fact that we are getting the body of Christ.

But overall, I can REALLY see why they changed to the vernacular. It is VERY hard to follow and although my sons have both had either two years of Latin or are in their 2nd year they were constantly lost.

Other than the various standing and sitting on cue there was almost nothing to do. I remember reading this line from the reviews of the pass from my earlier post:

I had the distinct impression that Father, the altar servers, and the choir were actually praying (not acting out roles) as they solemnly carried out their offices with unaffected reverence.

That is true, but unfortunately that doesn’t extend to the people. The Mass is the single greatest prayer to God there is and the public who was there wasn’t praying they were attending, it felt like a mandatory meeting at work rather than the celebration of Mass. I can’t see myself going again and my wife and family are even less inclined to do so.

Now does that mean that the Latin mass shouldn’t be offered? Certainly not!

You have to remember the reasons for Mass:

To worship God

To receive communion

To preach the Gospel and to teach

And the overall purpose of all of these things is the saving of souls. That is the bottom line of the Church. All it does should be toward that goal. As Paul says:

Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law – though I myself am not under the law – to win over those under the law. To those outside the law I became like one outside the law – though I am not outside God’s law but within the law of Christ – to win over those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some. All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a share in it. 1 Cor 9:19-23

For some the Latin Mass bring them closer in their faith journey to the Lord, to others it may seem an obstacle. Remember what I said once before:

You know we Catholics have daily mass, we have the sacrament of confession, we have the Holy Eucharist, we have the Rosary, we have Sunday mass, we have the Blessed Sacrament, we have Sacred Scripture.

All of these things are there on a daily basis waiting for us to take advantage of them to bring us closer to Christ. How many Catholics take advantage of them?

The Latin mass has a place in bringing people to Christ as does all the other tools that the Church provides. If it is a useful tool for you than by all means take advantage of it. If not that’s fine too but lets not throw it away.

Update: Consider this:

“ ghorgh SoH tlhob, jatlh, ‘ maj vav Daq chal, may lIj pong taH polta’ le’. May lIj Kingdom ghoS. May lIj DIchDaq taH ta’pu’ Daq tera’, as ‘oH ghaH Daq chal. | nob maH jaj Sum jaj maj daily tIr Soj. | Forgive maH maj yemmey, vaD maH ourselves je forgive Hoch ‘Iv ghaH indebted Daq maH. qem maH ghobe’ Daq temptation, ‘ach toD maH vo’ the mIghtaHghach wa’.’”

That is believe it or not, the Our Father. In the end it doesn’t matter if you say it in Latin, English or as above in Klingon. If you say it in prayer to the glory of God, it will be heard.

VDH latest (not quoted by LGF) points out some flaws in the current president in terms of foreign policy.

Here is the problem for our President: the Iranian negotiation is an IED that will blow up in our faces. The theocrats want, need a bomb for a variety of reasons (why would a country that burns natural gas off at the oil well head need “peaceful” nuclear power?). Bombs have been a win/win situation for both Pakistan and North Korea. If Iran wins, we are off to the races—Saudi Arabia next, Egypt? Syria? Venezuela?

I hope the President is up to encouraging madcap drilling in the Alaska, Gulf, California, and the Dakotas to get these new finds into production, since if or when the Israelis strike, all hell is going to let loose in the Gulf. Cannot someone tell Obama that the moral, the peaceful, the only realistic thing now is to get tough with Iran through ostracism, sanctions, boycotts, even, heaven forbid, a blockade if need be, to prevent the far more terrible scenarios that lie ahead?

The problem here is a person is who he is: President Obama is an inexperienced Machine Pol who parlayed personal charisma, a weak republican opponent (at least at the top of the ticket) a fawning media, a country desperate to put race behind them, and an overconfident Hillary Clinton into the presidency.

No matter how much I might not like this situation he IS our president duly elected. He has not committed any impeachable offense and I doubt he is likely to. He is the man in Charge until at least Jan of 2013 and that’s that.

It is only the 10th of 48 months just over a fifth of his terms so things can turn around, and this president has some intrinsic advantages.

1. His relative youth:

As a 40 something guy I think he is less likely to be set in his ways. It is very possible that he can learn from his current mistakes and make smarter moves.

2. An Experienced VP:

We laugh a bit at Joe Biden gaffes but he has decades of experience (He really should have been on the top of the ticket) and is a lot smarter than he carries himself. He can give some advice if this president is willing to listen.

3. His own ego:

Nobody likes to lose. I don’t think this president wants to be the fellow who lost Afghanistan and Iran. This more than anything else has the potential to push him in the right direction, particularly since he has a long life ahead of him and he is does fail he will be hearing about it for decades.

4. The best military in the world bar none:

In anything resembling a shooting war there is absolutely no military force better than ours, not INCLUDING ISRAEL. Why am I willing to include Israel in that? Because we have tens of thousands of troops with direct combat experience. This is one of the few good side effects of any war. There is no substitute to actual field experience. Combine that with the training and the equipment and nobody can stand against our troops.

5. An experienced security infrastructure:

We tease about threat levels and some moan about the patriot act but the bottom line is that we haven’t been hit in 8+ years and we still break up terror threats successfully. This is quite a record and all those in law enforcement should take a bow.

6. Political reality:

It doesn’t matter if it comes from a change in congress in 2010 or a shift by the sitting congress due to self interest. The desire to protect one’s seat is a great motivator to get people to do the right thing.

What can we do?

So what do we do, well on the domestic front we continue what he have done, and object to bad policy that will cause long term hurt to the country.

On the foreign policy front we support candidates who look at the world the way it is instead of figuring a coexist bumper sticker is going to make people love us.

And if you are religious pray for the country and for our president. He is still our president and it is in our interest for him to do the right thing. So pray that he gains strength and wisdom.

And remember this to keep the eyes on the prize, what do I mean by that. I mean this:

It is better for us to have a president Obama who keeps Iran from getting nukes, wins the war in Afghanistan, and keeps America from being successfully attacked and thus wins re-election than for him to fail in these tasks and be replaced by a president Palin.

You want a president to advance a goal, if the goals are met it doesn’t matter who is in the white house.

Anyway that’s what I think.