Thursday, May 28, 2009

I saw One like a son of man coming...

I've been trying to do this post for a while. Back when I was a CatholicVote junkie, one of the guys on the site, who is, I believe, an atheist, or at least cynical said something that caught my interest and I can't seem to shake it.

The discussion had centered and meandered around abortion, the response of the bishops, Notre Dame, Catholic politicians; you know, non-emotional, non-controversial, non-open-to-misunderstanding kind of discussions. And of course some of the pro-lifers (rightly) quoted Scripture passages about divine judgment, wrath of God, the fate of those who do evil and call it good, etc. One poster on the site made what he thought was a profound and highly insightful comment, which I'll try to reconstruct from memory: "All you 'real Catholics' on here seem like you're filled with anger and judgment. You want to vilify Obama and pro-choice Catholic politicians and you gravitate towards those passages of Scripture that satisfy your bloodlust. It doesn't seem very loving, patient, or kind."

What he and others seem not to understand is that we cannot choose the image of God that we want, at least not completely. Yes, God is the loving Father, the Good Shepherd, the Divine Healer, the spotless Lamb and the protector of orphans and widows, Who said "Let the children come unto me." Yet we cannot forget that Jesus is also the Alpha and Omega, He Who was, and is and is to come. He is a mighty warrior, and the Just Judge (!) who is pictured with the sword of his wrath coming out of his mouth, saying that he will spit us out of His mouth if we are lukewarm.

The comfort of the afflicted, and the affliction of the comfortable is our loving God. We may see these as opposing pictures, but in God they are one.

What do the pictures above say to you?

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Mr. T in all his glory...

CMR directed us to JammieWearingFool to see an hysterical clip of Mr. T singing at Wrigley field.

Here's another video my friend Dan posted on his personal blog last Mother's Day.

I laughed so hard my stomach hurt.

Friday, May 22, 2009


This probably is not what God meant by that whole, "Vengeance is mine" passage...

Letter to the Editor, The Day

Dear Editor,

Was I the only one that noticed that in the article on Monday, May 18, regarding President Obama's speech at Notre Dame, the headline on the front page, above the fold, read "Obama takes on abortion debate," while the continuing headline on page A6 read, "Obama avoids specifics of abortion debate"?

I wonder, how is it possible that he both confronted the debate on abortion and yet avoided it at the same time?

I suggest that the headline should have read, "Obama exploits dissident Catholic school president's folly and arrogance in an attempt to further divide Catholics from their bishops over 1.7 million dead babies per year to appear as a moderate hero." Granted, that's a bit long, but it's much more accurate, and not contradictory.

Update: published by The Day May 27, 2009

Hi. My name is Mike. (Hi Mike.) And sometimes I listen to NPR.

But yesterday I almost drove off the road remembering why I listen less and less frequently. Sure, the news and talk shows can be very informative, and the weekend shows are very funny. But when I tuned in during a commercial break from another station I heard this report, which is the most infuriating thing I've heard in a while.


Kai Ryssdal: Earlier this week the president announced tougher fuel economy and emissions standards for car and truck makers. The White House figures the new rules will save almost two billion barrels of oil over the next nine years and at the same time make it easier for us to breathe. Seems like common sense. But commentator Paul Kedrosky says good economic sense is something else again.

PAUL KEDROSKY: After years of auto companies saying that higher fuel-efficiency standards would bankrupt them, the Obama administration figured out a fix. Cleverly, it wiped out the auto industry first, and then raised fuel standards.

Yeah, that sure was clever of him. (If you're not yet sure if Kedrosky is seriously patting Obama on the back for this or just being tongue-in-cheek, keep reading. It'll become crystal clear in a minute.)

The right calls the standards an unnecessary intrusion into the economic lives of average Americans. If people want to buy massive, steel-clad gunboats and race down highways at top speed, getting 5 miles per gallon, all the while padding the pockets of America-hating fuel exporters, then that should be their right.

Or, God forbid, buying a vehicle big enough to carry their larger-than-1.2-kids-per-family-family around anywhere...

Environmental sorts on the left have complaints too. Some are already saying that 39 miles per gallon is not high enough. They point to Europe, where it is common now for many popular cars to get 50 miles per gallon and more.

But a more compelling criticism comes from recent economics research. To an economist, most things come down to price. A car that gets 39 miles per gallon is cheaper per mile to drive than a car that gets 18 miles per gallon. Make iPods cheaper, and more get sold. Make the cost per mile of driving cheaper, and people will drive more.

OK, there's your first mistake, Houdini. Maybe people will just pocket the money they save to pay their BILLS! He also plays bait and switch by comparing buying a low-cost product that, once bought, is essentially free to operate with buying another product with a highly-inflated purchase price that runs more efficiently but is still expensive to maintain. Genius.

How much more? Research says it may be as much as 10-20 percent. People may not loiter on their way to work, but they will make more discretionary trips with their high-efficiency cars. And that has other effects too, like more highway congestion, and even more accidents and deaths.

More doom and gloom. But Kedrosky changes the subject here because more driving in a more fuel-efficient vehicle is still better for the enviro-crazies. Don't go out to the store to buy milk for the children, dear, that's bound to cause an accident and kill someone. (But wouldn't that in the end mean one less driver on the road polluting the environment?)

Most sane people, even economists, want more efficient cars on the roads. But is the best way to do it making cars cheaper to drive? To an economist, the answer is obvious: we need to make it more expensive to drive, not cheaper. The best way to do that? Raise fuel prices. Higher gas taxes will cause people to drive less, cause emissions to tumble and motivate companies to build and sell more efficient cars. Granted, it might not be the same auto companies doing it, but I think we're all OK with that.

IDIOT! How much discretionary driving does this guy think people do? As far as I know, the Miracle Mile is long gone, cruise nights are quaint and far between, and the driving for driving's sake like in car commercials only happens in car commercials.

I drive from home to work, to the store and back home. My commute is almost an hour. This bonehead proposal would only serve to make it more expensive for me (and millions of others like me) to go to work. It's not going to lessen people's need to drive places. It's one more way that the government would decide who should be doing what, when, how often, and in what way. And Paul Kedrowsky thinks he's the one to decide this?

And I am not OK with taking over American companies, bleeding their few remaining resources and then saddling them with regulations that they can not possibly navigate. Yet Kedrowsky seems to be gloating about it. There's a word for people like that. 3704558.

Furthermore... (sorry, I usually write better the second time) this guy must not understand the concept of taxes. See, taxes are collected in order to pay for necessary goods and services, not so that someone can conduct their social engineering experiments with my family's already stretched finances. Such grand-scheme planning may or may not have the long-term effect that Kedrowsky hopes for, but the immediate financial impact to families like mine is almost certain.

This is why the concept of limited government is so important: to protect our freedom to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from mini-tyrants having the authority to impose their pet projects with real consequences on the rest of us.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

While other bloggers hold their nose in the air,

I am not above the occasional sophomoric cheap shot.

When I saw this picture above, I couldn't help but think of this one.

I'll get to what he said at Notre Dame later on...

Friday, May 8, 2009

Did you ever have to paint around furniture?

In our attempt to cash in on house prices and interest rates being as low as dirt right now, we're trying to get our sardine can ready to sell so we can upgrade it to a shoe. For that reason, blogging is very light lately, as every waking moment at home follows in this regular pattern: compound, sand, paint; compound, sand, paint; compound, sand, paint. The fun part is painting without taking the furniture out of the room, and making sure not to drip paint on the carpet beyond the hastily laid out dropcloth, while holding on to the bed's headboard and not losing balance, stepping into the tray of fresh antique white paint; meanwhile trying to scratch the itch on my nose, as I'm allergic to the dust jackalopes I've kicked up under where the bed used to be...

Say a prayer for me.