http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcSm-KAEFFA
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis
INSERT *** HEREAll articles referenced are copied in full at end of post.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Diary,
Today I learned that if Florida State universities could only redirect 37% of their office supplies budget towards Cuban street croquette makers ... yada yada yada ... another day, another plan to redirect the lawn chairs on the Cuban Titanic. I can assure the apologists for the Cuban regime that their efforts are not in vain. I take pleasure in their failure.
One of my favorite Far Side cartoons had a dog standing on its hind legs and pointing a gun at it's owners as they ate dinner. The caption read: "I'm THROUGH begging!" That dog must have had more heart than the Castro brothers. I know this because far from being bothered by the fact that their country is sustained by the scraps from one US working class immigrant community, the Castro brothers are actually pining for a bigger bowl.
Finally, communist leadership has turned Cuba into the type of country that a Harry Callahan can love, one that knows its limitations. If I was a better Catholic, I wouldn't be able to take off my Catholic 'hat.' But since I'm not, it comes off, sometimes unconsciously, but sometimes not. When it's off and I think of Cuba, there is no pity. There is an appreciation for the concept that ideas have consequences, especially bad ones. And I think that is a good thing.
For my parents generation, and specifically for my Father who is longer around to see it, when I see what has become of those who kept him away from the country he loved and would not allow him to attend the funeral of his Mother, then there truly is no pity. That part of me looks forward to day -- I expect this scene to be repeated often until death do me part -- when I ask those who were committed Communists or who defend family that were, how it feels to have been so spectacularly wrong.
However, I will not press that point too strongly. Because I'd like the conversation to move on to the question of which personality traits are required to live day after day, year after year, in such a terrible system. When we hit about three personality traits [resourcefulness, etc.] that is when I plan to engage. Because the point that I truly wish to make -- hat in hand no doubt -- is to ask why cowardice isn't on the list?
At that point, it really doesn't matter what is said after. In effect, I seek to leave a neutron-like bomb in their thoughts. I don't have a vested interest in when it goes off. As long as I know that I have used every ounce of street and book smarts at my disposal to be confident that it will go off at some point. When H. Lector induced a fellow inmate to commit suicide, I took notes.
I can't stand the thought of those complicit in the governance of Castro's Cuba not being haunted by their involvement for the rest of their lives. I swear that I have fantasies about calling out communist sympathizers at my nursing home. Exposing their true allegiances during bingo. You know the old saying, 'if you can see it despite the cataracts....'
Putting my 'hat' back on and thinking about the Caribbean. There is one country that deserves our prayers and money. A country in who a significant part of the country was not complicit in its misery. That country is Haiti.
But I will never forget Cuba. You see my dog's food bowl is getting a little run down. I was going to throw it away, but if can help just one Communist party member, then it will be worth it. I just have to find a way to get it to them. Brother, can you spare a corner of that gusano? Hey, they won't even need to change the name, Fifi [spelled El-Meon in Arabic].
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10105/1050765-100.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/sports/football/10nfl.html?scp=18&sq=Roethlisberger&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/sports/football/16steelers.html?scp=3&sq=Roethlisberger%20and%20DNA&st=cse
Remember the scene in A Few Good Men, where the [cruise] confronts [jack] with the inconsistency in his testimony
If Roethlisberger did not assault the young woman, why were they disappointed in his behavior - which part of the story is more unbelievable - that 4 young women who attend a junior college decided to frame a
benefir of the doubt
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/221673-steelers-ben-roethlisberger-a-rapist
INSERT *** HERE
All articles referenced are copied in full at end of post.
----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
http://blog.beliefnet.com/deaconsbench/2010/10/homer-simpson-catholic.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1Q8uWv4kUQ
INSERT *** HEREAll articles referenced are copied in full at end of post.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H/T to Paco.<>
INSERT *** HEREAll articles referenced are copied in full at end of post.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cuba Study Group is a
These are actual headlines:
We all want a long life right? I'm torn between the views of Woody Allen and Thomas à Kempis:
He'd always admired logical people. We tend to admire that which we lack. Logical was good, logical should have meant no regrets. So being logical about his faith had brought him to this point.
The point of life was to love and serve God. God is best served through service to our fellow man, the least among us the better. We know from experience that we as humans will sin despite our best intentions. God gives us the sacrament of reconciliation so that we can achieve or return to a state of grace.
But that always struck him as a bizarrely unsatisfactory arrangement. Let me get this straight, he thought, we basically play musical chairs with our eternal salvation. Knowing that we will sin and knowing that death comes like a thief in the night, how do we sleep at night? Most of us sleep just fine. The next thought hit him hard. Those who sleep well at night do so because they don't really believe. They don't really believe in Hell. They have soft thoughts becasue they don't have the heart to see how badly they fail god on a daily basis. they avert their eyes from the truth of depth of their unbelief and then hope that god will have mercy upon their soles
Man that's not good enough. I mean seriously, if there's a God, a Heaven and Hell and the Bible is meant to be read, studied, meditated upon and mostly prayed over, - then 99% of the Catholics he knew, including himself were engaged in wishful, and frankly irresponsible and or negligent wishful thinking. he was on that road to. but something happened - he had a moement of, cant really call it grace - more like a clarity about a dream, which like remembering dreams he expected to fade away but it didn't - it came more and more into into focus as time passed
not to put to fine a point on it - but basically he needed to achieve a state of grace and hope to die - not suicide of course - but there are plenty of dangerous jobs out there
i mean to the extent we want to live, isnt t hat hedging our bets that the life we know here is it?
INSERT *** HERE
All articles referenced are copied in full at end of post.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I will be at the game - pre-posting - 1st two games were memorable
cincinatti again
didnt knwo who Maddux was, neither did he
fri game - http://www.baseball-almanac.com/box-scores/boxscore.php?boxid=198809020CHN
sat game - http://www.baseball-almanac.com/box-scores/boxscore.php?boxid=198809030CHN
maddux - http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=maddugr01
INSERT *** HERE
All articles referenced are copied in full at end of post.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There is font and then there is font
INSERT *** HERE
All articles referenced are copied in full at end of post.
----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
http://www.nba.com/cavaliers/news/gilbert_letter_100708.html
The Isles
Product Details
1296 pages; 20 maps, 35 halftones, 17 maps, 2 line illus; 6-1/8 x 9-1/4; ISBN13: 978-0-19-513442-1ISBN10: 0-19-513442-7
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/British/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5NTEzNDQyMQ==
http://www.identifont.com/
Before you have even one word of conversation with anyone about the Heat today, you need to get them on the record in response to one question. The question's genesis is rooted in more serious topics -- from friend and occasional guest blogger Wichi -- but can be relevant elsewhere. The question is, in or out?
Do they think the Heat will win this year? Yes or no. If the person attempts to answer that they believe the Heat can win, if they do a better job of ... yada yada yada. Please inform them that that was not the question being asked and make a note that you are dealing with a weasel [i.e. Yankee fan]. Then ask them again, slowly, do they think the Heat will win this year?
File the answer away in a safe place. If their answer today is no and the Heat go on to win the NBA Championship, it is your job to remind them of their answer for the rest of their natural lives. Trust me on this one, the joy derived from such reminders will rival any fun derived from the actual team win.
Assuming we expand Teddy Roosevelt's 'Man in the Arena' concept to include those who support those literally in the Arena, then today's Heat detractors fit the "cold and timid souls" description nicely.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.Like the upcoming recall, I'm in with a yes.
Before Egyptian protests initially began on Jan 25th, Robert Kagan had an Op-Ed in the Jan 23rd Washington Post which stated the following:
But sometimes American policy is as incomprehensible as it is regrettable, as damaging to our interests as to our ideals. Consider the case of two countries: Colombia and Egypt. They're both important to American interests. Colombia is on the front lines in the war against narcotics traffickers and narcoterrorists in Latin America. It is a staunch pro-American ally in a region threatened by Venezuela's tyrannical Hugo Chavez and his various cronies in Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua. Egypt has been an important player in the Arab world; it maintains a cold but durable peace with Israel and is an ally against Iran and in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism. Both Colombia and Egypt have received billions of dollars in U.S. aid over the years.For now, the amazing the timing of Kagan's comments -- in effect having history confirm his analysis in a matter of days -- is overshadowing the 2nd country in his analysis. Why the hostility towards Colombia by the Obama Administration? Why would an Administration struggling to 'appear' more amenable to free-market solutions oppose a free-trade agreement negotiated and signed five years ago with a strong ally? I think the answer is tied to the reasons the Administration supported former President Zelaya's efforts to replicate a Chavez-stlye subversion of democracy in Honduras.
Now for the differences. Colombia is a democratic success story. Once plagued by guerrilla insurgencies and murderous paramilitaries, with wealthy drug lords controlling major cities, Colombia is in the midst of a political and economic renaissance. Under the brilliant and enlightened democratic leadership of Alvaro Uribe for eight years, the narcoterrorist FARC was beaten back, the drug cartels of Cali and Medellin were all but destroyed, and a poor human rights record began to improve. Last summer Colombia held free and fair presidential elections, and already, Juan Manuel Santos has demonstrated a remarkably open and liberal approach to governing. As The Post's Juan Forero recently reported, Santos has pushed legislation to compensate victims of Colombia's long guerrilla war, including those who suffered at the hands of security forces. He is trying to return millions of acres stolen from campesinos by corrupt politicians. In a world where democracy is retreating and authoritarianism is advancing, Colombia stands out brightly against the trend.
The WSJ's great Mary Anastasia O'Grady reports on one country's efforts to create free-market oriented cities. The country has leaders who make the type of statements noted below.
Leader 1 - What I love about the concept is two things. First, that we will employ the best practices from similar projects around the world that have been successful. Second that it is entirely voluntary for people to move in. They are the ones who will protect it.Pop quiz: The above quotes come from one of the following [as in all multiple-choice questions, 2 of the possible answers are absurd]:
Leader 2 - If we want to develop we have to find a way to counterbalance the populism that causes us so much harm. The model city is a way of decentralizing power and connecting people to their government.
What about the trade-offs? Chief among them is data speed. I performed scores of speed tests on the two phones, which I used primarily in Washington, and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs, and for part of one day at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport. In these many tests, despite a few Verizon victories here and there, AT&T’s network averaged 46% faster at download speeds and 24% faster at upload speeds. This speed difference was noticeable while doing tasks like downloading large numbers of emails, or waiting for complicated Web pages to load. AT&T’s speeds varied more while Verizon’s were more consistent, but overall, AT&T was more satisfying at cellular data.
Also, because Verizon’s iPhone—like most other Verizon phones—doesn’t work on the world-wide GSM mobile-phone standard, you can’t use it in most countries outside the U.S. AT&T’s iPhone does work on this standard, and can be used widely abroad, albeit at very high roaming rates. In the midst of my testing, I had to travel to Hong Kong, one of the few countries where the Verizon iPhone functions. But even there, it only worked for voice, not data, at least in the areas where I was working. The AT&T model handled both voice and data everywhere I tried it there.
There are various one-liners ricocheting off each other in my head. The lines are like pliant pets, once in the brain, their sole purpose is to be ready if called to the vortex by some seemingly random triggering event, irrespective of the period they spent dormant. More than one of those lines came from a Woody Allen movie or book [p.48 plz]. One of the lines entailed Allen patiently explaining to his dinner hosts that he would gladly eat any meat they would have cooked, given that he only practices vegetarianism at home. Since then, whenever I spot half-hearted wannabe posers, other than in the mirror, the movie scene plays in my head.
The latest triggering event came as a result of a Catholic men's group, Emmaus, which I am a part of, and how we handle paying for meals when we get a large group together. [Vortex discharge - Mel Brooks line about the waiter at the Last Supper asking, 'separate checks?']. We began to have an issue that those of us who remained to pay for the bill often had to put in additional money. We quickly decided that everybody pays $20 -- most of the menu is around $10-12 plus a couple of pitchers and appetizers for the group -- problem seemingly solved.
Except that it turns out that if people showed up and weren't that hungry, had recently measured their cholesterol, or were just allowing their liver's to dry out, then the $20 flat rate got a little grating. In addition, once the flat rate went into effect, the advantage clearly shifted from the cheap bastards to the stragglers. Now instead of having to fork over more money, we were left with excess funds despite a generous tip. Returning the money was viewed as impractical. [Vortex discharge - Barzini .... 'after all we're not Communists'].
I forget what came first, the idea that returning the excess funds was impractical or the Ice Cream Snickers bars. See what we decided to do with the excess monies was to eat Ice Cream Snickers bars until the excess funds were used up. I've bought and eaten Ice Cream Snickers bars all across this great country of ours, but none have tasted as good as those paid for by my unsuspecting brethren in the Faith.
Nothing like a little real world research -- or as we like to say in Miami, 'see this is why communism is such a disaster' -- among friends in the faith to expose and confirm certain sociological / economic ideas.
I thought of that old joke, y'know, the, this... this guy goes to a psychiatrist and says, "Doc, uh, my brother's crazy; he thinks he's a chicken." And, uh, the doctor says, "Well, why don't you turn him in?" The guy says, "I would, but I need the eggs."H/T to Alex for idea.
Recently, a Cuban government ministry [i.e. the Castros] issued a comically ungrateful statement bemoaning the fact that the recent Obama administration loosening of travel restrictions did not go far enough.
It made me wonder what a Cuban government official would say if they could speak with impunity.
Do you think your statement will have an effect?
No, but it gives our compañeros in the press an excuse to repeat our appeals.
Is pleading for compassion for a such miserably failed state really in your best interests at this point?
Clearly it may have reached its limits, but we are all grateful for the work. If you would of heard of some of the ideas we rejected, perhaps you would understand why we do what we do.
OK I'll bite, like what?
We have studies which show that Cuban-Americans getting Federal aid through Medicaid are only sending us 19% of their net remittances. That number was in the mid 20's just a few years ago. We believe they can and should do better.
Why haven't they been as generous?
Frankly, the trend towards the use of ALF's--not this kind--has been a serious blow to the Revolution's financial planning. We hope to see some improvement by the so-called death panels. The end of life spending is just out of control.
What will you do now?
Our options are limited, once a patient is accepted ....
No, I meant the Cuban government.
Well my mandate is to get the remittance number into the 30's.
Does not seem terribly realistic.
I view it as my personal sugar harvest quota. Look, no one likes to say it, but given the realities of the shift in Congress, a tragic humanitarian event is our best chance to move the needle on this issue.
Like a hurricane?
Yeah, but we're not even in season. Then again, I was sure in 2008 that Hurricane Ike was our meal ticket. That's one of the negative side effects of being part of such a lengthy revolution, all our assumptions get to play themselves out. It's been a problem truthfully.
That was impressive. You just described the government's ongoing abject failure in neutral terms.
Like Allen Iverson says, practice, practice, practice. In Castro's Cuba, progress is exclusive to the future.
Seriously, no Plan B.
Hey this is a 50 year old regime. The Mouse That Roared wasn't just a movie to us, it represented a plan. We've been propped up by countries in four continents and outsourced to a fifth -- we hate the cold and Australians.
Plan B? We're on plan Omega brother.
Lyrics from a melancholy acoustic guitar ballad about a break-up:
Yesterday,Jon Gruden turned down the opportunity to coach the University of Miami's football team. Here's one perspective on why the megalomaniacal albino's no, while clearly not the act of a friend, may not be a bad thing.
All my troubles seemed so far away,
Now it looks as though they're here to stay,
Oh, I believe in yesterday.
Index of Liberal Catholic Warriors for the Faith:
Three pages into Three Thousand Years and I have an issue. A new low.
Advent is a good reminder to attempt to deepen the faith. So when I read great things about Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years, I bought the used book and began to read with little expectations of finishing the 1,016 page book, but expecting to gain a better historical perspective in specific areas which interested me. The author, Diarmaid MacCulloch, was apparently a lapsed Anglican who was raised in the faith and treated his subject with respect.
Using my Mortimer Adler training, I began with the part of the book which most interested me, Chapter 3: A Crucified Messiah. Just three pages in I came across my first bomb:
Luke's birth narrative, the more elaborate [Matthew is the other] explains that Jesus's parents traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem at the time of Jesus's birth because they had to comply with the residence terms of a Roman imperial census for tax purposes .... This does not ring true ... Roman authorities would not have held a census in a client kingdom of the empire such as Herod's, and in any case there is no record elsewhere of such an empire-wide census, which would certainly have left traces around the Mediterranean. The story seems to embody a confusion with a well-attested Roman imperial census which certainly did happen, but in 6 CE, far too late for the birth of Jesus [the birth is estimated between 7 and 4 BE], and long remembered as a traumatic event because it was the first real taste of what direct Roman rule meant for Judea. The suspicion therefore arises that someone writing a good deal later, rather hazy about the chronology of decades before, has been fairly cavalier with the story of Jesus's birth, for reasons other than retrieving events as they actually happened.In a thousand page book, I expected to read a lot of hedging about conflicting accounts. But here MacCulloch calls Luke a liar [naturally using testosterone-deficient language, i.e. cavalier], with no attempt to reconcile the dates giving Luke the benefit of the doubt. What a prick.
Critics have challenged Luke's statement because they claim Josephus, a Jewish historian, placed this [census] at least ten years later [6 CE] after Archelaus had been deposed and Quirenius had been sent as a Syrian magistrate in charge of this registration. Their point is Quirinius did not govern here until several years later.Keathley then offers three possible solutions for the historical discrepancies:
It means that there were apparently two Quiriniuses. It’s not uncommon to have lots of people with the same Roman names, so there’s no reason to doubt that there were two people by the name of Quirinius. The census would have taken place under the reign of the earlier Quirinius. Given the cycle of a census every fourteen years, that would work out quite well.5Walter Liefeld in The Expositors Bible Commentary points out another possible solution.
Quirinius had a government assignment in Syria at this time and conducted a census in his official capacity. Details of this census may have been common knowledge in Luke’s time but are now lost to us (cf. E.M. Blaiklock, “Quirinius,” ZPEB, 5:56). An incomplete MS describes the career of an officer whose name is not preserved but whose actions sound as if he might have been Quirinius. He became imperial “legate of Syria” for the “second time.” While this is ambiguous, it may be a clue that Quirinius served both at the time of Jesus’ birth and a few years later (cf. F.F. Bruce, “Quirinius,” NBD, p. 9).6Regardless of the view one takes to solve this seeming discrepancy, over and over again archaeology has demonstrated the trustworthiness of the Bible on one supposed discrepancy after another. Luke was a painstakingly accurate historian who carefully investigated everything from the beginning regarding the life of Christ (Luke 1:1-4). In all fairness, we must assume that Luke knew something that we do not and wait for the evidence to come in. Earlier, when Strobel questioned McRay about Luke as a historian, McRay replied:
The general consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars is that Luke is very accurate as a historian, … He’s erudite, he’s eloquent, his Greek approaches classical quality, he writes as an educated man, and archaeological discoveries are showing over and over again that Luke is accurate in what he has to say.”7In view of these facts, we need to give Luke, who lived then, the benefit of the doubt and wait for more evidence to surface.
Posts
All Comments
