tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post418866000749300439..comments2023-10-25T08:46:20.242-05:00Comments on The Distributist Review: Sarah Palin's Hand JobJohn Médaillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-9545848676291659302010-07-20T13:53:45.016-05:002010-07-20T13:53:45.016-05:00I have been researching about Sarah Palin's Ha...I have been researching about Sarah Palin's Hand Notes because I think it is so interesting, but I haven't found anything related to it until I found your blog, Now everything is so clear!viagra onlinehttp://www.xlpharmacy.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-18628853079824867292010-02-22T19:24:00.000-06:002010-02-22T19:24:00.000-06:00My last post for today, I think. Tom Laney, I agr...My last post for today, I think. Tom Laney, I agree with you in part, but is there a way of ensuring that no one is in relative poverty? Yes, we can just give the poor money or goods, but would that affect incentives? Some measure of hard work is likely to still be necessary to ensure well-being, and not giving people incentive to labor is likely to impoverish us all mutually. As to your beloved unions, I'm not at all sure that they're so much a part of the solution as they are part of the problem.<br /><br />Vikingviking6070@gmail.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-25586710250532066802010-02-22T19:06:53.000-06:002010-02-22T19:06:53.000-06:00Civis, thank you for your letter giving your defin...Civis, thank you for your letter giving your definition of "neo-con". You're the only so far to do so. However, I'm still skeptical that even yours is quite a coherent defining. <br /><br /> First of all, "ideology" is about as loaded as "neo-con". It reminds me of the Briton who explained to his son the difference between orthodoxy ("my doxy" and heterodoxy ("the other fellow's doxy"). To be sure, that was probably at least partly tongue-in-cheek, but many others use such terms without a trace of irony. And yet, is there a genuine difference between "ideology" (bad) and "political philosophy" (good)? It seems just a way of making points at one's political opponents expense, which would be fine, if only the truth and fairness weren't also likely casualties.<br /><br />My second point is that the distinction between the theoretical and experiential, to put the matter as objectively as I know how, doesn't really define the difference between two sets of political beliefs. Rather, it most likely occurs within every belief system, or at least those that have been tried sufficiently close to the ideal to permit some to reap the benefits of experience.<br /><br />Finally, I would caution all against being too cynical about the neo-cons' ideals, or anyone else's, for that matter. Much has been made about their foolishness in trying to make other countries democratic. But that strategy worked quite well for us after World War II. Their efforts to re-capture that shining moment may indeed be unrealistic, but the same, many would say, could be said of us. In any event, what is the solution? And might the fact that former Nazis, Fascists, and Japanese Imperialists were able to achieve democracy, but perhaps not Islamicists, say something rather significant about our enemies?<br /><br />Vikingviking6070@gmail.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-3277179486692581522010-02-22T18:36:38.000-06:002010-02-22T18:36:38.000-06:00Sorry, all, to have been so late in responding, I&...Sorry, all, to have been so late in responding, I've been having computer problems. Cajetan, the "Anonymous" to whom I was referring was the one who stated his opposition to the casual use of the term "neo-con" as a word of reproach, and who provided us with the neo-neocon blog site. (Very interesting, btw.) I thought it might be you, as your post after that seemed to be following rather nicely and coherently with the earlier statement. Perhaps I was wrong.<br /><br />Vikingviking6070@gmail.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-54352099964650846702010-02-15T10:39:58.835-06:002010-02-15T10:39:58.835-06:00That one's golden isn't it? I ran accross ...That one's golden isn't it? I ran accross both the More and the Luther quotes in Peter Ackroyd's LIFE OF THOMAS MORE. If you need a better source, and I can remember, I can look to see if Ackroyd gave a reference.Civisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-5863815203826040402010-02-15T09:08:54.592-06:002010-02-15T09:08:54.592-06:00Civis, who said that about Luther?Civis, who said that about Luther?Chris Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330217544238982513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-8566685238347077482010-02-15T07:45:01.576-06:002010-02-15T07:45:01.576-06:00I think Mr. Laney alludes to a good point, it is o...I think Mr. Laney alludes to a good point, it is one that C.S. Lewis made: scruples are always bad because they distract us from things that are actually important. <br /><br />You know I actually hate to repeat what Isaiah said, but suffice it to say that "filthy rags" is a gloss. With St.Paul, I was referring to his suggestion that the Judiaizers ought to cut off their peepee.<br /><br />If you would like an example from the catholic saints, here is the patron saint of orthodoxy, describing Luther: "He farts anathema....I am ashamed even of this necessity, that while I clean out the fellow's shit-filled mouth I see my own fingers covered with shit."<br /><br />Luther, the protestant hero, is famous for saying "I am like ripe shit, and the world is a great asshole. We probably will let go of each other soon.”Civisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-40043129521079222982010-02-14T16:07:30.109-06:002010-02-14T16:07:30.109-06:00Great job John! Let the sensitive squeam. I believ...Great job John! Let the sensitive squeam. I believe Dorothy Day would dig it.<br /><br />But I hold little bits of hope for the Tea Party. They seem to now be wrestling with continuing to blame the poor OR, the Banksters. Glenn Beck may rue the day he implored working stiffs to trust their Common Sense. <br /><br />The real obscenity is the 39.8 MILLION Americans in poverty (according to the Bishops, most of whom recognize real obscenity when they see it.) How about +30 posts on that?Tom Laneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01811615310314303793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-20506716690644431522010-02-12T19:28:52.403-06:002010-02-12T19:28:52.403-06:00Viking,
I have signed all my posts "Cajetan&...Viking,<br /><br />I have signed all my posts "Cajetan", so I'm not sure who the other anonymous poster is.<br /><br />Civis,<br /><br />Would you be specific about Isaiah and St. Paul using language the way that John did? I posted a verse from St. Paul about "silly and suggestive talk". Perhaps you'd like to comment on that one.<br /><br /><br />CajetanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-6296571906656180702010-02-12T14:48:36.688-06:002010-02-12T14:48:36.688-06:00I think fundamentally what separates a conservativ...I think fundamentally what separates a conservative from a neo-conservative is that the neocon tends to be an idealist hung up on ideology, whereas a conservative relies on experience and what works in practice.<br /><br />In practice I think there are two major difference: 1) neocons think we can ensure security through force. The conservative responds, "That 'sounds' great, but I would submit to you the example of Russians in Afganistan, Brits in America and Romans in Scotland" 2) The necon, whatever his rhetoric may be, tends to see central government as a means of fixing things where the conservative tends to support the priciple of subsidiarity.<br /><br />Still I think the key difference is not positions on particular issues but the underlying way of thinking.<br /><br />That's my two cents anyway.Civisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-13882722569442058392010-02-12T14:36:22.892-06:002010-02-12T14:36:22.892-06:00The hubbub about terminology reminds me of freshma...The hubbub about terminology reminds me of freshman logic. In class Fr. Masestri posed a question to me and in my answer I used the phrase "kick some ass." I was soundly scolded by my peers. As one of my classmates said "You should never use such language around a priest!" a senior walked by and commented to him "I guess you've never played basketball with Fr. Maestri." <br /><br />I'm afraid some confuse religious piety with Victorian manners, but I'm afraid such a notion would run contrary to the writings of Isaiah and St. Paul.Civishttp://poligions.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-21101362230937073702010-02-12T14:31:28.851-06:002010-02-12T14:31:28.851-06:00Hi all,
I'm not particularly hot and bothered...Hi all,<br /><br />I'm not particularly hot and bothered by the two double entendres, nor by their origins, but I must confess to sharing Cajetan's frustration with the too liberal use of neo-con(servative). (Yes, "liberal" was intentionally ironic. And am assuming that Cajetan was responsible for the other "Anonymous" posts in this discussion.) Could someone please post a definition of what you mean by "neo-con"? And please bear in mind that the term originally, I believe, simply meant a former liberal or leftist who took a sharp rightward turn as the years went by. Many of today's alleged neo-cons never went thru such a port-to-starboard conversion, being fairly consistent throughout their lives so far.<br /><br />VikingVikinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06660688426762417651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-85551143420677251872010-02-12T07:18:47.516-06:002010-02-12T07:18:47.516-06:00Palin i think was the judas goat to get Christian ...Palin i think was the judas goat to get Christian voters to vote McCain is what wa a rather boring and lackluster campaign..McCain was not supposed to win, as Bush I was not in 1992, but we have to make the fight look good to gullible voters. She did great at her task, as evident in many Catholics I know basically hoping she would play a roll or even succeed McCain....<br /><br />Some basically stated that a vote for anyone other than McCain was a mortal sin...<br /><br />She quit her Gov job now to write books and raise her creds for the next few yrs....<br /><br />She, like Glenn Beck have a job-subvert and infiltrate any movement and control and steer the anger and frustration...after all, it is dangerous to the powers to be to have Americans actually demand changes and action.one has to control the sheep if you will..<br /><br />Palin is a fresh face, a "I love Jesus by shucky darn" down home gal that is going to revolutionize the GOP....when in fact we should leave the GOP and Dems in droves..<br /><br />I like the Mencken quote and have heard it before, but, anyone have the source or a link? would love to have it for future....he was spot on as, in my area at least, Evangelicals and their lapdog Catholcis (Hannity, Santorum,etc) are parroting the lets nuke Iran, lets attack Pakistan blood thrist....<br /><br />On Santorum, glad he is out-guy was a talk only on moral issues and a neocon..he did nothing,really, besides hide behind his "Im a Catholic" schitick, much like Evangelicals love a guy that wears a nice suit, loves Jesus and is a "R"...<br /><br />He is a hero in much of AmChurch, esp "Conservative Catholics", but sadly too, "Traditional Catholics" who have bought his rap.....he shot himself, the homos just helped push a little....Chris Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330217544238982513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-58148056499349927532010-02-11T23:29:30.900-06:002010-02-11T23:29:30.900-06:00Coll,
You make good points, and I did not include...Coll,<br /><br />You make good points, and I did not include a winky face emoticon to indicate a bit of tongue in cheekiness on my MPAA reference. I am far more likely to criticize the MPAA than hold them up as a trustworthy moral standard. For the record, I live in west Texas, and I wince when people use "damn" and "hell" because to me they are not casual statements. In any case, I think that sexuality deserves more reverence than the faculties of human waste because our sexuality is to some degree an image of the relationships of the Trinity. I know far, far less on this topic than many. I think one of those Theology of the Body websites could be helpful here. Anyway, you'll probably go along with people saying "sex is sacred", but no one bothers arguing that going #2 is particularly sacred. Perhaps we can further associate sexuality and the sense of sacred by pointing out that many men and women become "eunuchs for the Lord" by choosing celibacy. Human waste ... I've not met anyone who renounces that faculty.<br /><br />I agree with you that lack of vulgarity does not guarantee holiness. Then again, neither does the fact that you've never murdered anyone with a poisoned dart make you holy, but it remains an action to be avoided if one is serious about pursuing holiness.<br /><br />CajetanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-65532900827998253102010-02-11T23:20:43.145-06:002010-02-11T23:20:43.145-06:00The concept of wanting a war and not wanting to pa...The concept of wanting a war and not wanting to pay for it goes hand-in-hand with much of the rest of the mindset of modern politics. We have people telling us how capitalism has assured that even the poorest of our society is wealthier than many of the kings of old. We conveniently look over the real cost of the third world slaves on whose labour our wealth is based.Collhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07418760349883576638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-46734179720669395802010-02-11T23:07:11.904-06:002010-02-11T23:07:11.904-06:00Cajetan,
Fair enough. But I'll rephrase : sin...Cajetan, <br />Fair enough. But I'll rephrase : since when is sexual activity more vulgar then excrement? <br /><br />As far as the the MPAA goes, I would reason out anything they do. They are far from my source of morality and standards. I really don't understand why western media - and particulary christians, find words associated vaugely with sexual activity as vulgar or offensive but seem to drop words like "damn" and "hell" as though they were casual statements.<br /><br />As far as the vulgarness of someone's language goes as a measure of someone's holiness, such a standard places Adolf Hilter as more holy than many people on this planet.Collhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07418760349883576638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-56359410792445830912010-02-11T22:59:04.927-06:002010-02-11T22:59:04.927-06:00Coll,
You didn't miss the point about the dis...Coll,<br /><br />You didn't miss the point about the distinction between offense and vulgarity, I hope?<br /><br />Also, I've learned a few things from the Motion Picture Association of America over the years ... several s-bombs get you a lighter movie rating than several f-bombs. Why do you think that is?<br /><br />CajetanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-27314739418299877092010-02-11T22:50:02.705-06:002010-02-11T22:50:02.705-06:00Cajetan,
Since when is sexual activity more offen...Cajetan,<br /><br />Since when is sexual activity more offensive than excrement?<br /><br />Coll.Collhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07418760349883576638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-91300318813074526352010-02-11T22:48:08.729-06:002010-02-11T22:48:08.729-06:00Anoymous, I ask you to back up your claims of anti...Anoymous, I ask you to back up your claims of anti-semitism in anything John has written. Give me the quote.<br /><br />You are clearly clutching at straws and throwing any smear into the mix now.Collhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07418760349883576638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-89846738640454641892010-02-11T22:43:21.118-06:002010-02-11T22:43:21.118-06:00Fair call, anonymous. It is public knowledge but y...Fair call, anonymous. It is public knowledge but you simply don't want to see.<br /><br />I am not sure how you justify an accusation of being dishonest, when it took me about <i>3 minutes</i> to find what is publicly available. Look up Tea Bagging in wikipedia. They have one of the banners from the protest in question. A large picture of a tea bag (which were mailed en masse to the whitehouse) under which is the slogan "Teabag Washington? They have way too many nuts already!" The source is the Tea Party protest, photos that are available on public news sites, google, wiki. Spend <i>3 whole minutes</i> backing your own diatribe up before you throw around accusations of dishonest.<br />Clearly the Tea Party introduced the unsavory connection between "nuts" and "tea bags". The offence was initially directed at the white house by elements of the Tea Party outfit. You say "not once, not anywhere" which should imply you actually looked. I'll now put your own demands onto you: <i>you'd be credible if you'd try to back up your claim by citing your [supposed/apparent] source</i> that <i>Because not once, not anywhere, whether "eight months" ago or otherwise, have I ever seen this expression used the way you keep insisting it was used.</i> This would be possible if you were only repeating the party line and not opening your eyes. I think that is called intellectual dishonesty. Or cowardice.<br /><br />I am amazed that people are ready to be offended by the return of the Tea Party's own propaganda but have no qualms using words like "dishonest" and asking some to back up their claim (for something that is public knowledge) and haven't the decency to do so themselves.Collhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07418760349883576638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-82321278928445062252010-02-11T22:39:34.868-06:002010-02-11T22:39:34.868-06:00John, if you are trying to make the point that Chr...John, if you are trying to make the point that Christ would use sexually vulgar terms, I disagree. You support that claim by showing that Christ used a word which meant filth. You did not say so, but I think you meant "filth" along the lines of "excrement". I may be mistaken, so please clarify. If that's what you meant, then a couple of points are in order here. First, you did not make clear whether this word Christ used was merely offensive, or offensive plus vulgar. I can offend people named Steve by saying that "all people named Steve are lower than fecal matter", but in doing so I have not used vulgarity. I have merely made a comparison which was intended to offend. I could change that up by using the s--- word, and that would be considered vulgar in addition to offensive. Secondly, even if the word Christ used was considered vulgar, it would still be different than sexual vulgarity. Where is your evidence of His inclination to venture into sexual vulgarity? Until you deal with these two points, you have not dealt with the fundamental question: is your behavior Christ-like?<br /><br />For those of you saying "who cares, John makes sense, so what if the words are a bit raw", I answer this: I am investigating distributism as a possible model for Christian living. When I look for such things, I expect to find people associated with it dripping in holiness. If vulgarity is a hindrance to holiness (as I believe), then John's post does more to drive me from distributism than attract me to it. Not that distributism's merits depend only on John's quantity of holiness, but still ... I'm looking for the fruits of the Holy Spirit, and I've never heard that vulgarity is one of them.<br /><br />John, I'd also like you to comment if you will on St. Paul's admonition about "silly and suggestive talk" from Ephesians 5:4. Since you seem to know something about Greek, perhaps you'll shed some light on this passage, because I don't quite know what to make of it.<br /><br />Thanks in advance,<br /><br />CajetanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-66640508041068309922010-02-11T22:16:47.865-06:002010-02-11T22:16:47.865-06:00And BTW, WTH's wrong with the involvement of &...And BTW, WTH's wrong with the involvement of "Neocons" anyway?<br />I'm really starting to get annoyed with the way that term is casually thrown around. It used to be a just name for a faction of the overall Conservative movement, but over the years it's been transformed into some political-discourse equivalent of the "N-word". It's especially sad--even reprehensible, IMHO--the way many Catholic commenters and pundits seem to have developed a fondness for using this by-now-pejorative.<br />When the term "neocon" is used, it increasingly seems to refer not so much about a Conservative faction with which they disagree with as much as "neocon"="people I don't like"/"evil". Especially if these "evil" folks happen to be Jewish and/or former Leftists.The way the term is used, I can't help but wonder whether or not those Anti-Catholic (and not just "Anti-Catholic" per se) pundits and writers who insist on continuing existence of Anti-Semitism in Catholics today might be on to something. And this wouldn't help with our overall credibility.<br /><br />Might I contribute a link to an essay that helps to explain my annoyance:<br /><br />http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2005/03/so-why-neo-neocon.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-83811172848235557382010-02-11T21:45:23.418-06:002010-02-11T21:45:23.418-06:00"Again, tea-bagging is offensive, but it is t..."Again, tea-bagging is offensive, but it is their term, not mine."<br /><br />You're either mistaken or dishonest.<br /><br />Either way, you keep insisting.<br /><br />And if you continue to insist, you'd be credible if you'd try to back up your claim by citing your [supposed/apparent] source.<br /><br />Because not once, not anywhere, whether "eight months" ago or otherwise, have I ever seen this expression used the way you keep insisting it was used. It was vulgar epithet that the Left quickly learned to exploit--and,I admit, cleverly so, but it don't make it any less offensive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-40166634963319924242010-02-11T16:56:53.619-06:002010-02-11T16:56:53.619-06:00Doug, I am pretty sure I have my facts right: she ...Doug, I am pretty sure I have my facts right: she did indeed have crib notes on her hand, while complaining about using a teleprompter. <br /><br />Interpretation is another matter. But I don't think there is anything coherent here, and I think they are being used and manipulated by forces who have little respect for them. And that is at least partially their own fault. They are not willing to give up what they get, but insist on not paying for it. If they want war, fine, but doesn't that cost money? Is it an insult to them to point this out. At some point, there is a moral culpability. And I think it necessary to point that out. They are full of rage at others, but do not examine their own consciences.<br /><br />As are as far as "nobody is listening to them" goes, I think the opposite is the truth. There is the constant plebiscite of polling, with politicians too scared to tell the truth, lest it affect their poll numbers. "Listening" after all works two ways. <br /><br /><br />And if they are trying to turn an insult into a complement why complain about my use of the "insult/complement"? In fact, they started with something crude, they were going to "tea bag" the White House, remember? They meant the insult, not the complement; that much is clear. Now they are self-righteous if the term is turned against them.John Médaillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-84333248270040117742010-02-11T16:22:42.066-06:002010-02-11T16:22:42.066-06:00I do not object to your criticism of Sarah Palin, ...I do not object to your criticism of Sarah Palin, although I do believe you have you facts wrong. I object to your characterization of those in the Tea Party movement. They are not sheep being easily led by anyone. In fact, I think the only thing they have in common is frustration no one in government is listening to them. They are frustrated with the left and the right, socialists and capitalists, but they don't know another way. And given a choice between the two, they opt for capitalism since it seems to guarantee more freedom.<br /><br />They have coopted the term Tea Baggers, trying to turn what was intended as an insult into a compliment. They were initially called tea baggers or accused of tea bagging by reporters on CNN (Anderson Cooper wasn't it?) The left often ridicules those who are more conservative, just Google santorum (as in former senator Rick Santorum) and see what homosexual advocates have done to smear his name.Doug Cnoreply@blogger.com