As I sang the first one to my daughter before bed last night, I began to wonder: What is the saddest song ever recorded? I nominate the two below, though the first takes it for me. What say you?
UPDATE: I just remembered this one….
Christmas marks a momentous occasion in the history of Man’s salvation. With the coming of Our Lord, those who walk in the Spirit with Christ are restored to God’s family. God so loved the world that He gave his only Son that we could be saved. St. Paul teaches that God wishes to adopt us into his own family as brothers, sisters, and heirs of Christ (Rom 8:14-17). We as human beings are, of course, imbued with inherent dignity by our creation in the likeness and image of God. But, how much more does it increase our dignity to be adopted heirs to Christ’s throne? Each person possesses a claim on Christ’s Chair when he professes his faith in Christ and partakes of His flesh and blood. As adopted sons and daughters of God, each person’s intrinsic worth is increased over his former state, albeit immeasurably short of Christ’s Divine Sonship.
Of course, concomitant with God’s overwhelming beneficence comes a reciprocal duty to recognize the import of such a gift. Our response to such an astounding gift can be no less than full acceptance and spreading of that Good News to anyone who will listen. If God makes the faithful more worthy through his Divine Condescension, we can do nothing short of respecting that quality in others. We do this by imitating Christ, the supreme example, and treating others with the respect that their station as co-heirs with Christ rightly entitles them. Our personal interactions, our familial interactions, our public interactions, and even our national interactions should be guided by that example.
A child was born in a manger a little over 2000 years ago to a family of humble means. And the world was changed. With that child came hope for every man, woman and child. With that birth, we were freed from the slavery to sin and given a great promise that we might share in Christ’s heritage. Rejoice and be glad for this is the day the Lord has made. And, in this day, we are to be called to God’s family through our Redeemer.
Merry Christmas to one and all.
In less than one year Californians will go to the polls to elect a new governor. Their two main choices will be Jerry Brown for the Democrats and one of three Republicans from the San Francisco Bay area. No matter if it is Meg Whitman, Tom Campbell or Steve Poizner that gets the nod from the GOP, Jerry Brown will win this election. Its not that Brown is a strong candidate or that California is a blue state, the problem is that all three of these bay area Republicans are pro-choice. Therefore the base that simply must turn out in droves for a Republican to win will stay home, vote for a third party candidate and otherwise hand Brown victory.
I am one of these republicans. My conscience and my morals prevent me from voting for any candidate that advocates (or at least is ambivalent to) the killing of innocent children. Whitman has an impressive business record. Poizner is a strong fiscal conservative. Campbell has tough talk for Sacramento. All three have a faulty moral compass. There will be some who argue that I should vote for one of these three republicans because Brown is also pro-choice and a huge fiscal liberal to boot. By voting for one of the three Republicans, the argument will go, we can at least elect a fiscal conservative. Besides, they will say, even a pro-life Republican will be powerless to change the culture of death in California. What this argument is so subtly saying is “toe the line, vote for the member of your party for there is no hope.” I refuse to vote for someone either so morally unaware (at best) that they are pro-choice or they are so afraid of or indoctrinated by Bay area liberals that they willfully turn away from defending the lives of the most vulnerable.
This is a re-occurring theme for the GOP: Candidates that hold positions that appeal to “moderates” ( I hate that term) but drive away the republican base. The California election will play out first but even for the 2012 presidential election we will most likely see a rather flimsy candidate that many conservative voters simply will not turn out for, one that independents will not vote for and one that liberals will salivate over to run against. But there is still hope. Indeed, there is still time for another conservative and pro-life candidate to emerge, possibly from Southern California. Darrell Issa looked like a shoe-in but then endorsed Whitman. Peter Foy of Ventura County all but announced but knew he did not have the name recognition needed to even get the nomination. Still, there maybe potential candidates out there. We need a fiscal conservative with a backbone and a good set of morals. We need someone who has name recognition and is not a life long politician. We need someone that endorses limited government, fiscal restraint, is socially libertarian on most issues and stands up for those that have no say in this world, like the unborn. Does anyone have any viable suggestions? I didn’t think so.
But alas, this is the same problem that plagued Republicans in 2008 and it’s the same issue we will see when 2012 come around. Simply put, there seems to be a dearth of good fiscal conservative Republicans that are also pro-life and want less government. It seems we are forced to consider lackluster republican candidates each and every election. The result this time will be the return of Jerry Brown, a socialist liberal that has spent a lifetime damaging our state. And Republicans are directly responsible for his all but assured victory. C’est la vie in CA.
A frequent commenter (Dean) brought this article from the Cato Institute to my attention, and I bring it to yours. Thanks, Dean.
Bill updated his post called “Taking Iran” with a link to a Times of London report showing pictures of a two-page document supposedly culled from Iran’s nuclear scientists which, when translated, allegedly indicate Iranian “work” on nuclear triggers. What I make of it is that it is a memo proposing how their scientists would go about creating the infrastructure, transferring experimental materials, hiring physicists, etc., to accomplish the purpose of “Designing and performing experiments to detect pulsed neutrons obtained from pulse sources, for example, from NG (neutron generator) and PF (plasma focus) pulsed sources.” Another Times of London link says the letter was dated December 29, 2005 and was actually three pages long, although they only show what appears to be two and one-half, or perhaps the first page is a landscape-perspective full page. The Times of London had stated, though, that “Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007.” I don’t understand all I know about this, frankly. Everyone is correct, though, who says this “raises questions.”
Understandably, our intelligence analysts (having been burned by Bush-era foisting of forged Iraqi Mossad Czech Italian Nigerian just plain phony nukyaler documents) won’t speculate as to its authenticity. One wonders about the origins of this purportedly leaked super-secret Iranian official document. Let me think for a minute second about who could A) obtain it, B) benefit from it, and C) propagate it. Okay, I’m done thinking, I’ve got my guess. A fourth option to consider is that this might be another forgery. But that would just be crazy. Self-serving and ruthless. Never happen.
The New York Times wonders what it all means. Not ones to shy away from hawking hawkishness, perhaps theirs is a more balanced take than the article Bill provided.
Bill also commented that Iran failed to declare facilities, but they did declare Qom, whether coerced or not. Ahmadinejad and Iran’s foreign minister also separately declared openly their intention to build 10 or 15 more. Will they later be accused of “failing to declare” them if they start working on them now? And, again, Iran is within its rights to unilaterally withdraw from the NPT at any time and for any — or no — reason. So are we. So is Israel — oh, no, wait. Israel never signed it. Israel won’t declare its facilities or open them to international inspections, kind of like when they refused to allow international inspectors under Goldstone to visit sites or interview witnesses of alleged Israeli atrocities in Gaza.
Which brings up a point I made in commenting on Bill’s piece, which he dodged. What are we to make of the officially declared Dahiya doctrine, adopted by Israel in 2003? What sort of disproportionality can we expect should Israel attempt to show the 90% of Iranian green revolutionaries that they are accountable for their leaders’ actions?
In the face of a Western invasion (largely at the behest of Israel and its “intelligence” they “shared” with the U.S. and Britain) of Iraq for (as Tony Blair later put it rather bluntly) “regime change,” would it really be unreasonable for Iran to evaluate all options, whether it intended to pursue them or not? Especially when one reads pieces like Bill’s which advocate sanctioned assassinations, military bombing campaigns, missile strikes, and so forth?
The Pope has indicated that he believes “climate change” is man made. He states:
“It should be evident that the ecological crisis cannot be viewed in isolation from other related questions, since it is closely linked to the notion of development…. [It] is a moral issue, one that requires immediate action.”
We all, okay most of us, know that the Pope is infallible on doctrines of faith but no where else. The Pope, in spite of the climate emails scandal, has chosen to side with what appears to be false information. He continues:
environmental degradation is often due to the lack of far-sighted official policies or to the pursuit of myopic economic interests, which then, tragically, become a serious threat to creation….. [T]he causes of the present ecological crisis is the historical responsibility of the industrialized countries.
Let this be a lesson to all Catholics: The Pope is not always right and disagreeing with the Pope on matters not related to a Doctrine of Faith is not in any way sinful or even necessarily incorrect. Your Holiness, I respectfully dissent.
UPDATE II: China is now known to be assisting Iran in their nuclear ambitions: I am sure its purely for peaceful purposes. Ha.
UPDATE: This story has damning evidence of Iran’s nuclear weapon program.
It has become quite clear that the United States will not use force to prevent the development of nuclear arms by Iran. Instead, the president will wag his finger and allow the ineffective and self-aggrandizing UN to do the same. However, it is likely that the Israelis will strike Iranian nuclear facilities sometime during the spring of 2010. The question becomes one of U.S. acceptance, even authorization for such an attack. Is it really in the best interests of the United States and/or Israel to strike Iran at this time? Would an economic embargo suffice?
The Iranian government has been attacking U.S. soldiers, undermining democratization efforts in Iraq, defying its NPT obligations and ostensibly building a nuclear weapon program. I have previously offered justification for an American attack on Iranian military targets, in particular nuclear and Revolutionary Guard facilities. After all, the right to self-defense and defense of others can not be dismissed. The Iranian government deserves the punch in the nose many in the United States, Europe, Israel and (some what secretly) the Arab world call for. Iran is the greatest threat to a stable and lasting peace in the Middle East post dispossession of the Taliban. Crippling their military infrastructure or at least their ability to manufacture atomic weapons for the near term is a legitimate and necessary goal.
For over thirty years, Islamic dictators have had a strangle hold on discourse and the political structure in Iran. Cracks in this system have begun to appear with students, business leaders and even some of the political elite kicking against the establishment. The young in Iran are comparatively well educated and they outnumber every other demographic in the nation. They tend to be more open to Western culture and the implementation of democratic institutions than the ruling class. Their openness turned to defiance after this year’s election, which many saw as a farce. Previously unthinkable, many have begun to openly criticize the Mullahs and the puppet president. Many seek the creation of the democratic state to replace the autocracy. Yet, despite the defiance and demonstrations the majority of Iranians have one thing in common: national pride. Iranians are well aware of their civilization’s contributions to the world. They understand that their culture, their history and their people are unique in the world. This, under the right set of circumstances, could play well for the governing tyrants.
Meanwhile, on the minority side of the aisle, the Republicans are once again showing they aren’t just finely-coiffed dandies. No, they are taking this whole financial-meltdown-troop-escalation-unemployment-crisis-cult-of-personality-take-over-one-sixth-of-the-economy mess seriously. We can’t just be the guy who says, “Nuh-uh.” We have to present a bold alternative vision, said Michael Steele, or John Boehner, or Newt Gingrich, or somebody recently. Or not. Maybe not. No, come to think of it, I think somebody said, “We need to really jump the shark.” Well done, sirs. Well done.
… whether this editorial from NRO was real or an Onion parody.
I mean, really? Bernanke “is the principal architect of the government’s interventions in the banking industry during the financial crisis. That intervention probably represented the best available course of action in the circumstances, and it very likely averted a much worse recession… .” New Deal Republicans stand by their man.
Furthermore: “Bernanke has earned himself some enemies — enemies to be proud of [sic].” So, because Ron Paul doesn’t like you, you’re a genius? That’s the standard at NRO these days, it would appear. No, “the first order of business for Bernanke and the Fed is to lead the slow return to financial normalcy while standing ready to mitigate the effects of any unexpected economic shocks that may come… …to press for radical restructuring at the Fed, as Paul and Frank do, is hazardous.”
We must maintain the status quo in order to prevent the disastrous results we can necessarily expect from having, well, instituted that very status quo. Don’t you ninnies get it? Back to work, serfs, and spend EVERY DIME we graciously give you, whether earned or extended through whatever credit we deign to leak to you!
And the icing on the cake: NRO schlocks calling Ron Paul for being “a little dishonest” because, even though he makes no bones about wanting to abolish the Fed, somehow his initial tactic of calling for a full, independent audit as a first step in that direction is just disingenuous and mean. Poor Ben. Poor, poor Ben. He’s got all of these problems – the weight of the financial world – on his shoulders, and he’s got a “puritanical libertarian” [I swear they juxtaposed those terms] and a corrupt homosexual politician asking unfriendly question about what he’s doing with Americans’ life savings, tax revenues, and interest rates! The horror!
While conceding that we “wouldn’t know it to hear Bernanke speak lately,” he is really busy trying to maintain low prices [obviously for "consumers" in our "consumer economy" in which we are all simply supposed to "consume" and "consume."]. “For the past many decades, that has come to mean keeping a damper on inflation, a critically important task. We have severe unemployment and jaw-dropping deficits that Democrats are laboring mightily to make worse. The dollar and the creditworthiness of the U.S. government are objects of skepticism, and a serious spike in inflation would exacerbate that.” Nevermind that Ron Paul’s other crazy ideas would counteract inflation far better (indeed, the usual canard is that he would cause hysteria-inducing, starvation-causing “deflation”). No, any stick at hand with which to beat a straw man.
They caution us that “a central bank in thrall to the short-term political needs of congressmen would be a catastrophe.” Indeed, it would. And that is actually what we have today. Because the money behind those short-sighted congressmen which keeps them in power is the money that is coming from and simultaneously keeping afloat that very central bank. And who, precisely, do the editors of the magazine-formerly-known-as-the-premiere-conservative-periodical think Paul wants doing the audit? Other Congressmen or the CBO? Something – a hunch, call it – tells me Ron might be thinking more along the lines of independent, contracted, professional forensic accountants.
“Independence is the Fed’s characteristic virtue, as solvency is the FDIC’s and creditworthiness is the Treasury’s.” Oooops, bad choice of analogies. (“The FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund, which protects bank deposits, fell below zero in the third quarter of this year. Fifty U.S. banks failed, taking the fund down to negative $8.2 billion. It’s only the second time in the agency’s history that it has slipped into the red.” says the NPR article.)
Maybe when the kids at NRO finish prep school, they’ll have a little more clarity and credibility.
When I was a kid, I was one of the three or four biggest kids in my class up through about eighth or ninth grade. There were some who challenged me to fights simply because I was big. In a sense, I suppose, it was a test of their mettle. If they could beat one of the big kids’ asses, then they were tough. On the other hand, I was a bit of a sap. I always hated to see bigger kids pick on the weaker ones and defended the weaker ones. For that reason, I was involved in a fair number of fights (I spent a large proportion of my younger days in the principal’s office).
By the same token, I was drawn into a number of fights because some of my friends relied upon me to back them up when they started a fight. It was not uncommon for one of my friends to start a fight with a guy they knew they couldn’t beat because they knew I would come to the rescue. And, because they were my friends, I had no choice but to do so. As a consequence, I was involved in far more fights than I would otherwise have been. (And spent far more time in the principal’s office than I would otherwise have).
The United States is in a similar position. We have allies that pick fights with their neighbors, or at least refuse to make peace with their neighbors because they can depend on us to back them up. If the United States were to make clear that these friends were on their own, they would cease to make trouble and would be willing to make peace with those with whom they have beefs. Some fights are unavoidable but, by and large, most are not. Those that can be avoided ought to be and powerful nations ought to make clear that their wimpier neighbors and friends ought not to place them in a position to be drawn into them. This is the essence of what George Washington said when he said that we should avoid entangling alliances. Certainly, we should not hand out defense guarantees.
If the United States were to make clear that it was not going to fight for others, two things would happen. First, it would be drawn into far fewer fights. Second, its supposed friends would be far more likely to find an amicable resolution to its disputes and be far less likely to foment disputes with their adversaries. As a rule, those of our friends who are nuclear armed should be weaned from the teat first. They have less need of our support than any others. Other nations should be put on notice that the United States is not in the business of meeting their friends’ enemies behind the schoolhouse. We have enough enemies creeping across our own borders to worry about the problems of other nations.
We will never forget.
Far Left Salon’s Glenn Greenwald rips neo-cons, Israel lobby and Norman Podhoretz just as the “paleo” right might.
I could not disagree with Greenwald more and, of course, agree with Norm, having also read his incredible book. Sadly, I bet I am nearly alone on this site. My point exactly.
RSS
