For several reasons, but since declaring my support for Rudy Giuliani I've decided to hold my fire and observe the 11th Commandment while this whole thing plays out.
That doesn't mean, however, that I won't link to other stuff. Especially when it's funny as hell. Rachel Lucas says Huck can go "stuff" himself (warning - really naughty language).
If Peggy Noonan had an evil twin, I'm pretty sure she would write like Rachel Lucas.
YIPS from Steve-O: Eleventh Commandment? What, that's like "Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's ass, because the ass has sovereign immunity and cannot be coveted without its consent"?
Yips! back from Gary:
Kramer broke that Commandment:
More Gratuitous Holiday Grumbling - BUMPED AND UPDATED
Tomorrow during lunch I'll be scooting over to the Smithsonian, there to meet the youngest Llama-ette and her classmates from St. Marie of the Blessed Educational Method for a little holiday field-trip.
I just looked up the program we're going to see, the Seasons of Lights, and already my rant-worthy sensors are spiking:
Join our 9th annual multicultural celebration of global winter holidays rooted in the warmth and wonders of light. Learn the history and customs of Ramadan, Devali, Chanukah, Sankta Lucia, Kwanzaa, Las Posadas/Christmas and a First Nations tradition of Winter Solstice in our most popular performance of the year. Embrace the season and be a part of the festivities—with audience participation for all.
Malkin's going to blow a gasket if she notices that Christmas only gets shared billing with Las Posadas. And who wants to place bets on whether anybody will mention the fact that "Kwanzaa" was fadged up by a crackpot in California back in the '60's and is based on a vision of half-baked socialist Pan-Africanism that is not only unsupportable, but is in fact downright fraudulent. Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?
Oh, but it goes deeper than that:
People all over the world celebrate holidays at this time of year. Many of these holidays honor the harvest, signal the New Year, or bring families together to remember the past and look forward to the future. Many holidays are also rooted in the coming of the shortest day of the year—the Winter Solstice.
Today, we often enjoy holiday traditions without knowing where they came from. We sing songs, display colored lights, and repeat special activities with friends and family. Holly wreaths, chocolate coins, sharing special foods, giving gifts, candles lit in a row— these traditions all herald the ending of one year, and the renewal and hope of looking ahead to the next.
If we look deeper, we see that these holidays carry echoes of earlier times, hundreds or thousands of years ago. At some point, the warmth of light burning in the dark plays a central role. The joy, warmth, and safety that came from these traditional gatherings kept the dark and cold at bay. They helped people understand that the sun would return and bring the promise of spring and a new year.
See? We're really all Gaia's Children after all. Why can't we just get along?
Remind me to take an extra dose of my meds tomorrow morning.........
UPDATE: Well, we saw the show. Let me put it this way: In pursuit of plurality over everything, I believe the show managed to thoroughly confuse all the kids and offend most of the adults.
Yeesh.
YIPS from Steve-O: Well Robbo, the only answer then is to get radished....
''
And here's something to cleanse the palatte after your experience at a Kwanza Carol:
1
Sure, Christmas, the Solstice, sacrifing babies on stone altars -- all the same. No problemo. Dress warm and bring some egg nog, we'll supply the cultural relativism and apostasy.
Posted by: The Abbot at December 13, 2007 05:05 PM (b1/bF)
2
You will be pleased to know that my not quite 7 year old daughter got up in front of her 1st grade class and informed them that she had learned a new Santa Lucia song from her mother and did they want her to sing it to them all in Norwegian? Santa Lucia is very big in Sweden. The song, which the Girl Child belted out, she then went on to translate. It goes something like this, according to the Girl Child: "Santa Lucia went into the woods to poop. When she was finished, it smelled wicked bad".
Another blow for multi-cultural understanding has been struck!
I probably should post that on my blog, I suppose.
Posted by: rp at December 18, 2007 02:36 PM (op1yW)
Well, file this one under "things you just can't make up":
A drunk Cambodian man became embroiled in an unfortunate genital incident when, as he was urinating through a fence, a happy little puppy on the other side bit onto his penis.
News reports in Phnom Penh said that Kann Veasna was relieving himself through a hole in the fence after a hard day drinking wine when the incident occurred.
The Rasmei Kampuchea newspaper suggested that the puppy may have thought Veasna's penis was toy.
A toy? Hmm. I wonder if it squeaked or something?
Mr Veasna's puppy/penis misfortune came to light when he turned up at hospital in the Cambodian capital, and regaled them with his tale of mirth and woe.
He was suffering from lacerations to his penis. However, doctors were able to save his organ, and are hopeful that the puppy did him no permanent damage.
News agency DPA quoted one doctor as saying: 'It's undoubtedly sore now, but luckily it should still be useful to him in the future.'
Which is the more perplexing question?
1) How could a small puppy reach the penis of a standing man in order to bite it?
2) How do you qualify a "hard day drinking wine"?
3) Why would a man pee through a hole in a fence to begin with?
1
Scotchy, scotch, scotch. Laphroaig 10 is my favorite of all of them, with the heavy handed peat.
Posted by: ScurvyOaks at December 14, 2007 12:07 PM (s7sYI)
2
Tomorrow is my fiftieth (!) birthday. Since all scotch tastes the same to me - like gasoline - I'll be celebrating with a couple of my guitarist buds. I've prepared for a bottle of Herradura 100% Blue Agave tequila (No training wheels for tequila with a taste this great), and more Coronas with lime than I can possibly down before passing out.
Church on Sunday ought to be a trip. Literally.
Posted by: Hucbald at December 14, 2007 12:07 PM (6+5t8)
HRC (and her henchmen) knew exactly what they were doing. HRC and Bill were the authors of the "War Room" which specialized in personal attacks. I'm only disappointment in all of this is we won't see James Carville mug talking about dragging money through trailer parks.
Posted by: kmr at December 14, 2007 12:10 PM (3i2Pe)
2
John Derbyshire says we should get used to saying, "President Gore" because Hillary is going to fold. Can you imagine? It would be like the second coming of Jimmy Carter, only today's Carter, not that guy who was president for one term back in the late seventies.
I have an ace-in-the-hole though: I was born in Newfoundland, so I can always move to Canada if that happens.
Posted by: Hucbald at December 14, 2007 01:20 PM (6+5t8)
3
I will stay here in the States, if HRC or OBama is elected. I say this in the sure and certain hope that my resolve will be fortified in such dire times by regular trips to the local micro-brewery...
Posted by: kmr at December 14, 2007 04:37 PM (3i2Pe)
Nats Take Away The One Active Met On The Juice List
Thanks, Robbo. Now I know why Minaya and the Wilpons weren't keen on keeping Paul Lo Duca. But because Washington signed him, New York has a "clean" active roster.
The Yankees on the other hand...not so much.
I just KNEW that when Clemmons tossed that broken bat at Piazza that it was most likely 'Roid rage.
It's Beginning To Sound A Lot Like Christmas, Dammit
Have I mentioned before how much I hate medleys? And have I mentioned before how much I hate the whole "If Vivaldi had written 'Jolly Old St. Nicholas'" genre?
There's the hot stove league, and then there's the REALLY HOT stove league
Pope Benedict, GM of the Vatican crusaders, gleeful over trade of Steve-O to the Canterbury Caterwallers in return for Robbo-O and three players to be named later. "He's three starts away from Tommy John surgery, a bad influence in the clubhouse, and waaaay past his prime," said the Supreme Pontiff. "He's basically the Eric Gagne around here. Robbo will give us the late inning energy we need, kind of like Jonathan Pablebon, minus the beer, hookers, liturgical dancing, and mounds of blow."
THAT'S MY CHURCH, Steve-O (S)Edition: A number of questions to the Mail Sack on my take on the Diocese in California that voted to secede. My sense is this: two of the four most influential and important priests in my life have been women who, in that diocese, wouldn't have been eligible for ordination because...........what, we're afraid of women? Even as a kid I never bought the "well, Jesus only called men to the ministry so only men can be ordained" line. Because first of all, he only called people who were Jewish to be ministers, and his Pope was a married Jewish fisherman (something Benedict---who I deeply respect---kind of goes 0-3 on). And second, I don't see how one can read the crucifixion and resurrection stories and deny the role of the women. Sure, the men shared in the Eucharist, but when things got tough they all split, except for John. The women, not so much.
And I know, the ordination of women was not the "final" straw, but the first one, but at least to me that bears some type of insight on the accumulator of straws out there.
So the wine in the chalice in the Cathedral in Fresno bothers me not--whether the bottle is from Chile, Nigeria, Rome, Canterbury, New York, Virginia, or some weird acronym. Because what matters is what will happen to it, and that the blood will be mixed with tears over our eternal stubborness and willingness to fight over who sits at the right hand of the right hand in this endless and sad game of More Pharisacal Than Thou.
Hear him out; his reasoning does have some logic behind it. Were women present at the crucifixion? Certainly. Were women present at the resurrection? Certainly. Were they present when he named the twelve in Luke 6:12-13
Not so much . . .
Married priests is a different issue; that is and has always been a matter of discipline, not of doctrine, as there are a number of married priests in the Church as it is (pastoral provision, or the Eastern Rite churches).
As for being Jewish as a requirement, I'd say that the New Testament from Acts on pretty much answers that -- there is no jew and gentile anymore, which is also why Peter is permitted to eat lobster in Acts 11:7. Well, we don't know definitively that there was lobster, but we can imagine there to be lobster . . .
Posted by: The Abbot at December 14, 2007 11:13 AM (b1/bF)
Posted by: Robbo the LB at December 14, 2007 11:19 AM (fKpiB)
3
Ok, now you've asked for it...(Robbo, this is the woodshed moment you always desired)...fear not I shall tread very easy because I like you Steve-o...but the radish is coming you way (ask Robbo to explain)
First:
"My sense is this: two of the four most influential and important priests in my life have been women who, in that diocese, wouldn't have been eligible for ordination because...........what, we're afraid of women?"
No one has ev er underestimated the value of women and their capacity for great spiritual gifts, most of all our Creator and by extension, the Chruch His Son founded on earth, the Catholic Church.
But, your argument for female priests is not a theological one it is an experential (sp?) one...you have personally known and been helped by great female priests...fine, terrific. Guess what? So have I. One in fact one helped me make an enormous breakthrough in understanding the fullness of Christ's suffering on the cross...this would be the Rev. Flemming Rutledge...google her up and find out just what a gift she has...
However, we are not supposed to discern Truth through the lens of our experiences. Truth is suppose to be the lens through which we can discern our experiences.
As far as the argument that the Catholic Church is afraid of women in the priesthood...sometime try a little parlor game...change the word women...put in gay or lesbian (both words denote active lifestyle) instead...then try transgendered...then try one who likes group sex...then try one who likes sex with animals....at what point does the argument fall apart on who is acceptable for ministry. And for extra credit, what were the grounds for their accaptability?
Second:
"Because what matters is what will happen to it, and that the blood will be mixed with tears over our eternal stubborness and willingness to fight over who sits at the right hand of the right hand in this endless and sad game of More Pharisacal Than Thou."
Are you referring to transubstantiaiton here?
Because if you are, the Anglican Communion does not believe in it. Check out the 39 Articles and you will see exactly what they say and have always said about it since Thomas Cranmer wrote them...he did not believe in transubstantiation and was burned at the stake for his herectical belief by the Catholic Queen....he wrote the Communion service to sound as if it happens to please the peasants who had there church taken away from them overnight by their King...they were afraid of revolt among the people so they made it sound as if it really did still happen...but then if you publically stated it did happen, then you were considered a dissenter of the 39 Articles and the Church of England allowed the state to off you....
Then as the Church of England grew more tolerant they only prevented dissenters from not attending the colleges built by the Catholics, Oxford and Cambridge (this was right up to the late, late 1700's and they could if they wanted you, imprison you and of course, made you pay heavy fines for your belief in transubstantiation...oh and you couldn't be in Parlaiment...
So, I have to ask, considering the true and written belief of the Church on transubstantiation, exactly how does it occur? Does the Holy Spirit cause it to happen in spite of the Anglican Church'e teaching of the last 450+ years?
Then the Church's teaching on a most vital issue (an issue of Salvation) is in grave error.
Or, does the Holy Spirit allow the wine to be changed to blood in the chalice on a bishop by bishop, priest by priest, communicant by communicant basis...
Then, basically, the Anglican Church has made the chalice that is to bear the blood of Christ for the Salvation of all souls into Mary Poppin's bottle of medicine... it pours out a different medicine for each person based on their individual understandings and acceptances of God.
And it enures that everyone who approaches the chalice is NOT bestowed the same amount of God's grace. Some get the transforming blood of Christ, others get merely wine.
That would also be another grave error on a vital teaching.
Sorry, my conversion was a most rational. I hate emotion.
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at December 14, 2007 12:00 PM (sdLgx)
4
Sorry about all the typos...went to art school, not typing school.
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at December 14, 2007 12:03 PM (sdLgx)
5
Ah, ha, ha, ha! Today my name is Robbo Nostrodamus! (I warned Steve-O this was coming)
Posted by: Robbo the LB at December 14, 2007 12:04 PM (fKpiB)
6
The game is engaged---radishes? What, you using a salad shooter or something?
Number of things, let's go one at a time. On the issue of sexuality and priests, I'll set aside your bestiality comment if you'll set aside my inevitable Altar Boy/Cardinal Law counter comment and treat it straight up (as a former altar boy in one of the "wink wink nudge nudge" diocese, I get to say that, no pun intended).
To flesh out the parameters of the argument, I'm assuming you are arguing that the only acceptable priest of God would be a naturally born male of the species who is committed to a vow of celibacy, regardless of whatever his orientation is sexually absent the vow of celibacy.
So question one would be (since you raised it) what would exactly be the objection to someone who had sex reassignment surgery, became a male in terms of plumbing etc., and undertook a vow of celibacy? Male plumbing, female chromosomes, culturally male. Would that conform to the Canons?
What of a person born male in terms of chromosomes who, through no fault of his own by some type of accident or something, no longer had the external plumbing, but was still willing to take the vow of celibacy? Male chromosomes, no plumbing, culturally male. Would that conform to the Canons?
So in terms of maleness, is it the plumbing or the chromosomes that drive the interpretation of Canon?
And yes, I'm being quite serious and not trying to be rude.
Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at December 14, 2007 12:53 PM (ozFcL)
7
Abbott: The question in response to JP Magnus would be this: of these three events, which are more critical in the revelation of truth?
Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at December 14, 2007 01:03 PM (ozFcL)
8
Steve-o, this will sound like a punt, but it's most sincerely not. I cannot due to Christmas engagements tonight take on your most excellent return...
Fear not, you have not been rude. Never forget, for 4 years I spent 9 hours a week drawing men and women in the buff and then I worked in Hollywood...oh and was an Episcopalian for 37 years...I've seen the elephant so to speak....
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at December 14, 2007 01:27 PM (BDs/a)
9
I will return throughout the weekend and next week and we can engage each other with a robustness enviable reminescent of the middle ages...
People have died for Christ, so there's no reason why we can't cross swords all in good fellowship and for the desire to understand Him and ourselves better....
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at December 14, 2007 01:29 PM (BDs/a)
10
I would think that presence at the Resurrection would be the most critical. Which is why there is no possible slight implied by refusing to ordain them.
Their ministry and witness is simply different. That, at any rate, is what the church has always believed.
Christ could have made women priests; it may well have been, in his prayer before appointing the apostles, on the agenda between him, the Holy spirit, and the Father. He could have definitively removed any question on the issue simply by making Mary Magdalene or his Mother one of the twelve. Unless we believe Scripture to simply be wrong on the issue -- in which case, why believe in any of it? Where Scripture is silent, why must we shout?
Certainly, in terms of holiness, both Marys certainly rank ahead of Judas Iscariot; I'd say that the church has pretty well defined that in the hierarchy of heaven, The Virgin Mary outranks Peter.
But the Queen of Heaven is not a priest; there is no evidence of her saying Mass. Why is that? Perhaps it is a job not meant for women for reasons we cannot understand. Perhaps it is not a role dignified enough for women -- consider that in the Old Testament, the job involved the ritual slaughter of animals and in the New, the offering of oneself in the person of the Lamb. It involved the risk of death in approaching the Ark. We commend Abraham for offering his son, out of obedience, but if Isaac were a daughter, would we not consider him a monster?
Perhaps we will be fortunate to have it explained to us should we ever attain Heaven.
It is certainly not a requirement of a person's salvation that they become a priest. If we can gain heaven, who wants or needs the job of priest?
I am canonically ineligible to become a priest because I am married. I think in some respects I would make a good priest; I speak well in public, I am generally sympathetic to people when they confess their problems to me, and I am unimpeachably orthodox in my beliefs.
But that isn't the rules. I am ineligible due to being married. I suppose, in a way, this is even more unfair than if I were a woman, as there have been in the past and are now currently married Catholic priests.
Do I complain about it? No. Those are the rules. Rome has spoken, the case is settled.
Posted by: The Abbot at December 14, 2007 01:48 PM (b1/bF)
"So question one would be (since you raised it) what would exactly be the objection to someone who had sex reassignment surgery, became a male in terms of plumbing etc., and undertook a vow of celibacy? Male plumbing, female chromosomes, culturally male. Would that conform to the Canons?"
In this situation, the Canons do not even come into consideration. The *man* himself has made himself unfit for the priesthood. Why? Because he did not conform his life to his own God-given sexuality. All priests must conform their lives to the Truth. This priest by changing her sexuality has blown any vow of serving God because she served herself first by altering her God-given sexuality. When someone goes to the most grave length of surgery to become the sex they believe they were born to be, they are stating in essence, "God you made a very grave error when you created me in my mother's womb." That's a profound statement to make to God. A person doing that will also have other problems with God's decisions...
That person is the kind of person totally unfit for the priesthood because he will not serve God. Serving God is the true function of the priest, in spite of all the wink, wink, nudge, nudge bad priests through history...
Do remember because this is important, for all the bad priests there have been, there have been millions of more of holy ones. And probably tens of 1000's of Sainted ones.
"What of a person born male in terms of chromosomes who, through no fault of his own by some type of accident or something, no longer had the external plumbing, but was still willing to take the vow of celibacy? Male chromosomes, no plumbing, culturally male. Would that conform to the Canons?"
Of course.
So in terms of maleness, is it the plumbing or the chromosomes that drive the interpretation of Canon?
It is the individual soul that drives the interpretation of the Canons.
But you are correct that I uphold the teaching that men are to be priests.
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at December 15, 2007 02:54 PM (jyYbI)
12
Steve-0, a interesting and not long article related to the sex change question. The guy who wrote it is the head shrink at John Hopkins :
John Hopkins no longer performs sex changes because the operations, after 25 years of performing them, did not help the individuals reach their personal goals of integrating more fully into society.
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at December 15, 2007 03:00 PM (jyYbI)
13
"So question one would be (since you raised it) what would exactly be the objection to someone who had sex reassignment surgery, became a male in terms of plumbing etc., and undertook a vow of celibacy? Male plumbing, female chromosomes, culturally male. Would that conform to the Canons?"
No, because that is classed as self-mutilation. Cathechism of the Catholic Church, 2297: "Respect for bodily integrity
2297 Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law."
This is based upon Leviticus 21:16. "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying:
21:17. Say to Aaron: Whosoever of thy seed throughout their families, hath a blemish, he shall not offer bread to his God.
21:18. Neither shall he approach to minister to him: If he be blind; if he be lame; if he have a little, or a great, or a crooked nose;
21:19. If his foot, or if his hand be broken;
21:20. If he be crookbacked; or blear eyed; or have a pearl in his eye, or a continual scab, or a dry scurf in his body, or a rupture.
21:21. Whosoever of the seed of Aaron the priest hath a blemish: he shall not approach to offer sacrifices to the Lord, nor bread to his God.
21:22. He shall eat nevertheless of the loaves that are offered in the sanctuary.
21:23. Yet so that he enter not within the veil, nor approach to the altar: because he hath a blemish, and he must not defile my sanctuary. I am the Lord who sanctify them."
"What of a person born male in terms of chromosomes who, through no fault of his own by some type of accident or something, no longer had the external plumbing, but was still willing to take the vow of celibacy? Male chromosomes, no plumbing, culturally male. Would that conform to the Canons?"
It depends; if, for example, you have lost your fingers or even a hand, you may not be ordained (or, if it happens after ordination, you may have to seek permission to be allowed celebrate the Mass):
"Impediments to ordination to the Priesthood
Impediments to the priesthood are divided into "irregularities", which are permanent unless removed by the competent authority and "simple impediments" which may pass with time without action of an ecclesiastical authority. Canon Law also lists various impediments to the exercise of a priesthood that has already been conferred. T he bishop can remove most irregularities and simple impediments, except for those involving public apostasy, heresy, or schism; abortion or murder, even if in secret; and existing marriages. Irregularities that cannot be removed by the bishop can be removed by the Holy See.
Irregularities
Mental illness that prevents fulfillment of the duties of the priesthood.
Physical incapacity to perform the rites of the Church. A priest must have his hands to celebrate the sacraments. He must also be able to ingest the wheat host and the wine. (A complete gluten intolerance, for example, is an impediment).
Apostasy, heresy or schism. Previous rejection of the faith which was public and notorious is an impediment.
Attempted Marriage. The attempt to marry despite an existing valid marriage or vow of chastity, or the marriage to a woman who had an existing valid marriage or vow of chastity forms an irregularity even after the death of the spouse.
Participation in an abortion or murder. Any prior act, statement, financial or moral support which contributed positively to a specific case of successful abortion or murder is an impediment. This could include driving a woman to the abortion clinic or paying for her abortion. Paying taxes to a state that funds abortions would generally not be considered a "positive" contribution to the abortion.
Attempted suicide, self mutilation, or mutilation of others. Any premeditated attempt at suicide disqualifies one as a candidate for ordination. The act of mutilation must be "graviter et dolose" in order for it to be an impediment (cutting off a hand or foot, castration, etc.) (Can. 1041, 5°)
Attempt to perform an act proper to the priesthood or episcopate. This applies to hearing acts such as hearing confessions, presiding at marriages, etc. when one has not received the proper ordination to do so.
Simple impediments to ordination
Previous marriage. This applies to Latin Rite priests and bishops and Eastern Catholic bishops only. All previous marriages must be declared null, or the spouse must have died. In the case of a deceased spouse, most bishops require that the children be raised to adulthood before the man can undertake a vocation to the priesthood.
Political office or other positions that a priest is not permitted to occupy. This impediment disappears as soon as the candidate is no longer in office.
Recent baptism. The bishop must determine when a newly baptized person is sufficiently mature in his faith to undertake an ordained ministry in the Church.
Irregularities to the exercise of the priesthood
Reception of ordination with an irregularity. If the irregularity is not brought to the bishop's attention before ordination, a priest might be ordained who has an irregularity. Such a priest cannot exercise his ministry until the irregularity is removed.
Apostasy, heresy or schism that occurs after ordination, if this act is publicly known.
Commission of acts that would have led to an irregularity.
Simple impediments to the exercise of the priesthood
Reception of ordination with a simple impediment.
Physical or mental illness that prevents fulfillment of the duties of the priesthood, until the bishop determines that the priest may resume the exercise of his ministry."
So, if you're genetically and somatically female, you cannot have surgery and continuing hormone treatment to make yourself male and be ordained. If you're male, there may be impediments to ordination - say you had undergone a vasectomy, then this would be an impediment, unless you got it reversed. What it boils down to is that it's based on the instructions in Leviticus for the Aaronic priesthood (and they say Catholics don't read the Bible!)
Posted by: Fuinseoig at December 15, 2007 07:07 PM (A6yeg)
Winter Storm Watch in effect from Saturday morning through
Sunday afternoon...
The National Weather Service in Sterling Virginia has issued a
Winter Storm Watch... which is in effect from Saturday morning
through Sunday afternoon.
Low pressure will develop across the lower Mississippi Valley on
Saturday... then is expected to move northeast and pass through the
mid Atlantic region Saturday night and Sunday.
The exact timing... track and strength details associated with
this storm remain uncertain at this time... however much of the mid
Atlantic region has the potential to receive significant wintry
precipitation Saturday through Sunday. This includes the
possibility of some areas receiving 5 or more inches of snow and
sleet accumulation and a quarter inch or more of ice accumulation.
Preparations should be made now for hazardous winter weather
across the region Saturday through Sunday.
A Winter Storm Watch means there is a potential for significant
snow... sleet... or ice accumulations that may impact travel.
Continue to monitor the latest forecasts.
Aaaaaah, that's teh stuff. I've always found it interesting that while we denizens of the Dee Cee area love to panic at the first sign of a snowflake, we're not at all ashamed to admit it. Yes, we say, we're over-reacting. We probably don't really need to close all the schools and the guv'mint. We probably don't really need to spend four hours at Safeway stocking up on RCMP-approved survival gear and rations. But we do so anyway. And this is a problem why?
As a matter of fact, this is scheduled to be a pretty hectic weekend around Orgle Manor, including a holiday party, two separate sleep-overs, extensive practices of various sorts and three (count 'em) three Church services that Yours Truly is supposed to attend Sunday morning. We shall see how much the weather cuts into all that. (If it keeps the Llama-ettes' little friend from staying over Saturday night, I will be quite happy.)
UPDATE: Re post below, great minds. I went to refresh the tea cup before hitting "publish"....
Yips! from Robbo: Great minds, indeed, but what kind of nancy-boy drinks tea in the morning?
Peggy on She Who Must Not Be Named's encounter with the bucket of water that is national presidential campaign politics. Melting! Meeeeeelting!
This thought occurs that Hillary Clinton's entire campaign is, and always was, a Potemkin village, a giant head fake, a haughty facade hollow at the core. That she is disorganized on the ground in Iowa, taken aback by a challenge to her invincibility, that she doesn't actually have an A team, that her advisers have always been chosen more for proven loyalty than talent, that her supporters don't feel deep affection for her. That she's scrambling chaotically to catch up, with surrogates saying scuzzy things about Barack Obama and drug use, and her following up with apologies that will, as always, keep the story alive. That her guru-pollster, the almost universally disliked Mark Penn, has, according to Newsday, become the focus of charges that he has "mistakenly run Clinton as a de facto incumbent" and that the top officials on the campaign have never had a real understanding of Iowa.
This is true of Mrs. Clinton and her Iowa campaign: They thought it was a queenly procession, not a brawl. Now they're reduced to spinning the idea that expectations are on Mr. Obama, that he'd better win big or it's a loss. They've been reduced too to worrying about the weather. If there's a blizzard on caucus day, her supporters, who skew old, may not turn out. The defining picture of the caucuses may be a 78-year-old woman being dragged from her home by young volunteers in a tinted-window SUV.
This is, still, an amazing thing to see. It is a delight of democracy that now and then assumptions are confounded, that all the conventional wisdom of the past year is compressed and about to blow. It takes a Potemkin village.
A thought on the presence of Bill Clinton. He is showing up all over in Iowa and New Hampshire, speaking, shaking hands, drawing crowds. But when he speaks, he has a tendency to speak about himself. It's all, always, me-me-me in his gigantic bullying neediness. Still, he's there, and he's a draw, and the plan was that his presence would boost his wife's fortunes. The way it was supposed to work, the logic, was this: People miss Bill. They miss the '90s. They miss the pre-9/11 world. So they'll love seeing him back in the White House. So they'll vote for Hillary. Because she'll bring him. "Two for the price of one."
It appears not to be working. Might it be that they don't miss Bill as much as everyone thought? That they don't actually want Bill back in the White House?
Maybe. But maybe it's this. Maybe they'd love to have him back in the White House. Maybe they just don't want him to bring her. Maybe they miss the Cuckoo's Nest and they'd love having Jack Nicholson's McMurphy running through the halls. Maybe they just don't miss Nurse Ratched. Does she have to come?
More, please. I confess that while I am not convinced that HRCR has been reduced to a burnt out broomstick and a soaked black cape just yet, I am nonetheless becoming mighty excited at the prospect that it might just happen.
BTW, Peggy spends the other half of her column on the surprising rise of Huckabee. Me? I don't think he's going to last.
Two-Cent Yips! from Gary:
Polls aside, I can seriously see campaign volunteers of SWMNBN threatening physical harm to 75-year old caucus voters to get them to come out on that cold January evening.
Re: Huck. His support is strong obviously among those voters for whom his religious fervor is most important. For the rest of Iowan Republicans? Dunno. But I'm willing to bet that Romney's GOTV ground game is a well oiled machine. I expect Iowa to be close either way. And Huck doesn't have the infrastructure to take full advantage of any momentum.
1
The hordes of Clintonistas swarming in Iowa and NH remind me of the flying monkeys, or the mobats if you saw the remake.
PS I have long used the term "Potemkin Candidate," as it captures both the vacuousness of her campaign, and the likelihood that she is not exactly her own woman.
Posted by: Tregonsee at December 14, 2007 09:41 AM (UUXm7)
2
I'll guaran-damn-tee ya that Hucks "good ol' Baptist preacher" act is gonna have the glide-path of a homesick brick out west.
Posted by: mojo at December 14, 2007 12:44 PM (g1cNf)
Something better than two thirds of the cards we've received at Orgle Manor this year have been decorated with not one but multiple pics of the sender's family. Typically, they contain one group shot plus a second of Mom & Dad plus singletons of all the kids.
The Missus says this is a service being offered by Shutterfly. Personally, I don't much like it - the cards come out looking more like fashion spreads or advertising glossies than holiday greetings.
The grand poo-bah overblown winner so far came from a family of four notorious in our area for its extravegance. (The Mom - who doesn't actually work - is reported to have a nanny for each kid plus a personal attendant/secretary for herself.) Their card featured a group shot on the cover. Opening it up revealed:
- Another full group shot
- A shot of Mom & Dad together
- A shot of Dad with the kids
- A shot of Mom with the kids
- A shot of the kids together
- A shot of the Son
- A shot of the Daughter
And if that weren't enough, flipping over to the back revealed yet two more shots of the Son and the Daughter separately, plus one more group shot. There was also an overhead pic of L'Estate Rubeux, their palatial residence. And if that wasn't enough, the names and email addresses of the photographer, the make up artist (yes, really) and the printer were listed at the bottom of the card.
Of course, this is an outer marker of bad taste, but it seems to be symptomatic of the trend. And as I say, I don't like it very much.
1
If it helps, our Christmas letter has no photos typically. If there is a photo of any type, it's a tiny picture of the girls (our dogs) just to the side of where we sign it and is placed solely to avoid awkward looking white space.
I do think crediting the makeup artist is a nice touch. After all, it's Christmas. Let the peasants feel good about themselves.
Posted by: beth at December 13, 2007 12:45 PM (EwCww)
In the past I've had pictures of my younglings made into Christmas cards, but this year I enclosed small school pictures in the scant few cards I sent out.
And don't you just love (hate) those "update" letters?
Posted by: GroovyVic at December 13, 2007 12:53 PM (DVkb2)
3
Robbo, it's my experience that women like the one you've described purposely wear themselves out with their extensive thank you notes and Christmas cards so they have no energy for s*x...
Then Dad, who's footing the bill to keep his wife detained (away from him) actually is dumb enough to smile for the camara, after donning the mascara and lip powder.....
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at December 13, 2007 01:18 PM (/e0V6)
4
I like the update letters as long as it isn't extensive crowing about last year's vacations.
I have a son currently living in Nagasaki Japan. Being the terrible friend that I am, not many people know this. My husband is also over in Asia many moths of the year. We have a few rather humerous, if you want to call food poisoning and hospitalization humerous, stories of his recent travels to the dark side of the moon...
So, we sent out an update letter, complete with a picture of one kid in a Santa hat outside a Buddhist temple in Japan and the other guy in his flight suit opening his suit to reveal his Superman tee shirt underneath...
Maybe I am gouche, but I thought that was something that people I care about would like to see and get a chuckle from.
Posted by: Babs at December 13, 2007 02:00 PM (iZZlp)
5
Jeez. Can't wait to hear what you have to say when you get my Christmas card.
I'm totally with you, though. I got one from a sorority sister and there were pictures of each one of her three kids---the girls in matching dresses---one of the kids together, and one with the parents and the kids. It seemed a bit excessive, but I know her: she undoubtedly bought outfits for the kids for the pictures and wanted to make sure she got her money's worth.
It's nice to get cards that show people put some thought into it, but there is a point where they definitely go overboard.
Posted by: Kathy at December 13, 2007 02:15 PM (EJJop)
6
And you are friends with these persons for the following reasons...? What? Just asking.
Posted by: Sister at December 15, 2007 08:08 PM (igDos)
Looks like Dee Cee might be in for a nasty weekend:
Saturday
Cloudy. A chance of snow and sleet in the afternoon. Highs in the mid 30s. Northeast winds 10 to 15 mph. Chance of precipitation 50 percent.
Saturday Night
Freezing rain...snow...sleet and rain. Lows around 30. Chance of precipitation 80 percent.
Sunday
Snow and rain likely. Brisk with highs in the upper 30s. Chance of precipitation 60 percent.
Of course, since this isn't happening during the work week, we won't be able to indulge ourselves in our traditional full-fledged panic. On the other hand, I'm beginning to sense a rising sense of excitement around the office, among fellow commuters and even from the classical radio jocks.
If I had any extra coin lying around, I'd probably be investing in short term futures in toilet paper, batteries and bottled water right now.
The only part of yesterday's debate worth mentioning, where Fred Thompson puts an end to this idiotic "raise your hands" nonsense used by the schoolmarmy moderator:
It's moments like this where I wonder why Ol' Fred hasn't been more out in front in his campaigning. These are serious times and Presidential candidates need not engage in these kinds of childish debate gimmicks.
h/t: Matt Lewis at Townhall.com
Apparently, Yum Foods (owners of KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut) have decided to copy the strategy of one their biggest rivals:
At a meeting with investors and analysts Wednesday, Yum Chief Executive David Novak said the chain would introduce new products, including beverages and breakfast meals, expand its value menus and offer healthier options at all three of its main U.S. brands — KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut.
Novak said the U.S. division’s transformation is being modeled after moves made in the past few years at McDonald’s Inc., which added healthy options, better quality food and beverage choices to its menu. The changes there led to far higher sales and profit at the nation’s No. 1 hamburger chain in the past year.
The owner of a Burger King franchise says there's no merit to a man's claim that he bit into an unwrapped condom while eating a sandwich he bought there.
Franchise owner Carrols Corp. of Syracuse, N.Y., said it "is confident that no Carrols employee placed any foreign object" on Van Miguel Hartless' food, the company said in a statement released Tuesday.
Hartless, 24, of Fair Haven, claims in a lawsuit that he bought a Southwestern Whopper at the restaurant in Rutland on June 18 and made the discovery when he got home and started eating it.
Say it with me...Eww.
"Don't forget to wear your rubbers! Haw, Haw, Haw!"
Why else would she be running an article featuring the 53 Places to Go in 2008? Hell, just within the top ten you'd touch four continents and a fistfull of far-flung islands.
I mean, I'm all confused: I regularly get tsk-tsk'd by the Times just for owning an SUV and living in the suburbs, and here it is actively cajoling me to increase the ol' carbon footprint by several orders of magnitude.
Then again, perhaps I'm not meant to consider myself one of those "global nomads" of which the article speaks. Perhaps that status is meant to be reserved for the limousine liberal, Barbra Streisand/Al Gore, I-just-sank-500K-into-a-carbon-credits-shell-game-company-so-who-cares? set.
The world wonders.
1
Well, you can travel to one of those places if you're one of the beautiful people who read the Times. Because the problem is not rich people traveling -- it is the great unwashed masses out there using SUVs. The Times would solve global warming by greatly reducing the human populationm to where just the beautiful people remain. With the world as their own personal pleasure dome, concerns like global warming are a thing of the past.
/cynicism off
Posted by: The Abbot at December 12, 2007 08:57 PM (QBuXz)
2
This is not a joke : Our latest issue of Princeton Alumni Weekly has an ad of Bill Ford Jr. talking about how he's buidling "sustainable" cars....
Today, an repsected auto analyst said that we shall know "in the next two years whether or not Ford Motor still exists"...
Sustainable is a buzz word among the elites...makes them feel better they aborted their young...
Posted by: Mrs. Peperium at December 12, 2007 10:13 PM (piBZY)
3
Round up a bunch of peasants, beat them up, and take their carbon credits. Silly things don't need to burn carbon anyway.
Posted by: rbj at December 13, 2007 02:46 PM (UgG6+)
It's Beginning To Sound A Lot Like Christmas, Dammit II - Extremely Efficient Pre-Christmas Musickal Posting (TM)
This coming Sunday we're doing lessons & carols at church. As I already know perfectly well what's coming, I thought I'd get my fuming out of the way early by reposting what I said last year, which was a reposting of what I said the year before:
As I mentioned earlier, yesterday was the lessons and carols service at church. For the occassion, we blew a fair chunk of our rayther meager music budget and brought in a string quartet. Alas, music in general is not one of my church's strong suits: the organist is pretty good, but the choir is rather weak and the lead soprano has a voice like Glinda the Good Witch of the North - high, nasal and with enough vibrato to make your fillings start to resonate. Nonetheless, when everyone was gathered together, it sounded quite nice.
The other thing about the music at my church is that you never quite know what you're going to get served. The organist himself is pretty hidebound and traditional and, left to his druthers, would probably play Bach all the time. However, the rector is well known for his fondness of 20th Century settings as well as his desire to bring in stuff from outside the Anglican tradition. I've heard rumors of a kind of Cold War between the two, a war that threatens to go hot every "Jazz Sunday" - the Sunday before Ash Wednesday - when the rector brings in a couple trumpets and a bass, sits down to the drums himself and lets fly. The organist typically looks as if he's playing his own funeral march on such days or, perhaps more accurately, wishing he was playing the rector's.
All these forces were in evidence yesterday. The service was bookended by Arcangelo Corelli's Concerto Grosso Opus 6, No. 8, one of my favorite pieces of chamber music. We also got helpings of Handel, including a game attempt by one of the choir members to sing "O Thou That Tellest Good Tidings To Zion" in countertenor which produced a startled inquiry from the seven year old as to why that man was singing like a girl. In addition, we had some Palestrina, plus a number of traditional carols. So far, so good.
But I could see the rector's hand behind some of the other choices, including some pleasant but forgettable Vaughn Williams, some pleasant but cliched Bizet and some detestable Britten. I also knew as soon as I opened the program that we were in for......John Rutter.
Now, I'm sure Mr. Rutter is a very nice man and that he means well but the fact of the matter is that his music gives me the guts-ache. It's been variously described as "quirky" and "light" and "happy" and is, I suppose, designed to give listeners the warm fuzzies. In me, it induces a violent urge to reach for a two-by-four and start swinging.
Also, I don't know whose text Rutter uses, but the words are typically as cringe-making as the music:
Have you heard the story that they're telling 'bout Bethlehem, Have you heard the story of the Jesus child?
Isaac Watts it ain't.
The other sure sign of the rector's influence was the inclusion of "Go Tell It On The Mountain". Now personally, I don't hold much of an opinion about spirituals one way or the other, either from a religious or a musical standpoint. However, I will say this: such music being sung by a low church Episcopalian congregation of upper-middle class suburbanites, accompanied by pipe-organ, is aesthetically absurd, and I sincerely wish the rector would cut it out.
As a matter of fact, we've brought in a new lead soprano this year who has a much prettier voice, but other than that I am reasonably confident of my assessment of this year's event long before it actually occurs.
Ah, Christmas traditions! Even the cranky ones give pleasure!
Oh, speaking of Christmas music, I note that over at my new church, Midnight Mass is going to be the full-monty Tridentine. They plan to have an orchestra in and are going to give us Charles Gounod's St. Cecilia Mass. (I know next to nothing about Gounod except that he wrote the "Funeral March of the Marionette.") While I'd prefer a piece from, say, seventy-five to a hundred years earlier, I suppose this will do.
It's Beginning To Sound A Lot Like Christmas, Dammit
The radio station is currently running a rendition of "Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas" by Thomas Hampson, baritone, and the St. Paul Chamber Orchestra.
We hates it when popular songs get dolled up this way. They inevitably sound preposterous. HYAMLC is one of those pleasant ditties that ought to be sung by, oh I dunno, Bing or maybe Dinah Shore, not by Opera Man.
That is all.
ANNOYING PAIN IN THE ARSE CO-BLOGGER YIPS from Steve-O: Let's see, desecration of the classics, check. Presence of Bing Crosby, check. Extra "Get the hell off my lawn you thin white duke freakazoid", check.
Hey, why not go for broke and wail on Gary while I'm at it: here's the opening eight minutes of the Star Wars Christmas Special.
Yips! Back from Robbo:Dayum, you play dirty, Steve-O.
YIPS from Steve-O: Yeah, that was like the Matt Damon/Jason Bourne first-time whupping Zurich cop ass of a YIP from me...
Beg To Differ Yips! from Gary:
Now c'mon, Steve. If you're gonna put the Star Wars holiday special out there as a candidate for the holiday hall of shame, you gotta do it right.
Princess Leia, at the end of the special, singing the Star Wars theme (yes, someone wrote lyrics). I have it on good authority that this is the prime reason why Lucas has tried so hard to embargo this fiasco. WARNING: Carrie Fisher's voice is as dangerous as the shrieking of one of Professor Sprout's fully-gown mandrake plants. Earmuffs at the ready!
This is so going to be crucial to interpreting the maps and codes hidden in the original copy of Jefferson's Bible that Lewis and Clark buried under Mount Rushmore:
NEW YORK - George Washington's commissioned gold medal that was given to Marquis de Lafayette, the French revolutionary who supported the American Revolution, was sold Tuesday at auction for $5.3 million, Sotheby's announced.
La Fondation de Chambrun, in Chateau La Grange, Lafayette's home 30 miles east of Paris, beat out two other bidders.
"The medal is a symbol of the bond and friendship between America and France," said Christophe Van de Weghe, a Manhattan art dealer who represented the foundation.
The medal, shaped like an eagle and believed have its original ribbon and red leather box, will be displayed in Lafayette's bedroom, Van de Weghe said. It also might be displayed at Mount Vernon, Washington's former home and slave plantation in Virginia.
Washington, Lafayette and others in 1783 formed the Society of the Cincinnati, a group devoted to maintaining the Revolution's ideals, and eagle badges were given to members. The medal auctioned Tuesday was made to Washington's specifications.
After Washington's death, the medal was presented to Lafayette by Washington's family; it was consigned to the auction by Lafayette's great-great granddaughter.
1
"Washington's former home and slave plantation in Virginia."
The ol' AP never misses a trick, does it?
Posted by: Robbo the LB at December 12, 2007 01:15 PM (fKpiB)
2
"The medal is a symbol of the bond and friendship between America and France,"
So apparently the bond & friendship between the US & France is only worth $5.3 million. France probably got more than that from Saddam under OFF.
Posted by: rbj at December 12, 2007 02:31 PM (UgG6+)
3
Between the US and France? Doubtful. A personal award is more likely. While the good Marquis helped us out of admiration for the republican ideals of the American revolution, the Crown of France was mostly interested in using us as a pawn in their long-running feud with the English crown.
Idealism, from Louis of France? Don't make me laugh.
Posted by: mojo at December 12, 2007 05:04 PM (g1cNf)
So, Blogspot users, what is the deal with my not being allowed to leave comments without a blogger/google account anymore?
Lame, IMHO.
UPDATE: Oh, I see that I can still get in anoni, anonny, er, without giving a name. But I used to be able to use my non-Blogger ID and linky to the ol' Butcher shop and that function seems to be gone.
1
Hrm. My settings still show that I allow anonymous users to leave comments - which *should* indicate that people w/o blogger/google accounts are ok to comment.
I'll poke around and see if I can find any announcement that they've changed it. Cause if they did, that might just push me to another platform as that's rather ridiculous.
Posted by: beth at December 12, 2007 11:13 AM (EwCww)
2
Re the update - I suspect that this has something to do with the "Blogger in Draft" thing they're doing where they're pushing OpenID. But because it's in draft and not something that's out there for everyone, I'm confused why they would take away functionality in the mean time.
Guess it boils down to getting what you pay for.
Posted by: beth at December 12, 2007 11:28 AM (EwCww)
3
If you figure this out, let us know. I've been having the same problem.
Posted by: NBS at December 12, 2007 12:04 PM (m2Sgq)
4
my blogspot blog still allows nameless comments, it is an option I allow.
Whether or not I approve your comment is a different story.
Posted by: Marvin at December 12, 2007 12:30 PM (w/dUC)
5
Ok, from what I can easily google (it's a slow day at work today), it appears that this is, indeed, related to their desire to push for OpenID - which is of course based on their stuff.
This has a pretty good summary of the change and some ideas for what blogger folks can do to try and make it a little nicer and/or work around it with 3rd party commenting tools.
I like the google kool-aid, I'll admit it, but I don't like it when it gets forced down other people's throats.
Grumble.
Posted by: beth at December 12, 2007 01:08 PM (EwCww)
6
The blogger has the option of allowing anon, Blogger ID, or whatever. Also of turning on or off word verification and owner approval. I let anyone comment at my blog, but I moderate every comment. Easy to do when you're a zit on the butt of the blogosphere like I am.
Posted by: Hucbald at December 12, 2007 06:23 PM (VGKLp)
