Brutally Honest

"So what does this have to do with my love for the papacy?"

Brandon Vogt is glad the Pope is "just a man":

“You actually follow the Pope?!” people have asked me, sure that this is just as silly as believing in fairies. “He’s just a man like you and me! What are you brainwashed?”

For many years, I wondered the same thing about Catholics. Before I entered the Church I questioned why so many people were devoted to a simple, strange old fellow in a white dress. After all, he’s just a man, right?

But today the fact that the Pope is “just a man” no longer keeps me away from the Church. In fact now it’s just the opposite; it’s one more reason I embrace her.

...

Now when I say ‘man’, I’m not talking about mere masculinity. I’m talking about the true humanity that we all share. The salty, tragic, wonderful mishmash of traits that makes us human; the mix of benevolence and evil and generosity and shame that fills us all.

A glance at the papacy down through the centuries reveals this spectrum. For example, we’ve had our fair share of salty popes. Pope John XII murdered scores of people and was caught in bed with another man’s wife. Pope Urban VI tortured dozens, if not hundreds, of conspirators. And Pope Stephen VI exhumed the dead body of his predecessor before throwing it in a river. The papacy, like mankind, has its warts.

But on the flipside, we’ve had many honorable popes. Think of men like Gregory the Great, Leo XIII, and Pope John Paul II (and, may I add, Pope Benedict XVI). Though they weren’t perfect by any measure, these men captained the Church well and brought light to the entire world. Like the repentant Peter, they each submitted their wills (and faults) to God. So the papacy, like mankind, also has its beauty.

The pope has always been “just a man”. He’s like us in all ways including sin. He falls, he triumphs, he suffers, he sacrifices, he makes mistakes yet seeks redemption. He understands all of our difficulties for they are his own and has moments of glory that seem far beyond this world.

And that all, of course, makes sense: the only way God could save a world of humans was to become one himself. Likewise, the only way a pope can lead a Church of humans is be one of the crowd.

So I’d agree with the skeptic who says the Pope is “just a man” like the rest of us. And for that very reason–for that surprising, sometimes disturbing fact–I’m glad.

That's good stuff... and from "a man" who's not yet 30.

Amazing.

Read more about him and his conversion to Catholicism here.  Here's a teaser excerpt:

Back at the Wesley Foundation--as in many Evangelical circles—there was a resurgence in classical spirituality. Hearing recommendations of Chesterton, Merton, Mother Teresa, andAugustine became regular. And ancient spiritual practices like 'lectio divina' and 'Lenten fasting'became fresh streams for thirsty souls.

As I engaged these authors and practices, though, I couldn't avoid a nagging theme: the Catholic tradition lurking behind so many of these gems. I thought, 'If so many of these spiritual giants were Catholic, and if so many of these practices stem from the Catholic tradition, then there must be some truth to the Catholic faith'. How could Chesterton and Augustine be so right about everything except their religion? Were the Catholic vows shared by Teresa and Merton a foundation or a hindrance to their profound spirituality? And there was another theme that echoed again and again:the Eucharist. What to make of this "Eucharist" that so many of these masters counted as gold? These questions—along with a proposal to my Catholic girlfriend--convinced me to seriously explore the Catholic faith.

There's much more and it's fascinating.  See if you'll agree.

Is Newt Gingrich a bigot?

I tripped over this nearly two week old piece in the Boston Globe by John Sununu today:

WHEN BIGOTS speak, their words have purpose. They intentionally choose phrases that inflame, denigrate, and marginalize other races, religions, or nationalities. They employ distortions and stereotypes to bolster false arguments. Which brings us to Newt Gingrich, who in an interview last week derided “an invented Palestinian people.’’ His comments were a calculated — but demonstrably false — slander, designed to curry favor with a constituency for which he cares by insulting one for which he does not.

...

Gingrich is intelligent, which makes his bigotry all the more dangerous. He employs it not for self-satisfaction, but for political ends. His statements are wrong in fact — and contradict more than 40 years of bipartisan US policy. They reflect a cavalier attitude toward diplomacy, and send the message to allies in Europe and the Middle East that we are inconsistent and unreliable. They were designed to marginalize, not explain; and will be used by extremists on both sides to discourage reconciliation and compromise.

Language can be a wonderful and powerful tool — all the more reason for political leaders to use it thoughtfully and with care. Gingrich’s disgraceful behavior addressing such a difficult and sensitive issue demonstrates that he cannot be trusted to use words carefully. Why should anyone trust him with more?

Andrea Levin has responded to Sununu (and others) with a rebuttal that deserves a read by the thoughtful:

Few of the irate critics addressed the first part of Gingrich's statement to "remember, there was no Palestine as a state," no doubt preferring to avoid the difficulty of countering this manifestly accurate observation. Sununu did take a swing at the topic, citing references in the 1930's and 40's to "Palestinian Arabs" as though this meant there was a state and referring vaguely to discussions of a "potential state," as though this too bolstered his case. But like the other angry critics, having no argument, he primarily used the opportunity to vent at Gingrich.

 

Sununu and other defenders of the Palestinian Arabs are clearly apprehensive that general awareness of the nonexistence of a Palestinian state historically jeopardizes their case for creating one in the present. Whether or not that's true, the lack of a distinctive Palestinian national identity apart from the wider Arab identity has been argued by many Arabs themselves. As the late author and scholar Marie Syrkin (a Labor Zionist and sometime endorser of Peace Now positions) wrote in a 1970's essay:

The characterization of Palestinian nationalism as ‘artificial’ does not come from Zionist adversaries but from classic Arab sources. In the period before and after the issuance of the Balfour Declaration Arab nationalists consistently protested the use of the name ‘Palestine’ or the adjective ‘Palestinian’ to demark them from other Arabs in the region. All the declarations for the nascent Arab nationalist movement from 1880 on concentrated on ‘the unity of Syria’ with no references to Palestine as other than ‘south Syria.’ Nothing could be more explicit than the statement of the General Syrian Congress in 1919: ‘We ask that there should be no separation of the southern part of Syria, known as Palestine, nor of the littoral western zone which includes Lebanon, from the Syrian country. We desire that the unity of the country should be guaranteed against partition under whatever circumstances....

 

George Antonius, the Arab historian, makes sure that there will be no misunderstanding on this score. In The Arab Awakening (1939), he writes: ‘Except where otherwise specified the term Syria will be used to denote the whole of the country of that name which is now split up into mandated territories of (French) Syria and the Lebanon, and (British) Palestine and Transjordan.’

 

The extremist Mufti of Jerusalem originally opposed the Palestine Mandate on the grounds that it separated Palestine from Syria; he emphasized that there was no difference between Palestinian and Syrian Arabs in national characteristics or group life. As late as May, 1947, Arab representatives reminded the United Nations in a formal statement that ‘Palestine was ... part of the Province of Syria ...Politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity. ... (The Palestinians People, History, Politics; edited by Curtis, Neyer, Waxman and Pollack; 1975, p. 200) [Bolded emphasis added]

There's much more at the link, all of it suggesting strongly that if Gingrich, and by extension myself and others who agree with him, are going to be called bigots, then we're going to have to call many Arabs bigots as well and that I would think is problematic, for Sununu and for his bobble-head agree-ers.

John Sununu and those who've glommed on to his 'Gingrich is a bigot' piece ought to be asked if they believe those Arabs who agree with Gingrich are also bigots.  If so, then at least there's consistency of thought.  If not, we'll need to hear a cogent explanation.

Carry on.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

The co-opting of the Girl Scouts can now be considered complete

There are many stories out there chronicling the Girl Scouts embrace of values that many would call out of the mainstream.  Just google Girl Scout controversies and see them for yourself.

But this one in the eyes of some may be the proverbial nail in the coffin for the GSA:

In 2010, the Girl Scouts of the USA published a book called “MEdia.” The publication, designed for girls in grades six through eight, is a guide that apparently offers insight into how young people should process and understand the media messages surrounding them.

Considering the pervasive nature of popular media, this seems like a viable tool. However, there’s a problem — the book refers young readers to Media Matters for America as one of the primary sources for debunking lies and deceit.

...

Under the headline, “Consider the Source,” text encourages girls to go to the George Soros-funded Media Matters for America web site to clear up any media misinformation they might encounter. It reads:

The Internet is a breeding ground for “urban legends,” which are false stories told as if true. Next time you receive a txt or e-mail about something that seems unbelievable, confirm it before you spread it.

The fact-checking site snopes.com investigates everything from urban legends to “news” articles and posts its findings. Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/) gets the word out about media misinformation.

In case you missed the reference, the Girl Scouts are suggesting that the George Soros funded Media Matters for America be the go to place for combatting media misinformation.

Imagine the outcry if the Boy Scouts Handbook guided members to Rush Limbaugh or Newsbusters for guidance on media veracity... you think there'd be a bit of an outcry?

I'm thnking so.

But this story... will be ignored by your regular outlets for news and information. 

Just doesn't fit the meme.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Most Admired? Seriously?

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are, by far, the most admired people in the country according to Gallup:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama continue to be named by Americans as the Most Admired Woman and Most Admired Man living today in any part of the world. Clinton has been the Most Admired Woman each of the last 10 years, and Obama has been the Most Admired Man four years in a row.

Here are the Top 10 for each list:

It begs the question does it not? What does it mean to admire someone?

Leave it in the comments.

Newt unleashes on Ron Paul with both barrels and more

This is gonna seriously tee some folks off:

Newt Gingrich has finally found a politician he considers even worse than the president he calls socialist, anti-colonialist and radical. That would be his fellow Republican Ron Paul.

"I think Barack Obama is very destructive to the future of the United States. I think Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American," Gingrich said Tuesday in a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer.

Could he vote for Paul? "No." If it came down to Paul vs. Obama? "You'd have a very tough choice at that point."

Gingrich's fencing with Mitt Romney seems like an afternoon at a gentleman's club compared with his slams on Paul. "As people get to know more about Ron Paul, who disowns 10 years of his own newsletter, says he didn't really realize what was in it, had no idea what he was making money off of, had no idea that it was racist, anti-Semitic, called for the destruction of Israel, talked about a race war - all of this is a sudden shock to Ron Paul?" he asked. "There will come a morning people won't take him as serious person."

I think Mr. Paul deserves some serious scrutiny and this will likely now bring it... a good thing... but Mr. Newt's a little hard himself to take seriously when he's comparing his inability to get on the Republican primary ballot in my home state of Virginia with Pearl Harbor... a very bad thing:

“Newt and I agreed that the analogy is December 1941,” campaign director Michael Krull wrote on the Gingrich Facebook page. “We have experienced an unexpected set-back, but we will re-group and re-focus with increased determination, commitment and positive action. Throughout the next months there will be ups and downs; there will be successes and failures; there will be easy victories and difficult days — but in the end we will stand victorious.”

I understand the gist, that they've lost a battle but the war rages on... I just don't believe it's going to resonate with anyone out there who wants to take Newt seriously.

I've got to confess to being a bit disheartened, a tad disillusioned, by the Republican choices.  Barack Obama has got to be one of the most vulnerable incumbent Democrats of any Presidential race I can remember and yet, from my vantage point, it seems the Republican field just isn't stepping up and are on the verge of allowing this one to slip through their fingers.

I hope they get their crap together and sooner rather than later.

Or this country is going to pay big time.  

We're barely surviving the first 4 years.  There's no way we'll survive a second term.

What's Love got to do with it? (UPDATED)

By BroKen

A friend of mine posted an image to Facebook that I think illustrates much of the confusion of our modern age. The image shows stylized extension cord ends, plugs and sockets, in pairs of each possible combination: two plugs, two sockets, and a plug and socket. In the middle of the three pairs are four little words: love has no gender.

Obviously, the image isn't from an electrician's manual. It appears to be saying something important about Love, when in fact it is trying to advocate acceptance of homosexual relations. I posted a cute response; “That's true but sex does have gender. The cords on the right and left (the two plugs and the two sockets) won't work.” A friend of my friend commented that my idea assumes that the only purpose of sex is reproduction. He is wrong. Here's why.

The extension cords are a metaphor for males and females but extension cords don't reproduce. We often call plugs, “male” and sockets, “female” mainly because of their shape, but even more important than shape is function.

In sexual reproduction, the male is essentially the transmitter of information (DNA) and the female is the receiver which then acts on the information to create a new individual. That is what sex is and that's how it works whether in fungi, plants or animals like us. But the concept is not limited to reproduction.

Consider a lock and key. The key carries information which is received by the lock to allow the lock to open. The key is male in both shape and function. The lock is female in both shape and function. Two keys will not work. Two locks will not function. The lock and key, male and female, are two complementary parts of one apparatus, though the lock and key do not reproduce.

You see, the friend of my friend refers to merely the sexual act between humans, while I was referring to the broader and deeper concept of complementary parts which form a unit. Two sockets cannot form a unit. Neither can two plugs.

Of course, the act of sex between humans is more complicated and useful than mere reproduction. But its complications (emotional and social) and uses (celebration and unification) arise from the concept of complementary parts which form a unit. Destructive complications and uses of sexual activity, like rape and prostitution, arise from the rejection of this concept.

So, the image reveals a deeply confused understanding of sex. But it also displays a profound confusion of sex with Love. What do plugs and sockets have to do with “Love”? Nothing! Of course, men love other men, and women love other women. But sexual contact with the same sex is, well, not “love” but “sexual contact”.

As people act on this strange belief that love and sex are the same or that plugs fit plugs as well as plugs fit sockets, “they sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.”

UPDATE (By Mr. Brutally Honest):  I want to link back to and excerpt from RC2's related post on this as she writes something I think to be penetratingly discerning:

I can't tell which side of the gay marriage controversy this poster is on. The slogan is clearly pro; the illustration? Not so much. Which makes it the first "bi" poster, perhaps. 

 

Anyway, a message I think is absolutely brilliant, though probably not in the manner intended. Assertions to the contrary have no bearing on the actual transmission of life, light, power, spark and bond. [Bolded emphasis added]

Touché.  Says it all I think.

Obama needs more money

Remember when our beloved (by buffoons) President said this:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

As the piece details, the President went on to state that his words back in 2006 were a mistake and thus pushed to have the debt limit raised just a few short months ago and did so successfully.

Well, should he get his way, we're apparently going to do it again:

The White House plans to ask Congress for an increase in the debt limit before the end of the week, according to a senior U.S. Treasury Department official.

The debt limit is projected to fall within $100 billion of the current cap by Dec. 30. President Barack Obama is expected to ask for additional borrowing authority to increase the limit by $1.2 trillion.

Chutzpah.

Occupy death toll now at 9

The Tea Party was villified and mercilessly set upon by the media on the basis of false and/or trumped up accusations of racism and extremism. Juxtapose that with the 9 deaths now being reported at Occupy protests across the country, deaths very few people know anything about.

Have you heard about this outside of the blogosphere?

Yesterday more than 30 people gathered for a vigil to remember 54-year-old Rich Youngblood of Florence who was murdered at the #Occupy Eugene camp. Herald.net reported:

More than 30 people gathered for a vigil to remember a man who died after a fight in the Occupy Eugene camp.

Occupy Eugene leader Kristen Carpenter told KVAL-TV, “We’re sorry we couldn’t have stopped the violence in the system sooner.” She said the Friday night vigil was not just for 54-year-old Rich Youngblood of Florence but also for all victims of street violence.

Police said Youngblood was beaten and choked at the camp on Monday. Authorities are still investigating.

The City Council ordered the camp be disbanded.

With the Eugene beating death, the #occupy death toll stands at 9. This does not include the #Occupy Raleigh protester who shot up a food store injuring three people then committed suicide.

We've seen rioting, fires, rapes, general chaos and mayhem and now 9 deaths... you'd think we'd see more about that on ABC, CBS, NBC, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and other outlets... but... you'd be wrong.

Doesn't fit the meme.

And it's all about that meme now isn't it?

Image stolen from The Jawa Report.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Drew Brees gets Marino's record

Couldn't happen to a classier act:

Quite a night for Drew Brees and the New Orleans Saints - a record and a rout.

Brees set the NFL mark for yards passing in a season, breaking a record that Dan Marino had held for nearly three decades, and New Orleans clinched the NFC South title with a 45-16 victory over the Falcons on Monday night.

Brees threw for 307 yards and four touchdowns, the last a 9-yard strike to Darren Sproles that set the record with 2:51 to go.

"Honestly, I was really trying not to think about the record or anything," Brees said. "I knew we were close. A couple guys mentioned stuff to me on the sideline. I didn't want to hear it. It's like a pitcher with a no-hitter, I guess."

It was Brees' final pass of the game and it gave him 5,087 yards passing - with one game still to play. Marino finished with 5,084 yards for the Miami Dolphins in 1984.

...

As Sproles spiked the ball, Brees thrust his fist triumphantly in the air and started walking toward midfield while the Superdome crowd went wild and his teammates chased him down. Offensive guard Carl Nicks was the first one to get there and tried to lift Brees onto his shoulder, but couldn't do it as teammates swarmed around.

 

"If I could have put him on my shoulders and paraded him around the whole stadium I would have done that. He deserves it," Nicks said. "It's like a movie, man. Just a movie ending. It's beautiful. ... You could tell by everyone's reaction after he did it how much people care about that guy. We all love him."

Brees' four touchdown passes gave him 276 for his career, moving him ahead of Joe Montana (273) and Vinny Testaverde (275) for ninth all-time. He is the first quarterback in NFL history to pass for more than 5,000 yards twice - he had 5,069 in 2008.

Dan Marino sent the following on Twitter within minutes of his record being broken:

Here's but one example of the kind of guy Drew Brees is:

The Brees Dream Foundation was founded in 2003 with a mission to advance research in the fight against Cancer and provide care, education and opportunities for children in need.

Since its inception, the Brees Dream Foundation has committed and/or contributed more than $7,000,000 to charitable causes and academic institutions in the New Orleans, San Diego and West Lafayette/Purdue communities. The Brees Dream Foundation has had a successful 2010 so far. Some of our highlights include:

• We have almost completed $1,000,000 in funding for our renovation project at the American Cancer Society Patrick F. Taylor Hope Lodge in New Orleans, LA.
• The Celebrity Championship in San Diego, California was a big success raising significant funds for Rady Children’s Hospital, the Friends of Scott Foundation, the San Diego MS Society and the San Diego Armed Services YMCA (all located in the greater San Diego area).
• With the help of our friends at Purdue Federal Credit Union, we continued our funding and support for the Purdue Athletes Life Success (PALS) Camp in West Lafayette, IN.
• We once again hosted over 100 college student for a week in New Orleans, Louisiana, joining forces with Habitat for Humanity as part of our annual Rebuilding Through Brotherhood.

Please see the Programs section to learn more about the Brees Dream Foundation.

More here.  

Class act indeed.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

"If he wants money. Get a job. Work, like everybody else in this world."

A would be robber occupies the left cross of one Derek Mothershead, a store clerk who decided he wasn't going to roll over:

H/T Bookworm.

Crossposted at Wizbang.