Guinea Wop Representation Up!
The President has nominated Judge Samuel Alito of the 3rd Circuit to the Supreme Court. As conservative guinea wops from New Jersey ourselves, The Ombusdsman and I think this is an excellent choice, especially with Justice Scalia looking like he's due for a heart attack anyday (The Ombudsman suggests that perhaps on the next duck hunt, Justice Scalia asks Dick Cheney about a good cardiologist.)True, this move may drop the conservative guinea wop population of New Jersey by 33% and the Lutheran quota has been lost to the Papes (and on Reformation Day too), but we must take the the roughs with the smoothes. Overall, this is wonderful news.
Vituperative but thoughtful observations on history, politics, religion, and society.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Saturday, October 29, 2005
The ruse of "small ball"
All through the baseball playoffs I kept hearing that the White Sox were devotees of "small ball" or "smart ball," in other words they succeeded by using bunts, sacrifices, and stolen bases. They did the little things to win, rather than swing for the fences a la Earl Weaver. And they were roundly applauded on tv and radio alike for this philosophy of play; many hoped it would harken a new era of the game, a back to the future movement opposed to the unpopular (with some) ideas of "money ball."
Seems all that was a bit overdone. According to this study, for all the talk of Chisox speed, it really didn't make that much difference. Their stolen bases added 3 runs to the total number of runs they scored all year (about 1/4 of a win) and, on top of that, they scored almost 1/2 of their runs by way of the homerun (second in all of baseball behind the Twins in that category). Which means the Chicago White Sox scored more runs and were more dependent on the homer than either the Yankees or Red Sox. So much for small ball.
Of course, not everyone agrees. Witness this writer in the Toronto Star who is dead wrong on so many levels. The stolen base canard aside, he suggests that money ball philosophy is only about OBP and not about pitching, which seems conveniently to forget that one whole chapter of the book "Money Ball" was about an undervalued pitcher named Chad Bradford that Billy Beane managed to pry away from Kenny Williams of (you guessed it) the White Sox. This writer clearly did not read the book. Where does it say that pitching is not important? Horse manure. Look for high OBP guys who walk a ton, don't strike out, and take a lot of pitches; find pitchers who don't walk a lot of guys, throw strikes, and keep the ball in the park. How radical is that?
He notes the importance of Scott Podsednik to the Chisox this year, and how the team traded away a power hitter to get the speedy leadoff man. True enough, but Podsednik was central to the White Sox because of his, ahem, OBP which if memory serves was north of .400. He helped them because of was the quintessential table setter, not because he stole bases. By the way, the White Sox led baseball in caught stealing -- think of how many extra outs they ran into because of their silly small ball tactics, taking the bat out of the hands of power hitters behind them. Why such bitterness against "Money Ball" anyway?
On a lighter baseball note, a funny little mock article about how Leo Strauss impacted the Pale Hose championship this year can be found here.
All through the baseball playoffs I kept hearing that the White Sox were devotees of "small ball" or "smart ball," in other words they succeeded by using bunts, sacrifices, and stolen bases. They did the little things to win, rather than swing for the fences a la Earl Weaver. And they were roundly applauded on tv and radio alike for this philosophy of play; many hoped it would harken a new era of the game, a back to the future movement opposed to the unpopular (with some) ideas of "money ball."
Seems all that was a bit overdone. According to this study, for all the talk of Chisox speed, it really didn't make that much difference. Their stolen bases added 3 runs to the total number of runs they scored all year (about 1/4 of a win) and, on top of that, they scored almost 1/2 of their runs by way of the homerun (second in all of baseball behind the Twins in that category). Which means the Chicago White Sox scored more runs and were more dependent on the homer than either the Yankees or Red Sox. So much for small ball.
Of course, not everyone agrees. Witness this writer in the Toronto Star who is dead wrong on so many levels. The stolen base canard aside, he suggests that money ball philosophy is only about OBP and not about pitching, which seems conveniently to forget that one whole chapter of the book "Money Ball" was about an undervalued pitcher named Chad Bradford that Billy Beane managed to pry away from Kenny Williams of (you guessed it) the White Sox. This writer clearly did not read the book. Where does it say that pitching is not important? Horse manure. Look for high OBP guys who walk a ton, don't strike out, and take a lot of pitches; find pitchers who don't walk a lot of guys, throw strikes, and keep the ball in the park. How radical is that?
He notes the importance of Scott Podsednik to the Chisox this year, and how the team traded away a power hitter to get the speedy leadoff man. True enough, but Podsednik was central to the White Sox because of his, ahem, OBP which if memory serves was north of .400. He helped them because of was the quintessential table setter, not because he stole bases. By the way, the White Sox led baseball in caught stealing -- think of how many extra outs they ran into because of their silly small ball tactics, taking the bat out of the hands of power hitters behind them. Why such bitterness against "Money Ball" anyway?
On a lighter baseball note, a funny little mock article about how Leo Strauss impacted the Pale Hose championship this year can be found here.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Listen Very Carefully I Will Say This Only Once
People don't like your opinion. No really it's true. There are scads of people, hordes even, who dislike your opinions. Some may even find ways of voicing displeasure with your opinions, thereby expressing their own opinions. I would hope they follow the general rules of civility when doing so, although from what I've seen of the blog world this is not always the case, but people are free to express their disapproval of your opinions. And now for the really earth shattering news: advertisers are people too. If you are a blogger blessed with advertisers, and an advertiser doesn't like what you say, that advertiser has a perfect right to withdraw advertising from your site.
This public service announcement is prompted by a a story out of Maryland. To sum it up a blogger put up what many considered an offensive reference to the Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, a senatorial candiadte for the Sarbanes seat. An advertiser on the site, Virginia gubernatorial candidate Tim Kaine, was one of the people who found it offensive, so offensive that he withdrew his ad and thus his financial support from the site. The article in the Washington Post covers the incident and then sussed out this fascinating take on this action from other bloggers:
Other liberal bloggers defended Gilliard and took after Kaine for pulling his ad. Markos Moulitsas, editor of the blog Daily Kos, said that advertisers should expect edgy content and that Kaine's actions could threaten their editorial independence.
"I don't want bloggers to be afraid to say things because they don't want to offend an advertisers," Moulitsas said.
Oh puh-lese. No one is obligated to support you. If you modify your opinion so an advertiser stays, this is not the fault of the advertiser, but of your money loving heart. You can cook with gas, but if your advertisers can't stand the heat, they have the right to get the hell out of the kitchen. The decision to stick with gas or switch to electric is entirely up to you, however, and trying to place the responsibility for this decision on others sounds more like petulant whining than a bold declaration of intellectual freedom.
People don't like your opinion. No really it's true. There are scads of people, hordes even, who dislike your opinions. Some may even find ways of voicing displeasure with your opinions, thereby expressing their own opinions. I would hope they follow the general rules of civility when doing so, although from what I've seen of the blog world this is not always the case, but people are free to express their disapproval of your opinions. And now for the really earth shattering news: advertisers are people too. If you are a blogger blessed with advertisers, and an advertiser doesn't like what you say, that advertiser has a perfect right to withdraw advertising from your site.
This public service announcement is prompted by a a story out of Maryland. To sum it up a blogger put up what many considered an offensive reference to the Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, a senatorial candiadte for the Sarbanes seat. An advertiser on the site, Virginia gubernatorial candidate Tim Kaine, was one of the people who found it offensive, so offensive that he withdrew his ad and thus his financial support from the site. The article in the Washington Post covers the incident and then sussed out this fascinating take on this action from other bloggers:
Other liberal bloggers defended Gilliard and took after Kaine for pulling his ad. Markos Moulitsas, editor of the blog Daily Kos, said that advertisers should expect edgy content and that Kaine's actions could threaten their editorial independence.
"I don't want bloggers to be afraid to say things because they don't want to offend an advertisers," Moulitsas said.
Oh puh-lese. No one is obligated to support you. If you modify your opinion so an advertiser stays, this is not the fault of the advertiser, but of your money loving heart. You can cook with gas, but if your advertisers can't stand the heat, they have the right to get the hell out of the kitchen. The decision to stick with gas or switch to electric is entirely up to you, however, and trying to place the responsibility for this decision on others sounds more like petulant whining than a bold declaration of intellectual freedom.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
She Knows the Croaking Chorus
A big cordial blogger hello (HELLO!) to the new blog Songs for Frogs and its uberposter "Singin' in DC". The official tag reads: "A Capitol Hill reporter shares the amusing anecdotes that can't make it into news stories ... and thoughts on life, love, faith and running shoes." But those of us fortunate enough to know the zany, talented and downright HI-larious Singin' know that this is but an understatement of the matter. As the posts already up reveal, the entertainment value is high. Where else will you find comments about Senators and their hand grenades?
A big cordial blogger hello (HELLO!) to the new blog Songs for Frogs and its uberposter "Singin' in DC". The official tag reads: "A Capitol Hill reporter shares the amusing anecdotes that can't make it into news stories ... and thoughts on life, love, faith and running shoes." But those of us fortunate enough to know the zany, talented and downright HI-larious Singin' know that this is but an understatement of the matter. As the posts already up reveal, the entertainment value is high. Where else will you find comments about Senators and their hand grenades?
The Obesity "Epidemic"
We Americans are not only growing but are actually BREEDING obese pumpkins ! When will the epidemic end? And how can the Brits hope to compete against the hefty Yankees?
We Americans are not only growing but are actually BREEDING obese pumpkins ! When will the epidemic end? And how can the Brits hope to compete against the hefty Yankees?
Saturday, October 15, 2005
You know, I have never been to an opera either, not because of anti-elitism (hell, I'd go in spite just for that reason), but because the opportunity and time have not emerged. Then again, I've not been to many concerts or performances at all. I saw Chorus Line on Broadway in the late 80's (fell asleep in the warm theater), caught Phish (guy played a vacuum cleaner during a song, and virtually all the fans looked like Jesus) and Great Big Sea (in DC about 7 years ago, not bad) while in college (ungrad and grad), and, um, that's about it. A few plays here and there. Quite disgraceful, no?
Perhaps Bunnie should not read this lovely bit by Theodore Dalrymple over at the Social Affairs Unit. Baroque is superior to Rock! Imagine!
Speaking of disgraceful, there were plans to auction off the jawbone of an unknown Civil War soldier in New Hampshire, until it was pulled under public pressure. Everything has a price apparently.
A lovely commentary here by Roger Sandall. Just a taste for you,
But I don’t care if the Maya civilization did collapse. I don’t think we should shed a single retrospective tear. It might be interesting to know how or why it fell—whether from war or drought or disease or soil exhaustion—but I don’t much care about that either. Because quite frankly, as civilizations go, the Mayan civilization in Mexico didn’t amount to much.
Now I know this is a shocking thing to say. Gallery owners in New York and elsewhere will cry out indignantly about the glories of Maya art. They will show you terra cotta figurines and fine reliefs and paintings and tell splendid tales of “kings” and “nobles” and such. In deference to this view we shall gladly concede that Maya art is not uninteresting. But it is sheer romantic fantasy to mourn the passing, around 900 AD, of an aristocracy of hypersensitive native aesthetes—though anthropologists and art critics have written reams of such stuff.
Glamorous talk of “kings” and “lords” and “nobles” always sounds better than a realistic description of murderous and predatory chieftains with little but power, conquest, self-glorification, enslavement, and killing and torture on their minds. Yes: they wore spectacular feather head-dresses. Yes: they built sky-high piles of masonry. But their hands dripped blood—incessantly.
Yet another disgrace: the Beatles have been voted an icon of the 20th century over Louis Armstrong. This is right up there with those who have been memorializing that Baby Boomer bard John Lennon, whose "gifts" I simply do not understand or appreciate ... or see evidence of. I just don't get it.
Nice commentary on John Buchan right here, the greatest of the espionage writers.
Perhaps Bunnie should not read this lovely bit by Theodore Dalrymple over at the Social Affairs Unit. Baroque is superior to Rock! Imagine!
Speaking of disgraceful, there were plans to auction off the jawbone of an unknown Civil War soldier in New Hampshire, until it was pulled under public pressure. Everything has a price apparently.
A lovely commentary here by Roger Sandall. Just a taste for you,
But I don’t care if the Maya civilization did collapse. I don’t think we should shed a single retrospective tear. It might be interesting to know how or why it fell—whether from war or drought or disease or soil exhaustion—but I don’t much care about that either. Because quite frankly, as civilizations go, the Mayan civilization in Mexico didn’t amount to much.
Now I know this is a shocking thing to say. Gallery owners in New York and elsewhere will cry out indignantly about the glories of Maya art. They will show you terra cotta figurines and fine reliefs and paintings and tell splendid tales of “kings” and “nobles” and such. In deference to this view we shall gladly concede that Maya art is not uninteresting. But it is sheer romantic fantasy to mourn the passing, around 900 AD, of an aristocracy of hypersensitive native aesthetes—though anthropologists and art critics have written reams of such stuff.
Glamorous talk of “kings” and “lords” and “nobles” always sounds better than a realistic description of murderous and predatory chieftains with little but power, conquest, self-glorification, enslavement, and killing and torture on their minds. Yes: they wore spectacular feather head-dresses. Yes: they built sky-high piles of masonry. But their hands dripped blood—incessantly.
Yet another disgrace: the Beatles have been voted an icon of the 20th century over Louis Armstrong. This is right up there with those who have been memorializing that Baby Boomer bard John Lennon, whose "gifts" I simply do not understand or appreciate ... or see evidence of. I just don't get it.
Nice commentary on John Buchan right here, the greatest of the espionage writers.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Only Gassy Old Windbags Need Apply
The Nobel Prize for Literature has finally been announced, a week after the originally scheduled time, and it has gone to Harold Pinter of the UK.
I have no opinion on the Pinter. I've not read him. I know his political views, which are a dime a dozen in the literary world, but I don't know his actual work, so it may be he well deserves it. He may be the best pick ever for all I know.
But what is far more interesting than the Pinter is the possibility as reported for the past week is that the Nobel committee hesitated because it was split on giving the Prize to the Turkish novelist, Orhan Pamuk. Why? Because Pamuk has publically come out against genocide, stating that the Turkish government was responsible for genocide against the Armenians and the Kurds, a statement for which he will soon be tried.
So now with the announcement of Pinter, we see the Academy has shown it's usual courage, the courage it so boldly displayed during the Rushdie affair. The much mentioned possibility that Pamuk was too young for the award is completely specious. Much tosh is talked about how the Nobel is an award for "lifetime achievement" and at 54 Pamuk doesn't have a large enough canon (Only 7 novels. Shocking!) to justify the award. Nonsense. If you look at the history of the Nobel, it has been given many times to authors in their 50's or even YOUNGER. Gracious this author didn't publish her most impressive work until 15 years AFTER her Nobel.) But then people used to think that quality trumped quantity. Now apparently the Nobel Committee thinks that if you want to be considered, you have to be a gassy old windbag. If I were Mr. Pinter I wouldn't be very flattered.
I don't know whether Mr. Pamuk is Nobel worthy. I've never read him, and it's not my call anyway. (If it were, here would be the 2005 winner for Literature.) The point is the Committee thought Pamuk Nobel worthy but then backed away because it values politics over literature. The last courageous choice the Nobel committee made of literature over politics was in 1970. Judging from this year's actions, the committee will never be as courageous again. The only good thing about this decision for me is that it has inspired to me not only to read Pamuk, which I've never done, but to buy his books as well. I may well hate his writing, but I say the courageous should at least get some royalties.
The Nobel Prize for Literature has finally been announced, a week after the originally scheduled time, and it has gone to Harold Pinter of the UK.
I have no opinion on the Pinter. I've not read him. I know his political views, which are a dime a dozen in the literary world, but I don't know his actual work, so it may be he well deserves it. He may be the best pick ever for all I know.
But what is far more interesting than the Pinter is the possibility as reported for the past week is that the Nobel committee hesitated because it was split on giving the Prize to the Turkish novelist, Orhan Pamuk. Why? Because Pamuk has publically come out against genocide, stating that the Turkish government was responsible for genocide against the Armenians and the Kurds, a statement for which he will soon be tried.
So now with the announcement of Pinter, we see the Academy has shown it's usual courage, the courage it so boldly displayed during the Rushdie affair. The much mentioned possibility that Pamuk was too young for the award is completely specious. Much tosh is talked about how the Nobel is an award for "lifetime achievement" and at 54 Pamuk doesn't have a large enough canon (Only 7 novels. Shocking!) to justify the award. Nonsense. If you look at the history of the Nobel, it has been given many times to authors in their 50's or even YOUNGER. Gracious this author didn't publish her most impressive work until 15 years AFTER her Nobel.) But then people used to think that quality trumped quantity. Now apparently the Nobel Committee thinks that if you want to be considered, you have to be a gassy old windbag. If I were Mr. Pinter I wouldn't be very flattered.
I don't know whether Mr. Pamuk is Nobel worthy. I've never read him, and it's not my call anyway. (If it were, here would be the 2005 winner for Literature.) The point is the Committee thought Pamuk Nobel worthy but then backed away because it values politics over literature. The last courageous choice the Nobel committee made of literature over politics was in 1970. Judging from this year's actions, the committee will never be as courageous again. The only good thing about this decision for me is that it has inspired to me not only to read Pamuk, which I've never done, but to buy his books as well. I may well hate his writing, but I say the courageous should at least get some royalties.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
What Bunnie hasn't told you
I offered to PAY for her opera experience and still she turned up her twitchy nose and muttered rich atavistic libertarian oaths against the elite under her carrot laced breath.
I offered to PAY for her opera experience and still she turned up her twitchy nose and muttered rich atavistic libertarian oaths against the elite under her carrot laced breath.
He's Irish, not stupid
The Corner at National Review is touting the bizarre rumor that U2 is holding a benefit concert for Sen. Rick Santorum's re-election campaign this Sunday in Philadelphia. I know that speed is thought essential in the hurly burly blog world, but could we pause for thought occasionally? How likely is it that Bono, who has been very careful to not align himself too closely with any political side, would commit not just himself, but his BAND for a political fundraiser for the re-election campaign of a Senator with whom he some things, but not everything in common? Next to impossible. Has The Edge no edge? Does he just knuckle his brow to the commands of Bono if Bono had in fact so commanded? I think not.
I am the rasaest of tabulas when it comes to rock music. I am not just a void of knowledge on the topic; I am a black hole. But like everyone else in DC, I have been an interested observer of Bono going through his political paces, and while I do not agree with many of his positions, what is clear is that he's a canny man. He's been careful to appeal to both sides, and while he thinks well of Santorum's former Chief of Staff, I doubt he would go out on such a political limb as to volunteer his BAND for a fundraiser. He does not strike me as a man who would throw over his mates for the sake of a tenuous political tie. ( I assume the members of the band are his mates but perhaps those with knowledge of the rock world will tell me everyone in the band hates Bono's guts, and he theirs, and it's all about him in his mind.) Bono doesn't need Santorum for his political ends--Casey would probably be just as sympathetic to his desires--but he does need his band.
As for the rumor, consider the source . Or rather don't. I know many in the conservative movement love this source, because it feeds them the kool-aid 24-7 through a 14 gauge IV, but I have found it to be notoriously unreliable. I wouldn't trust a story from it unless I established three independent confirmatory sources for the story, and there are none for this one. What is clear from the Internet is that U2 is playing that evening in Philly at part of their tour. (Get your tickets here!) I'll bet Santorum's re-election campaign has bought seats at that concert, and the reporter zonked on the heavy kool-aid spun it. Now if this is obvious to me, why can't the bright lights at National Review figure this out?
(To be fair in the 30 minutes it took me to spew this piece, The Corner did figure it out and put up the correction, but my original point stands. They should have known this story was ridiculous on its face and should also know better than to trust NewsMax. Clue in Conservative Kids!)
The Corner at National Review is touting the bizarre rumor that U2 is holding a benefit concert for Sen. Rick Santorum's re-election campaign this Sunday in Philadelphia. I know that speed is thought essential in the hurly burly blog world, but could we pause for thought occasionally? How likely is it that Bono, who has been very careful to not align himself too closely with any political side, would commit not just himself, but his BAND for a political fundraiser for the re-election campaign of a Senator with whom he some things, but not everything in common? Next to impossible. Has The Edge no edge? Does he just knuckle his brow to the commands of Bono if Bono had in fact so commanded? I think not.
I am the rasaest of tabulas when it comes to rock music. I am not just a void of knowledge on the topic; I am a black hole. But like everyone else in DC, I have been an interested observer of Bono going through his political paces, and while I do not agree with many of his positions, what is clear is that he's a canny man. He's been careful to appeal to both sides, and while he thinks well of Santorum's former Chief of Staff, I doubt he would go out on such a political limb as to volunteer his BAND for a fundraiser. He does not strike me as a man who would throw over his mates for the sake of a tenuous political tie. ( I assume the members of the band are his mates but perhaps those with knowledge of the rock world will tell me everyone in the band hates Bono's guts, and he theirs, and it's all about him in his mind.) Bono doesn't need Santorum for his political ends--Casey would probably be just as sympathetic to his desires--but he does need his band.
As for the rumor, consider the source . Or rather don't. I know many in the conservative movement love this source, because it feeds them the kool-aid 24-7 through a 14 gauge IV, but I have found it to be notoriously unreliable. I wouldn't trust a story from it unless I established three independent confirmatory sources for the story, and there are none for this one. What is clear from the Internet is that U2 is playing that evening in Philly at part of their tour. (Get your tickets here!) I'll bet Santorum's re-election campaign has bought seats at that concert, and the reporter zonked on the heavy kool-aid spun it. Now if this is obvious to me, why can't the bright lights at National Review figure this out?
(To be fair in the 30 minutes it took me to spew this piece, The Corner did figure it out and put up the correction, but my original point stands. They should have known this story was ridiculous on its face and should also know better than to trust NewsMax. Clue in Conservative Kids!)
Friday, October 07, 2005
Scooter Support
Now that the White Soxs have swept the Red Soxs, the Pink Soxs, a new breed of hairless Corgis has been created. Before he starts building this breed, I encourage Dr. C to go see Wallace and Gromit, The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. For one thing it will cheer him up. For another, it 's a valuable lesson about mucking about with nature. I'm sure Scooter would agree.
Now that the White Soxs have swept the Red Soxs, the Pink Soxs, a new breed of hairless Corgis has been created. Before he starts building this breed, I encourage Dr. C to go see Wallace and Gromit, The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. For one thing it will cheer him up. For another, it 's a valuable lesson about mucking about with nature. I'm sure Scooter would agree.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Nobelly Done
The Style Editor interrupts her extended hiatus to congratulate the winners of the 2005 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, J. Robin Warren and Barry J. Marshall. Drs. Warren and Marshall received this well deserved honor for their discovery that ulcers are caused not by stress and diet but by a bacterium, Heliobacter pylori. The Style Editor remembers vividly the controversy that surrounded their discovery and the lengths to which Dr. Marshall went to prove the connection in the face of established thought and the contempt of his "peers." Elias A. Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health, is spot on the money in saying: "I think this is a perfect example of how excellent science triumphed over conventional dogma. The prize affirms that we must keep true to our scientific principles of exploration, and continually question our assumptions." The academy, or established thought, can be a huge threat to actual science, and I am pleased that in honoring these two scientists the Nobel committee seems, at least for a moment, to recognize that.
Congratulations to two Aussie scientists who got the vibe of science. (It's the inflammation; it's Heliobacter pylori; it's the vibe.) I hope they're stoked.
The Style Editor interrupts her extended hiatus to congratulate the winners of the 2005 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, J. Robin Warren and Barry J. Marshall. Drs. Warren and Marshall received this well deserved honor for their discovery that ulcers are caused not by stress and diet but by a bacterium, Heliobacter pylori. The Style Editor remembers vividly the controversy that surrounded their discovery and the lengths to which Dr. Marshall went to prove the connection in the face of established thought and the contempt of his "peers." Elias A. Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health, is spot on the money in saying: "I think this is a perfect example of how excellent science triumphed over conventional dogma. The prize affirms that we must keep true to our scientific principles of exploration, and continually question our assumptions." The academy, or established thought, can be a huge threat to actual science, and I am pleased that in honoring these two scientists the Nobel committee seems, at least for a moment, to recognize that.
Congratulations to two Aussie scientists who got the vibe of science. (It's the inflammation; it's Heliobacter pylori; it's the vibe.) I hope they're stoked.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Pope Benedict XVI opened his first bishop's synod today, with a full plate of issues to mull over. "A tolerance which allows God as a private opinion but which excludes Him from public life... is not tolerance but hypocrisy," the Pope said in the homily. "When man makes himself the only master of the world and master of himself, justice cannot exist." Delicious!
As usual, it is difficult to tell the difference between a Boston Globe article and one of their editorials. The two tend to blend together. Read this article on priests in the Boston Archdiocese and decide for yourself. Ugh.
As usual, it is difficult to tell the difference between a Boston Globe article and one of their editorials. The two tend to blend together. Read this article on priests in the Boston Archdiocese and decide for yourself. Ugh.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
I thought this was quite interesting: researchers claimed to have found the home of Homer's Odysseus. Robert Bittlestone - backed by two experts - claims the rocky island depicted in The Odyssey is part of Greek tourist destination Cephalonia. He used satellite imagery to match the area's landscape with descriptions in the poem about the return of the man behind the wooden horse of Troy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)