Notification of Some Recent Writings Adjustments:
(In Reference to Some of the Web Essays of Your Weblog Host)
A few of my web essays were recently reviewed and adjusted accordingly. In an essay response to a certain attorney who will not be named from August of 2003, the essay had some minor grammatical glitches and a few points that needed to be phrased smoother than the originally submitted template contained. I figured correcting those points would give those seeking to defend the aforementioned individual a lot less superficial fluff to hang on as a way of avoiding the positions set forth in that particular writing.
The commentary on the intricacies of dialogue from December of 2003 had a couple areas that needed to be smoothed out HTML-wise and also a few points that I wanted to nuance a tad better than I did in the original template. (Along with wanting to utilize a few more Scriptural injunctions where warranted to bolster previously enunciated points in the text.)
With regards to my one (thus far) web essay of 2004, I reviewed all seven urls and made some very minor adjustments to those templates as well. With the latter essay, it was virtually all either HTML, minor grammar stuff, or a minor nuance here and there. However, in going over one of the urls of that work, I found myself writing some new material and referencing my spiritual instructions for another source to bolster what was initially a very lightly touched on point prior to that url's concluding paragraphs.{1}
That template was sent to Matt about four hours ago and the other retouched templates for that work were posted this morning. Anyway, those adjustments and one very small reworking of a controverted point in my September/October 2001 essay on the Syllabus{2} will probably be posted in a day or so.
[Update: The adjusted Syllabus template and the expanded url from the essay contra David Palm are now on the web. -ISM 8/01/04 4:44pm]
Notes:
{1} This was not an essential adjustment by any means; however, as it provided the opportunity to develop further a point that was barely touched on in the composition of the original template, I took the opportunity to do that earlier today when making the other adjustments to the template in question.
{2} It was a point whereby a friend of mine who identifies with the "traditionalists" hung an entire thread of argumentation on last year. Having removed the sections of their previous evasion, perhaps the arguments in that writing will in time be honestly interacted with by them. (I am not holding my breath on that though.)
Friday, July 30, 2004
On the Democratic Party Convention, John Kerry, Etc.:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I did on occasion tune into the Democratic Convention to listen to the speakers -upon which I was left wondering what they slipped into the Kool Aid if you know what I mean. These people have no connection whatsoever with reality. I will cover only a couple of the examples here in brief but these should suffice.
To start with, if one listens to Teresa Heinz Kerry, they may have thought that women had no voice whatsoever...no right to vote or to be heard. To listen to the Al Sharptons of the world, they may have thought that the South was still awash in Jim Crow laws. And need I mention the idiocy of one of John Kerry's kids recalling Mr. F-word himself giving CPR to a drowned hamster and claiming that just as Kerry protected the hamster, he would protect abortion rights??? You do not have to be Mr. Spock to notice the illogic behind claiming a parallel between saving the life of a hamster and killing the life of a child.
And of course to listen to John Edwards talk about "restoring" respect and credibility is a laugh and a half. This fellow talks about credibility when he built his legal career on the dogmas of junk science. He is an ambulance-chasing fraud. Indeed Edwards is arguably even worse than the phony that he is running under.
With F-word, his voting record in the Senate is not the only millstone that will hopefully drag him down in this election. No, even his military record -previously thought to be a feather in his cap- has its own share of problems apparently. Hopefully Bush will take the gloves off and really pound these guys now and stop treating them as honourable opposition. There is nothing honourable about Edwards or Kerry. Indeed they arguably make Bill Clinton look pretty good by comparison and that my friends is a scary thought to put it mildly!!!
Oh, before wrapping this post up, I would be remiss to not mention that Bill O'Reilly -someone I am not much of a fan of- did an excellent job exposing Michael Moore in his interview. Moore kept repeating the same line again and again about Bush "lying" and asking O'Reilly "would you send your child" as if the men and women fighting in Iraq were not consenting adults who joined a volunteer fighting force.
To O'Reilly's credit, he did not fall into these traps and he adequately exposed Moore as an ideologue who is not at all interested in the truth if it conflicts with his personal agenda.{1} And finally, am I the only one who found Moore's interview stipulation that he would only do the interview if O'Reilly agreed to run the entire thing without any editing to be quite telling??? I mean, Moore's movies are nothing but a series of edited bits and pieces. His demand of O'Reilly in light of that irrefutable fact is the textbook definition of hypocrisy. But then again, I have often reiterated the maxim that "liberalism is not a social philosophy but instead is a mental disorder"{2} so in that light we really should not be too surprised I suppose.
Notes:
{1} Or should I say he exposed Moore for anyone with a normal intact functioning brain to see. (Something that of course would not include the bulk of those who were at theJonestown Democratic Convention.)
{2} Credit for this axiom goes to radio talk show host Michael Savage.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I did on occasion tune into the Democratic Convention to listen to the speakers -upon which I was left wondering what they slipped into the Kool Aid if you know what I mean. These people have no connection whatsoever with reality. I will cover only a couple of the examples here in brief but these should suffice.
To start with, if one listens to Teresa Heinz Kerry, they may have thought that women had no voice whatsoever...no right to vote or to be heard. To listen to the Al Sharptons of the world, they may have thought that the South was still awash in Jim Crow laws. And need I mention the idiocy of one of John Kerry's kids recalling Mr. F-word himself giving CPR to a drowned hamster and claiming that just as Kerry protected the hamster, he would protect abortion rights??? You do not have to be Mr. Spock to notice the illogic behind claiming a parallel between saving the life of a hamster and killing the life of a child.
And of course to listen to John Edwards talk about "restoring" respect and credibility is a laugh and a half. This fellow talks about credibility when he built his legal career on the dogmas of junk science. He is an ambulance-chasing fraud. Indeed Edwards is arguably even worse than the phony that he is running under.
With F-word, his voting record in the Senate is not the only millstone that will hopefully drag him down in this election. No, even his military record -previously thought to be a feather in his cap- has its own share of problems apparently. Hopefully Bush will take the gloves off and really pound these guys now and stop treating them as honourable opposition. There is nothing honourable about Edwards or Kerry. Indeed they arguably make Bill Clinton look pretty good by comparison and that my friends is a scary thought to put it mildly!!!
Oh, before wrapping this post up, I would be remiss to not mention that Bill O'Reilly -someone I am not much of a fan of- did an excellent job exposing Michael Moore in his interview. Moore kept repeating the same line again and again about Bush "lying" and asking O'Reilly "would you send your child" as if the men and women fighting in Iraq were not consenting adults who joined a volunteer fighting force.
To O'Reilly's credit, he did not fall into these traps and he adequately exposed Moore as an ideologue who is not at all interested in the truth if it conflicts with his personal agenda.{1} And finally, am I the only one who found Moore's interview stipulation that he would only do the interview if O'Reilly agreed to run the entire thing without any editing to be quite telling??? I mean, Moore's movies are nothing but a series of edited bits and pieces. His demand of O'Reilly in light of that irrefutable fact is the textbook definition of hypocrisy. But then again, I have often reiterated the maxim that "liberalism is not a social philosophy but instead is a mental disorder"{2} so in that light we really should not be too surprised I suppose.
Notes:
{1} Or should I say he exposed Moore for anyone with a normal intact functioning brain to see. (Something that of course would not include the bulk of those who were at the
{2} Credit for this axiom goes to radio talk show host Michael Savage.
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
For Our part, We want to wish a happy two year blogging anniversary to Jeff Miller of The Curt Jester.
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
More on Church Architecture:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
This is published courtesy of Jeff Culbreath's El Camino Real BLOG
The Church in question had been allowed to deteriorate over many years before I came to this Archdiocese. To restore it would cost over five million dollars at a time when we are struggling to maintain a Catholic charities program that serves literally hundreds of thousands of needy New Yorkers, and at a time when the schools that we are struggling to maintain in the inner-city of New York are the only ones whose needy children have any hope of escaping grinding poverty...
...Permit me to close by inquiring if your firm is interested in providing the funds for the restoration about which you write with such zeal.
After reading Mr. Mayer's letter to His Eminence, and then the Cardinal's reply, I went back to check for a request from Mr. Mayer for restoration funds and I did not see any. All Mr. Mayer asked was that the church in question not be allowed to be demolished because of its architectural value in a society which has lost its sense in that area. He also mentioned that the church may qualify as a Historical monument of sorts. In light of the Cardinal's response, going the route of having the church preserved as a Historical monument would seem the most viable option at this time.
Cardinal Egan's concern for the charities that his dioceses funds and redirecting funds from them for church restoration is admirable. However, his lack of careful reading of Mr. Mayer's letter -and imputing to him positions which he did not manifest in said letter- is anything but admirable. Mr. Mayer by what he wrote in the letter does not want the church in question destroyed. This does not constitute requesting diocesan funds to restore it. Frankly, Catholics have just cause for suspicion whenever an old church is going to be "restored" -as indeed such architectural treasures are usually raped of their remaining dignity rather than restored in a manner that retains and magnifies their once ancient splendour which became diminished due to the inexorable ravages of time.
No, if the church in question was to be preserved, I am sure Mr. Mayer and others who share his values could find ways to either maintain it as is or find the funds to restore it. Either way, it would be one less monument to the ages of architectural sanity that did not fall victim to the modern day iconoclast termites whose sole mantra seems to be that of utility for utilities' sake, all other considerations be damned. [LINK]
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
This is published courtesy of Jeff Culbreath's El Camino Real BLOG
The Church in question had been allowed to deteriorate over many years before I came to this Archdiocese. To restore it would cost over five million dollars at a time when we are struggling to maintain a Catholic charities program that serves literally hundreds of thousands of needy New Yorkers, and at a time when the schools that we are struggling to maintain in the inner-city of New York are the only ones whose needy children have any hope of escaping grinding poverty...
...Permit me to close by inquiring if your firm is interested in providing the funds for the restoration about which you write with such zeal.
After reading Mr. Mayer's letter to His Eminence, and then the Cardinal's reply, I went back to check for a request from Mr. Mayer for restoration funds and I did not see any. All Mr. Mayer asked was that the church in question not be allowed to be demolished because of its architectural value in a society which has lost its sense in that area. He also mentioned that the church may qualify as a Historical monument of sorts. In light of the Cardinal's response, going the route of having the church preserved as a Historical monument would seem the most viable option at this time.
Cardinal Egan's concern for the charities that his dioceses funds and redirecting funds from them for church restoration is admirable. However, his lack of careful reading of Mr. Mayer's letter -and imputing to him positions which he did not manifest in said letter- is anything but admirable. Mr. Mayer by what he wrote in the letter does not want the church in question destroyed. This does not constitute requesting diocesan funds to restore it. Frankly, Catholics have just cause for suspicion whenever an old church is going to be "restored" -as indeed such architectural treasures are usually raped of their remaining dignity rather than restored in a manner that retains and magnifies their once ancient splendour which became diminished due to the inexorable ravages of time.
No, if the church in question was to be preserved, I am sure Mr. Mayer and others who share his values could find ways to either maintain it as is or find the funds to restore it. Either way, it would be one less monument to the ages of architectural sanity that did not fall victim to the modern day iconoclast termites whose sole mantra seems to be that of utility for utilities' sake, all other considerations be damned. [LINK]
We need more bishops like Bishop Robert Vasa in American dioceses.
An Open Letter to the Democratic Party by Robert Bennett.
Both of the above links were brought to Our attention by The Catholic Light BLOG.
An Open Letter to the Democratic Party by Robert Bennett.
Both of the above links were brought to Our attention by The Catholic Light BLOG.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)