A powerful article

One of my favorite publications, which I receive monthly, is the New Oxford Review. It is an orthodox Catholic magazine that pulls no punches--something that far too few publications, let alone many "Catholic" ones, do in the politically correct West. It is scholarly yet accessible, orthodox without being stodgy, and bold yet obedient to Catholic Doctrine. It also challenges the reader to live as a Catholic who is in the world but not of the world. (Sadly, too few "mainstream" Catholic publications [including diocesan newspapers] fail miserably here.) Catholicism, after all, is the true Christian Church because it is the only one out of the 25,000-plus nominally Christian churches in the world that was established by Christ. But I digress...

Back to the New Oxford Review. One way in which the magazine has challenged me--and undoubtedly other politically conservative Catholics among its readership--is its consistent stance against the war in Iraq. The magazine has maintained that Catholics should oppose the war because it violates the Just War doctrine first posited by St. Thomas Aquinas. It has denounced the support given the war by prominent "neoconservative" Catholics in Washington, D.C. Personally, I've never been entirely comfortable with the stated reasons for our sending troops to Iraq. I accepted the assumption that there were weapons of mass destruction (an assumption that Slick Willie himself made but did zero to address). However, I think that the claims about "liberating" Iraq tended to be a stretch that was a sort of "Plan B" to which the neocons turned after no WMDs emerged. More than a century ago, there was no "Iraq." The country--an assemblage of several nations--was a creation of the British Empire. I'm not certain that these groups wanted to live together then, nor do I believe that they're striving for that goal now. Moreover, with all of the corruption in our national government these days and downright treasonous behavior by elected officials and journalists alike, what kind of example is the U.S. setting?

This brings me to my main point--and my reason for bringing up the New Oxford Review article. After reading it, I asked myself whether the U.S. is still the "shining city on a hill" to which President Reagan referred. After all, our federal government has for more than three decades legally sanctioned the murder of 50 million-plus unborn children--a genocide that far surpasses the death toll of the Holocaust. Moreover, American society--following that of Western Europe--continues to broaden the definition of a family so that children can grow up with two daddies and no mommy, or vice versa. Sometimes, I almost shudder when I see what I as a parent am up against. What have we become, and how much worse off will the country be 20 years from now?

Are our "democratic" values really what can cure the world's ills?

Like watching a train wreck, part II

The national GOP's descent continues as the Powers That Be in the party continue to illustrate why they lost control of both houses of Congress last week. I base my observation on the selection of Florida Sen. Mel Martinez as party chair and Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott as Minority Whip. Since when have these two gentlemen distinguished themselves as great conservatives? Martinez, HUD secretary during the President's first term, hasn't exactly endeared himself to the base. A prime example of why this is so is his support of the President's amnesty program for illegal aliens. Personally, I think that outgoing Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele would've been a better choice to lead the RNC as it licks its wounds and, hopefully, returns the Republican Party to its rightful status as the country's realiably conservative party.

Lott, as you'll recall, served as Majority Leader until he made a comment endorsing Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign on the Dixiecrat/segregationist ticket. (To his credit, I think that he made the comment more to be nice to an old man than to espouse any racist view.) That unfortunate event aside, he caved when the Senate had the duty to convict President Clinton after he had been impeached by the House. Why should he be rewarded with a leadership post now? Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is a decent, conservative choice for minority leader who's demonstrated his ability to take on the opposition, in my opinion. Probably wouldn't be my first pick (I'd prefer someone like Jon Kyl of Arizona, perhaps), but he's eons better than a liberal like Olympia Snowe or, eek!, Arlen Specter.

My main point here is that the GOP still doesn't seem to get it, even after last week. I believe that the party got clobbered--deservedly so, to some extent--because too many Republicans in D.C. became too arrogant (Executive and Legislative branches) and ignored their conservative base of support. (Rick Santorum, who I'm sorry to say will not be returning to the Senate, is one bright exception.) Selecting dynamic leaders who are loyal to the conservative agenda would've given the base some glimmer of hope.

For the country's sake, I sincerely hope that the Democrat-controlled House and Senate will not do too much damage legislatively. Moreover, also for the country's sake, I hope that the soon-to-be minority Republicans will find the courage to fight for the conservative agenda and hinder the passage of such legislative atrocities as universal health care and amnesty for illegal aliens.

Like watching a train wreck

At this writing, the Dems have regained the U.S. House after 12 years as the minority party. The Senate is still up for grabs. Regardless of the outcome, this country is screwed. I can't say that the victory for socialism (i.e., victory for liberal Democrats) is a big surprise, though. Rather, I should say that liberalism--or should I say non-conservatism--has been fashionable for much of the time the GOP has controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. Our interventionist, globalist foreign policy, coupled with an unwillingness to seriously control our borders, has been very prominent for the past six years. Nor has there been any serious effort to fix Social Security (i.e., at least partially privatize it for younger generations) or enact real tax reform (a flat tax of, say, 15% or replacing the income tax with a national sales tax that targets consumption [my preference]). Let's not forget Bush's willingness to sign into law McCain-Feingold and a huge new prescription drug entitlement--to name two prominent examples of his capitulation. Furthermore, he's virtually ignored the fact the he can (and should) veto excessive spending bills.

The outcome of yesterday's election is no surprise because the GOP, at least on the national level (and with a few individual exceptions), has abandoned its conservative base and the principles of limited government. Instead, they've sought the "middle ground" far too often, only to find themselves in the current predicament. Don't weep for the ousted GOP incumbents, though. I'm sure that they'll find cushy jobs as lobbyists. The rest of us, however, will be forced to swallow even stronger doses of socialism. Speaker Pelosi...eeek!!

A new leaf

Hello Dear Readers:

Fall is one of my favorite seasons, if not my favorite (with spring a close second). I've always been drawn to the cooler--but not cold--weather and clearer skies that usually come with the season. For me, fall signifies a certain vibrancy--even a sense of renewal. In light of the recent development with my vision, these qualities are even more prescient. In the past couple of weeks, I've felt a certain peace come over me that was largely absent for at least the preceding 12 months. I find myself dwelling less on the future and more on the here and now, and I find more joy in my work and the time I spend with my family. I even stop to smell the roses blooming in my front flower bed. Perhaps in my partial blindness, I'm better equipped to see how richly God has blessed me.

What a week!

Hello Dear Reader:

For more than 15 years, with the help of some very able specialists, I have avoided becoming blind despite multiple retinal detachments in both eyes. Last November, I developed another detachment in my right eye and endured aggressive treatment that included four surgeries and other procedures. To add some excitement to the mix, this past summer I developed a pretty bad ulcer on my right cornea. All of this, as veteran "The Young Curmudgeon" readers know, affected my appearance, causing me to look like an unpleasant old codger.

Last Friday, I had what I thought would be my final surgery to correct the detachment. I returned to my opthamologist on Tuesday and discovered that the retina detached again. Given the weakened condition of my right eye following the surgeries, my doctor told me that the chances of success from another surgery were not good. Moreover, "success" at this point would entail my ability to see shadows--not restore "normal" vision. Given these slim chances, and not wanting to put my wife and myself through a repeat of the past year, I decided against further treatment.

So, barring a miracle, I am partially blind. This is certainly a letdown, but it is not the end of the world. With the support and prayers of my loving wife and family, along with the certainty that God has inserted some silver lining at the perimeter of this dark cloud, I will not let a defeatist mentality shadow all of the wonderful blessings that I've been given and will continue to enjoy. Moreover, how bad things may get (it's conceivable that I could develop another detachment in my left eye at some point and become totally blind), I know that things can always be worse. I could be alone, or perceive that I am alone, in this new route on life's journey. But I am not. And life will go on.

Sweatin' to the Orwell

Hello Dear Readers:

By reading this blog, you're obviously demonstrating that you enjoy good writing, can recognize sarcasm (see the previous post), and are intellectually curious enough not to be force-fed the politically correct drivel that is ubiquitous in the West. Heck, you probably even know what "ubiquitous" means! To you, I offer my congratulations on not being a mind-numb robot!

For those, however, who believe this is a good development, I can only say: WAKE UP!! Although I am, shall we say, "well fed" myself and have been known on occasion to sit in front of the TV for too long (mainly before I became a father), this is truly yet another symptom of how bloated government's gotten. If government had a body mass index, it would be off the charts! If government were a person, I would look like a male, bald Kate Moss standing next to it!

Hyperbole aside, it's very disturbing to me how intrusive government is getting into our lives. Why is this ANY of government's business?? Doesn't it have more important things to do these days like, I don't know, fighting Islamo-Nazis? I also find it troubling that Sam Brownback, who has a record as a pretty strong conservative, is voicing support for this.

At the risk of only sounding negative, however, I do have a solution that will not cost the government one cent and will take zero resources away from fighting terrorists. What is it, you might ask? Well, there are these people called parents (preferably married and representative of both sexes). Parents can do this thing called monitoring their children's viewing habits and activities. If their children are watching too much TV or not eating the right things, they can assert their authority and help their children modify their behaviors. Traditionally, in fact, parents have been expected to use their authority to instill in their children a sense of right and wrong, to keep them on the "straight and narrow." An excellent way to assert this authority is to set a good example yourself. Sadly, these concepts are foreign to too many in this country nowadays because people have become dependent on others (including the government) to do what previous generations did for themselves.

Too many "intellectually challenged" people have allowed government to think for them, to become their obese nanny state. More Americans need to fight new "initiatives" such as the one described in the link. Government is doing nothing more than encroaching more on our freedoms. We need to demand that our elected officials hold the line of government's rampant growth. They need to act collectively in a Richard Simmons-esque manner, holding an intervention with government and putting it on a crash diet.

New Orleans...coming back!

Hello Dear Readers:

Unless you're an incurable hermit, you know that the first anniversary of Hurricane Katrina has come and gone. You also surely know that the "news" media have provided a steady stream of coverage showing New Orleans' seemingly hapless efforts to recover from the terrible natural disaster, which brought out the best and the worst in people--and revealed how there is such a dearth of leadership in that city (Mayor Ray "Wonka" Nagin) and in Louisiana (take your pick...Gov. Kathleen Blanco, the Louisiana Legislature, et al).

Well, I'm here to report that everything's okay now in the Crescent City. Nearly $200 million has been spent to rehabilitate the Louisiana Superdome and the often-hapless Saints--the only NFL team worthy of New Orleans and but one of Louisiana's state-subsidized boondoggles--have returned home. Never mind that many New Orleanians are still are without power, permanent housing, regular trash pickup, access to full health care facilities, etc., etc. The important thing, at least in the minds of some, is that the Saints are back. Tom Benson, arguably the worst, whiniest franchise owner in the NFL, has received his latest subsidy from the taxpayers.

Like the fabled Phoenix, the Superdome has risen from the proverbial ashes and now boasts the latest sound system, fancy new scoreboards, updated luxury suites...and the list goes on. It matters not that high-rises near the facility remain vacant and that many New Orleanians have not returned (and likely will not). Also, disregard the fact that the "Detroit of the South" (my description) was a crime-ridden hellhole in decline even before Katrina. The important thing is that, like a gleaming temple to corporate welfare surrounded by the River Styx, the Superdome has risen again and the Saints have returned to their permanent home. Well...permanent, at least, until Tom Benson follows through on his oft-repeated threat to move the team to a place that will bow down to him and offer him more giveaways. With all of the upheaval brought upon by Katrina (and let's not forget Rita), isn't it good to know that Louisiana has managed to stay true to its "colorful" political system?

Laissez les bons temps rouller!