29 October 2014
Unlike many of my fellow Christians, I’m not an anti-Halloween hardliner; I have no objection to taking children trick-or-treating, or to watching frightening films, on 31 October. I do, however, consider it a travesty that the observance of this quasi-holiday overshadows the real holiday that falls on the following day, viz., All Saints’ Day. (It’s an ironic travesty, since Halloween derives its very name, which is short for “All Hallow Even”, from its being the eve of the celebration of all hallowed souls.) Film networks like Turner Classic Movies, which always air horror flicks on Halloween and usually begin doing so days or even weeks in advance, could certainly devote 1 November to pictures about persons who have been canonized, like Francis of Assisi, The Song of Bernadette, and The Passion of Joan of Arc. Doubtless there have been many more features concerning ghosts, vampires, and zombies than martyrs and confessors, but networks that have large-enough cinematic libraries ought to be able to avoid showing the same biographies of the beatific year after year. (Even showing films of Eva Marie Saint, Jill St. John, &c., or those featuring the character Simon “the Saint” Templar, would at least remind viewers of what day it is!)
25 October 2014
Why do the writers of news stories always need to know how old a person is, even if age has no relevance to the story? If they are going to ask a woman for her age, why don’t they also inquire about her marital status, her measurements, and whether she dyes her hair?
23 October 2014
Since I wrote MM #46, I’ve learned that my opinion therein has been corroborated by Dr. Tim Gray, a professional and orthodox Scripture scholar whom I’ve seen on EWTN. Therefore, I advise you to visit that posting either again or for the first time, the latter being the case only if you dwell among those backward peoples in the highland forests of New Guinea who do not yet know of the Doman Domain.
16 October 2014
My initial reaction to the news of Eric Holder’s resignation from the post of US Attorney General was the same as my reaction to the departure of nearly everyone else who finally acquires sense enough to leave the inept and malfeasant Obama Administration: “Good riddance!” Just as first impressions can be misleading, however, first reactions are often erroneous. It is, of course, good that the worst attorney general in US history will no longer be serving (himself) in that capacity, even though we can safely assume that Emperor Nerobama will make a deplorable choice for his replacement—Let’s pray that Janet Reno doesn’t want her old job back!—; but the fact that this is a self-ouster means that it can hardly qualify as good riddance. After all, the man ought to have been impeached long ago, but, now, his corruption and incompetence will be rewarded with a fat pension. This is worse than the equivalent of “cheating the hangman”; it’s cheating the entire country.
07 October 2014
A news article reads, in part: “Obama paid tribute Sunday to disabled U.S. veterans, acknowledging that the country has at times failed to repay their service[,] and vowing to never lead them into pointless battle.” Note that he didn’t vow to never lead current members of the armed forces into pointless battle.
03 October 2014
In advocating a partnership with Iran against the Islamic State (IS, formerly known as the ISIS or ISIL), US Sen. Graham posed the question “Why did we deal with Stalin?”, and then answered it himself: “Because he was not as bad as Hitler.” One might reasonably expect somebody to give a correct answer to his own question, but the Senator is quite mistaken. The right reply is that, after Germany declared war upon both the USA and Stalin’s USSR, these two countries had a common enemy in Hitler; indeed, circumstances practically forced them into a military alliance.
Moreover, the reason for Sen. Graham’s WWII reference, which evidently is to argue that Iran is preferable to the IS, is even more wrong than his assertion that Stalin was “not as bad as Hitler”. The nascent Islamic State lacks an air force and is estimated by the CIA to comprise between 20,000 and 30,000 fighting men, most of whom have no real military training; Iran has a total population of 77 million, 550,000 of whom are members of the standing armed forces and another two million of whom serve in its reserves, and, of course, it is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Which one do you consider the greater threat to the rest of the world? (Using the Senator’s logic, we perhaps ought to ally ourselves with the IS against Iran!)