Greatest News Story Ever

Cows Crash Drinking Party, Steal Beer

BOXFORD — Six cows crashed a house party on Main Street and wound up drinking the beer left behind on a picnic table when the partygoers fled.

Police Lt. James Riter said he got a call about 9 p.m. Sunday for cows in the road on Main Street near Foster Street close to the town line with North Andover.

Riter said when he arrived, he found "evidence" in the street that the cows had been there, but the animals were gone. He found them a short distance away on the side of the road, and they wandered into the front yard of a Main Street home.

Riter said the partygoers decamped to the deck, abandoning their beverages, and watched as the cows approached the picnic table.

The thirsty creatures knocked over the plastic cups of Bud Light and Miller Light beer that were left on the table and began slurping away at the beer. "They seemed to prefer the Bud Light," Riter observed.

Those are my kind of cows!

Oh Commonweal, Part 2423

Someone doesn't like the new translation of the Mass

Six months after the imposition of the new English edition of the Roman Missal, the volume of dissatisfaction has moderated. People seem resigned to the wooden and literal translations (“people of good will,” “enter under my roof”), archaic vocabulary (“dewfall,” “consubstantial,” “oblation”), and inflated language of prayer (“holy and unblemished,” “graciously grant,” “paying their homage”).:

But these are just some of the flaws.  The problem with the new Mass translation is the use of the word "chalice" .  How hierarchical!

Stand up for yourself

Contrary to popular opinion, not everyone's moral, political, or philosophical beliefs are "ideology".

Ideology, properly understood, is the imposition of a philosophy upon the world.   Philosophy in this sense is to be understood as a set of beliefs and principles which may or may not be true. Because ideological philosophy (or beliefs) is imposed upon the world, it can be used to explain everything in the world.  Ideologues know everything, and can explain anything that happens.

Ideology can be contrasted with true knowledge.  True knowledge is much more limited than ideology.  It is more humble. True knowledge, rather than being imposed upon the world, comes out of our experience in the world.  True knowledge comes from nature, reason, and revelation.  It comes "from without" rather than "from within".  True knowledge imposes itself upon us - we impose nothing upon true knowledge (think - what say do I have in whether 1+1 = 2).

The notion that political conversation and discussions about morality and mores are nothing but the competition of ideologies is a self-defeating skeptical point of view, but a very democratic point of view.  This position is normally coupled with a belief that the most-powerful always end up ruling.  I think this is the dominant theory of our republic today, evidenced by the growing number of people who are enthralled with the idea that society is controlled by a powerful, elite few.  Witness the "Occupy" movement, who blame "the 1%" for their woes.

Believe something long enough and it will become true.  Or we can stand up for ourselves.

"Scientists" love to argue about God

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/04/06/the-problem-of-instructions/#more-8134

Don Draper's Drink Orders

Mad Men on AMC is a very entertaining television show, if a bit too needlessly pornographic.  The writing on the show is often excellent, and I think some particularly great examples come when Don Draper is asked what he likes to drink.

"Make it simple, and significant."

"Big and brown"

While there is much deplorable about Don's character, I really appreciate his unique ability to  order a cocktail. 

Avett Brothers in Durham

They were awesome.

Is this True?

Check out this article: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1...

The software, created by a company called Narus that’s now part of Boeing, is controlled remotely from NSA headquarters at Fort Meade in Maryland and searches US sources for target addresses, locations, countries, and phone numbers, as well as watch-listed names, keywords, and phrases in email. Any communication that arouses suspicion, especially those to or from the million or so people on agency watch lists, are automatically copied or recorded and then transmitted to the NSA.

The scope of surveillance expands from there, Binney says. Once a name is entered into the Narus database, all phone calls and other communications to and from that person are automatically routed to the NSA’s recorders. “Anybody you want, route to a recorder,” Binney says. “If your number’s in there? Routed and gets recorded.” He adds, “The Narus device allows you to take it all.” And when Bluffdale is completed, whatever is collected will be routed there for storage and analysis.

According to Binney, one of the deepest secrets of the Stellar Wind program—again, never confirmed until now—was that the NSA gained warrantless access to AT&T’s vast trove of domestic and international billing records, detailed information about who called whom in the US and around the world. As of 2007, AT&T had more than 2.8 trillion records housed in a database at its Florham Park, New Jersey, complex.
Verizon was also part of the program, Binney says, and that greatly expanded the volume of calls subject to the agency’s domestic eavesdropping. “That multiplies the call rate by at least a factor of five,” he says. “So you’re over a billion and a half calls a day.” (Spokespeople for Verizon and AT&T said their companies would not comment on matters of national security.)
...

 So the television show "Person of Interest" is a true story?

Obama's Doublespeak

UPDATE 6 p.m. ET: The White House is declining to comment on the 5th Circuit's order, but the president today did clarify his comments that it would be "unprecedented" for the Court to overturn laws passed by a democratically elected Congress. During a question-and-answer session after a luncheon speech in Washington, a journalist pointed out "that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence."

Mr. Obama suggested he meant that it would be "unprecedented" in the modern era for the Court to rule the law exceeded Congress' power to regulate an economic issue like health care.

"The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it's precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this," Mr. Obama said. 

 What's amazing is how President Obama's statement is split - divided - about the Court's power.  Yes the court has a power and we have to respect it, but the court really should not exercise this power without "significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature". And it's obvious that in this case,  "significant restraint and deference" means not overturning the law. His statement means he gets it both ways. He is lying, because it's an either/or.  Either the law is constitutional, or it's not.  Either the court has a right to overturn a law passed by Congress, or it does not.  He cedes the latter but obfuscates the former.

Get this man out of office.

Slate recommends eliminating the supreme court

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/the_supreme_court_should_drop_the_affordable_care_act_case_.html?wpisrc=obinsite

liberals have never liked federalism or limits on the power of the "democratic" branches of government

Mother Jones

Sounding less like a world-class lawyer and more like a teenager giving an oral presentation for the first time, Verrilli delivered a rambling, apprehensive legal defense of liberalism's biggest domestic accomplishment since the 1960s—and one that may well have doubled as its eulogy.

Ouch! By the way, " liberalism's biggest domestic accomplishment since the 1960s" is President Obama's national health insurance mandate.

Kids@Mass

NCR:

 Sure lots of parents need to learn how to discipline their kids better and teach them how to sit still and keep quiet when they’re supposed to. But those families aren’t learning how to do that. Why? Because they are at home by themselves on Sunday morning, making excuses for not going to Mass and not watching how other families do it successfully. Because the few times they mustered the courage to try it, they got snide remarks from the priest or annoyed looks from parishioners. Because they ended up in a crowded cry room like second-class participants. Because they didn’t feel welcome. And they didn’t feel equipped. Because they are still learning how to raise kids. And because they haven’t yet learned how truly important Mass is for their growing family.

We need to teach them. We need to help them. We need to smile at them. We need to encourage them. We need to invite them. We need to celebrate the noise of children. What a beautiful noise to hear at Mass. It’s the sound of a living, breathing, growing Church.

What the Incarnation Means

I am reading Frank Sheed's little book, "A Map of Life," and I am enjoying its wonderful simplicity. Within this book, I have found what is perhaps the most lucid description of the Incarnation I have ever come across:

The distinction between person and nature is not some deep and hidden thing to which philosophy only comes after centuries of study. It is, on the contary, a distinction so obvious that the smallest child who can talk at all makes it automatically. If in the half-light, he sees a vague outline that might be anything, he asks, "What is that?" If, on the other hand, he can see that it is a human being, but cannot distinguish or does not recognize the features, he asks, "Who is that?" The distinction between what and who is the distinction between nature and person....A man may then be thought of as a person - who acts - and a nature - which decides the field in which he acts. In man, there is simply one nature to one person. In Christ, there are two natures to one person...

i recommend listening to india arie

also the avett brothers

Stanley Hauerwas' Question

Everything you need to know about someone you can learn from asking one question: what do you worship? What's of highest value to you; what's most important to you?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sebelius-decrease-human-beings-will-cover-cost-contraception-mandate

boiling the frog

40 Days for Life

Begins February 22 and ends April 1st!

Consider participating in a local campaign.

40 Days for Life is the future of the pro-life movement.

How liberals understand homeschooling

A very revealing article published at Slate:

This overheated hostility toward public schools runs throughout the new literature on liberal homeschooling, and reveals what is so fundamentally illiberal about the trend: It is rooted in distrust of the public sphere, in class privilege, and in the dated presumption that children hail from two-parent families, in which at least one parent can afford (and wants) to take significant time away from paid work in order to manage a process—education—that most parents entrust to the community at-large.

That's right, homeschoolers. You do it because you "distrust the public sphere," and practice "class privilege", because you want to "raise your own kids" and not immediately pass them off as "the community's problem." And you are the worst examples of that old-fashioned notion that the people responsible for generating the children should be responsible for raising them. Object to the culture you find yourselves in? WELL, tough. It's irresponsible to refuse to submit your children to the national education.

This is really some scary stuff coming out of Slate, but it helps you understand their priorities.

More Peter Lawler

Let me begin by saying that I’m far more unimpressed by the contribution of behavioral economists than even Wright and Ginsburg. The perception that people aren’t hardwired, so to speak, to always act — in their own interests has only been challenged by those who have made the error of imagining that all human behavior either is or should be all about rational choice on the level of interests. Similarly, Simon’s alleged breakthrough that people are content to “satisfice” rather than maximize when it comes to choice is little more than common sense. Most people, most of the time, don’t have either the time or the inclination to do the calculating required to achieve maximizing. Economists have given a lot of thought, for example, to calculating about how much to tip, but most people barely give it a thought.

A gentleman or a generous man appears not to care—and really doesn’t care—about being precise when it comes to such trivialities. Is his disinclination to calculate contrary to his self-interest? That question can be answered only by someone who knows what his true interests are. That answer, it seems to me, is obviously beyond the competence of the economist. The economist does have the inclination to believe that the person moved by honor or glory is a sucker, while the “entrepreneur” oriented around wealth and power is the model of human excellence. But we might say the economist as economist has no right to make that distinction. Economists do have to acknowledge that General George Washington and General Nathan Bedford Forrest were much greater risk takers than Bill Gates. And people who put their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on the line (I don’t mean Newt Gingrich) have laughed at the thought that the point of life is autonomy, at least as understood by John Stuart Mill.

The economist has no way of knowing if the artist or statesman or philosopher (such as Thomas Jefferson) who was so lacking in prudence that he took in huge amounts of money but still died poor was happier than, say, the Steve Jobs who died really, really rich. Nobody knows whether Blaise Pascal or Friedrich Nietzsche or Charley Parker would have been happier had they calculated—in the manner of one of today’s “risk taking” bourgeois bohemian innovative entrepreneurs—more about their health and wealth. We wish they could have displayed their excellence while being more sensible, but it’s not for us to say that they could have successfully “satisficed” had they had better guidance. Pascal and Parker were nothing if not risk takers, but economists at are a loss when it comes to explaining their behavior. And the behavioral economist would have nudged the heck out of them against their true inclinations—allegedly for their own good.

http://libertylawsite.org/liberty-forum/putting-our-bourgeois-bohemian-rulers-in-their-place/

Person of Interest...

is hands down.. the best show on television.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Nolan

He's great.

Check it out, seriously.

Freedom

One is not free when one sins, because sins necessarily enslave

Freedom understood as autonomy is an illusion