A bit poorly done, but I found this cool picture with Google Image Search.

I have, somehow, been too distracted to follow the '08 presidential race for the last two days. Recently, though, I found this shocking and amusing article on Rudy Giuliani, and why Catholics cannot vote for him. It even surprised me, and he's been one of my least favorite politicians for a while now.
As I said a few months ago, even a vote for Jonathon "the Impaler" Sharkey a Hecate witch running for the Vampyres, Witches, and Pagans party ticket would be more acceptable, because he does NOT believe abortion should be used as a form of birth control. Of course, it it does turn into a Rudy vs Hillary race [i.e., Trotsky vs Stalin], good Catholics will have better options, as a third candidate might arise to carry on the good fight against gay "marriage" and murder in the womb. If not, there's always the Constitution party. But in any case, no thinking person, let alone a Roman Catholic, can vote for such an immoral, liberty-hating, warmongering pro-choicer as Rudolph Giuliani.

As you may have been expecting, I completed another sonnet. About a real damsel (normal name not used), I couldn't help but turn her into a fluid (and her soul into matter)! I would say she hath been marbleized.

Sonnet LXIV- to Anne



Supple mirage, conquered by an unseen
Blush, in her buoyant joy she rises up.
To only kiss the cheek of my rosy cup
Would surely melt my heart with the soft sheen
Of the general luster in her form.
Not that it's too definite. That sweet ghost
Of clear amber skin is at very most
A pious and phantasmagoric storm,
A dear essence, a hot, fluid yin-yang.
I'll take her in my hand, that lava lamp
With a solid soul, and each lucid amp,
Those charges of virtue which her lips sang
In her unique, precious voice would forestall
All bitterness which could on me befall.

In any case, it's so very much easier to describe the good, chaotic qualities of a woman when she isn't bound to her own form. Inspiration darted at me when I was listening to my new Justin Timberlake CD. He may have been responsible for the wardrobe malfunction, but at least he makes such cool, beautiful songs as "My Love" and "FutureSex" (not as evil as it sounds).

I don't have much to say today, but I just have to express my adoration for Ann Coulter's newest book, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans, which I bought two days ago, and am already half done with. Ann is the modern-day Voltaire: she can be a jerk, but at least she's on our side. Despite how much more paleoconservative I am now than when I first read her works, she still greatly appeals to me. It seems like all true conservatives (with a sense of humor) of any stripe can greatly benefit from her witty books and her weekly column.

(Somehow, although she should be aging,
Ann keeps looking hotter and hotter on
every new book she writes)

True, she is obsessed with the Clintons, but her humor really helps to make a point. When she can write hundreds of factually-based Bill Clinton jokes in every book and keep every new addition to her comic family fresh, one realizes what a bad guy our 42nd president really was, and how he brought shame to the Oval Office. If we are so unfortunate as to ever have Rudy Giuliani as our president, I bet she'll get on to ruining his good name too. Of course, Ann is also great at defending gun rights, and attacking the fables of the pro-choicers and the Darwiniacs. As always, I recommend her latest work to anyone already not too loaded up with literature. Rediscover the fun of politics with Ann Coulter!

For a person so thoroughly and aptly identified in ideological terms as this Pundit, involved contemplations about one's proper political description only seem natural by account of my age. Surely, the philosophical are right to forever ponder the Truth to the extent they have discovered it, and what it amounts to, but I have known many wise people who do not significantly change the way they label themselves over a period of many years: my father the liberal Democrat of seven years ago is the same my father the liberal Democrat I know and love today. And this is to speak of a gentleman like myself, who keeps abreast of current affairs, has opinions on almost every issue which usually, though not always, follow the party line, and who counts the pages they read annually in the several thousands.
As you may know, I am by nature a contrarian. Somewhat as a reaction, I admit, to the views prominent in this bluest of states in the Union, I have adopted in my yet short time the views held to be most obnoxious and intolerable by my friends and family, and even when I am in a soundly traditional, Catholic environment, as I am now on this blog, or when I visit Saint Benedict Center (rare, happy times!), what do I more revel in than to debate a fellow Traditionalist over non-Magisterial minutiae? However, in my latest internal dispute I have for once erred on the side of moderation and the mainstream. The great debate is, which am I, a fiscal conservative or a libertarian?
As an overastute reader might have noticed, I added a link to the [mostly anarcho-] libertarian website LewRockwell.com to the "Allies" column on my sidebar. Br. Andre Marie, M.I.C.M., a Distributist, introduced me to the site, which he frequently reads, and after a time I fell in love. Good old Lew Rockwell and his gang are mostly Catholics (even including the esteemed, associate editor of Latin Mass magazine and author of The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy, which I really plan on reading someday) who, despite half-justified attacks on the Christian fundamentalist Right for supporting the Iraq War and for being nationalists, stand with the Catholic Church on every moral issue of our day, at least whenever they come up. My, and their brilliant writing cannot be described, except that the refutations of the socialist interpretations of Rerum novarum, et cetera (what we call "social justice") are so clearly correct that they suggest a provenance from the lips of marble statues of immortals. Such a is the ready defence of laissez faire economics needed to alleviate the moral crisis Professor William Luckey, chairman of the department of political science and economics at Christendom College outlines below:

"The fact that Catholic economic teaching, put forth as unchanging and required of belief, did not square with what Austrian [a laissez faire school] economists know to be true, has created an agonizing crisis of conscience for such economists."

I have debated with just a few Distributists in my time, and have seen a few more of their lengthy tirades against Capitalism. LewRockwell.com, and especially Thomas Woods, are very thorough in all of their arguments for Capitalism and against the theories of Belloc and Chesterton. Now, because I agree with the free market people does not mean I oppose any plans by Distributists to maintain their own rural communities, and their rights to craft laws for those communities which would limit or illegalize usury- as our Founding Fathers correctly reasoned, our Republic is benefitted by a diversity of interests. But I will take them to task over the greatly inhibited ability of their ideas to create wealth, innovation, and a higher standard of living for all. I have heard so many Distributists, especially at the otherwise fantastic New Oxford Review, blame the propogation of immoral music, books, and other evils to Capitalism. To me, this seems like blaming the ocean for the sinking of a flimsy ship (and weren't pornography, prostitution, and other evils just as common and notorious in the French Old Regime and other pre-capitalist societies?). Whether or not the common people can understand the difference between market worship and appreciation of what the market can do, libertarians hold almost to a man the latter, lesser veneration. The economy may be better served by nonintervention (A), while the public morality may require the government to get in on the game (B). The only reason A would necessarily exclude B as a corollary would be if the often hedonistic wealthy control the media. This may still be the case, but because of the internet (which has ended the Mainstrean Media's monopoly on the press, but which many Traditional Catholics despise to this day) that monopoly is quickly collapsing. Yes, Capitalism may have its modern roots in European liberalism (with earlier origins in the Spanish Scholastics), but amidst all the revolutionary nonsense, I feel this is the one thing they got right. Economics cannot be properly understood in pure Aristotlian/Thomistic thought, because of the unchangeable nature of the market. We must face it: it is not coincidence that Capitalism has coincided with the arrival of a swath of immensely conventient inventions, from the cotton gin to the light bulb to the iPod- and of course pop music! Even if both economic systems are valid, only Capitalism can claim to have made the lives of common people immensely less strenuous.

Those are the benefits the libertarians have given us. Now on to the fatal and undeniable flaw. If one accepts that small government is not to be sought out only for its benefits, but out of moral righteousness and opposition to government overtaxation, one is necessarily and logically forced to accept the school of thought pioneered by economist Murray N. Rothbard, anarcho-capitalism. Observe from the latter's own example:





They: What is the legitimate basis for your laissez-faire government, for this political entity confined solely to defending person and property?

I: Well, the people get together and decide to establish such a government.

They: But if "the people" can do that, why can’t they do exactly the same thing and get together to choose a government that will build steel plants, dams, etc.?

I realized in a flash that their logic was impeccable, that laissezfaire was logically untenable, and that either I had to become a liberal, or move onward into anarchism. I became an anarchist.

As one might expect, however tempting it may be to think anything would be better than secular democracy, anarchy of whatever brand is not only inconvenient, obviously lawless, and impossible to maintain for too long without the strongest party enslaving his weaker brothers, but inconsistent with Church teaching. Socialism is not the answer, and yet small government is by far the most desirable solution- it must be supported in another manner. Lucky me, I ran across the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Civil Authority, and it supports the notion that the State may legitimately tax the people in order to carry out its legitimate functions, which do not extend into the realm of socialism. This strikes one as clearly a conservative principle, not libertarian. After all, the latter is a distinct school of thought, which in its lukewarm forms is illogical (and often, as in the Cato Institute and Libertarian party un-Christian), and in its radical form is unacceptable and effectively leads to extreme leftism (although Rothbard calls himself a man of the Old Right, he is clearly a leftist because he sees admires the French Revolution, which is when Left and Right were defined. Conservatism, of course, has since its inception been counter-revolutionary, derived from ancient, revealed truths, and has always seen the anarchists as the enemies of society.

However befuddled this discourse has become by the Writer's limited memory, disposition to digression, and possible, minor inconsistencies which likely have slipped in, I can safely say that I am just a fiscal conservative of the far Right- with libertarian tendencies!

Saint Augustine Guide: the Ron Paul campaign!

Only in Red Sox Nation, folks. A few minutes to midnight, the Red Sox defeated the Cleveland Indians 11-2 yesterday, and are now heading to the World Series. The whooping and revelry began immediately, and I was greatly amused. Although I'm not into baseball myself, an effort to find my roommate led me outside and, ever the fan of jeering mobs, I followed everyone down to a giant rally which spontaneously popped up outside Hagan campus center. It was quite amusing; the fans did everything from creating a stampede to the riverdance. At one point, one fan mounted another's shoulders and worked the crowd into yet more of a frenzy. For some reason, I always get along pretty well with the flunker jocks clique, and I was delighted by the show, except for when they had the obligatory 'F*** the Yankees' chorus. Throughout, I kept my cool. Being me, I couldn't help but tell a friend, "Gee, I wish Ron Paul could get this type of a rally".

Indeed, it was a fine day for Red Sox Nation, but an even finer day for the American Nation. I was able to tune into the G.O.P. Presidential Debate after Mass (which, of course, included prayers for the Red Sox). As always, Ron Paul won the text message vote, 34% to Mike Huckabee's 27%... not bad for a decent guy like Huckabee to be second, leaving Rudy Giuliani a cold 3rd at 11%. Of course, Sean Hannity assured his audience that "Ron Paul did not win the debate tonight". Hasn't Hannity considered that maybe the "frontrunners" are political duds if they can't muster enough support to fend off the text message votes of [what they believe to be] a few libertarians, anti-welfare cranks, and insomniac bloggers (and hopefully some Catholic Traditionalists; I don't have a cell phone, and couldn't text my support to Dr. No)? Later on, I was quite surprised by the courtesy which Hannity and Colmes showed Paul in their post-debate discussion, although I was infuriated by the sample group they chose from the audience, which was totally pro-Giuliani and neoconservative. No Ron Paul supporters were among them, but the group was obviously filtered ahead of time; otherwise the Good Doctor would have swept the room as easily as he does a straw poll.

Wait and see, Hannity. When the primaries begin, he will realize just how many Republicans are tired of warmongering, pro-death, "strong government" neoconservatives like Rudy Giuliani, and the lukewarm halfwits the mainstream media wants us to believe are the other frontrunners. Why is it that the only good candidates, not only the exceptional Ron Paul, but also Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee, and Duncan Hunter, are always marginalized by the media? With the growing and unstoppable influence of the internet, where political discussion is led by
intelligent and often pious patriots, rather than intrenched lobbies or corporations, Ron Paul's odds grow better by the day. He's so supported by bloggers, that his commercials should probably say at the end

Ron Paul: endorsed by the blogosphere. I encourage all who've not posted on Dr. No at least once to do so soon, just to make sure everyone gets the word about his campaign and what he stands for.

Quite a thing, an enterprising day. After finishing three papers for my Bible class yesterday, I can up with this as I walked home from the library. It's about something I have no personal experience with:





Happy Hour

Happy hour, ever dour,
Sharp as lust and money's power.

Short and sufficient. Reflective, perhaps, of the allure which drives many folks my age to drink.

This has thusfar been another nice day. Raining outside, not too much homework, my family will soon be here to visit, and at 7:00 there will be a poetry reading in Emmanuel d'Alzon. I expect that, like last time, I will be the only Assumption student to actually read any of their work [Sonnets LXI and LXII], and the hour will be dominated by aging 60s radicals/hip skeptics. Ohh, that someday I'll be the new kid on the block!- the poet who heralded the 21st century by reconnecting with the past, the moralist who saw the faults and virtues both in modern men, from Neruda to Timberlake, and who made the Holy Mass a subject of his work, along with enjoyable dance parties. That, God, is what we need, what I need to be.

Despite dubious politicians as the Bay State's own Deval Patrick(D), I am tempted to regard California's "Governator" as the worst governor in America. While he gets positive press for vetoing the legislature's gay "marriage" bill, he has just signed some laws which may be even worse. I wish Schwarzenegger would quit pretending to be Catholic (and Republican) and confess his love for radicalism and socialism.

Poor west coast. Especially when we shine light on the state of the San Francisco mayoral race, we must admit that they have nothin' goin' for them. The only good candidate is

Robert McCullough , who listed his profession as both a homeless person and a "champion of Jesus Christ,"

No, it really seems like that's the case. If anyone from that God-forsaken city is reading this, or if you're just a political junkie, feast your eyes on his crazy, creepy, and impossible to navigate blog/campaign HQ. Indeed, I don't usually recommend voting for a crazy person who calls himself Captain Democracy, but its always better to vote in a loony and completely incompetent politician than a lucid-minded evildoer.

A fine day this has been, perhaps a holy one too. I had been completely busy over the weekend, and had no time to study for a Bible test, so I prayed to Saint Jerome that I would be able to do reasonably well on it despite not having [recently] read the assigned work. And wouldn't you know it? The professor decided to give us a take home test. That requires a lot more work, so I'm still not sure if this is another case of the old proverb,

When God wants to punish us, He answers our prayers,

or if this is the blessing of the month. Whichever interpretation is correct, I've already started the paper, and it's looking good!

Also of interest (and import), I attended my first Food and Auxiliary Committee meeting for the SGA, and we spent quite a while parousing over the suggestions for improved food services. Among the most popular requests were for extended hours at our eateries, and we're working on it. Probably my favorite request was for Captain Crunch in Taylor (there was another just for cereal, period), but since it was so little mentioned, it can't take priority; please let me know if you too wish for AC to be crunchetized!

Finally, smokers will be happy. After I brought up my musings over what I would do were I corrupt (buy a stock ticker for Charlie's cafe, to keep track of my miniscule holdings), another senator brought up their ownership of Phillip-Morris shares. Take it from me, the nonsmoker/Traditional Catholic/Pseudo Libertarian who abhors infringements on our liberties, you have a few friends on the inside to fight for your right to pursue a nicotine-resplendent bad habit, which takes years off your life but makes you look cool in the meantime.

A good friend- and a fellow paleoconservative Republican- challenged me to write a sonnet on cheeseburgers. Visibly annoyed, I took up the unweighted dare, and finished during dinner- you can judge whether or not I succeeded:

Sonnet LXIII

Oh groundbeef victual, Pasiphae's dear
How you are kind to men, until that ounce
Of inebriating fat comes to trounce
The psychologic virtue of your mere
Acquisition: the American dream
Seeps from your porous pores, o whom I sing.
With our rags of disciples of the King
Donned on, and the ghetto in their each seam
(And of course platinum around the neck!)
You become the gruel, the light of each Fall
A devil's dean brings on, and are his All.
There's a hangout at your beck, though you wreck
Each greaser's looks with their self-proclaimed creed,
And steal their too thin sweethearts by their deed.

Yes, of all the Traditionalist poets out there, I must be nearly the worst at berating American pop culture, probably because I enjoy its more innocent aspects so often. Yes, cheeseburgers are nearly my top choice whenever they're available (and not a fish sandwich). And I'm just such a romanticist; my ability to spin out pretty verses about God's finest creation (hotties) vs my mediocre ability to write about everyday things reminds me of Mark Twain's Connecticul Yankee. He tells of a phony mystic who wows crouds by concocting stories about what rulers of far off empires are supposedly doing, but cannot tell what Hank Morgan is doing with his right hand, concealed behind his back and only ten feet distant. The mystic's excuse was that he did not use his abilities on unworthy commoners, but only on men of quality. So, with apologies to the King and to the King of Kings, this work can hopefully be enjoyed by all.

Curious. I just checked an article on the Society of Saint Pius X's website, and it seems that I have thusfar taken too soft a view on the Spanish Inquisition (and the Roman and Medieval ones, too):

Vatican Council II proclaimed the principle of religious freedom:

Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups and every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others. (Dignitatis Humanae, art. 2).

As opposed to this doctrine, it is evident that the very principle of the Inquisition, which made heresy a crime of common law, can only be rejected.

However the principle of religious liberty is in complete rupture with the tradition of the Church. The Syllabus of Errors (1864) particularly condemns the following propositions:

§24) The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power direct or indirect.

§77) In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.

§79) Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions and thoughts whatsoever, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the plague of indifferentism.

No apologies, then, except for Galileo Galilei. Sadly, I doubt Papa Ratzi will retract JPII's apology.
***
Things right now are okay. Listening to some Simon & Garfunkel, went to a dinner with the other members of Assumption Advocates 4 Life. Sadly and unbelievably, I have nothing much in common with them, as we seemed to agree on nothing but the sanctity of life in the womb. There will be a pro-life walk tomorrow; fun, but still have a good amount of homework to do this weekend, and still sad+lonely. Wish me luck: I'll pray the same for you.

These are interesting days, and alluring evenings. Yesterday, about the hour of dusk, I friend in Hanrahan held a small party in his room, whence I got to play some of my Nelly Furtado CD. As can be expected, I made some new acquaintances, all three of them from the infamous Salisbury dorm. Among them were two fine ladies, one of which was continually being picked up by a friend she had known since high school. By her thighs and back, she was picked up at least twenty times, and carried into the hallway for no apparent reason. My imagination being quite alive, I realized that the action resembles the ideal Allegory/Damsel in Distress submitting to oceanic, ebbing Fate. Consequent of those meditations, I wrote this,

Sonnet LXII

So I sit by, whilst the idol flutters.
She does fly, though she's more like a locust
With her small, back bent calves, now the focus
Of the dorm- superfluous - mutters
Only a few slender indecencies
As he grabs sweet --; she nearly springs
Out the door when Nelly Furtado sings
"All good things". Just like little bonsai trees
The tune was crafted in the highest kind.
And in this case, with no Bloody Mary
On her mind, she is swept up by dairy
Of the thickest sort. Elsewhere, who can find
A sweeter gazelle strung in Ares' bow,
With Helen's body, and tempting as Io?

As always, I gave her this work, and it was a success, despite that, under the dominion of the heart, I fear the work had taken on a mind of its own. Still, even if it can be confugured as suggestive, it is unlikely to be an ungodly work, because of how much I have asked that He guide my writing.

I made the jest to the subject, a Catholic, that Bloody Mary, being named for Her Majesty Mary I of England and France, is the popish version of Kool Aid. Having connected Bloody Mary to her by a mnemonic device, I said she could use my analogy as an evidence of her devotion in her next theological conversation [no, she doesn't drink]. I managed not to smile long enough to get a laugh out of her.

I feel like such a chivalrous man today. Having found several errors on Wikipedia yesterday (i.e., things purporting evolution to be more than myth), this pundit set out to correct them. Not only is being a WikiWarrior fun and easy, but it's also a good way to fight for Truth and to live the Christian way each day.
Not only that, but I finally did my part in the Ron Paul cavalry [Ron Paul cavalry, noun: the swarm of internet pundits that assembles and swamps any forum with comments defending or supporting Ron Paul and his bid for the presidency]. Poor Steve; his October 4 post was pro-Paul, and attracted a neoconservative to debate with. But unlike what I've usually seen, the Ron Paul cavalry was late in coming, and Steve was duking out the whole intellectual battle by himself. Although I had a math class to get to, I did my best, showing my support for the good Doctor Paul.

And what besides this? Very little homework, Assumption Advocates for Life is meeting today and, per Justin Raimondo, Ron Paul is doing better than ever. I confess, I find that I really do believe Ron Paul not only can, but will win the Grand Old Party's nomination. As the article says, Iowa Republicans are members of the Religious Right, not neoconservative hawks. With Dr. No raising such astounding sums of cash for his campaign, and his excellent network of supporters, he will become known to all voters, and the mainstream media won't be able to muzzle his message. With his excellent appeal to libertarians, the Religious Right, and both the Right- and Left-wing antiwar movements (I know a few liberals who prefer them to their own Dennis Kucinich), it only makes sense that he will win in the primary. Can you even imagine how sweet it would be to hear

Rudy Giuliani: #2
Ron Paul: #1

In these past four days of the Columbus Day weekend, I've had plenty of time to do some thinking. Somewhat spurred by Curmudgeon's month-old post, "A starting point for Catholic separatist discussions" (which would be funnier yet were it not so true), and also by reading part of a biography of Blaise Pascal, which takes place in the days of Louis XIII and the Old Regime, I have again considered the arguments for expanding local autonomy at the expense of the national government, or "States' rights", as we Americans refer to it.

I assure you, it is paradoxical how these things work! A "reactionary Catholic crank" like Curmudgeon (along with the ever-wise and reliable Jovan-Marya and Inquisitor Generalis) would likely favor some sort limited monarchy with a nobility, as France was long ago blessed with. This would naturally result in a sort of loose federation of feudal states. But, we should remember, the best example of that in modern European history, the Holy Roman Empire, was hardly a model, and was long the battlefield of Europe because of the lack of a strong central authority. Think the Thirty Years' War. The best examples I can conjure are:

1. The north Italian city-states. These included Florence, which I consider to be the finest country of all time, and I think many will agree when they consider the immense power the little state had, and the breathtaking art that was thence produced, in a quantity and quality far greater than the state's size would seem to allow. And, whatever may be said of the Medicis with regards to piety, they were certainly more pious men than have ever run this Nation. And think of the artists; far from our "artists" who disgust even Rudy Giuliani on a regular basis, Botticelli and Michaelangelo were so pious that they threw some of their own works into the Bonfire of the Vanities at the behest of Savonarola. There is a catch: northern Italy was often the political toy of the Habsburg Empire, and was often as ferocious a battleground as the German States.

2. Bourbon France. As most of you know, France was the most powerful state in Europe from Richlieu to Louis XVI. Although, again, the ruling Bourbon monarchy was not saintly (even Bill Clinton and Larry Craig get themselves into less trouble than the Bourbons did), they were very strong supporters of the Catholic Church as the Established Church, and ferociously combatted the heresies of the Hugenots and the Jansenists. And although on a proportionally smaller scale, the Palace of Versailles has likely been a greater contribution to art than everything the French have cooked up since post-impressionism and (shudder) realism. Again, however, this wouldn't work out at all as a model for localized government, because the nobility's importance became greatly diminished during this time.

All things considered, I propose that amend the Constitution so that secession on a twon-by-town basis (so as not to pull too many dissenters to the move along), and for those not desiring to leave the Union (I would not care either way, myself), repeal the clause that says the Federal government must ensure that states have republican forms of government. That way, cute little hamlets like St. Mary's, Kansas, and hopefully Richmond, NH could choose either a Maltese/Catholic version of the Jeffersonian small republic or a sort of neo-feudal clerical township/manor under the rule of a bishop-approved lord. Maybe it sounds crazy to you, o reader, but they're all just ideas.

Besides the political impossibility of such a good situation, the greatest difficulty for the neo-feudal state would be to find a Traditional Catholic family worthy of hereditary rule. The only person who comes to mind is Michael J. Matt, editor of The Remnant newspaper. He is already from a respected Traditionalist family, and if he were the Duke of St. Mary's Township, he would have the press on his side!

[also: I haven't heard from Inquisitor Generalis in a long time. Did IG kick the bucket?]

This day, I had more inconvenience reaching Sunday Mass than I have ever had before. Having slept past the only mass which was said at the Chapel of the Holy Spirit (there were no student masses because of Columbus Day), a friend and I drove around Worcester looking for an afternoon mass. I thought I had found a 4:30 at one point, but realized that the time was for the Saturday Mass after she had already driven away! Very angry, I walked toward Worcester center in search of another Catholic Church. Shortly after passing the awe-striking World War I memorial [and a few Ron Paul 2008 bumper stickers!], I came upon Our Lady of Fatima church, which has a 6:00 PM mass. I was very happy, and scarcely minded being ninety minutes early. To pass the time, I wrote this while reflecting on a stained glass image of the church in Fatima, Portugal,



Sonnet LXI

I long to wash my face in the frigid,
Eternal pools of Heaven, by and by.
The infinite geometry, the sky
Of that aetherocentric land must forbid
Any sinful soul from ent'ring its fold.
Still, seeing the faults of intuition,
And beneficial habit, contrition
Will be my manner, if thence I behold.
The heirarchies of Christian risen dead
Might join with me in that cold ablution.
Analogy begets convolution:
When every Mass we did assist was said,
We'd said the Cross with Holy Water twice
To keep in heart the Pearl of highest Price.

After the modest mass, of course, I had to trounce all the way back home in the dark, often where there was no sidewalk, but I'll be reasonable: it was very beautiful in the pitch (literally, like the inflammable stuff covering everything) black, and slothy old me never excercises but out of necessity. Likely, that was God's manner of blessing me for a good day. I just hope my sonnet is pleasant to Him, too.

Having just yesterday finished part four of the seven sections of my latest poem (which will be my lengthiest by far), I will still have a while to go before I can post any new poetry of my own. However, I found this neat piece on The Remnant's newsfeed. Allegedly authored by the glorious, notorious Judge Roy Moore of Alabama, who has been at the forefront of the movement to defend the religious monuments (specifically the Decalogue) on public property, this should be a delight to readers:

AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL

America the Beautiful, or so you used to be.
Land of the Pilgrims' pride; I'm glad they'll never see.

Babies piled in dumpsters, Abortion on demand,
Oh, sweet land of liberty, your house is on the sand.

Our children wander aimlessly poisoned by cocaine,
Choosing to indulge their lusts, when God has said abstain.

From sea to shining sea, our Nation turns away
From the teaching of God's love and a need to always pray.

So many worldly preachers tell lies about our Rock,
Saying God is going broke so they can fleece the flock.

We've kept God in our temples, how callous we have grown.
When earth is but His footstool, and Heaven is His throne.

We've voted in a government that's rotting at the core,
Appointing Godless Judges who throw reason out the door,

Too soft to place a killer in a well deserved tomb,
But brave enough to kill a baby before he leaves the womb.

You think that God's not angry, that our land's a moral slum?
How much longer will He wait before His judgment comes?

How are we to face our God, from Whom we cannot hide?
What then is left for us to do, but stem this evil tide?

If we who are His children, will humbly turn and pray;
Seek His holy face and mend our evil way:

Then God will hear from Heaven and forgive us of our sins,
He'll heal our sickly land and those who live within.

But, America the Beautiful, if you don't then you will see,
A sad but Holy God withdraw His hand from Thee.

Judge Roy Moore



Minus line 15 [Too soft to place a killer in a well deserved tomb], I am in agreement with the sympathies of this work in verse. Too bad Judge Moore is a Protestant; otherwise such a true yet amusing piece would have been right at home in the pages of the New Oxford Review.

Pity, how my brain doth feel dead! This morning-hour, I have just finished reading Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court for class. And I swept up chapters XXIII-XLIV just this past day! As I must attest, old Samuel Clemens is quite the author, but he attempts to get away with more lies, heartlessness, and propaganda as he convicts the Church of in his novel. An essay in the appendix sums up well my sympathies (ex. Literary World, 2/15/1890):

Mr. Clemens' method of writing history would justify him in picturing the Connecticut of the seventeenth century as afflicted with loose divorce customs and great corruption at the polls- or something worse- simply because these are vices of the ninteenth century.

Yes, throughout Connecticut Yankee, Twain felt just fine about lumping every evil from Roman rule to the French Revolution together, claiming they were all put to rest in the latter upheaval, not acknowledging any flaws in the century that followed, and he even admits this opinion in the preface.

Yes, yes, this will be an irrelevant post if you've not read Connecticut Yankee, but I needed to vent my frustration, and actually use the old blog for its original purpose as a public journal this day. Anyhow, I'll just say, don't be afraid of recommending the works of Twain to any intelligent Catholic. Despite all the enjoyable, stand-up comedian-esque furor which has made him America's greatest author, his political and religious ideas are unimpressive flubber to any thinking (and yes, reasoning) individual, and should serve to strengthen one's faith when contrasted with a more polite work of apologetics.

the people have chosen...

we all knew it...

it just had to be...

~THE
~WITH THE


Yes, yes, I am now a Trad in the class senate. We've already held our first meeting, and there will be some hard work ahead of us all, but I am up to it. And that's no reason we can't all have some fun at the same time! Of course, in my term as senator, justice will be my guide. And God will never be rejected for a lie- one issue that we may actually deal with, the fate of the Assumption "Allies", especially comes to mind. Luckily, there are already two other men solid in the
Faith- one I know from Assumption Advocates for Life, and another whom I've spoken to twice, and who is truly orthodox- who won election. With just a few more good hearts among those just elected, there will be no manner in which political correctness or her allies can expect victory over Truth.

On the practical level, my new constituents have made a few requests of me thusfar,

1. better furniture for Salisbury (a dorm)
2. a break/study room for Alumni (another dorm)

If you're an Assumption freshman reading this, you are my constituent! Our model republic will only work if you make sure I keep my promises!

Not too much new for today; mostly just waiting for tomorrow, class election day. All I can hope is that all the Assumption Greyhounds will have a place for "The Guy with the Tie" in their hearts[no, that's not me!]

Also, happy Constitution Day! Insofar as celebrating that sober document, Assumption College is hosting a professor and constitutional scholar today, who gave a small lecture on the Executive Branch today in my Political Issues class. I have a suspicion that many readers of this blog wouldn't have enjoyed his lecture, because (as much as a professor of the social sciences can through their air of objectivity) he spent most of his time speaking the interpretation of the Constitution which favors a strong presidency.
What might I say on this? I am an idealist, although not at the level of actual government procedure; it is not important if the president has more or less power, but whether he uses his authority wisely and in the pursuit of justice. As for our current President, a man who tends to "agree" with both Ann Coulter and Joe Sobran (and Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell) can only become more confused with every hour.

For an update on our rival, the Jesuit-run Holy Cross, our Pundit has found yet more evidence that the Crusaders are just hyped-up cashmere-cuffed vampires, i.e. wealthy pro-choicers.

And also, after having reached 750,000 signatures, the American Family Association's Boycott Ford campaign has reached a standstill. Now, there may be Protestants running the show, but the TFP and a few other Catholic organizations also support the boycott. As an individual who owns Ford stock and will be financially injured by this boycott, I can tell you its an important cause. We Traditionalists are always heckling the secular, internationalists/globalists from our cushy blogs, but if the petition ever got more than 1,000,000 signatures, it could merit media attention and actually deal a blow to our foes! If anyone does feel so inspired as to sign the petition, perhaps they (who likely have a higher readership than The Young and Once Good Pundit) could be so kind as to post the petition on their blogs and further spread the word: boycott Ford!