The first image: that's for me, at least for now. Having slept till nearly 2 AM, my day yesterday did not start until after lunch. As I did some reading in the Hagan student lounge, a few students dropped in to play pool and ping-pong. Finding ourselves to be of different religions, Catholic and nondenominational Christianity respectively, a polite argument necessarily ensued. Proper to the eventual outcome of said argument, toward the beginning I recalled that the best argument against Catholicism is Catholics. More inept than usual, and endowed with that trademark Catholic amnesia for specific Bible verses, my case for the biblical basis of Catholic doctrine likely was ineffective.

For most of the time, we discussed infant Baptism, which luckily is not too hard to tackle. As they argued that infant Baspism has no biblical basis, I failed to understand the logic of limiting the Sacrament to adults if that limitation itself is not biblical. They pointed out that in most passages of the Bible (ex. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.- Mark 16:16), Baptism follows conversion, and they argued that it must be a rational decision of the recipient. They generally denied its necessity in infants by rejecting the doctrine of Original Sin.

In retrospect, I should have brought up John 3:3-5 (Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again? Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God). In these verses "be baptized", so to speak, is divorced from "repent" yet still held as absolutely necessary. Clearly, it would contradict this passage to say that any person does not need to be baptized to enter into Heaven. Insofar as Original Sin, I could only remember one passage, with which they were much more familiar than I, Romans 5:12 (Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned). Apparently they didn't buy into the interpretation by which death is the temporal punishment and consequence of Original Sin.

At one time, one of my "foes" remarked that Confirmation is unbiblical, which I ought to have refuted by simply naming Acts 8:17 (Then they [the apostles] laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost). The passage occurs after the to-be-confirmed have already been baptized. Unfortunately, they never brought up Extreme Unction (Vatican II-ese: Anointing of the Sick), for which I already knew to cite the painfully precise words of St. James 5:14-15 (Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him).

Better luck next time. We must memorize those key passages (or at least remember about where they are in our Bibles), lest we fail to apologize for the Faith, and more Catholics are tempted to leave the Church on the false fear that her doctrines have no biblical basis.

Things improved that night. Only an hour or two before midnight, my intuition kicked in, and I realized that a friend, senior Valerie Cancellieri, was well overdue for a sonnet. Here it is:

Sonnet LXXII: Before I met my friend

There was a trace of jasper in her blush
As I asked the next time she would be free
To talk. You see, I speak of Valerie,
Senate Speaker, and always in a rush.
Fortunately, the little lady has
Set hours to whittle away her work.
Most diligent, she sometimes bears a smirk,
Thoughts enshrined in Italian pizzazz
As her diffident eyes focus and say
That I must leave her be. In her time off,
Her Che Guevara jacket she will doff,
Having fixed the minutes for SGA.
Donning cheer with a smile and a wink
She'll cozy up and listen to NSYNC.

Luckily, Valerie loved the poem, and we agreed that it was accurate, so for once no one can accuse me of inaccuracy. But besides that: ahh, many are the times we have reminisced about those mythic days when NSYNC, that Band of bands, was still together and not on a dreary and perpetual "hiatus". O, how those heady days of the 1990s are a Camelot in our minds. But, to be fair, 2008 isn't all that bad: the Backstreet Boys are back together.

*************

Although today was very enjoyable, it was not too interesting, the only noteworthy activities being our Food and Auxiliary Committee meeting for the SGA (while I can see the day of reckoning approach for my dorm lounge improvement bill and the bill to make the Nault Coke machine accept Campus Cash, they may come through altered) and a meeting to raise awareness for students with disabilities (while there are many causes which seek to raise awareness, this one has a genuine deficit. As I was shocked to learn, the percent of students reporting disabilities as they enter private colleges nationwide has grown from 3% in 1978 to 9% in 1998).

Realizing that I had nearly no homework for this weekend, I headed down to Emmanuel D'Alzon Library during the afternoon to get some reading done in solitude. Rather than reading some from one of the books I brought to Assumption purely for enjoyment, I read a chapter of Kwame Anthony Appiah's Cosmopolitanism, which I purchased for my Global Perspectives class, but out of which only a few chapters have been assigned. Just in case I will not need it later, and I decide to sell it back to the AC bookstore before the return period expires, I thought it wise to read at least a few extra chapters.

I had read the previously assigned chapters with a dose of caution, and while I have found many favorable elements in the philosophy being promoted (cosmopolitanism), there were good reasons to be wary. The very first sentence of the Introduction is

Our ancestors have been human for a very long time.

Our author is a strong believer in evolution, and apparently not of a theistic variety. While Appiah has not [in the sections I have read thusfar] stated his religious beliefs or lack thereof, there is no ambiguity in the line's symbolism: this work is promoting a secular philosophy. Later, in chapter 5, "The Primacy of Practice", Appiah offers examples of cultural values shifting in positive directions as a result of shifting habits rather than reasoned argument. After mentioning the demise of female circumcision and foot-binding, he mentions that

Just a couple of generations ago, in most of the industrialized world, most people thought that middle-class women would ideally be housewives and mothers.

He adds, later in the same paragraph,

If the reasons for the old sexist way of doing things had been the problem, the women's movement could have been done with in a couple of weeks.

Yes, there are unintelligent people who supported the more distinct roles of the sexes, but Appiah cannot make such a blanket statement. The theological beliefs of diverse conservative Christians aside, the collapse of the family across the western world is obviously connected to the shift in women's' employment trends, and is enough of a reason to show that the second wave of feminism has proven to be a disaster in every place where it has claimed success, and that disaffection with the new status quo is well justified (not to mention the greater-than-ever-before need to remove Christian children from the atheistic public school system and [unless one has the money for expensive Catholic schools] home school them, and the accompanying legalization of abortion [unexpected children get in the way of those all-important careers. Men are rightly criticized for often putting career before family, but this trend in women is applauded as progress for their sex]).

Later, Appiah refers to the gay marriage debate in America, citing that we are "not as opposed to gay marriage as they were twenty years ago". Going with the section's theme he notes that

...those Americans who are in favor of recognizing gay marriages probably don't have a simple set of reasons why. It just seems right to them, probably, in the same way that it just seems wrong to those who disagree. (And probably they're thinking not about couples in the abstract but about Jim and John or Jean and Jane).

I have got to hand it to Appiah. He's very honest about how the movement to allow two persons of the same sex to "marry" is led by interested parties (homosexuals themselves and their friends and family). About his likening them to the traditional marriage movement and opponents of homosexuality, I beg to differ. Still, he is right about these shifts not being the results of rational debate.

That is what I had read so far, and I considered these confident opinions reason enough to proceed even more warily than I would have with any book praised by Kofi Annan. To my surprise the second chapter, "The Escape from Positivism", bore concealed philosophical gems which can be interpreted as supports for Catholic dogma.

Before perusing Appiah's work, I had seen Positivism mentioned in two or three places, in the context of errant philosophies born during the "Enlightenment". However, I had not known what Positivism is. Associated with but not invented by 18th century philosopher David Hume, Appiah tells us, Positivism holds that people's actions are

...driven by two fundamentally different kinds of psychological states. Beliefs- the first kind- are supposed to reflect how the world is. Desires, by contrast, reflect how we'd like it to be... beliefs are meant to fit the world; the world is meant to fit desires. So beliefs can be true or false, reasonable or unreasonable. Desires, on the other hand, are satisfied or unsatisfied.

I apologize in advance for simply using Appiah's description of someone else's philosophy. But I am not an expert in philosophy (maybe I'll be closer after the Intro to Philosophy course I'm currently taking), and I could not offer better paraphrasing. Essentially, the logical conclusion of positivism is moral relativism, because desires (shaped by one's values) cannot be directly derived from beliefs (as based on observable facts, the rationalist criterion).

Appiah constructs a case for the existence of universal values, an element of cosmopolitanism. In opening his argument, he criticizes Positivism from the postmodern perspective, noting that the building blocks of rationalist arguments and searches for truth, such as colors and numbers, have no physical existence, and that believing a quantity to be known as three or that calling a color red are, along with every statement including an adjective, examples of the verboten value statements. On the same note, he reminds us that a low view of values is itself formed by unprovable values (a Positivist could more easily dispense with this latter conjecture, merely by making the slight shift from disapproval to neutrality, as Appiah implies). So far, so good I say. I'm no Positivist, obviously, and although it seems like common sense that the Creator has some concepts in His mind which correspond to our ideas about mathematics and such, it's not Appiah's job to come up with a Catholic argument regarding some kind of existence for numbers.

The manner of progress chosen for the argument's continuation surprised and fascinated me. Or, as a critic acclaims on the cover regarding the whole of Cosmopolitanism, it was "elegantly provocative". Appiah focuses specifically on proving that kindness is a universal value (he also mentions democracy as a universal value, but doesn't venture to prove said claim), intrinsically part of human nature, and is therefore not truly subjective. He asks this question:

How, in fact, do people learn that it is good to be kind? Is it by being treated kindly and noticing that they like it? Or by being cruelly treated and disliking it? That doesn't seem quite right: kindness isn't like chocolate, where you find out if you have a taste for it by giving it a try [agreed]. Rather, the idea that it's good seems to be part of the very concept.

What is to be said of those with no taste for kindness, and who do not value it? He states, reasonably enough, that individuals with such convictions are rare. After insisting that most of those individuals who little esteem kindness must not understand kindness in the same way as ordinary people, he says that any who do detest kindness as understood by most of mankind are acting like the Alice in Wonderland character Humpty Dumpty, who famously [enough that I previously knew the quote] said that to him a word

means just what I choose it to mean- neither more, nor less.

Pointing out that language is in every culture normally an interpersonal thing, he gets to the point, ostracizing the idiosyncratic. Comparing them to the Humpty Dumptys of the world he says

You know what you call someone who uses language mostly to talk to himself? Crazy. [I am offended, and await an apology from the philosopher under discussion]

Setting aside those who dislike kindness, he authoritatively says that using the commonly-accepted "language of value" is "part of being human". Case closed, according to Appiah. This makes kindness a universal value.

My problem is, he just leaves off with the assurance that the crazies are wrong. How does one get that from their being an idiosyncratic minority? Because he calls kindness a universal value, it must be universal among our species, for he said that the "language of values" is "part of being human". His definition of a person, so to speak, is not a descendant of our First Parents, or really even the Aristotelian rational animal, but a creature meeting a laundry list of characteristics. Now, I have heard philosophers give such definitions before, but that doesn't make me inclined to accept them. Besides the corollary heresies and the real danger of dehumanizing any homo sapiens, it becomes apparent that to have universal human values, we must know what a human is. Appiah has offered a partial definition: just a few pages before, he was showing what mayhem can result from making definitions the basis of a philosophy.

And I offer a second dilemma. Recall that he chose kindness over democracy as the universal value for his proof earlier. He likely did it because democracy, far from being inherently loved by all mankind, not only is it not the present system nor demanded in much of the world, but even within democracies there are sane and principled critics (among them many Traditional Catholics. While I certainly don't hate popular government, neither am I crazy about it). I propose that the reason he chose kindness, why it is so much more favorable a value for his argument, is because kindness is too close to being a denominator to describe valuing something, and isn't a concrete value in itself. Not everyone defines kindness in the same way, either. In my personal experience, many have been the arguments about whether or not it is kind to tell "white lies", and not only on theological ground- though that certainly concerns me- but about whether the false image a person gets from white lies outweighs the supposed benefits from not saddening them with little truths. I think dishonesty is always unkind [at another point, Appiah also listed Truth as a "universal value"], while others contend that just a little bit is better than none at all. Aside from that, on the indispensable Dictionary.com, the first synonym listed for kindness is benignity. Apparently, the Latin root of benign is benignus, the equivalent of the prefix beni-, which means good. Kindness, goodness: it can hardly be claimed that goodness or desiring what is good is a "universal value", because good, obviously, is a term not constrained to any situation. If one accepts that valuing an entity means seeing it as good or a good, then we are back to square one again.

Of course, my point has not been to prove that nihilism is correct, for I am not a nihilist. But this does remind me of a conversation I had one fine evening with a nonbeliever. He did the Cartesian breakdown of reality, without the rebuilding afterwards, as so many amateur but effective philosophers do. While I rightly accused him of just finding an easy negation for everything I said, his conclusion was rather relevant to my beliefs. "To me, this is all that's real" he said, pointing down toward his crotch. I have always held that, as Dostoevsky apparently said, "If there is no God, everything is permitted". If Appiah wants universal values, I say, he should look to St. Thomas Aquinas, and go through the philosophy of God as the First Cause, which I do not know enough about, but which certainly seems like the surest way to rescale the cliff Descartes threw us from, and reclaim reality and morality as side effects of his brand of theism.

While I have made my dissent with Appiah on his secular source of universal values, I did not write this lengthy post merely to rebuke him. Indeed, as I stared about the empty second floor of D'Alzon Library, it occurred to me that he had made a good indirect argument for the Catholic idea that man is naturally good, but was corrupted by the Fall. In whatever sense one defines it as, human beings desire goodness. While I disagreed with the idea that a value is good because the majority believes it is, the majority opinion that kindness involves engendering benefits to the health, wealth, and spirits of our neighbors (I must be specific) is correct, even if many of us don't follow through. Mankind is in nature good, as the Church teaches. Those few who love sin and cruelty as such, while I believe them fully human they are, as Appiah concluded, crazy, the flukes in an intrinsically good species. They are a departure from the norm who, rather than being shorn of any exterior good, are more overcome by the corruption of sin and diabolic influence. Perhaps this is not currently at the forefront of theological debate, but it sure does make Luther and Calvin look silly in hindsight.

All things considered, I think Appiah's Cosmopolitanism has paid for itself by provoking to philosophical thought and reflection. I plan on keeping it and finishing it at some point not too far in the future.

I must delay posting on the March for Life for a while. A fellow marcher has said she would email me the photos she took of our Assumption contingent of four, but they have not yet arrived. Suffice it to say that I was pleasantly surprised (and quite humbled) to see Ron Paul speak at the March, although I was a few hundred feet away from the stage.

Meanwhile, it is at last the weekend! With the exception of one Course Which Shall Not Be Named, my new schedule looks fine, and no more difficult than the first semester. Of course, the old setbacks continue to pop up, and success still only shows her pretty face in the academic realm, but I can cope with that. At least, for once, it has proven true that I can always rely on my friends for consolation when I am in the grasp of rational or irrational depression. While not all the advice they have given is kosher ("verbally ****rate the trolls on your blog"), they are indeed a barrel of laughs. Hail, comedians of Hanrahan; luck be on your side, sweet salves of Nault.

Just earlier this evening, I was surprised to find out that one of my amigos had decided to help Hillary's campaign through the College Democrats, just because he so detests John McCain, whom he believes will win the Republican race. I generally see him as a Stephen Colbert-style moderate, with whom I can always agree on something. While I've seen McCain in a poorer light since his "hundred years" comment, I continue to hold that Hillary would be much worse.

While her website says, "Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today...", but she (and Obama and Edwards) have never reneged on their refusal to promise to get us out by January, 2013. Also on her agenda, the expectable universal pre-K , socialized medicine, a path to citizenship for illegals, more "family planning" programs, and everything else liberal, besides actually getting us out of Iraq (and remember, "no option can be taken off the table" with Iran). Essentially, she doesn't have my vote, which is still up for grabs come November (for a more comical argument of why not to vote for Hillary Clinton, click here- no offense to Yoda intended).

Maybe, three years from now, if the quagmire of Iraq persists with no victory in sight, and no political will to end it, my family can get a "Don't blame me: I voted for Paul" bumper sticker.

If it weren't for the excessive gambling and legalized prostitution, Nevada would be my new favorite state (a title still held by New Hampshire). To celebrate Ron Paul's 2nd place finish in said state, I have written this, in homage,





Sonnet LXX- Las Vegas on January 19, 2008

Praise be to the wisdom, the splendor of
That inferno in the Virgin's city.
The oppressed souls found the capacity
To die with the singular rose of love
And ardor as their measures before god.
While the flowers grew to five, angels say,
Fire-touched prostitutes learned how to pray,
And conscience trespassed where no virtues trod.
Lion and lamb, Christian and anarchist
Slumbered within the same starlit threshold
Of their newfound hope. All eyes did behold
A humble teller of the truth, much missed
Whence his immortal soul was forged and cast
With that valor which often places last.

Perhaps this is the first and last time I will ever praise Las Vegas for anything, but we must give credit where credit's due.

Wish me luck, for the bus to the March for Life leaves in seven hours, and I admit to being a little nervous.

The last full day of my vacation has just begun, and I can happily proclaim this the most productive vacation ever, not only because it has been my longest yet, but by the best use of each and every hour. Besides the enjoyable reading I have gotten done, I have kept up with politics very closely, and am ready to resume my role as resident ultra-Right politico at Assumption. And I have had the high privelige of attending not one, but two Tridentine Masses, one of which was on my birthday.

This Advent and Christmas have been especially meaningful, and not only on a personal level. While I felt a childlike intimacy in both the sacred and secular traditions surrounding the feast, the way the local contingent of society celebrated with me was quite encouraging. As our evangelical brothers at the AFA and elsewhere observed, the War on Christmas- which revealed the acme of secular overconfidence merely by merely being begun with the intent to win- has really quieted down, as corporations and individuals increasingly tend to permit us to say our Merry Christmas, allowing us to celebrate our Lord's birth by a Virgin as it ought. That is one definite relief: happy holidays has become a scarce expression, although I must say I'm sad that my favorite secular spin-off, Dethemberween, never received the attention it deserved. Additionally, perhaps because of the corporations' desire to make up for the dismal Christmas season sales, or as a beneficial side effect of our national sloth, celebration of Christmas seemed to last until Epiphany as it properly should. For 2008, I will declare our eventual success certain if the Christmas season begins in September rather than August as it lately has.

I may not be able to post for a few days, so any anxious visitors will have to content themselves with this Dethemberween cartoon, courtesy of that unequalled among websites, Homestarrunner.com.

Good news, good news. After pestering my mother on and off, she has said that I can be a part of the Washington March for Life. The Assumption Advocates for Life are sharing the bus the Holy Cross pro-life group is using, and the fee they are asking is only $10. However, for some time, AA4L was not even sure we could send a contingent to the march, because not enough of us had pledged to go; were it not for some individuals less bound to procrastinate, I would not have such a privelige. Naturally, with this being the first year AA4L has really gotten off the ground, we are the first student body for some time to have this important opportunity.

Also, more good news. Bobby Jindal, the Indian-American who converted to Roman Catholicism as a teenager, was just inaugurated as governor in Louisiana. I have been following his fortunes ever since I first heard of him. As Wikipedia details, he is pro-life, supports teaching Intelligent Design is public schools, has a record of shrinking bureaucracy, has an A rating from Gun Owners of America (if only yours truly owned a gun, he would surely join), and once wrote an article in the New Oxford Review. During the race, the Democrats even attacked him for his orthodox beliefs. The following is pulled from a different website:

In an article published in the 1990s, he argued, "The same Catholic Church which infallibly determined the canon of the Bible must be trusted to interpret her handiwork; the alternative is to trust individual Christians, burdened with, as Calvin termed it, their 'utterly depraved' minds, to overcome their tendency to rationalize, their selfish desires, and other effects of original sin." And elsewhere: "The choice is between Catholicism's authoritative Magisterium and subjective interpretation which leads to anarchy and heresy."

Like most converts, he is zealous, and appears to be very intelligent. Yes, he is a neoconservative- he supports the Iraq War and voted for the REAL ID Act- but hopefully his former friends at the NOR can explain the fine points of Catholic just war theory to him. In any case, it is very difficult to find a truly righteous politician anywhere.

Periodically since September, I have been reading into the Qur'an. Besides being a fine work of poetry, it has come in handy already. During an argument with a liberal Catholic, I affirmed my firm belief in the truth of the Roman Catholic faith, and that all other religions are flawed and have elements of falsehood. Apparently attempting to prove his point, that we cannot actually know that our religion is the true one, he hoped to show that I was ignorant, and kindly asked if I had read the Qur'an. Boy was he surprised when I told him it was a work in progress. Indeed it is, but once I get through the Vedas, some key Buddhist texts, and the Book of Mormon for good measure, the multiculturalists will really be clueless!

As those I argue with would stress, not everything in the Qur'an is errant. While I expected to discover eloquent praises of God, and diverse commands to assist the needy, I was surprised to find the following passage, which apparently refers to liturgical music in the post-Second Vatican Council era:

Their worship in the House of God
has been no more than whistling /and clapping.
-sura 8, verse 35

Although I slept so late that the sun was setting as I awoke, I can't say I've wasted the day. In my reading of The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge [now halfway done], I came across an interesting passage which I will repeat here:

It appeared to me in January, 1914 [when he became President of the Massachusetts Senate], that a spirit of radicalism prevailed which unless checked was likely to prove very destructive. It had been encouraged by the opposition [Democrats] and by a large faction of my own party [Republicans].

It consisted of the claim in general that in some way the government was to be blamed because everybody was not prosperous, because it was necessary to work for a living, and because our written constitutions, the legislatures, and the courts protected the rights of private owners especially in relation to large aggregations of property.- pp. 106-107

Keep in mind that the Republicans and Democrats had only been divided along capitalist/socialist lines since the campaign of 1896 (William McKinley vs. William Jennings Bryan) at the very most, and that the divisive New Deal wasn't around until the 1930s. This remark, reflecting the sentiments of a state senator who identified his voting record as liberal (pg. 112), would today make a fine speaking point in a Republican fundraising letter. Despite Coolidge's later success in dramatically shrinking the federal government, he has received little recognition today as a conservative icon, excepting when Reagan replaced a Jefferson portrait in the White House with one of Coolidge.

Why? I believe most politicians today opt for Reagan as an icon because, while he cut the taxes, he never had a balanced budget, and so following in his footsteps hardly requires fiscal responsibility. Yes, Reagan is better remembered, but that (along with the preference of older figures such as Lincoln and the Roosevelts to Coolidge) is merely part of a vicious cycle. A politician is remembered, then the public becomes familiar with them, and venerates him, which encourages those seeking public office to liken themselves to them in campaigns. This is a great problem for paleoconservatives like myself- outside of Northampton, I likely wouldn't get too far by resurrecting the memory of Silent Cal in Higgins for Congress 2024. This problem has a solution, however- allowing more time in the history classroom for instruction on the oft-neglected Reconstruction to Depression period. If I recall, the only presidents that get substantial attention in my high school class from this period were Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson. U. S. Grant and William McKinley were given marginal attention, but Coolidge and Cleveland (I've heard he was very strong on small government, according to Thomas Woods, but don't know enough about) were totally ignored (except when I drove Coolidge into the conversation through my adoration). As on might expect, the class's instruction was slanted favorably toward the progressive movement, and coverage of the women's sufferage movement failed to mention that most of those who voted for the 19th Amendment were Republicans like Coolidge, who voted for a women's sufferage measure when he was in the state legislature. I doubt that a few stealth touch-ups in the history curriculum would create a liberal furor. Anyone listening? Coolidge remembererd today, Ron Paul elected tomorrow.

*************

Whoever gets inaugurated on January 20, 2009, we will still be spared a few miseries. I recalled this reassuring fact a few days ago when I came across a pin in a political catalogue on the 2008 pins page. It said "AMEND THE CONSTITUTION: SHWARZENEGGAR FOR PRESIDENT". I had forgotten that such a movement had ever existed, and why I don't know. A President Shwarzeneggar would make JFK look like Archbishop Lefebvre.

Back to Congess for the Good Doctor, I expect. Naturally, I am disappointed by our northern neighbor for giving Ron Paul only 8% of the primary vote, which places him just behind Rudolph Giuliani. Of course, I will vote for him on February 5, but he now hasn't a chance in breaking through and placing higher in the future. The good news is that I doubt Giuliani will have a chance in the national convention, either, so the Republican party will almost certainly choose a pro-life candidate that Catholics can reasonably vote for. Gone, however, are the hopes of a pro-free trade Silent Cal, or an antiwar AUH₂O. Whoever wins the election in 2008, the welfare-warfare state will persist, as will the American Empire- greater than Rome, certainly, but which draws it's lifeblood from violations of just war theory, and which has become increasinly unconcerned with Christian morality. It is possible that some of this may improve- the war in Iraq may be scaled back by the Democrats, the Republicans will probably stave off homosexual marriage and the growth of the welfare state, and I am optimistic about the selections the G.O.P. candidates would make for the Supreme and lower courts (I wouldn't rule out Roe v Wade being overturned if a Republican wins and there are one or two high court vacancies), but these are all measures to prune the leaves rather than to kill the noxious ivy. As has been said at different times, we need a revolution to make our beloved Republic humble, and a counterrevolution to make her Catholic.

Speaking of Calvin Coolidge, Forbes Library has had several events to commemorate the 75th anniversary of his death (on January 5). Although I missed them (held in the Calvin Coolidge Presidential Library on the 2nd Floor, which is a bit less than twice the size of our living room), there was a nice display of books by and about said superb president. Having just finished Castiglione's Book of the Courtier [and having been a bit lost in Bembo's discourse on platonic love], I picked up Coolidge's autobiography, released just as he left the presidency and Herbert Hoover occupied the Oval Office in 1929. It looks like a fast read, and should be a good read.

*************

I have just learned that Ann Coulter's father, John Vincent Coulter, has died. He was a Catholic his entire life; I ask you to keep him in your prayers.

After reading a long chapter from The Mystical City of God, I went downtown to meet a friend at Starbucks late in the afternoon. We caught up on the stuff that's gone on since graduation, and I was happy to hear that she's very happy at her college. Likewise, however nice these weeks off have been, I am eager to get back to Assumption. Besides that I don't expect second semester to be any harder than the first, the place makes me feel at home: I adore the increasingly strong Catholic atmosphere, and the numerous other Republicans. Taken together, I am able to make connections with my brethren better than I can here in godless, half-communist Northampton. Once we spoke of the essentials, I showed her some of my recent works, including my latest sonnet. She enjoyed it, as she does all my works, and approved. I hope you will, too.

Sonnet LXIX

The diluted blueberry sky settles,
Every snowflake's silent cantor ended.
My steps stir the silver slur descended
Of a departed tempest, her nettles,
Papier mâché coils, dreary shadows
Residues of her ironed cotton face.
Indifference took her stay in the place
Of the mantle strung above the meadows
Near the City of Man some hours back.
This vacancy of heart, which will endure
Until springtime, is near the greatest lure.
Refilling the ices with what they lack,
The rarest sunset at my back, I start
Toward that winter of which I am a part.

Listening now to Nelly Furtado's latest album, I am also, ironically, trying to figure out how to use the ziffy new Roman Catholic Daily Missal (1962) I received for my birthday. Although little larger than an average Bible, the thing was quite pricey, and I feel rather undeserving when I consider that the more regular attendants of the Traditional Mass often get stuck with ancient missals printed before Vatican II, completely worn with faithful use, often with poor binding to speak of. My, but the publisher, the SSPX's Angelus Press, is quite proud of their product, which they describe with militaristic precision on their website. I guess it's the real deal.

Tomorrow, which is the Epiphany, I will again be privileged to actually attend a Traditional Latin Mass, at Our Lady of Guadalupe church in Holyoke. From last time there, I remember that the masses are excellently said, but not as well followed as by the parishioners as some other churches, because the church is a former indult parish, and only has the Mass of the Ages once a month. It's amusing when you think about it: The Mass of the Ages: available only the first Sunday of each month. Despite that shortcoming, I highly recommend the place. Father John Lessard-Thobodeau, the parish priest, is superb: last time I was there, he gave a homily reminiscent of Timothy Cullen's anti-Modernist, ultra orthodox rants in the Remnant. He touched on everything, including abortion and condemning those "Catholic" politicians who support keeping it legal. I look forward to quite a Lord's Day, though I likely won't follow along in the missal; I'm more given to the attention to the mysteries being played out that St. Leonard recommended. The missal is more for reference use.

[Moving on to Sarah McLachlan,] while today was sorrowful because of the memorial service for Miles Adams (although nothing associated with that jokester has ever been completely without comedy), and pitiful because of the unbelievable environmentalist pandering committed by most of the Republicans during today's Facebook debate. [The blogger I'm getting my synopsis from (I saw maybe a fourth of the debate) is right on about a crazy idea from the Huckster-

Suggests a billion dollar bonus for the first person who invents a car that gets a hundred miles to the gallon. (I suggest a billion dollars to the person who invents a hundred-mile-a-gallon car that looks nothing like a Honda Element.)

He's right on. If Uncle Sam offered 1,000,000,000 smackers to whichever company made an auto which got 100mi/g, the company would obviously be less concerned in making a car the American people would want to use. Of course, with the recent fascist energy bill, the government will likely have all of us driving Elements against our will if they could.] However, a most gleeful element entered the day while I was at Super Stop & Shop, helping my mother shop. What a beautiful pop song came onto the loudspeakers, what a tragedy poured through the air! It turned out to be Madonna's "Hollywood", from the album American Life. I already knew her "Like a Prayer" was good, but "Hollywood" was just so smooth, with the falsetto voice and well-engineered pop beat I adore. However, I must sort her into the category of Sheryl Crow- fine musicians who have received censure from the clergy, and who are sacrilegious or directly promote blasphemy with their influence. I figure that buying CDs from these folks is sinful, as we abet the sins of others with our dollars and our preferences. All we can do is pray- pray that Madonna, Sheryl, and the rest (including less dubious musicians whose souls are still in jeopardy from their ignorance of the Truth) will find the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church of Jesus Christ, outside of which no one at all may be saved...and may we all, O glorious Virgin, sing forever with exultation: rejoice, O Virgin Mary, thou only hast destroyed all heresies in the whole world. Amen.

Having been watching the Iowa results on CNN for the last few hours, these are the G.O.P. vote totals and percentages with 86% of precincts reporting,

Mike Huckabee, 35,342- 34%
Mitt Romney, 26,087- 25%
Fred Thompson, 13,834- 13%
John McCain, 13,558- 13%
Ron Paul, 10,040- 10%
Rudy Giuliani, 3,590- 4%
Duncan Hunter, 457- 1%

And so, Paul got walloped, nay crushed, and those polls put forth by the media were again proven to be painfully accurate. Either the independents stayed home, the young didn't vote, or perhaps small government, noninterventionism, and personal freedom are really the values of the fringe in America. In any instance, I am disappointed in the Right, and in the Paul supporters who didn't bother to vote, leaving the Good Doctor with supporters little more motivated than those of the neoconservative candidates. Naturally the Ron Paul Revolution still has time to prove itself in New Hampshire, but that may prove to be just enough time for the priest serving Saint Benedict Center to perform Extreme Unction on said Revolution.

This is not to say that, unlike the chatterers at the Daily Paul, I am hyperventilating over the win by Mike Huckabee. Yea, I congratulate him on his win. While AnnCoulter's criticism of the Huckster- I just had to say that (here and here)- certainly ring true, whether or not one is a Coulter fan, he is still a stalwart for the values we conservative Catholics are really in the fight for in the first place: abortion and traditional marriage, and he deserves our praise and potential support if he gets the Grand Old Party's nomination. While the libertarians and those opposed to the Religious Right will be quick to point out the pro-big government, politically moderate regime he ran in Arkansas (spending and government grew faster than under Bill Clinton, let it be known), I would recall that some of the Christian Right's best allies are leftists in all matters not moral, such as the new Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. Under him, socialism is certainly being pressed, but all abortions have been illegalized. Even if Huckabee proves to be weak on spending, taxes, and entitlements, he may still be the best friend American Catholics and Protestants have in Washington. Even the Remnant, in its news links, has cast a favorable light on Huckabee. Finally, of course, I am glad that he beat slick old Mormon Mitt Romney, and doubly glad that they both bested divorcees John McCain and Fred Thompson. And heck, even though Ghouliani didn't campaign hard in evangelical Iowa, he placed well below my main man, and certainly can't be happy with his apparent lack of grassroots support.

As a side note, because I know there are some distributists who read this blog, it would not surprise me if Huckabee has just become the first presidential candidate to quote G. K. Chesterton on the campaign trail, having mentioned him in his Iowa victory speech.

While many see in Mike Huckabee the quintessential blue dog Democrat, Huckleberry Hound, he reminds me of the yokelish Banjo character from the video game Banjo Kazooie. In the apparent loser of Iowa for the registered Democrats, Hillary Clinton, many see a soulless robot, and I too can see that. But in my eyes, a human character, Summer Wheatley, Perdo Sanchez's opponent for the class presidency in the film Napoleon Dynamite best matches Hilldawg. Although both are real folks with the potential to be emotional and social, they just can't resist that fruity veneer of optimism, impossible promises, and showiness that makes everyone conclude that they are faking their whole image.

There are only a few hours left before the Iowa caucus begins, and our brothers in said state will hopefully pull the lever (or tap the electronic screen) for Dr. Ron Paul. My, I am quite excited, but also nervous and such, likely because it is 5:28 AM and I still can't think of a reason to hit the hay. I would put out my predictions regarding the Republican side of the vote, but I am always wrong, and will save myself from the humiliation of another misapplied dart to the guess board. In any case, I will be glad, for the future's necessary veil of mystery is one of the realities I most despise.

Quite a night it has been though. For some hours, I divided my attention between reading a disturbing article, detailing the alleged globalist plan to control the world's food supply, and watching The Roaring Twenties, starring James Cagney and Humphrey Bogart, in my father's words one of the best gangster films nobody knows about. After that and reading Ann Coulter's annual column on Kwanzaa (doesn't yet have an individulal link, informing & highly recommended), I found myself indulging in philosophy. Whereas philosophy often annoys me or seems too high culture to interest me, I found myself belatedly browsing Ayn Rand's Wikipedia article; her name was brought up a few months ago at Assumption, and she seemed interesting. This having been confounding and futile, I can only hope that Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged will be assigned reading for some course, as I'm very bad at budgeting my private reading schedule.

And what a calm night. As the embers of the daylight approach, I feel as if I should try and write some poetry soon. After another snowy morning, I got to writing the first six lines of another winter sonnet two days ago, and hope to finish it soon. I believe that being away from the college (social) life for so long has done me some good, encouraging such works as it has, although it has also gotten me out of the habit of sleeping in a normal routine, the incentives having disappeared. I feel energetic, but my eyes and forehead hurt more each second. Such is the dilmma of the insomniac-intellectual-activist-still needs to pray his Rosary college kid you read here.