Quote of the Day
Hatred is the most destructive force on earth. It does the most damage to those who harbor it.Nido Qubein
Tweet of the Day
Are you ready for next season's "Political Apprentice"? I suspect it'll soon get cancelled over low ratings...http://t.co/bCHqMIjJnM
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) June 17, 2015
Image of the Day
Very Cute: The Original Artist Joins In With Fan Singing His Song
First Jobs?
My first job was as a paperboy; it was also my first business: basically weekday afternoons in the searing South Texas sun and Sunday mornings. I cleared maybe a buck a day. Talk about thin margins! If a customer called to say he didn't get his paper (maybe a dog carried it off?), the paper company didn't help me out; on more than one occasion, I had to go to a vending machine on the base and buy one--straight out of my pocket.
My next job, as a 16-year-old college freshman at OLL, was washing dishes, taking trays off the conveyor belt, scraping food, sending items through the washing machine and unloading them at the back end. (As if it wasn't bad enough I was the residential geek; my wet clothes reeked. No dates my freshman year.) One thing I learned early on: a phenomenal work ethic gets you noticed. Within a few weeks, I got promoted to assistant cook, a much better gig. Unfortunately, apparently Rudy and I got along too well together. My boss some weeks later grumbled that Rudy didn't have enough to do and put me back on dishwashing duty and, yes, mopping the cafe floors at 6 AM on an empty stomach. I also experienced my first termination. One night I finished my work schedule at 7 PM during finals week; I had 3 finals scheduled the next day. Even though I could have used the extra money, I declined the opportunity to work overtime. He did not take it well and responded by firing me and ripping up my timecard--talk about fall from grace! (I don't recall if I ever got paid.) Not only that but he blacklisted me on campus, and it took me a while to find another work-study job (I eventually got one working at the university libraries).
Facebook Corner
(Reason). All good, proper, and righteous Americans are invited to tell the County of Arlington in Virginia where it may shove its ordinance against saying bad words in public.
Can a city ban littering and fine violators? Sure. Who wants to live is a filty city? When one person throws aside a candy wrapper, it is out of sight out of mind. But other people now have to deal with it and clean it up. That's why littering is wrong and it is now the custom to clean up your act -- or else.
Profanity is verbal littering. It is one's throw away line, but third parties sharing the same public space have to deal with the ugliness of it.
The First Amendment cuts both ways. One could hold the right to express profanity whereever. But other people can express their right to say, "When you come here, Clean up your act!"
If you want to get picky, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the sign. The city as an absolute First Amendment freedom to put it up. Where it gets sticky is the enforcement. Just as a city can put up a "No Littering" sign, and leave the hard part to its enforcement.
If we are talking cursing on my theoretical private beach is one thing; I can have you dismissed from my property for any or no reason. For the State to be a big Nanny on a public beach is another thing, unconstitutional at its core.
(Catholic Libertarians). This post from yesterday was deleted by mistake so I'm re-posting it. Sorry to anyone who had commented on the original post, I was enjoying the discussion. ~Mark
"The state's right to kill you is the final demonstration of its power. The death penalty isn't about justice; it is about the supremacy of the rulers over the ruled." -- Jeffrey A. Tucker
Many American Catholics are confused and unnecessarily heated over this issue due to our secular partisan politics. I once supported capital punishment by the secular state, however, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Evangelium Vitae are quite clear that the only morally-acceptable use of the death penalty is when it is DEFENSIVE and a LAST RESORT, meaning there is no other possible way to defend against an unjust aggressor (such as prison). It is NOT acceptable when it is used vengefully as a punishment for sin, no matter how grievous. This is the same criteria for acceptable self-defense as well as for just war, which is essentially the same as the Non-Aggression Principle. The only time it is morally-permissible to take the life of another person made in the image and likeness of God is to stop or prevent an immediate and otherwise unpreventable threat of violent aggression. There was a time when it was used ethically much more frequently due to a lack of humane alternatives to defend society, however, the problem is that current use of the death penalty by modern American government is not defensive in nature, but is vengeful in nature. Pope John Paull II, Pope Benedict, and Pope Francis have all called Catholics in recent times to respect and promote the sanctity and dignity of each and every individual human life from conception to NATURAL death, to include opposition to any unjust application of the death penalty as laid out in Evangelium Vitae, just as we are called to oppose abortion, euthanasia, unjust war, etc. Not only is this a critical issue for Catholics, but allowing the secular state the power to judge taking a life as a mere "punishment" (as opposed to defense) should be a cause for alarm for all libertarians as well, as both Ron Paul and Jeffrey Tucker indicate in the attached quotes. ~Mark
« Concerning capital punishment, Catholics are called to recognize that while society has the duty to protect itself from a murderer, the criminal never loses his or her dignity. Hence all criminals, even the most hardened, must be treated with respect and dignity. Revenge has no place in the heart of the Christian. The CCC, reiterating the teaching of John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, notes that when non-lethal means are available to protect persons and society, such as life sentences without parole, those are "more in conformity with the dignity of the human person" (CCC 2267). Furthermore, he taught that given the means available today for the protection of society from murderers, justifiable cases of capital punishment "are very rare, if not practically non-existent" (EV 56). Since the reasons for capital punishment are "rare" and "practically non-existent," Catholics should oppose the death penalty and encourage society to choose another way to protect itself, such as life imprisonment without parole. » (Bishop Samuel J. Aquila, The Sanctity of Human Life from Conception to Natural Death, http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=622)
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth will leave the world blind and toothless." ~ Servant of God Dorothy Day
Capital punishment is premeditated murder by the State. It is morally unjustifiable.
(Cato Institute). "Republican candidates and their advisers know that opposition to same-sex marriage remains strong in their base, but that more than two-thirds of young voterssupport it. Campaigning against gay marriage is a good way to make the Democratic advantage among young people permanent."—Cato EVP David Boaz
The polls are misleading; there's a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Most of us Baby Boomers have had "live and let live" attitudes long before political correctness perverted the concept of marriage. I think just like all issues it depends on who asks the question: so long as cultural conservatives are going to play on the cultural fascist home court and have to answer the question, "Why are you trying to keep people who love each other apart?", it becomes awkward. I think cultural conservatives are on much better ground when they expose the rank hypocrisy of Cato Institute and others who have no problem with imposing socially experimental policy with the monopoly power of government and ignore the free association rights of conservative communities to promote traditional values and relationships.
Do people like Boaz really think that the legal fiction of State fiat "marriage" in notoriously promiscuous gay population, a small percentage of less than 1 of every 20 people, is seriously going to trump the fact that Democratic political whores have bankrupted their generation? Personally I don't give a crap what gay people call their intimate relationships; they can get official State seals on rainbow-colored certificates for all I care. It's not a "real" marriage no matter how many judicial fascists say otherwise. But if Boaz thinks that somehow something has changed, that the States have prohibited gay relationships because they didn't print rainbow-colored certificates in the past, he has been visiting Colorado too often. Traditional marriage existed for thousands of years before this country was in diapers. So have gay relationships.
Marriage and Family
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Jerry Holbert via Townhall |
 |
| Courtesy of the original artist via IPI |
Dionne Warwick, "A House Is Not a Home"
