The last man alive to have taken up arms for the United States against the British Empire, that’s who. His funeral procession was preserved on film in 1905:
I have to wonder what he would have thought a dozen years later when American boys fought alongside British soldiers. More good stuff about the War of 1812 here.
So it seems a fast-food company has been making donations to pro-gay-marriage organization. In retaliation, Fundamentalists are demanding that public universities ban the chain from their campuses. They basically can’t stand the idea that anyone who doesn’t follow their narrow, self-righteous superstitions could be allowed to do business at government-supported schools. Trying to force their beliefs on us all and push an agenda of discrimination and hate. What’s worse, these schools are knuckling under. Who the hell do these people think they are to tell us who we can do business with?
Angry? Of course you are.
Addendum: The last thing we need is voices of so-called “reason” like this guy claiming that the Civil Rights Act applies to bitter-clinging godbotherers. The h8er.
… when being liberal meant speaking against bigotry and hatred.
Update: Tangentially related.
Do you realize that (barring a last-minute miracle for Ron Paul) this year will mark the first presidential election since 1924 in which neither candidate has seen military service?
There was a spate of service-less elections in the early twentieth century, but those were all contests between men who had come of age in the late 1800s, when the military was mostly composed of professional soldiers and it was unusual for a young man to serve and then go on with his life.
Heck, the latter half of the nineteenth century and most of the twentieth were dominated by veterans of the War Between the States and the Second World War, respectively. Every president between 1945 and 1980 was a combat veteran. (To his credit, President Reagan served but was not allowed into combat service.)
Newt, Rick, Mitt and Barack are all guys who had ample opportunity to serve their country and instead stayed home safe. Embarrassing. I hope it’s not going to be a trend. The willingness to place one’s body between one’s home and danger is a crucial part of what makes a good statesman. And a man who is going to be the commander-in-chief of the armed forces ought to have done his time in those forces.
Disclaimer: I never served myself. I paid a visit to an army recruiter in high school, but was turned down because of my childhood asthma, and I never made any further effort to enlist. To my lasting regret.
Up to now, I’ve been assuming that the HHS mandate was simply a colossal misstep on the president’s part, thinking that because so many Catholics contracept, he could get away with demanding that the Church buy them contraception. I figured it was going to backfire on him in the election. We make up a fifth of the country, after all, and a majority of Catholics voted for him the last time around. Depriving them of their first amendment rights seems like a sure-fire way to lose in November.
But last night, it occurred to me: what if the president has been reading history and knows exactly what he’s doing? What if he’s familiar with the Edmunds-Tucker Act?
For those who are maybe less brushed up on religious suppression than our Dear Leader, the Edmunds-Tucker Act outlawed the Mormon church, allowed the government to confiscate its property, and denied the franchise to any practicing Mormon. Incredibly, it was upheld by the Supreme Court, and remained on the books until 1978, although the 1890 manifesto renouncing polygamy made it irrelevant. (Incidentally, one of the petitioners in the case was Mitt Romney’s great-uncle.)
Currently, the Catholic Church operates 625 hospitals, 230 colleges and universities and God only knows how many charities (adoption agencies, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, hospices, and so on). What’s to stop our Democratic Overlords from confiscating all those institutions and using them as building blocks for a single-payer system? He’s already shown that he thinks of the First Amendment as legal Charmin. Why should he respect any of our other rights if he gets away with it the first time?
I suspected this might be coming three years ago, but I didn’t think it would ever get to this point, and certainly not on a federal level.
As much as I hate to say it, if the administration won’t back down on this point, then the bishops need to close the institutions that aren’t covered. Immediately, so that the government doesn’t have a chance to seize them. If Obama wants to get us out of the charity field, he’s welcome to try, but under no circumstances should we provide him with the facilities he so desperately wants to pervert to immoral uses. I know it’s harsh to withdraw so much good from the needy (who aren’t to blame for this whole disaster in the first place), but if the alternative is to render unto Caesar the things that are God’s, then I don’t see that we have much choice.
(Sorry for the language in this one. But I think it’s warranted.)
You know, I promised when he was elected that I wouldn’t succumb to Obama Derangement Syndrome. And I think I’ve stuck pretty well to that. I haven’t mocked his teleprompter or claimed that he really was so stupid that he thought there were 57 states. I haven’t freaked out at his every move and shouted that he was going to clap us all into concentration camps. Overall, I think I’ve been pretty respectful to the president.
But that ends now. I want that back-stabbing sonofabitch out of office, whether by election or impeachment. I want his name so besmirched that Democratic politicians will beg him not to endorse them. I want his legacy to be on a par with Nixon’s. Catholics (not me, but plenty of others) tipped the scales in his favor in the election, and this is how he repays them?
On second thought, forget the Catholic part. I’m not angry on behalf of my church, but of my country. We’re American citizens, God damn it, and we will not be stripped of our guarantee of free exercise of religion. Not by Barack Obama, and not by anybody else. If this be derangement, so be it.
And you thought I’d forget this year, didn’t you?
Today’s classic is called “Son of the Navy”, from 1940. I posted this one back in 2007, but it’s worth a second look.
“Son of the Navy” is one of those movies where Christmas isn’t the primary theme, but does provide an excuse for some sentimentality that you couldn’t get away with any other time. Consider the plot: young Tommy runs away from an orphanage to find himself a set f parents of his very own. First he bamboozles a sailor (Mike, played by James Dunn) into posing as his father, and Mike goes along with it so he can hitch a ride back to his ship. The two of them are picked up by a beautiful young woman (Jean Parker, as Stevie) and after Mike ships out, the boy keeps up the pretense. In Hollywood fashion, the woman turns out to be a naval officer’s daughter, and she’s furious that Mike would leave his son behind while he’s at sea. Now, I ask you: would you buy that plot even in a B movie?
Of course not, not if it was, say, August or March. But this takes place in December, and Tommy wants a family for Christmas. Mike’s shipmates are initially furious with him for abandoning Tommy, but once that’s resolved they form themselves up into a squadron of uncles. It’s all very family-heavy, and at Christmas, you can get away with a lot of family content.
It helps that there are some solid if underrated actors in this. I cannot fathom why Jean Parker never made it into the big-budget films. James Dunn isn’t brilliant, but he’s competent. And Martin Spellman, who plays Tommy, is several notches more believable than most of the child actors of his time. (Mr. Spellman is alive and well in California, it appears. One of these days I’d like to call him and see if I can get his thoughts on this film.)
As always, if you watch this, leave me a comment and tell me what you thought.
Apparently all that peace on earth and goodwill toward men is just too much for the professional dogs-in-the-manger to stomach:
For the past 57 years, the churches erected 14 displays along the length of Ocean Avenue depicting scenes from the nativity story about the birth of Jesus Christ using life-size figures.
In all that time, the churches have had little to no competition for the total 21 spaces available for displays, because only three regular applicants took up approximately 16 spaces.
Not this year.
For the first time in the history of the winter holiday displays 13 individuals entered the race for the 21 spaces rather than the usual three, forcing City Hall to use a random lottery system to allot the spots.
That process left the churches with only two spaces on which they can put up only three of the usual 14 scenes.
A Jewish group received one space for a menorah and two individuals snagged a total of 18 spaces for “solstice greetings.” One person can request a maximum of nine spaces.
To date, only two of the solstice spots have been filled, and both with set-ups declaring an aversion to organized religion.
So they’re snapping up the spaces for the sole purpose of making sure they can’t be used.
These people are basically civic vandals. They not only take no joy in a festive season, but they insist on spray-painting over any beauty that anybody else might enjoy. They demonstrate their superiority by pissing all over our traditions. They spew their hatred over us and then call us haters for being happy in spite of them.
A Puritan has been snidely defined as someone who lies awake worrying that somebody somewhere may be having a good time. Scratch a militant atheist, find a Puritan.
Of course, this is patently impossible. Everybody knows that homosexuality is permanent and since animals engage in it, it must be healthy and natural. It’s time for Buddy and Pedro to undergo some sensitivity training. The little h8rs.
Mother! whose virgin bosom was uncrost
With the least shade of thought to sin allied;
Woman! above all women glorified,
Our tainted nature’s solitary boast;
Purer than foam on central ocean tost;
Brighter than eastern skies at daybreak strewn
With fancied roses, than the unblemished moon
Before her wane begins on heaven’s blue coast;
Thy Image falls to earth. Yet some, I ween,
Not unforgiven the suppliant knee might bend,
As to a visible Power, in which did blend
All that was mixed and reconciled in Thee
Of mother’s love with maiden purity,
Of high with low, celestial with terrene!
William Wordsworth
I don’t think I could post anything better about the Blessed Mother than I did back when this blog was new.
On The Other Foot 