Let’s take a turn around the internets, shall we, and what’s fun and/or informative out there…
Bang out of the Box, let’s look at Christopher Hitchen’s musings on our willingness to offend everyone but the Muslim. He writes:
…if I choose to spit on a copy of the writings of Ayn Rand or Karl Marx or James Joyce, that is entirely my business. When I check into a hotel room and send my free and unsolicited copy of the Gideon Bible or the Book of Mormon spinning out of the window, I infringe no law, except perhaps the one concerning litter. Why do we not make this distinction in the case of the Quran? We do so simply out of fear, and because the fanatical believers in that particular holy book have proved time and again that they mean business when it comes to intimidation. Surely that should be to their discredit rather than their credit.
This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States.
Yes, yes, I know, Hitchens is a Christian-whackin’ atheist, but I’ve never cared. He’s ballsy, he’s bright, he’s got enormous nerve, he writes with verve and I still would love to sit at a bar with him (not next to him, mind you, but within hearing range…wouldn’t want to actually have to engage him in speech – I’m quite sure he’d scare me into stupidity and make mincemeat of me besides) and just listen to him gas away on most any topic.
Since we’re speaking of religion, Paragraph Farmer brings us this interesting piece by Fr. John Neuhaus at First Things, wherein Fr. Neuhaus ponders the pastoral effects of the bland, uninspiring and flat NAB translation now lodged haphazardly within the Catholic liturgy, like a garden stone you keep tripping over but cannot figure out how to unearth. You’ll want to read the whole thing, but you can take Neuhaus’ point just as easily by checking out his close:
Yet, on this and other matters, one prays for endurance, taking comfort from Saint Paul’s memorable and bracing words to Timothy, “I have fought the good fight, I have run the race, I have kept the faith.” One hopes to be able to say at the end of one’s days, “I have fought the good fight.” Or, as the NAB puts it, “I have competed well.”
Yeah, it’s that bad. Neuhaus wonders why the American bishops won’t fix this dog of translation which he correctly identifies as “banal, linguistically inept, and misleading translation.” I don’t know if I agree with his conjectures as the the bishop’s motives, though. Seems to me the explanation could be simply that the American bishops responsible for it were themselves bland and inept.
Neuhaus seems hot for the RSV, specifically the one I link to below, and I agree that it’s a good translation, readable and more poetically inspiring that the NAB, but it still doesn’t sing to me like my heavy, huge old Jerusalem Bible, published in 1966.
Speaking of books, Thomas Sowell takes a look here at Robert Novak’s book Prince of Darkness; Fifty Years Reporting in Washington and it sounds interesting – a gossipy little tome but one in which Novak apparently takes himself to task as well as others. My Li’l Bro Thom says he saw Novak interviewed by Raymond Arroyo on EWTN and was taken with his conversion story. One to check out.
Speaking of Thom, he sent along this eyebrow lifter.
this war’s opponents have forgotten something basic and elemental: Every American, regardless of his party affiliation or political philosophy, has “a lot invested in this war succeeding and succeeding well.”
If you think you’re hearing more about Hillary Clinton in the news than anyone else, it’s because you probably are. Apparently her numbers are rising – this is usually what happens when Hillary is perceived to have been “victimized” which I suppose is the case now that she’s keeping the cleavage-gate non-story alive. Hillary knows how to play the victim, and she has lots of “the world is so mean to women” types willing to keep that balsa-wood plane afloat. I expect to hear the adoring ladies on The View, the “world’s greatest woman” Angelina Jolie and perhaps even Katie Couric – serious and unbiased news anchor that she is – lecturing America on how unfair they are to pay more attention to what Hillary wears than to what she says. Which never happens to men, right? (Can you remember John Kerry’s bathing trunks and Bunny suits? Bush’s biking shorts?)
So, what is your opinion – should voters have to demonstrate basic civil knowledge to cast a vote? Seems excessive to me. I’d settle for voters being able to accurately state their name and address and provide photo-evidence of same, thanks.
If you’ve missed these wonderful photos of the Holy Land from GatewayPundit, go check them out. And if you don’t think you’ll ever actually make it to the Holy Land, yourself, then the next time you’re in Washington DC, get thee to this monastery, Mount St. Sepulchre, a Franciscan Monastery and Commissariat of the Holy Land in America, which is the next best thing. It’s very near the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, which is also worth visiting.
Don’t miss John Fund’s important piece on voter fraud and who is perpetrating it. Keep it on file as we get near the ’08 elections, please. Also, pay attention to what really constitutes a scandal. It’s not always what you’re being told.
Good disaster survival information here. H/T <a href="http://www.instapundit.com Glenn Reynolds.