06 August 2009
03 August 2009
26 July 2009
V for Victory!: What Would Jesus Say?
V for Victory!: What Would Jesus Say?
LOVE WHAT THIS BLOGGER HAS TO SAY- she sounds like Geoff on the subject!!!!
LOVE WHAT THIS BLOGGER HAS TO SAY- she sounds like Geoff on the subject!!!!
19 July 2009
PEPSI = PERVERSION
It is bad enough that we are boycotting Coca Cola and Minute Maid for the latter's abti Catholic ad (Minute Maid is owned by Coca Cola), but Pepsi has stepped up its contributions to the dumbing down of our culture with its sodomite embracing patronage of an upcoming seminar aimed at that community. The boycott is being organized by the AFA, who also organized the McDonald's b oycott, and for the same reason. The boycott of Pepsi also call for Pepsi to remain neutral in the culture war, instead of hastening the rise of Sodom amd Gomorrah in America. What else could one expect from a company whose CEO gave speeches around the US describing the US as the middle finger of a hand. (She was only CFO at the time of these speeches, and apparently was so successful, she was promoted to CEO!!!)
Is The 2012 Trailer Anti-Catholic?
Is The 2012 Trailer Anti-Catholic?
Shared via AddThis
St. Peter's Basillica and the Sistene Chapel falling to the ground. A U. S. Navy aircraft carrier capsizing. And did anybody notice that carrier was the U. S. S. John F. Kennedy? The two most famous Catholic landmarks in the world, and a ship named for America's only Catholic President. I'd say this guy has a problem with things Catholic.
Shared via AddThis
St. Peter's Basillica and the Sistene Chapel falling to the ground. A U. S. Navy aircraft carrier capsizing. And did anybody notice that carrier was the U. S. S. John F. Kennedy? The two most famous Catholic landmarks in the world, and a ship named for America's only Catholic President. I'd say this guy has a problem with things Catholic.
Debbie Schlussel and her fantastic website, www.debbieschlussel.com
Debbie Schlussel has a wonderful website that I admit is a guilty pleasure for me to read each day, except for the Jewish Sabbath and High Holy Days, when she, as an observant Jew, does not post. She possesses an acerbic wit and wonderful insights into the chaos in our world. I do not think she is a Republican, but she is a tur conservative, who firmly stands up for her beliefs. She is an attorney, and writes wonderful movie reviews for the Detroit Free Press, and since the USCCB can't get it right in this area, I rely upon her reviews- she uses Ronald Reagan and Karl Marx instead of stars as her personal rating guide, and I have found it invaluable. She presses hard for America's security in the War on Terror, and is incomparable in her reporting. Please visit her site- it is worth the time.
Today's post concerns Walter Cronkite, and I could not have put forth my views as well as she, and I do not consider myself a slouch in the writing and opinion area.
Debbie Schlussel is an American Patriot and a treasure.
Today's post concerns Walter Cronkite, and I could not have put forth my views as well as she, and I do not consider myself a slouch in the writing and opinion area.
Debbie Schlussel is an American Patriot and a treasure.
18 July 2009
Fountain of Elias: Gertrud von le Fort and the Martyrs of Compiègne
Fountain of Elias: Gertrud von le Fort and the Martyrs of Compiègne
I have loved these Blessed nuns for a very long time, and my hearts still breaks whenever I read an account of their sacrifice for us. I remember them on their Feast Day, 17 July, and pray to them often.
I have loved these Blessed nuns for a very long time, and my hearts still breaks whenever I read an account of their sacrifice for us. I remember them on their Feast Day, 17 July, and pray to them often.
View from the Domestic Church: Health and exercise: Another approach
View from the Domestic Church: Health and exercise: Another approach
A Diet and Exercise program that will work for all of us!!!!
A Diet and Exercise program that will work for all of us!!!!
"Allied Atrocities"
Geoff's Take:
In an earlier post, I spoke of the bombing of Dresden, and how it's been referred to as an "Allied Atrocity". I have come to the conclusion that "Allied Atrocity" has a civilian counterpart, and it's called "Police Brutality".
One of my favorite retro-shows is the police drama Dragnet. One episode in particular comes to mind. Sergeant Friday is called in because one of his uniformed officers (a black man, by the way) has been shot by a pair of gunmen, who were white.
The officer survives, but he has no memory of the event. During the investigation, a civilian remarks to Sergeant Friday that when one of their own is shot, the police go all-out to find the bad guys.
Friday quickly admonishes, "Let me ask you something. These men shot down an armed police officer. Do you think they'd hesitate to shoot down an unarmed citizen?"
In today's world, where tv police are portrayed by the likes of Stabler and Benson, Dragnet is largely forgotten, and characters like Friday and Gannon are generally viewed as caricatures.
But the simplicity of Dragnet enabled its characters to make a point. In this case, Friday was pointing out to a private citizen that police work was best left to those who know it, and should not be randomly judged by people who aren't policemen and don't think like them.
Likewise, when people who aren't military strategists and don't think like soldiers critique military operations, it's almost like a person with no formal training in oral surgery critiquing the way a dentist performs a root canal.
Granted, if that same dentist extracts healthy teeth, or drills a tooth with no cavity, then he is committing an atrocity. But these atrocities are obvious, as atrocities normally are.
Likewise, it's not usually difficult to detect real brutality in law enforcement, if you see the whole picture. Beating someone for jaywalking is obviously brutality, but if that jaywalker is under the influence and behaving in a violent, threatening manner, then it doesn't seem as brutal, does it?
Healthy examination of one's self is required to live a moral life, but if we become too critical, we risk losing our sense of right and wrong.
In an earlier post, I spoke of the bombing of Dresden, and how it's been referred to as an "Allied Atrocity". I have come to the conclusion that "Allied Atrocity" has a civilian counterpart, and it's called "Police Brutality".
One of my favorite retro-shows is the police drama Dragnet. One episode in particular comes to mind. Sergeant Friday is called in because one of his uniformed officers (a black man, by the way) has been shot by a pair of gunmen, who were white.
The officer survives, but he has no memory of the event. During the investigation, a civilian remarks to Sergeant Friday that when one of their own is shot, the police go all-out to find the bad guys.
Friday quickly admonishes, "Let me ask you something. These men shot down an armed police officer. Do you think they'd hesitate to shoot down an unarmed citizen?"
In today's world, where tv police are portrayed by the likes of Stabler and Benson, Dragnet is largely forgotten, and characters like Friday and Gannon are generally viewed as caricatures.
But the simplicity of Dragnet enabled its characters to make a point. In this case, Friday was pointing out to a private citizen that police work was best left to those who know it, and should not be randomly judged by people who aren't policemen and don't think like them.
Likewise, when people who aren't military strategists and don't think like soldiers critique military operations, it's almost like a person with no formal training in oral surgery critiquing the way a dentist performs a root canal.
Granted, if that same dentist extracts healthy teeth, or drills a tooth with no cavity, then he is committing an atrocity. But these atrocities are obvious, as atrocities normally are.
Likewise, it's not usually difficult to detect real brutality in law enforcement, if you see the whole picture. Beating someone for jaywalking is obviously brutality, but if that jaywalker is under the influence and behaving in a violent, threatening manner, then it doesn't seem as brutal, does it?
Healthy examination of one's self is required to live a moral life, but if we become too critical, we risk losing our sense of right and wrong.
The Other McCain: Nice career you had, Susan Roesgen,it's sure a shame what happened . . .#comment-form#comment-form
The Other McCain: Nice career you had, Susan Roesgen,it's sure a shame what happened . . .#comment-form#comment-form
As an ardently practising Catholic, I do not believe or espouse the idea of karma, but boy this certainly demonstrates that idea. We did not have to wait for justice about the tea parties did we, and from CNN of all places
As an ardently practising Catholic, I do not believe or espouse the idea of karma, but boy this certainly demonstrates that idea. We did not have to wait for justice about the tea parties did we, and from CNN of all places
The Other McCain: How to Get a Million Hits on Your Blog in Less Than a Year
The Other McCain: How to Get a Million Hits on Your Blog in Less Than a Year
Found this tip- maybe it will help direct traffic to my blog, and to yours!!!!!!
Found this tip- maybe it will help direct traffic to my blog, and to yours!!!!!!
American Papist: Not Your Average Catholic!: Offbeat: Why Catholics need to eat fish on Friday - because they are trying to eat us.
American Papist: Not Your Average Catholic!: Offbeat: Why Catholics need to eat fish on Friday - because they are trying to eat us.
Prior to my elucidation on the subject, via this link to American Papist, I had always thought that Catholics ate fish in reparation/remembrance of Good Friday- how silly and presumptious of me. ENJOY!!!!!
Prior to my elucidation on the subject, via this link to American Papist, I had always thought that Catholics ate fish in reparation/remembrance of Good Friday- how silly and presumptious of me. ENJOY!!!!!
16 July 2009
Tea at Trianon: History of the Scapular
Tea at Trianon: History of the Scapular
A wonderful reminder, especially for these trying times. I wear a four way crucifix, as I go through the brown scapulars at a ready pace.
A wonderful reminder, especially for these trying times. I wear a four way crucifix, as I go through the brown scapulars at a ready pace.
Mulier Fortis: Bethlehem Art
Mulier Fortis: Bethlehem Art
A must see and to support- in 2003, when Geoff and I were first married, we purchased an olive wood nativity for our first Christmas- it comes out every year and remains displayed until Candlemas. Glad to see there is now a website (I need two more camels!!!!)
A must see and to support- in 2003, when Geoff and I were first married, we purchased an olive wood nativity for our first Christmas- it comes out every year and remains displayed until Candlemas. Glad to see there is now a website (I need two more camels!!!!)
12 July 2009
Le Fleur de Lys too: Crimes against Humanity 1794#links
Le Fleur de Lys too: Crimes against Humanity 1794#links
May God have mercy on our souls. First we have the Holocaust deniers, and now this. Why is Obamam apologizing for the UNited States when France has this in its recent, Enlightenment history? And these monsters were considered the saviors of France, and His Majesty, the much maligned Louis XVI, was called a monster? Sounds like the current administration redfining truth to fit its own "fact pattern"
May God have mercy on our souls. First we have the Holocaust deniers, and now this. Why is Obamam apologizing for the UNited States when France has this in its recent, Enlightenment history? And these monsters were considered the saviors of France, and His Majesty, the much maligned Louis XVI, was called a monster? Sounds like the current administration redfining truth to fit its own "fact pattern"
Boycotting Coca-Cola products
Geoff's Take:
Those of us who grew up in the 1970's will remember the commercials Bing Crosby made for Minute Maid orange juice. Mr. Cosby was a major owner of the company of that time, which is not surprising when one considers that his very own orange groves provided Minute Maid with the raw materials it needed to produce some of the freshest orange juice in the world.
Sadly, times change. Today, Agnes and I were watching TV, when we saw an ad for one of Minute Maid's new drinks. It begins with a young man riding an escalator. A woman stops him and says "I think you're the father of one of my children." That's bad enough, but it gets worse. The commercial goes on to describe how good their drink is for one's brain power. This is where it gets really bad.
The camera cuts back to the same young man, who has just had a drink, and he says "Art Class. Sister Mary......"
So now it's okay to father illegitimate children, have no regard for them, use women as toys for sexual gratification, and even father a child with the nun who teaches your art class.
Somehow, I don't think Bing would would be amused. This from a company that was practically founded by a man who was so devoted to his faith that he sought permission from the Holy Father before playing a Priest in the movies.
To make matters even worse than that, Minute Maid is now owned by the world's largest soft drink manufacturer, the Coca-Cola Company.
Well, I used to be a Coke drinker, but until I stop seeing this ad, they aren't seeing my business. If any of you out there are also Coke Drinkers, and are just as appalled as I am, I urge you to make your feelings known.
Their CEO is: Mr. Muhtar Kent
PO Box 1734
Atlanta, GA 30301.
Remember what a boycott did to McDonalds after they endorsed the gay lifestyle? They finally had to appologize because they couldn't afford to lose our business. Coke beware.
Those of us who grew up in the 1970's will remember the commercials Bing Crosby made for Minute Maid orange juice. Mr. Cosby was a major owner of the company of that time, which is not surprising when one considers that his very own orange groves provided Minute Maid with the raw materials it needed to produce some of the freshest orange juice in the world.
Sadly, times change. Today, Agnes and I were watching TV, when we saw an ad for one of Minute Maid's new drinks. It begins with a young man riding an escalator. A woman stops him and says "I think you're the father of one of my children." That's bad enough, but it gets worse. The commercial goes on to describe how good their drink is for one's brain power. This is where it gets really bad.
The camera cuts back to the same young man, who has just had a drink, and he says "Art Class. Sister Mary......"
So now it's okay to father illegitimate children, have no regard for them, use women as toys for sexual gratification, and even father a child with the nun who teaches your art class.
Somehow, I don't think Bing would would be amused. This from a company that was practically founded by a man who was so devoted to his faith that he sought permission from the Holy Father before playing a Priest in the movies.
To make matters even worse than that, Minute Maid is now owned by the world's largest soft drink manufacturer, the Coca-Cola Company.
Well, I used to be a Coke drinker, but until I stop seeing this ad, they aren't seeing my business. If any of you out there are also Coke Drinkers, and are just as appalled as I am, I urge you to make your feelings known.
Their CEO is: Mr. Muhtar Kent
PO Box 1734
Atlanta, GA 30301.
Remember what a boycott did to McDonalds after they endorsed the gay lifestyle? They finally had to appologize because they couldn't afford to lose our business. Coke beware.
Our Science Czar!!!
This administration has veered from autocratic to delusional, with a smidgen of racism thrown into the mix. The so called "Science Czar" (why do we need one, and who is paying for the 32 czars and their staffs? Under what article of the Constitution are they auhtorized? From what source do they derive their funding?)must make Margaret Sanger, Joseph Mengele, and Hitler proud as they share the same circle of hell!!! Instead of czar, why not "Science Fuhrer"?- it fits, as they share the same ideology, as Obama shares the same as that of the Nazis (after all, the Nazis were the National Socialist Party, with eugenics as an addendum) Obama has become the "Eugenisist in Chief", first with the healthcare nonsense and with his judicial appointments and his czars- completely out of control. Starting to wonder if they are possessed, as Hitler and his companions were- would explain a lot.
Check out this link, which I found at www.michellemalkin.com:
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
Check out this link, which I found at www.michellemalkin.com:
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
V for Victory!: When Did Ignorance Become a Point of View?
V for Victory!: When Did Ignorance Become a Point of View?
And, what about the comments by Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg on what she "thought" (I am attempting to be charitable) Roe v, Wade meant, which is exactly what Margaret Sanger wanted, and what the so called "Science Czar" has to say about abortion.
And, what about the comments by Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg on what she "thought" (I am attempting to be charitable) Roe v, Wade meant, which is exactly what Margaret Sanger wanted, and what the so called "Science Czar" has to say about abortion.
11 July 2009
Abbey-Roads: When things get really bad...
Abbey-Roads: When things get really bad...
I have a special devotion to this Saint and to the Militia Immaculata. Great apostolate to join, especialyy for bloggers!!!
I have a special devotion to this Saint and to the Militia Immaculata. Great apostolate to join, especialyy for bloggers!!!
07 July 2009
Have we forgotten?
Geoff's Take (With a little help from Mr. Worley):
On July 4, 1776, a handful of men in Philadelphia did something unique. They founded a nation that was unlike any the world had ever seen, or would ever see. A nation founded on the premise that the right to be free came from the hand of God. A nation that considered religious freedom an integral part of its being, because only a strong and willful belief in God would give America's citizens the self-discipline they would need to govern responisbly.
America was meant to be unique in the world. After all, what other country has a National Anthem about its flag? An anthem that's an actual eyewitness account of a battle fought to keep that flag flying?
Australia and Canada have National Anthems about the countries themselves, Britain and Denmark have National Anthems about their Monarchs, but only the United States has an anthem about its flag, and what it sometimes takes to preserve it.
Yes, America is truly unique, as it was meant to be. If you aren't an American, it might be difficult to understand why America is as it is, but Americans should be able to understand. And yet, so many Americans seem to have forgotten.
Forgotten that while American Catholics were watching Bing Crosby star in Going my Way, Catholics in Europe were being slaughtered by the Nazis.
Forgotten about Catholic Clergy imprisoned in China.
Forgotten that while they insult the flag and everything it stands for, that in most countries in the world, that kind of speech could land them in prison. Or get them a fair trial at 0900, followed by a firing squad at 0915.
In an episode of All in the Family, Archie's son-in-law (Meathead) said that the National Anthem was "one terrible song".
Really? Try listening to Die Fahne Hoch sometime. Especially the part that says "When Jewish Blood Drips from the knife, it will make you free."
And imagine what Der Fuhrer would do to somebody who made a similar complaint about his anthem. Fair trial at 0900 anyone?
On July 4, 1776, a handful of men in Philadelphia did something unique. They founded a nation that was unlike any the world had ever seen, or would ever see. A nation founded on the premise that the right to be free came from the hand of God. A nation that considered religious freedom an integral part of its being, because only a strong and willful belief in God would give America's citizens the self-discipline they would need to govern responisbly.
America was meant to be unique in the world. After all, what other country has a National Anthem about its flag? An anthem that's an actual eyewitness account of a battle fought to keep that flag flying?
Australia and Canada have National Anthems about the countries themselves, Britain and Denmark have National Anthems about their Monarchs, but only the United States has an anthem about its flag, and what it sometimes takes to preserve it.
Yes, America is truly unique, as it was meant to be. If you aren't an American, it might be difficult to understand why America is as it is, but Americans should be able to understand. And yet, so many Americans seem to have forgotten.
Forgotten that while American Catholics were watching Bing Crosby star in Going my Way, Catholics in Europe were being slaughtered by the Nazis.
Forgotten about Catholic Clergy imprisoned in China.
Forgotten that while they insult the flag and everything it stands for, that in most countries in the world, that kind of speech could land them in prison. Or get them a fair trial at 0900, followed by a firing squad at 0915.
In an episode of All in the Family, Archie's son-in-law (Meathead) said that the National Anthem was "one terrible song".
Really? Try listening to Die Fahne Hoch sometime. Especially the part that says "When Jewish Blood Drips from the knife, it will make you free."
And imagine what Der Fuhrer would do to somebody who made a similar complaint about his anthem. Fair trial at 0900 anyone?
06 July 2009
03 July 2009
Happy Independence Day!!!!
I know- I am a day early, but we just arrived back to OHIO from a whirlwind trip to Albany in order to move out of our apartment (finally) and a quick trip to NJ to visit Geoff's parents, who are still cat sitting. Even though it was technically a week of vacation for Geoff, his cell never stopped ringing! Geoff did a yeoman's job of work packing and loading the POD, while I tried to pack with a wonky arm and thrown out back. Pain pills and muscle relaxers finally gave up the ghost, as did the epidurals. Pain again- I am renewing my relationship with it and with the accompanying spasms. I again have the privilege to continue to offer it up on behalf of my sins- I wonder, daily, how our ancestors did what they did and with so few material possessions, so much unknown, with so much courage. It makes me ponder what the saints endured, and I shudder at my weakness.
27 June 2009
25 June 2009
Le Fleur de Lys too: The Prophecies of Marie Julie Jehanny
Le Fleur de Lys too: The Prophecies of Marie Julie Jehanny
Must read for these times!!!! Thank you Fleurs de Lys Too!!!
Must read for these times!!!! Thank you Fleurs de Lys Too!!!
500
Just back from Ohio, to clear out the apartment and finalize our move to that great state. Just checked and 500 people have viewed my complete profile since I started this blog last year!!!! I am honored that so many have taken the time to read my blog and my profile!!!
Geoff gets in sometime tomorrow morning, and then the fun starts- boxing up the kitchen and the rest of the apartment, and Geoff gets to break down and pack up his train layout.
Our future home is perfect- 1600 st, but the "Great Train Room", and extension off of the rear of the original house, is what sold the house to me. Geoff has waited patiently since we were married to have a room dedicated to his train use, and this is it. It will also double as his office, and it will be where the family computer will be located. It has three pass through windows, known as "meatloaf windows" to our family. We close on the 21st of July, and we are very excited. It will be our very first home!!!! (Geoff moved into my townhouse after our marriage, and even though he was placed on the title and mortgage, he had not had any input- now he does.) His "honey do" list is growing as I blog!!!
Geoff gets in sometime tomorrow morning, and then the fun starts- boxing up the kitchen and the rest of the apartment, and Geoff gets to break down and pack up his train layout.
Our future home is perfect- 1600 st, but the "Great Train Room", and extension off of the rear of the original house, is what sold the house to me. Geoff has waited patiently since we were married to have a room dedicated to his train use, and this is it. It will also double as his office, and it will be where the family computer will be located. It has three pass through windows, known as "meatloaf windows" to our family. We close on the 21st of July, and we are very excited. It will be our very first home!!!! (Geoff moved into my townhouse after our marriage, and even though he was placed on the title and mortgage, he had not had any input- now he does.) His "honey do" list is growing as I blog!!!
11 June 2009
Stop Leveling the Playing Field
Geoff's Take:
In the Movie Star Trek IV, the crew of the Enterprise travels back in time to the twentieth Century, in an attempt to save a species of whale from extinction, and to thwart nuclear war. In the process, one of the officers is injured, and Dr. McCoy travels back to try to help him, because he doesn't want to "leave him in the hands of 20th century medicine".
While they're racing through the 20th century hospital to find and save their collegue, Dr. McCoy remarks that the brutality of some of the surgical equipment reminds him of the "God-d***ed Spanish Inquisition."
I wish I could say that this was the only time I've heard an act of brutality compared to the Spanish Inquisition, but this is not the case. This comparison is not as common as it once was, but it's still out there, and it begs the question, why the Spanish Inquisition?
Why not the Nazi Holocaust? After all, that really was a deliberate exercise in brutality, aimed at exterminating all who opposed the Third Reich.
But the Spanish Inquisition forced conversions under pain of death, right? Wrong.
The Spanish Inquisition is one of History's most maligned and least understood events, partially because much of what people think they know about it was written during the reformation, by Protestants who were attempting to use it to discredit the Holy See. These writers described so-called acts of brutality out of context and without all the facts.
In the Mel Brooks comedy History of World, Part I, we see the Inquisition portrayed, through musical comedy, as a mass prostelyting of Spain's Jewish population, often through torture and humiliation. About the only thing this routine has in common with the actual event, however, is that it does identify the grand Inquisitor Torquemada by name.
The Inquisition never used brutality to force conversions, because it actaully had no authority over anyone who wasn't already Catholic. It also must be clarified, that the term "Inquisition" actually refers to a Holy Office of the Church, not a particular historical era. It still exists today, under the title Congregation for Defense of the Faith. The current Holy Father actually presided over it as his final assignment as a Cardinal.
So what, then, was the purpose of the Spanish Inquisition, and what did it really do? Many things, actually.
In the late 15th century, what we now call Spain was actually two kingdoms, namely Castile and Aragon, and they were at war with the Moors, who were Moslems from North Africa (sound familiar?) Ferdinand and Isabella were fighting to prevent a Moslem takeover of Spain (still sounds familiar?).
There were Jewish and Islamic Spaniards who had converted to Catholicism purely to further their own political ambitions, with no intention of spiritually adhering to the Holy See. This was sacreligious, and, like it or not, in a Catholic Monarchy it was also an act of treason.
The Inquisition was out to save souls, and Catholics of the time understood that in addition to confession, suffering on Earth helped atone for one's sins, and could even lessen one's time in Purgatory. Today, Purgatory and Confession tend to be treated as novelty items, but God still does and will always recognize them as the roads to salvation that they are.
Any punishment handed down by the inquisition was done with spiritual preservation in mind. What gave the Inquisition the right to do this?
Actually, it wasn't a right. It was a duty. Jesus Himself told the Apostles, "If you forgive mens' sins they are forgiven them. If you hold them bound, they are held bound." And we dare not forget that the Apostles were the first Bishops. Thus, regardless of how brutal some people today may find the tactics of the Inquisition, the motivation of the office was to preserve the will of God.
On the other hand, Adolf Hitler was acting purely on his own volition, solely to pursue his twisted dream of ruling the world. He was motivated by paranoia, and a deep hatred for Jews, Gypsies, Freemasons, homosexuals, and anyone else who wasn't a perfect Aryan in step with the teachings of the Reich. Contrary to poular belief, the Nazis were seeking to eradicate all religions, including Catholicism. Hitler didn't want to preserve the will of God, he wanted to be God.
But according to Rosie O'Donnel, radical Christians can be just as dangerous as radical Moslems. Really? When was this? During the Inquisition? During the Crusades?
But wait a minute, these things happened centuries ago. Besides that, what the Crusaders did were acts of war, dsesigned to recapture the Holy Land. Daniel Pearl was beheaded on video right here in the 21st century. What modern Christian group has done something similar to that?
In the Movie Star Trek IV, the crew of the Enterprise travels back in time to the twentieth Century, in an attempt to save a species of whale from extinction, and to thwart nuclear war. In the process, one of the officers is injured, and Dr. McCoy travels back to try to help him, because he doesn't want to "leave him in the hands of 20th century medicine".
While they're racing through the 20th century hospital to find and save their collegue, Dr. McCoy remarks that the brutality of some of the surgical equipment reminds him of the "God-d***ed Spanish Inquisition."
I wish I could say that this was the only time I've heard an act of brutality compared to the Spanish Inquisition, but this is not the case. This comparison is not as common as it once was, but it's still out there, and it begs the question, why the Spanish Inquisition?
Why not the Nazi Holocaust? After all, that really was a deliberate exercise in brutality, aimed at exterminating all who opposed the Third Reich.
But the Spanish Inquisition forced conversions under pain of death, right? Wrong.
The Spanish Inquisition is one of History's most maligned and least understood events, partially because much of what people think they know about it was written during the reformation, by Protestants who were attempting to use it to discredit the Holy See. These writers described so-called acts of brutality out of context and without all the facts.
In the Mel Brooks comedy History of World, Part I, we see the Inquisition portrayed, through musical comedy, as a mass prostelyting of Spain's Jewish population, often through torture and humiliation. About the only thing this routine has in common with the actual event, however, is that it does identify the grand Inquisitor Torquemada by name.
The Inquisition never used brutality to force conversions, because it actaully had no authority over anyone who wasn't already Catholic. It also must be clarified, that the term "Inquisition" actually refers to a Holy Office of the Church, not a particular historical era. It still exists today, under the title Congregation for Defense of the Faith. The current Holy Father actually presided over it as his final assignment as a Cardinal.
So what, then, was the purpose of the Spanish Inquisition, and what did it really do? Many things, actually.
In the late 15th century, what we now call Spain was actually two kingdoms, namely Castile and Aragon, and they were at war with the Moors, who were Moslems from North Africa (sound familiar?) Ferdinand and Isabella were fighting to prevent a Moslem takeover of Spain (still sounds familiar?).
There were Jewish and Islamic Spaniards who had converted to Catholicism purely to further their own political ambitions, with no intention of spiritually adhering to the Holy See. This was sacreligious, and, like it or not, in a Catholic Monarchy it was also an act of treason.
The Inquisition was out to save souls, and Catholics of the time understood that in addition to confession, suffering on Earth helped atone for one's sins, and could even lessen one's time in Purgatory. Today, Purgatory and Confession tend to be treated as novelty items, but God still does and will always recognize them as the roads to salvation that they are.
Any punishment handed down by the inquisition was done with spiritual preservation in mind. What gave the Inquisition the right to do this?
Actually, it wasn't a right. It was a duty. Jesus Himself told the Apostles, "If you forgive mens' sins they are forgiven them. If you hold them bound, they are held bound." And we dare not forget that the Apostles were the first Bishops. Thus, regardless of how brutal some people today may find the tactics of the Inquisition, the motivation of the office was to preserve the will of God.
On the other hand, Adolf Hitler was acting purely on his own volition, solely to pursue his twisted dream of ruling the world. He was motivated by paranoia, and a deep hatred for Jews, Gypsies, Freemasons, homosexuals, and anyone else who wasn't a perfect Aryan in step with the teachings of the Reich. Contrary to poular belief, the Nazis were seeking to eradicate all religions, including Catholicism. Hitler didn't want to preserve the will of God, he wanted to be God.
But according to Rosie O'Donnel, radical Christians can be just as dangerous as radical Moslems. Really? When was this? During the Inquisition? During the Crusades?
But wait a minute, these things happened centuries ago. Besides that, what the Crusaders did were acts of war, dsesigned to recapture the Holy Land. Daniel Pearl was beheaded on video right here in the 21st century. What modern Christian group has done something similar to that?
08 June 2009
07 June 2009
Good vs. Evil
Geoff's take:
The release of the new Star Trek movie will undoubtably bring back some fond memories among some dyed-in-the-wool Trekies out there, and I wouldn't be surprised if they start talking about their favorite episodes of the original series, which ran from 1967 to 1969, and aquired a cult following through years of re-runs.
In the original series, one episode comes to mind that is eerily appropriate for our time. In this episode, Captain Kirk is split into two distinctly different people. One embodies all that is good about the Captain, and the other embodies all that is bad. The consequences are catastrophic for him and his crew.
The bad Captain Kirk is so bad he can't act responsibly as Captain, and the good Captain Kirk can't make a single command decision, because he keeps getting bogged down in the moral complications of every action.
Obviously we don't want to emulate the bad Captain Kirk, but how many of us have gotten like the good Captain Kirk and don't even realize it?
Soildiers and law enforcement personnel are frequently in situations where being like the good Captain Kirk could cost them their lives. But what about the rest of us?
In 1976, when I was six years old, virtually everyone was caught up in the celebration of America's Bicentennial. Patriotism was high, and in school we spent the two years leading up to the celebration discussing the exploits of George Washington and the others who worked tirelessly to create our country.
But by thew time I reached college, it seemed as though we were devoting more time to discussing the British take on the American Revolution than on our own. It seems that now we're not sure if Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were heroes or traitors.
If you're an American, the answer should be clear. The United States was founded for the reasons outlined in the Declaration of Independence. The American Colonies were a great asset that was very badly mismanaged. The founders believed, as President Kennedy said in his Innaugural Address, that "The Rights of Man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the Hand of God". No other nation had ever based itself on this principle.
Britain is entialed to its own take on the American Revolution, but Americans only need to concern themselves with why America was founded, and not bog ourselves down by worrying about wheteher or not the British people agree.
During the first World War, America didn't have any great stake with either the Allies or the Central Powers. Since the Central Powers included the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was the last Catholic Empire left in Europe, the best thing morally would seem to have been entering the war on that side.
In real life, things weren't that simple. Britain was fighting on the side of the Allies, and there was a substantial British presence in Canada, especially in Halifax, where the Royal Navy assembled convoys. Strategically, America was stuck.
In the second World War, things were much clearer. Germany invaded Poland, and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Germany slaughtered millions in the camps, and Japan conducted the Bataan Death March. Germany perpetrated the London Blitz. Japan conducted hideous medical experiments on prisonjers of war.
Yet, we second-guess the tactics we and our Allies used to bring down Germany and Japan. I've already covered Dresden in another blog. Now for a little background on the Manhattan Project, and the Atomic Bomb.
The Manhattan Project, which led to the development of the atomic bomb, was undertaken early in the war, based on fears that Germany might be developing a nuclear weapons program. Hitler did, in fact, have such a program, but his scientists didn't come up with a prototype before the war ended in Europe.
When the bomb was finally developed, it was decided to use it against Japan for a number of strategic reasons, including the fact that Japan hadn't surrendered to an enemy in over 2000 years.
People have arguied ever since about the moral complications of the atomic bomb, but Colonel Paul Tibbets, who piloted the plane that dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima summed it up well. He said, "Let's get something straight here. We were at war. The idea was to win."
People have said that the moral thing would have been to use means other than the atomic bomb. Actually, the moral thing would have been for Germany to have stayed out of Poland, and Japan to have not bombed Pearl Harbor. America wasn't given those options.
The release of the new Star Trek movie will undoubtably bring back some fond memories among some dyed-in-the-wool Trekies out there, and I wouldn't be surprised if they start talking about their favorite episodes of the original series, which ran from 1967 to 1969, and aquired a cult following through years of re-runs.
In the original series, one episode comes to mind that is eerily appropriate for our time. In this episode, Captain Kirk is split into two distinctly different people. One embodies all that is good about the Captain, and the other embodies all that is bad. The consequences are catastrophic for him and his crew.
The bad Captain Kirk is so bad he can't act responsibly as Captain, and the good Captain Kirk can't make a single command decision, because he keeps getting bogged down in the moral complications of every action.
Obviously we don't want to emulate the bad Captain Kirk, but how many of us have gotten like the good Captain Kirk and don't even realize it?
Soildiers and law enforcement personnel are frequently in situations where being like the good Captain Kirk could cost them their lives. But what about the rest of us?
In 1976, when I was six years old, virtually everyone was caught up in the celebration of America's Bicentennial. Patriotism was high, and in school we spent the two years leading up to the celebration discussing the exploits of George Washington and the others who worked tirelessly to create our country.
But by thew time I reached college, it seemed as though we were devoting more time to discussing the British take on the American Revolution than on our own. It seems that now we're not sure if Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were heroes or traitors.
If you're an American, the answer should be clear. The United States was founded for the reasons outlined in the Declaration of Independence. The American Colonies were a great asset that was very badly mismanaged. The founders believed, as President Kennedy said in his Innaugural Address, that "The Rights of Man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the Hand of God". No other nation had ever based itself on this principle.
Britain is entialed to its own take on the American Revolution, but Americans only need to concern themselves with why America was founded, and not bog ourselves down by worrying about wheteher or not the British people agree.
During the first World War, America didn't have any great stake with either the Allies or the Central Powers. Since the Central Powers included the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was the last Catholic Empire left in Europe, the best thing morally would seem to have been entering the war on that side.
In real life, things weren't that simple. Britain was fighting on the side of the Allies, and there was a substantial British presence in Canada, especially in Halifax, where the Royal Navy assembled convoys. Strategically, America was stuck.
In the second World War, things were much clearer. Germany invaded Poland, and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Germany slaughtered millions in the camps, and Japan conducted the Bataan Death March. Germany perpetrated the London Blitz. Japan conducted hideous medical experiments on prisonjers of war.
Yet, we second-guess the tactics we and our Allies used to bring down Germany and Japan. I've already covered Dresden in another blog. Now for a little background on the Manhattan Project, and the Atomic Bomb.
The Manhattan Project, which led to the development of the atomic bomb, was undertaken early in the war, based on fears that Germany might be developing a nuclear weapons program. Hitler did, in fact, have such a program, but his scientists didn't come up with a prototype before the war ended in Europe.
When the bomb was finally developed, it was decided to use it against Japan for a number of strategic reasons, including the fact that Japan hadn't surrendered to an enemy in over 2000 years.
People have arguied ever since about the moral complications of the atomic bomb, but Colonel Paul Tibbets, who piloted the plane that dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima summed it up well. He said, "Let's get something straight here. We were at war. The idea was to win."
People have said that the moral thing would have been to use means other than the atomic bomb. Actually, the moral thing would have been for Germany to have stayed out of Poland, and Japan to have not bombed Pearl Harbor. America wasn't given those options.
02 June 2009
We found a house!!!!
With the uproar this weekend with the Tiller murder ( did anyone remember that a Muslim terrorist killed an Army recruiter Monday?. but Governor Palin, bless her heart, did- didn't think so), I forgot to post that we found a house!!!! Geoff and I have become weary of hotel living, after six months of it to date, and since we know that we are here for the the next few years, we went ahead and started house hunting. (The company still hasn't made the official offer, and we are now in month four of that wait), but Geoff wanted to get a head start ,since this is prime moving season. We looked at several houses on Saturday and Sunday, but we knew at the second one we saw Sunday. We went back after seeing the remainder of the houses, and that was it- contract written up, negotiated and offer accepted today. Geoff had foudn another listing, which we had viewed SAturday, and the agent willingly worked with us on Sunday. He is fantastic!!! His name is John Stevens, with Howard Hanna, and he knows Medina County inside and out. What a joy- he never made us feel incompetent or inadequate and had a feel for exactly what we neede. So, the kitchen does not have a built in dishwasher right now- but, it will by Christmas!!! Geoff has the perfect room that will doulbe as his office/Great Train Room. I think, when I first saw that particular room, I knew it was home for us. We should be moved out of our NY apartment by the end of the month (YEAH!!!!!!- I hate paying rent and utilites for a place not lived in) and, with God's grace, will close on 15 July!!!!
01 June 2009
Get Over It!
Geoff's take:
The recent shooting of Dr. Tiller has left many pro-lifers worried that this will set back their cause. On television, we have Bill O'Riely echoing this refrain.
As for shooting Dr. Tiller, obviously I wouldn't do it, but we have to see this for what it is: Evil killing evil.
In the Nazi era there was a man named Reinhardt Heydrich, also known as Heydrich the Hangman. He was a brutal, vile man, who was head of the Nazi Intellignce command, and leader of the Prussian branch of the Gestapo. Under his leadership, millions went to the camps.
In 1942, Heydrich was murdered in occupied Prague. Given his vile nature, it might be tempting to regard the two men who killed him as heroes. This was not the case.
Jan Kubis and Joesph Gabcik did rid the world of a man who thought nothing of murdering people who posed a threat to the Third Reich, but their motives were not pure. They were Czech communists, and the only reason the communists hated Nazis was because they too wanted to rule the world, and the world wasn't big enpugh for both of them.
Dr. Goebbels immidiately siezed the opportunity to blame the murder not on the communists, but on "Jewish Terrorists". As a result, the SS and Gestapo swept through Czechoslovakia, executing every Jew they could find, and in some cases they executed entire villages. By the way, this is the same Dr. Goebbels who grossly inflated the number of fatilities in the bombing of Dresdedn. Starting to see a pattern here?
In a similar vein, Dr. Tiller slaughtered 60,000 unborn babies during his career, putting him on a par, at least in terms of sheer numbers, with Herr Heydrich. The man who killed him was an anarchist, and a madman, not some pro-lifer who had simply had enough.
Regretably, also in a similar vein, Attorney General Holder is now giving abortionists escorts from the U. S. Marshall's Office, to make sure this doesn't happen again. People are very worried that now the government will start treating pro-lifers as domestic terrorists.
I say, get over it, people. We knew who and what Obama was when he was campaigning. We knew he was in favor of abortion on demand. We knew his Preacher was a racist, who hated America, and everything it stood for. We knew that he felt that America owed the world an appology for practically everything its ever achieved. And yet, 54%of Roman Catholics still voted for this man.
54% of you wanted him, and you got what you wanted. So get over it!
The recent shooting of Dr. Tiller has left many pro-lifers worried that this will set back their cause. On television, we have Bill O'Riely echoing this refrain.
As for shooting Dr. Tiller, obviously I wouldn't do it, but we have to see this for what it is: Evil killing evil.
In the Nazi era there was a man named Reinhardt Heydrich, also known as Heydrich the Hangman. He was a brutal, vile man, who was head of the Nazi Intellignce command, and leader of the Prussian branch of the Gestapo. Under his leadership, millions went to the camps.
In 1942, Heydrich was murdered in occupied Prague. Given his vile nature, it might be tempting to regard the two men who killed him as heroes. This was not the case.
Jan Kubis and Joesph Gabcik did rid the world of a man who thought nothing of murdering people who posed a threat to the Third Reich, but their motives were not pure. They were Czech communists, and the only reason the communists hated Nazis was because they too wanted to rule the world, and the world wasn't big enpugh for both of them.
Dr. Goebbels immidiately siezed the opportunity to blame the murder not on the communists, but on "Jewish Terrorists". As a result, the SS and Gestapo swept through Czechoslovakia, executing every Jew they could find, and in some cases they executed entire villages. By the way, this is the same Dr. Goebbels who grossly inflated the number of fatilities in the bombing of Dresdedn. Starting to see a pattern here?
In a similar vein, Dr. Tiller slaughtered 60,000 unborn babies during his career, putting him on a par, at least in terms of sheer numbers, with Herr Heydrich. The man who killed him was an anarchist, and a madman, not some pro-lifer who had simply had enough.
Regretably, also in a similar vein, Attorney General Holder is now giving abortionists escorts from the U. S. Marshall's Office, to make sure this doesn't happen again. People are very worried that now the government will start treating pro-lifers as domestic terrorists.
I say, get over it, people. We knew who and what Obama was when he was campaigning. We knew he was in favor of abortion on demand. We knew his Preacher was a racist, who hated America, and everything it stood for. We knew that he felt that America owed the world an appology for practically everything its ever achieved. And yet, 54%of Roman Catholics still voted for this man.
54% of you wanted him, and you got what you wanted. So get over it!
30 May 2009
To be Catholic in America
This month has certainly taught us what it takes to be Catholic in America. Starting with the Notre Shame scandal, the Supreme Court nomination, and the nomination to the ambassadorship to the4 Holy See- one who was not a practising Catholic would think that the True Faith was simply a do as you want proposition. The damage of Vatican II and its dissenting adherents certainly bore fruit this month, the month of Our Lady. The premier Catholic institution prostituted itself and sold its soul, Church teaching is publicly downgraded by Doug Kmiec and his new allies at the NCR and the MSM, and abortion continues to undermine our identity.
Our bishops, and not all of them, to their shame and our embarrassment, are slowly awakening to what they have wrought through sins of commission and omission, as we the laity have by ours. Theirs is the greater scandal, as they are princes of the Church, and allowed this to happen. They abdicated so much of their authority, and defied the Holy Father on matters both large and small, and we now are re3aping what this has sown for us.
His Holiness was correct when he was elevated to the throne of Peter, when he mused that he saw a smaller church. Hopefully this does not mean aschism in America, but we appear to be heading in that direction. May God have mercy on us all.
Our bishops, and not all of them, to their shame and our embarrassment, are slowly awakening to what they have wrought through sins of commission and omission, as we the laity have by ours. Theirs is the greater scandal, as they are princes of the Church, and allowed this to happen. They abdicated so much of their authority, and defied the Holy Father on matters both large and small, and we now are re3aping what this has sown for us.
His Holiness was correct when he was elevated to the throne of Peter, when he mused that he saw a smaller church. Hopefully this does not mean aschism in America, but we appear to be heading in that direction. May God have mercy on us all.
29 May 2009
Night at the Museum (Smithsonian )
Geoff, aka HOH (Head of the House) and I sat through this horrid movie on Memorial Day. The first one was cute, filled with historical licences and inaccuracies, but his one was much worse. The father, who was a deadbeat failed inventor in the first movie, is now a successful entrepreneur on the verge of a major contract with
Walmart. His friends at the Natural History Museum are being shipped off to the "Federal Archives" for permanent storage, and both the exhibits, his old boss and his son berate him for not having the time for the exhibits in his life. In one scene, he is having Chinese takeout with his son, who notices that there is more food than needed for two, and is upset that his dad has to work through dinner with an associate- basically telling him that his job as nightwatchman was the cool one. Then once the action moves to the Smithsonian, which was NOT used to advantage, the introduction of the Amelia Earhart character made my skin crawl. She was unlikeable enough in real life, and was not as good a pilot as the press, in collusion with Miss Earhart and her father, portrayed her. The actress who played this part overacted to such a' degree that I wanted to walk out. What a horrid rewriting of history. The depicting of the Tuskegee Airmen was simply disgraceful- it had them saluting Amelia, for making it possible for them to be pilots. What a crock of PC nonsense, and insulting to some of our greatest and bravest men in uniform. Then there is the depiction of George Custer- he is more focused on his hair and then claims he is a coward. Sacajawea gets to put him in his place. A brave man is now merely a girly man. The list goes on. In the end, the lead sells his company so that he can be a nightwatchman again, and make his son happy.
Personal responsibility is a total wash, as is honor and courage. What a horrid movie to take the rug rats, especially boys, to see.
Geoff's take:
Radical Feminism at its worst!
General Custer portrayed as a girlie man, who even said he didn't deserve his stars, because he was a coward? Sacajawea jumping in to save the day? The Wright Brothers saying that the idea of a woman flying a plane was preposterous?
"Butchering History" might be a more appropriate subtitle.
The real General Custer was wreckless, often foolhardy, but he was also a West Point Graduate, he was respected by his troops and fellow officers, and in his own day he was certainly not regarded as a coward. No man who rises to the rank of Major General could ever be a coward.
The Wright family practically invented Women's Liberation. Susan Wright was a mathematical genius, and she was the one who inspired her sons to become inventors in the first place. It's likely that niether Susan Wright, nor her daughter Catherine would have suffered Miss Earhart lightly.
As for the Tuskegee Airmen, who were more properly known in their own time as the Lone Eagles, these men were among the best pilots of their day, and it was their own skills as pilots that earned them their place in history, not the pioneering exploits of Amelia Earhart.
Walmart. His friends at the Natural History Museum are being shipped off to the "Federal Archives" for permanent storage, and both the exhibits, his old boss and his son berate him for not having the time for the exhibits in his life. In one scene, he is having Chinese takeout with his son, who notices that there is more food than needed for two, and is upset that his dad has to work through dinner with an associate- basically telling him that his job as nightwatchman was the cool one. Then once the action moves to the Smithsonian, which was NOT used to advantage, the introduction of the Amelia Earhart character made my skin crawl. She was unlikeable enough in real life, and was not as good a pilot as the press, in collusion with Miss Earhart and her father, portrayed her. The actress who played this part overacted to such a' degree that I wanted to walk out. What a horrid rewriting of history. The depicting of the Tuskegee Airmen was simply disgraceful- it had them saluting Amelia, for making it possible for them to be pilots. What a crock of PC nonsense, and insulting to some of our greatest and bravest men in uniform. Then there is the depiction of George Custer- he is more focused on his hair and then claims he is a coward. Sacajawea gets to put him in his place. A brave man is now merely a girly man. The list goes on. In the end, the lead sells his company so that he can be a nightwatchman again, and make his son happy.
Personal responsibility is a total wash, as is honor and courage. What a horrid movie to take the rug rats, especially boys, to see.
Geoff's take:
Radical Feminism at its worst!
General Custer portrayed as a girlie man, who even said he didn't deserve his stars, because he was a coward? Sacajawea jumping in to save the day? The Wright Brothers saying that the idea of a woman flying a plane was preposterous?
"Butchering History" might be a more appropriate subtitle.
The real General Custer was wreckless, often foolhardy, but he was also a West Point Graduate, he was respected by his troops and fellow officers, and in his own day he was certainly not regarded as a coward. No man who rises to the rank of Major General could ever be a coward.
The Wright family practically invented Women's Liberation. Susan Wright was a mathematical genius, and she was the one who inspired her sons to become inventors in the first place. It's likely that niether Susan Wright, nor her daughter Catherine would have suffered Miss Earhart lightly.
As for the Tuskegee Airmen, who were more properly known in their own time as the Lone Eagles, these men were among the best pilots of their day, and it was their own skills as pilots that earned them their place in history, not the pioneering exploits of Amelia Earhart.
28 May 2009
American Papist: Not Your Average Catholic!: Obama names theologian Miguel Diaz as ambassador to Holy See
American Papist: Not Your Average Catholic!: Obama names theologian Miguel Diaz as ambassador to Holy See
And, lest we forget, he is a graduate of Notre Shame.- Check out what Father Z has to say, taking apart John Allen's latest at the NCR
And, lest we forget, he is a graduate of Notre Shame.- Check out what Father Z has to say, taking apart John Allen's latest at the NCR
27 May 2009
New Blog Alert!!!!
As many of you know, I have a soft spot for Marie Antoinette, martyred Queen of France and her husband, Louis XVI. I always have had this, and it was only reinforced whne I read a book on the Carmelites of Compiegne,. whose martyrdom has always brought me to tears, so much so that I actually felt that I was being called to become a Carmelite, and had contacted several Carmels to pursue this. Obviously God had other plans for me. While bloggin, I have made the wonderful acquantaince of a fantastic author, who also is a Third Order Discalced Carmelite. Elena Maria Vidal, of the blog teaattrianon.blogspot.com. This wonderful woman, author of "Trianon" and "Madame Royale", both of which I have recently read and have promised to review here soon, once we are FINALLY settled, has a new blog that is also a must read- http://fountainofelias.blogspot.com- Drop by, follow her on her journey, and read her books!!!!
26 May 2009
24 May 2009
Don't do it, Mr. President!
Geoff's take:
On February 13, 1945, during the waning days of the second World War, the German city of Dresden was carpet-bombed to the ground by Allied Air Forces. In the sixty-four years that have followed, this single event has been cloaked in controversy. Many people, including some Catholic writers and clergy, have argued that this event was tragically unneccesary, because by that late date, the defeat of Germany was all but inevitable.
Playing on these sentiments, President Obama has expressed interest in formally appologizing to Germany for this action. I say, "Don't do it, Mr. President".
The bombing of Dresden was not an American undertaking. It was a British mission, in which the American Air Forces participated. It was concieved by the RAF, and approved by Sir Winstron Churchill. Thus, presuming an appology is owed (which I do not), that appology should come from the Right Honourable Gordon Brown, not the President of the United States.
Much of the controversy over the bombing centers on the idea that Dresden contained no vital military targets. This is a fallacy. The Zeiss optical factory was there, and this factory produced bomb sights for the Luftwaffe. The Zeiss factory was one of the buildings that was destroyed. According to Joseph Angell of the USAF historical commission, there were 110 factories, and 50,000 workers suipporting the Nazi war effort. These included aircraft parts, a poison gas plant, a gear factory, and an electric gauge factory. The German High Command weapons office also said that Dresden contrained 127 defense plants.
Dresden was also the hub of Nazi Germany's railway operations. Most major German rail lines converged at Dresden. Disrupting this rail system was crucial in enabling the Russian Advance, and in keeping Geman troops from blocking it.
Many people in Britain were dismayed by the bombing, mainly because Dresden had been a cultural center before the war, and they refused to see that Hitler had transformed it into a gear in the Nazi war machine.
Controversy really began to develop when the Associated Press was interviewing Air Commodore Colin Grierson two days after the raid. He said that the primary role in bombing Dresden was to disrupt supply and communications lines, but he then added an off-the-cuff remark that thje raid would help destroy "what's left of German morale".
AP reported this remark as an indication that the Allies had resorted to terror bombing. This story reached the House of Commons, and MP Richard Stokes raised his concerns on the House floor.
Under pressure from Stokes and other members of Parliament, Churchill began second guessing his decision, and eventually ordered an end to carpet bombing.
However, American General George Marshall, U. S. Army Chief of Staff, conducted an investigation into the bombings, and he concluded that they were, in fact, legitimate raids. His findings were classified, and since they weren't made public for another thirty-three years, many historians still might not be aware this investigation even took place.
Further, it was discovered that in spite of the claims of the German Ministry of Propaganda, the loss of life, while high, was not disprportionately higher than in the raids on other German cities.
The bombing itself was in proportion to the raids on Hamburg and Berlin. No evidence existed to indicate that Dresden had been singled-out for heavier bombing.
It's also a fallacy to assume the war was already won. The Allied victory was as much a product of Hitler's refusal to listen to his Generals as it was a product of superior Allied strategy. As late as November of 1944, Hitler was convinced that if he made a last-ditch offensive, he could still win the war. By this time, Normandy had already fallen to the Allies, and Hitler was effectively blocked in the west by the British and American forces. In the east, the Russian Army was steadily making its way to the German border.
Despite these odds, in December of 1944, Hitler launched an offensive in the Ardennes Forest, (known to the Allies as the Battle of the Bulge), in which he unleashed the Tiger Tank. This tank was larger, had heavier armor, and more powerful guns than the American Sherman tank, and if Hitler had used these tanks more effectively, he could have won the war, or at least prolonged it.
Nearly a month after Dresden, while allied forces were storming the Ludendorff bridge at Remagen, the Luftwaffe conducted a fly-by with one of its experimental jet fighters. Again, too little too late for the Nazis, but they were still fighting the Allies tooth and nail.
The bombings did create a firestorm that killed many civilians, but the exact number was greatly exaggerated by German newspapers, which were controlled by the Ministry of Propaganda. Josef Goebbels took the initial estimates of 10,000 dead, and inflated them to 100,000. Goebbels was a dyed-in-the-wool Nazi, so this is hardly surprising.
It's been argued that the raid didn't accomplish anything strategically, because Hitler didn't surrender as a result of the bombing of Dresden. But bear in mind that Germany didn't surrender until Hitler took his own life in the Berlin Bunker.
By that time, the Allies were already on German soil, and even that didn't make Hitler surrender. He finally commited suicide because the Russian forces were closing in on Berlin.
In a war, individual raids are like the gears in a watch. What they do individually is not as important as how they work together to accomplish the task.
On February 13, 1945, during the waning days of the second World War, the German city of Dresden was carpet-bombed to the ground by Allied Air Forces. In the sixty-four years that have followed, this single event has been cloaked in controversy. Many people, including some Catholic writers and clergy, have argued that this event was tragically unneccesary, because by that late date, the defeat of Germany was all but inevitable.
Playing on these sentiments, President Obama has expressed interest in formally appologizing to Germany for this action. I say, "Don't do it, Mr. President".
The bombing of Dresden was not an American undertaking. It was a British mission, in which the American Air Forces participated. It was concieved by the RAF, and approved by Sir Winstron Churchill. Thus, presuming an appology is owed (which I do not), that appology should come from the Right Honourable Gordon Brown, not the President of the United States.
Much of the controversy over the bombing centers on the idea that Dresden contained no vital military targets. This is a fallacy. The Zeiss optical factory was there, and this factory produced bomb sights for the Luftwaffe. The Zeiss factory was one of the buildings that was destroyed. According to Joseph Angell of the USAF historical commission, there were 110 factories, and 50,000 workers suipporting the Nazi war effort. These included aircraft parts, a poison gas plant, a gear factory, and an electric gauge factory. The German High Command weapons office also said that Dresden contrained 127 defense plants.
Dresden was also the hub of Nazi Germany's railway operations. Most major German rail lines converged at Dresden. Disrupting this rail system was crucial in enabling the Russian Advance, and in keeping Geman troops from blocking it.
Many people in Britain were dismayed by the bombing, mainly because Dresden had been a cultural center before the war, and they refused to see that Hitler had transformed it into a gear in the Nazi war machine.
Controversy really began to develop when the Associated Press was interviewing Air Commodore Colin Grierson two days after the raid. He said that the primary role in bombing Dresden was to disrupt supply and communications lines, but he then added an off-the-cuff remark that thje raid would help destroy "what's left of German morale".
AP reported this remark as an indication that the Allies had resorted to terror bombing. This story reached the House of Commons, and MP Richard Stokes raised his concerns on the House floor.
Under pressure from Stokes and other members of Parliament, Churchill began second guessing his decision, and eventually ordered an end to carpet bombing.
However, American General George Marshall, U. S. Army Chief of Staff, conducted an investigation into the bombings, and he concluded that they were, in fact, legitimate raids. His findings were classified, and since they weren't made public for another thirty-three years, many historians still might not be aware this investigation even took place.
Further, it was discovered that in spite of the claims of the German Ministry of Propaganda, the loss of life, while high, was not disprportionately higher than in the raids on other German cities.
The bombing itself was in proportion to the raids on Hamburg and Berlin. No evidence existed to indicate that Dresden had been singled-out for heavier bombing.
It's also a fallacy to assume the war was already won. The Allied victory was as much a product of Hitler's refusal to listen to his Generals as it was a product of superior Allied strategy. As late as November of 1944, Hitler was convinced that if he made a last-ditch offensive, he could still win the war. By this time, Normandy had already fallen to the Allies, and Hitler was effectively blocked in the west by the British and American forces. In the east, the Russian Army was steadily making its way to the German border.
Despite these odds, in December of 1944, Hitler launched an offensive in the Ardennes Forest, (known to the Allies as the Battle of the Bulge), in which he unleashed the Tiger Tank. This tank was larger, had heavier armor, and more powerful guns than the American Sherman tank, and if Hitler had used these tanks more effectively, he could have won the war, or at least prolonged it.
Nearly a month after Dresden, while allied forces were storming the Ludendorff bridge at Remagen, the Luftwaffe conducted a fly-by with one of its experimental jet fighters. Again, too little too late for the Nazis, but they were still fighting the Allies tooth and nail.
The bombings did create a firestorm that killed many civilians, but the exact number was greatly exaggerated by German newspapers, which were controlled by the Ministry of Propaganda. Josef Goebbels took the initial estimates of 10,000 dead, and inflated them to 100,000. Goebbels was a dyed-in-the-wool Nazi, so this is hardly surprising.
It's been argued that the raid didn't accomplish anything strategically, because Hitler didn't surrender as a result of the bombing of Dresden. But bear in mind that Germany didn't surrender until Hitler took his own life in the Berlin Bunker.
By that time, the Allies were already on German soil, and even that didn't make Hitler surrender. He finally commited suicide because the Russian forces were closing in on Berlin.
In a war, individual raids are like the gears in a watch. What they do individually is not as important as how they work together to accomplish the task.
Terminator Salvation
LOVE THIS MOVIE!!!!! Geoff and I just returned from the local theater in Macedonia, Ohio and I firmly encourage those of you who like/love action flicks to see this one. I loved the Terminator movies (well, the first two, anyway- the third was just passe), and I love the TV show, so when I learned of this upcoming potential trilogy, I was intrigued to say the least. I think Christian Bale was awesome, but Sam Worthington stole the show. I have another favorite actor (Sean Bean, Timothy Dalton, Clive Owen, Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale and now Sam- anyone see a pattern here?)!!!!!
The commercials seen on TV are misleading, in that Mr. Bale is NOT the prime mover in the story line, Mr. Worthington is. Both men are well cast in this movie, and both have the screen magic that is not camouflaged by reliance on special effects, as tends to be the case with action movies.
Mr. Bale is John Connor, the nemesis of Skynet and its machine minions. He is as one would expect him to be- tough and resilient, having been introduced to him first, in utero in T1, then as a bratty teenager in T2, and a far mellower and girlie man figure in T3 (The least of the movies in the original franchise, one that probably should not have been made) The Fox tv show, which has probably been cancelled, gives us a believable teenage John Connor facing his fears for his future, and his ability to live up to what his life will be, while trying to outrun the machines in modern day America, while in high school. I found the series to be well done and a good use of the original storyline for a tv show. The actor is certainly an improvement on the one who played him in the seond movie.
In this current outing, in the first of a new Terminator franchise, Mr. Bale does credit to what has preceded this particluar story, and if what he has done in reviving the Batman franchise is any indication, then this new Terminator is in very good hands indeed.
Mr. Worthington's character is a man, once on death row, who finds himself 15 years in the future, after his execution, which precipitated his donating his body to science (Cyberdine, a partner of Skynet) While on death row, he shows remorse for what he has done, and accepts his execution as the appropriate penalty for the deaths of his brother and two police officers. He does not play the victim. When he reappears, he has no idea what has trnaspired, and is unaware that he is now a cybernetic organism, half human and half machine. When his new "reality" is made known to him. he does not accept the "dark/machine side of his new self, and never rejects the sanctity of human life. He chooses, freely, human over machine, good over evil, and is key to the destruction of Skynet's labs in SF, and the saving of John Connor's life.
Good vs evil, man vs machine are the key elements in this movie, and everyone recognizes that the machines must be destroyed so that mankind may live. NO half measures are proposed or considered. It is a true depiction of good vs evil, amd the sacrifices that are made to ensure that evil does not triumph.
What a great movie for Memorial Day!!!!
Geoff's take is pretty much the same. The normally elegant Helena Bonham Carter gives a very different performance, as a character that simply personifies evil. Her American accent was well done, but probaly not needed, as it adds very little to the character.
The commercials seen on TV are misleading, in that Mr. Bale is NOT the prime mover in the story line, Mr. Worthington is. Both men are well cast in this movie, and both have the screen magic that is not camouflaged by reliance on special effects, as tends to be the case with action movies.
Mr. Bale is John Connor, the nemesis of Skynet and its machine minions. He is as one would expect him to be- tough and resilient, having been introduced to him first, in utero in T1, then as a bratty teenager in T2, and a far mellower and girlie man figure in T3 (The least of the movies in the original franchise, one that probably should not have been made) The Fox tv show, which has probably been cancelled, gives us a believable teenage John Connor facing his fears for his future, and his ability to live up to what his life will be, while trying to outrun the machines in modern day America, while in high school. I found the series to be well done and a good use of the original storyline for a tv show. The actor is certainly an improvement on the one who played him in the seond movie.
In this current outing, in the first of a new Terminator franchise, Mr. Bale does credit to what has preceded this particluar story, and if what he has done in reviving the Batman franchise is any indication, then this new Terminator is in very good hands indeed.
Mr. Worthington's character is a man, once on death row, who finds himself 15 years in the future, after his execution, which precipitated his donating his body to science (Cyberdine, a partner of Skynet) While on death row, he shows remorse for what he has done, and accepts his execution as the appropriate penalty for the deaths of his brother and two police officers. He does not play the victim. When he reappears, he has no idea what has trnaspired, and is unaware that he is now a cybernetic organism, half human and half machine. When his new "reality" is made known to him. he does not accept the "dark/machine side of his new self, and never rejects the sanctity of human life. He chooses, freely, human over machine, good over evil, and is key to the destruction of Skynet's labs in SF, and the saving of John Connor's life.
Good vs evil, man vs machine are the key elements in this movie, and everyone recognizes that the machines must be destroyed so that mankind may live. NO half measures are proposed or considered. It is a true depiction of good vs evil, amd the sacrifices that are made to ensure that evil does not triumph.
What a great movie for Memorial Day!!!!
Geoff's take is pretty much the same. The normally elegant Helena Bonham Carter gives a very different performance, as a character that simply personifies evil. Her American accent was well done, but probaly not needed, as it adds very little to the character.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)