Zenit: Father Cantalamessa's 1st Advent Sermon
"Jesus ... Has Called Me Friend! I Am His Friend!"

Can't wait until I move out of here. Character doesn't change, and in this case, showing respect for other people's belongings.

A SF NCO writes a guest column for William Lind's On War: On War #325: How the Taliban Take a Village (Lind/Sexton)

Building Resilience
Aaron Lehmer, Network Development Director, Bay Localize, Earth Island Journal
The current economic downturn is the worst in decades. Millions are suffering devastating losses – vanishing jobs, foreclosed homes, and soaring food and health costs. In a world with fewer resources to go around, the future of environmentalism may hinge on making it synonymous with building sustainable, resilient communities that can meet everyone's basic needs.

Bay Localize

Even If Obama Passed Single Payer, Primary Care Doctors Still Wouldn't Get It
By BRIAN McKENNA

Daniel Larison, The Right And War

It is true that “Jacksonians” on the right lose patience with nation-building, but they also have nationalist convictions that our interventions abroad are always benevolent and initially they are very keen to repeat the propaganda that we are fighting wars of liberation or wars against tyranny (or evil or some new form of fascism). They might support military interventions without the trappings of democratist rhetoric, but they readily re-use this rhetoric whenever they are confronted with arguments that the war in question is unjust or illegal or unnecessary. In other words, they will insist on having national security reasons for going to war, but they will embrace every argument that makes the war appear to be an expression of charity and goodwill. Where they will draw the line is when they conclude that the benevolent, “humanitarian” justifications get in the way of achieving whatever amorphous concept of “victory” they hold.

What makes “Jacksonians” weary of nation-building is not the goal of establishing new political institutions in another country. It is instead the time that it takes to do this and the “ingratitude” of the alleged beneficiaries of our interventions that tend to turn them against prolonged deployments. The charge of “ingratitude,” of course, is inevitable if you believe that you have been doing another nation a favor by invading and wrecking their country. Jacksonians’ instinctive deference to the executive and their belief that criticizing a President in wartime is a kind of disloyalty force them to focus on nation-building and “political correctness” (i.e., refraining from bombing civilians) (as Rep. Chaffetz did) in order to criticize a President and his conduct of a war without suggesting that they lack in support for the military and military interventions in general. This is why “Jacksonians” may be critical of certain details in how a war is conducted, or they might, like Chaffetz, even favor starting a new war that cannot easily be started until the current war ends, but they could never seriously be described as antiwar.

This is how you get critics of the Afghan war plan from the right who want to be more pro-military than the military, and who believe that the rules of engagement that the theater commanders insist on imposing are driven not by military necessity but by “political correctness.” It may be that they cannot imagine why a military commander would want this kind of discipline, which just drives home how instinctive and visceral their “pro-military” views are and how unrelated these views are to actual military needs. This is an echo of that Vietnam revisionist sentiment that insists that the military should have the fewest possible constraints on what they do. Strategy and geopolitical considerations never enter into any of this. Hence you have someone like Chaffetz who says that Iran’s nuclear program should just be “taken out,” as if he thinks this is simply a matter of will and as if there are no costs or consequences to doing this. Even pragmatic considerations that less restrictive rules of engagement could prove to be extremely counterproductive in a counterinsurgency seem to be irrelevant to such “Jacksonians.”

McAlvany: Characteristics of a Failed State With Dr. Paul Craig Roberts (via JHK) -- mp3 for the podcast.

For feminism and family by John Milbank (via Philip Blond)

The family is the one institution of primitive participatory community that still survives. It involves the equal sharing of goods. Authority within the family is not necessarily patriarchal and aims self-denyingly at reciprocity. In these ways the family offers uniquely a training in mutual nurture. Of course it is the worst source of pathologies, but only because it is the strongest source of psychic health.

Of course also, there can be "unconventional" families which should not be penalised. But all families aim for fidelity and stability, and this very aim favours a social and political bias towards marriage rather than cohabitation. For commitment in time requires more than an endless reserve as to what one may think tomorrow, which causes "partners" to face an intolerable continuously renewed judgement from each other. Marriage suspends sexual competition and distributes sexual partners equally. It still today usually protects women physically and compensates for their lesser muscular strength.

In the case of liberal feminism, the left has shied away from the fact that its success has coincided with a regressive era that has involved an increase in economic inequality and a decline of civil liberties while covertly compensating sexual liberties. The archetypal female subject today is in one way a male capitalist subject writ large, as it is seen as autonomous in relation to biological reproduction as well as economic production. At the same time it remains a traditional "female" subject defined by private concerns now become consumeristic.

The downside of this hybrid female subjectivity is the continued enslavement of women in both workplace and home and the loss of a male code of honour as to the assistance of women and children, which has had devastating consequences for the working class. All this combines with an increased state and market control of reproduction which amounts to a new general rule of men over women.

Instead of this we need a true radical feminism more focused on the question of what constitutes good relations between women and men. This needs to include mutual equity concerning procreation and above all equal rights to the combining of work and child nurture without economic loss. In cultural terms we need women to play a public role neither as subordinate, nor as men writ large.

Such a feminism would promote the family as the first school of association and of resistance to the depravations of both market and state.

Is Dr. Milbank trying not to be too offensive? Or does he really believe everything that he writes in this article, along with their implications? Many men would take his point about marriage protecting women one step further, and say that the American legal system privileges women over men, unjustly, when it comes to family and marriage matters, and the assumptions that lead to special protection for wives are no longer warranted. What, then, does Dr. Milbank mean by "mutual equity concerning procreation." What is the public role of wives and mothers? What of single women? Who's to say that women are not active "participants in the political process" as women -- in accordance with their 'traditional' roles. That is to say, they bring their viewpoint as women and mothers when examining political issues. (Do single women and married women equally support the welfare state?) And has this not been harmful to Western societies, in so far as it has aided statism rather than hindering it?

Unprofitable Lending: Modern Credit Regulation and the Lost Theory of Usury by Brian McCall (via Richard Aleman)

Daniel Larison, This “New Anti-War Right” Is Pro-War And Wrong

Pokarekare Ana - Hayley Westenra ヘイリー(Japan TV)

Somewhere - Hayley Westenra ヘイリー

Amazing Grace - Hayley Westenra ヘイリー & Hajime Mizoguchi 溝口 肇

I Fought the Law. . . And I Won By Steve Bierfeldt

I read Mr. Bierfeldt's story when it forced appeared at the LRC blog. I wouldn't have imagined the ACLU taking on his case, but if they defend traditional Anglo-American liberties, as well as invented ones, they can't be completely bad, right? But I probably wouldn't give the organization any money.

A Christian nation?

Can San Jose be called a Christian city?

This week's bulletin from the Oratory mentioned the statue of Quetzalcoatl in downtown San Jose again. (I thought I had blogged about this last time I saw this in the bulletin, but I can't find the post. Oh wait, I found it. I don't know why a search with "Quetzalcoatl" didn't yield the proper result.)

How many of the city's Mexican(-American) (Chicano?) residents really identify with the statue? Perhaps those who favor their indigenous American (Aztec? Nahua?) heritage over their Spanish heritage--how many of those are really descended from the Aztecs, rather than from one the other peoples conquered, subjugated, or threatened by the Aztecs? Can we say that the majority of San Jose's residents are Christian, at least nominally--they self-identify as Christians, even if they do not practice? Is the same true of Cupertino? The San Francisco Bay Area as a whole? How about California? Or the United States?

In some parts of the United States, the Christian identity of the people may be rather strong. But what of the urban coastal areas? Or the big cities in the Midwest? In such areas, do the inhabitants identify Christmas more with Christ or with the secular, commercial holiday?

If "nation" in "Christian nation" means the country possesses only one people with a single culture and identity, then I would argue that it is misleading to talk about the United States as a Christian nation.

Does the exaggerated notion on the part of Christians that they live in a Christian "nation," when in fact their locale is anything but Christian, hinder their self-understanding and their mission to evangelize? In a locale where Christians are a minority, should they seek official recognition of Christianity and Christian symbols just because they wrongly think of the United States as being a single nation-state with one dominant Christian identity that permeates the whole country?

Is it proper for Christians to vote for a Christian to be president? Daniel Larison has argued that this kind of identity politics is inevitable, even if it is deemed to be 'illegitimate' by those who advocate a secular rationalist approach to politics. But even if a Christian is voted into the White House, is everything he does at the White House of symbolic value for the rest of the country? Even if the United States were properly a federation of republics, would there be an uneasy tension between some sort of Federal identity and one's local identity? If the Federal Government is just the servant of the States, should we care so much how representative their residences are of the "Christian" character of the United States? Or would we be more concerned with their character and whether they live up to the Christianity they espouse?

What is the proper context of "See how these Christians love one another?" Does this mean that they loved their non-Christian neighbors less? Perhaps, in the sense that they may have associated with their non-Christian neighbors less, in so far as those non-Christians were deeply mired in sin and idolatry. Similarly, they have concentrated on building up their friendships with Christians (and maybe non-Christians who were still men of good will). If this is the witness that they offered in the early Church, it seems to be an example we should re-learn today. But if society at large (that is to say the local community) is hostile to Christianity, how should we who live in a supposed democracy deal with it? (It seems such political concerns may not have been relevant to Christians who lived in the Roman Empire before Christianity gained official toleration?)

Even if Christians live in a community with a strong Christian culture and identity, this is not something to be for granted. Rather that needs to be reappropriated each day, as each Christian, no matter what his station in life, seeks to unite himself to Christ more and more, and expressed.

This does not mean that there isn't a place for organizations and movement that focus on "national" issues -- some anti-Christian forces can only and must be combated at that level. But average Christians must relearn to devote their energies to their place and the people who live there. While we can do what we can to avoid the crass commercialism of the secular holiday season, we can strive to bring the Good News, of which Christmas is one moment and a strong symbol, to those around us.


Related links:
San Jose's Mysterious Monuments
Robert Graham Artist
Blanca Alvarado Quetzalcóatl
Official National MEChA Website
National Council of La Raza

Fr. Fromageot, FSSP on Life on the Rock

The episode originally aired on November 12:
Listen Now
Download
Host:
Fr. Mark Mary and Doug Barry w/ Fr. Robert Fromegeot, FSSP
Date Produced:
11/12/2009
Description:
Music and the Liturgy

I believe he's still an exponent of the Solesmes method, but I'll listen to the program anyway. hah.

FSSP ordination, December 19, 2009

Rev. Mr. Jose Zepeda will be ordained on December 19, 2009 by His Excellency Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, at St. Jarlath Church in Oakland. The ordination Mass begins at 11:00 AM. Members of St. Stephen's in Sacramento and the parents of the ordinand are handling the reception afterwards. If you would like to attend the reception, there is a number for you to call to RSVP. (You can find the contact info at the website for Our Mother of Perpetual Help.)

Does anyone know if the ordinand will be celebrating his first Mass in the area?

Alas, I won't be able to attend since I will be at my nephew's birthday party. It would be a good opportunity to check out the community.

FSSP announcement
Una Voce Carmel

Reserves are bunk

Kurt Cobb, Resource Insights

Henry Ford is famous for having once said, "History is more or less bunk." He was, in fact, attacking tradition in an age of rapid technological and social change. Almost a century later we have a less ambitious observation which may not achieve the broad visceral appeal of Ford's statement, but one which may turn out have a good deal of importance, to wit: Oil and natural gas reserve numbers are more or less bunk.

CNA: Student loan debt a ‘crushing burden’ that harms young families, expert says (via the Western Confucian)

Related links:
Announcement of the talk
Talk given by Dr. Carlson on November 16: “ADVANCING AMERICA’S ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS: THE ROLE OF STUDENT LOANS”

See also Servile World: How ‘The Business Government,’ ‘The Loathsome Thing
Called Social Service’ and Other Distributist Nightmares All Came True

Asia Times: US takes hunt for al-Qaeda to Pakistan

The real focus of the United States' new Afghanistan policy - despite the 30,000 troop surge - is not that country, it is across the border in Pakistan, an intermediary familiar with dialogue between the US and Afghan militants says. The US aims to concentrate on al-Qaeda. Once that group is fatally weakened, Washington believes, the way will open to a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan. - Syed Saleem Shahzad

Meet the commanded-in-chief
United States President Barack Obama chose as advisors a crew who had never seen a significant change and still can't. This stale crew has ensured that Afghanistan, the first of George W Bush's wars, is now truly Obama's war; and the news came directly from West Point, where the president surrendered to his militarized fate. - Tom Engelhardt

NLM: Basilica Eufrasiana (of St. Euphrasius) in Croatia

mdavid writes in response to Rod Dreher's post on Christmas at the White House -- No room for Jesus at the P.C. White House:

Enjoyed this post.

Chuckled reading this thread.

Reflection: modern secular Americans are probably the dumbest folk in human history, and know nothing about the human condition and themselves, the naked ape. They really, truly believe that mankind can somehow be "trained" to the effect that:

1) symbols, visual unity for a tribe, suddenly don't matter anymore
2) humans are indifferent to culture, and have suddenly evolved into godlike, isolated individuals
3) cultural unity can be had without cultural norms
4) cultural differences can coexist without a dominate host culture to hold it all together

The whole idea that America - a Balkanization of Europeans not long removed from a unified Catholic culture with a church at the center of every town - can somehow "come together", make one of many, and even thrive, was a longshot that worked for a time. Yet it works only as long as the immigrants have a general moral and cultural unity as their bedrock. Otherwise, it's a joke, and falls apart into grasping mobs looting the treasury. Welcome to USA post-1960.

It has taken a some decades to expend our remaining cultural capital. The next few decades, however, will wipe away any remaining fantasy that the American experiment can somehow survive within a secular, disunified culture. Brace for a wild ride, as this vacuum of culture must be filled with something, probably some variation of authoritarianism. Lots of little cultural groups sprouting up in self-defense, sealing our fate.

But in the meantime, worrying about the arrangement of deck chairs on our sinking Titanic (Christmas trees at Obama's? Really?) is pretty dang amusing. Pass the popcorn; the show must go on, and it will get far more interesting when the shock of icy cold water finally hits home for the average wide-eyed liberal. We are living in interesting times, and at least we can get a good laugh on the way down.

Is the real America so divided as it is on certain blogs that try to foster some sort of broad "discussion" on religion, morals, and culture among Americans of all backgrounds? If I had to live with some of the people inhabiting this part of the blogosphere, I'm not sure if I could. I'd probably want to go somewhere else, given how committed they are to secularism and their own particular world-view in which God does not have the highest place.

Novaseeker, Equality Redux

In effect, one can say that when feminists speak of “equality” what they mean is equality in what was previously the male space. The female space was, by contrast, shored up by laws supported by feminism — laws covering the areas of marriage, divorce, child custody, child support, sexual harassment, and even domestic violence and rape, have all been altered in ways that decisively shift the power balance in any area relating to relationships, sex, marriage and children to women in a very substantial way. Equality was not the goal for the female space, but only for the male one. The female space, and female hegemony over it, was reinforced and substantially buttressed by feminist legislation, whereas the previously male space has been aggressively colonized, and it remains a key goal of feminists today to take over the highest echelons of power in the previously male space — again leaving men with nothing, no place where their power even comes close to the kind of total power women have over the female space.

Chris Costa Magpul Class


He seems very... "excited" about the class material -- I've noticed something about him in this and other videos. I'm not sure how to explain it though. Sarge prefers Travis Haley.

milspecmonkey and Magpul at ShotShow 2009

Magpul ShotShow 2009 Part 2
Magpul ShotShow 2009 Part 3
Magpul ShotShow 2009 Part 4
Magpul ShotShow 2009 Part 5