My feeble Catholic testament against capital punishment, which coarsens us all

Ten years ago, Pope Francis spoke out against the death penalty. Addressing a delegation from the International Association of Penal Law, the Pope said this: "All Christians and men of good faith are therefore called upon today to fight . . . for the abolition of the death penalty--whether it is legal or illegal, and in all its forms . . . ."

Pope Francis also spoke out against life sentences. In fact, in the Pope's mind, opposition to the death penalty is linked to opposition to life sentences since a sentence for life without the opportunity for parole "is a hidden death sentence."

In speaking out against capital punishment, Pope  Francis followed the example of Pope John Paul II, who condemned the death penalty as "both cruel and unnecessary." 

In 2018, Pope Francis revised the Catholic Catechism to make clear that the death penalty is "inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person." Therefore, the Catechism instructed, the Catholic Church would work "with determination to its abolition worldwide."

Catholics confront the reality of capital punishment every time they attend a Mass or contemplate the crucifixes that many Catholics display in their homes. Christ died a horrible, gruesome death--hung naked on a tree and forced to lift his nail-implanted feet just to breathe until he finally died of blood loss and asphyxiation. 

Surely, as Catholics, we are called upon to oppose any kind of execution by the instruments of government, whether by hanging, firing squad, electrocution, or lethal injection. In the way that he died, our Savior calls on us to respect the dignity of life--every life, even the life of the most hardened criminal. After all, Christ reassured St. Dismas on the cross that he would join Christ in paradise on the day of his death.

Catholic opposition to capital punishment is also a way of honoring all our saints and martyrs who died horrible deaths for their faith. Indeed, some of them died deaths by methods even more cruel than the cross.  During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, Catholics were publicly hanged, drawn, and quartered, which meant that they were first hanged by the neck, taken down while still conscious, and then eviscerated and sometimes even castrated while still alive.  Their bodies were then pulled apart (quartered) to the delight of watching crowds. St. Edward Campion was executed in just this way.

Capital punishment, whether in its most benign or most malevolent form, degrades the societies that practice it, including the United States.  Our detractors point out that Catholics are far more vociferous when opposing abortion than we are when speaking out against capital punishment. Unfortunately, they are right.

Those of us who are Catholic should follow the examples of Pope Francis and Pope John Paul II and speak out publicly against the death penalty. Let us be guided by  Catechism, which clarifies that capital punishment is contrary to our Catholic faith.

Pope Francis opposes the death penalty.

 

I don't need y'all treating me this way: Tom Hanks insults the Heartland on SNL anniversary special

I've been to Georgia on a fast train, honey.
I wa'n't born no yesterday.
I got a good Christian raisin' and an eighth-grade education.
Ain't no need in y'all a treatin' me this way.

Georgia on a Fast Train

Billy Shaver, songwriter

Sung by Johnny Cash

Tom Hanks gratuitously insulted white Americans in SNL's televised 50th-anniversary celebration a few days ago. In a sketch titled Black Jeopardy, Hanks played a Forrest Gump-style white guy with a hick accent and MAGA hat. To drive home the point that MAGA Republicans are racists, Hanks's character pointedly refused to shake hands with a black man.

Perhaps Hanks sensed folks living in Flyover Country have stopped attending Hollywood movies and figured it was safe to make fun of the rubes. If so, he's right. I'll never watch another Tom Hanks film.

Hanks is clueless about a significant cultural shift across America. He probably thought he was ridiculing a marginal group when, in fact, it is Hanks and the coastal elites who are marginalized.

Hanks, George Clooney, Julia Roberts, and a host of wealthy celebrities and media luminaries were just fine with a nation headed by Joe Biden,  a demented crook, and his giggling idiot sidekick, Kamala Harris. After all, the elites are wealthy; the system works just fine for them.

The rest of us, however, are concerned about fentanyl flowing across the southern border, Social Security checks going out to dead centenarians, and the senseless war in Ukraine. People who buy their own groceries are alarmed by the spike in food prices.

Millions of Americans are waking up to the fact that Anthony Fauci hoodwinked us with the COVID vaccines. No wonder Fauci thinks he needs Uncle Sam's security protection.

It's time for people in Flyover Country to boycott the vacuous cultural garbage being spewed out by people who hate their audiences. The richness and vitality of American culture is in the Heartland, not Manhattan or Hollywood.

To put it another way, "Stupid is as stupid does," and the coastal elites are stupid to disdain the people who made them successful. And that, as Forrest Gump might say, is all I have to say about that.

Kiss my ass, Tom Hanks

Why would anyone oppose Trump's efforts to end the Ukraine war?

We must all hang together, or most assuredly, we will all hang separately.

Attributed to Benjamin Franklin 

President Trump is trying to end the Ukraine war, which has brought incalculable misery to both the Ukrainians and the Russians.

I say incalculable because the war's advocates are not telling the truth about military and civilian casualty rates. Nor have they acknowledged the enormous environmental harms caused by the war.

Trump's Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, rattled Ukrainian President Vladimir  Zelensky by observing that Ukraine will probably need to cede some territory to get a peace deal. However, Hegseth was only stating the obvious. 

No credible authority believes Russia will consent to relinquish Crimea. Nor will Vladimir Putin give up the predominately Russian-speaking districts of the Donbas--where fighting has gone on for ten years.

Hegseth also made waves when he said that talking about NATO membership for Ukraine is unrealistic. Again, Hegseth was only stating the obvious. It would be insane to make Ukraine a NATO member now. Indeed, no NATO country is strongly pushing for immediate Ukraine membership. 

Every American should be grateful for Trump's energetic efforts to bring the stupid Ukraine war to a speedy conclusion. Yet, Democratic politicians are spewing vicious vitriol at the President while having no plan of their own to end this disastrous conflict.

Senator Richard Blumenthal's criticisms were particularly odious. He objected to Trump's characterization of Zelensky as a dictator who was doing a "terrible job" of running the war.

"What world is he living in?" Blumenthal asked. 

[Trump's remarks were] not only contrary to the facts and the truth but utterly despicable, a disgusting betrayal of a country that has bled and fought and died for freedom. The president's surrender is pathetic and weak.

Perhaps it was therapeutic for Senator Blumenthal to insult the President, and I'm sure his hissy fit played well with progressive Democrats in New Haven. Nevertheless, what's the Connecticut Senator's plan for ending the slaughter in Ukraine?

Does Blumenthal want the U.S. to follow President Biden's strategy, which was to ship money and weapons to Zelensky in perpetuity?

Will Zelensky's corrupt and venal regime prevail if we keep sending cluster bombs, uranium-enriched artillery shells, antipersonnel mines, Abrams tanks, and F-16s to Ukraine? Or will we eventually stumble into a nuclear war?

I favor putting the Democratic Party's deranged attacks against President Trump aside for a while and supporting his efforts to stop the Ukraine war. There will be plenty of time to slander him as a Nazi after the killing stops.

Senator Blumenthal and cronies

Shut Down the U.S. Department of Education: Why the Hell Not?

 When Kinky Friedman ran for Texas governor in 2006, he had a compelling bumper-sticker slogan. "Kinky Friedman for Governor. Why the Hell Not?"

I found Kinky's message persuasive and voted for him in the Texa primary.

I feel the same about President Trump's campaign promise to shut down the U.S. Department of Education. Why the hell not?

Critics warn that closing DOE would mean the elimination of the Department's Office of Civil Rights (OCR), which investigates discrimination claims against colleges and schools. Without OCR, they warn, we're likely to see an uptick in race and sex discrimination and the harassment of gay and transgender students on college campuses.

I reject that argument. 

OCR's investigatory and enforcement authority has long been a threat hanging over U.S. higher education. Still, it hasn't prevented the emergence of racism and antisemitism at the universities --particularly elite institutions like Harvard and Columbia. In fact, colleges are displaying more bigotry than at any time since the McCarthy era.

DOE's defenders also point out that the Department needs to administer the federal student loan program and distribute college loans.

I reject that argument as well. 

DOE has done a terrible job overseeing the student loan program. The higher education community has complained for over a decade that the federal student aid application form (commonly called the FAFSA) was unduly cumbersome and complicated for students and their parents to fill out. In 2020, Congress passed the FAFSA Simplification Act, directing DOE to create a simpler financial aid form.

DOE tackled the issue but didn't release the newly designed form until December 30, 2023, three months after students needed it. Consequently, the college admission process was delayed all over the U.S., with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) finding that:

Delays, glitches, and other issues led to a 9% decline in submitted FAFSA applications among first-time applicants and an overall decline of about 432,000 applications as of the end of August [2024].

Of course one mistake, even a massive screwup like the FAFSA debacle, is not a justification by itself for closing a federal agency. Nevertheless, over the years, DOE has shown itself unable to properly monitor the venal for-profit college industry or to rein in college costs, which have gone up year after year partly due to massive infusions of federal cash.

I agree with the Trump administration that education is a state responsibility that should not be overregulated or controlled by the federal government.

If Trump manages to close down DOE, I don't think its disappearance will adversely affect American education. Freed from onerous federal regulations, the colleges might even cut the cost of tuition. 

Now, that would be a miracle.

Andy's Custard is Dead to Me: Reflections on the Decline of the American Work Culture

 My hometown had an old-fashioned Dairy Queen when I was a kid, one of those vintage establishments that required customers to stand on the sidewalk and direct their food orders to a soda jerk through an open window.

Anadarko's Dairy Queen sold "soft serve," not real ice cream, but delicious nevertheless.  A small soft-serve cone only cost a nickel, which fit my childhood budget. If I was broke, I could always find at least three empty soda bottles I could redeem for two cents at the grocery store. And voila! I had the scratch to get a soft-serve cone.

My local Dairy Queen only sold two food items: a chili dog, which cost fifteen cents, and a footlong chili dog, which cost a quarter. The footlong came encased in a paper wrapper with a printed ruler attesting that the footlong chili dog was indeed twelve inches long. Truth in advertising!

My favorite food item at the Anadarko DQ was the soft-serve chocolate malt. A chocolate milkshake cost twenty-five cents during my childhood years, but the malt was pricey--thirty cents!

The extra nickel was worth it, however, because the tablespoon of powdered malt transformed an ordinary milkshake into the nectar of the gods.

Growing up, I consumed a couple hundred soft-serve chocolate malts, and I don't recall the soda jerk ever getting my order wrong. The powdered malt and chocolate syrup were always in the drink I ordered.

Now, chocolate malts cost a lot more than thirty cents. Andy's Custard, which I once patronized, charged me $6.95 (including sales tax) for a malt about the same size as the malts I slurped at the Anadarko Dairy Queen a half-century ago. 

I didn't begrudge the cost because Andy's custard is premium quality. Nevertheless, I insist that my seven-dollar malt includes malt flavoring.

The server at Andy's gets my order right about 60 percent of the time. Other times, however, I get a chocolate milkshake, not a chocolate malt.

This is unacceptable to me. When I pay seven dollars for a chocolate malt, I want a chocolate malt.

I do not mean to single out Andy's Custard. My experience there is similar to my experience in all kinds of fast-food establishments. Too often, the person who takes my order has a faraway look, and I know he or she is not listening to me. I'm distracting my server from TikTok or a text message conversation about last night's keg party.

Same phenomenon in the grocery store. I was in Albertson's a while back, and the cashier was having a personal conversation on his hands-free cell phone. He never acknowledged my presence or paused his phone chatter. I was a distraction from his social life.

COVID wrecked the American work ethic. When the federal government began paying people more not to work than to show up and do something useful, people asked themselves why they should exert themselves just to have money in their pockets. Just send me a check!

This new attitude hurts our whole society. When I order a chocolate malt, it's no big deal if the Andy's Custard worker gives me a milkshake. It's more serious, however, when the Social Security Administration tells the American people it can't say for sure when it will implement the directives of the Social Security Fairness Act.

Weaponizing free speech: Nonsense and blather from the unhinged left

 I have long believed no one should graduate college without reading William Shirer's magisterial book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. 

Shirer, a journalist who witnessed Germany's descent into terror, was a journalist, not an academic. Perhaps for that reason, his account of Hitler's rise to the German chancellor's office through parliamentary means and his use of assassination and concentration camps to secure total power has never been seriously challenged.

Margaret Brennan, CBS host of Face the Nation, obviously never read Shirer's masterpiece.  Otherwise, she wouldn't have made the inane comment that the Nazis weaponized free speech when she interviewed Secretary of State Marco Rubio. 

Rubio, who has a firmer grasp on history than Brennan, set her straight. The Nazis didn't weaponize free speech, he tutored her; they abolished it.

Brennan's weaponizing free speech comment did not come out of thin air. Brennan probably read Adam Litvak's story in the New York Times titled "How Conservatives Weaponized Free Speech," in which Litvak quoted Associate Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote in a dissenting judicial opinion that conservatives were "weaponizing the First Amendment."

Indeed, the bizarre assertion that free speech can be weaponized has entered the mainstream of legal scholarship. Catharine MacKinnon, a law professor and feminist legal scholar, published an article in the Virginia Law Review that made this astounding claim:

Once a defense of the powerless, the First Amendment over the last hundred years has mainly become a weapon of the powerful. Starting toward the beginning of the twentieth century, a protection that was once persuasively conceived by dissenters as a shield for radicals, artists and activists, socialists and pacifists, the excluded and the dispossessed, has become a sword for authoritarians, racists and misogynists, Nazis and Klansmen, pornographers, and corporations buying elections in the dark.

My guess, then, is that Brennan's addled notion that the Nazis weaponized free speech can be traced back to balderdash disseminated by Justice Kagan, Professor MacKinnon, and the New York Times.

With due respect to these august authorities, I believe the assertion that the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazis, and pornographers weaponized the First Amendment is fruitcake logic--the very kind of blather we've come to expect to come from academia and the legacy media.

However, I'm just a guy who lives off a gravel road in Flyover Country, so what do I know? 

Professor Catharine MacKinnon, Fruitcake Extraordinaire

Take this job and shove it! Elon Musk tries to prune the federal bureaucracy

 Take this job and shove it

I ain't working here no more.

Sung by Johnny Paycheck

America's budget deficit is on track to hit $1.9 trillion, which will be added to the nation's accumulated national debt of $36 trillion. 

Elon Musk, chief of President Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), is moving savagely to prune the federal workforce, which he urgently needs to do.  

He began by offering buyouts to entice federal employees to resign--a classic corporate tactic to trim payroll costs. So far, roughly 75,000 people have accepted the offer, a tiny percentage of the nation's 2.3 million federal workers.

Unfortunately, the employees who accepted the offer include some of the nation's most efficient bureaucrats. That's because the people who left federal service have job skills that can transfer to the private sector.

Most civil servants are hanging on to their federal jobs despite a pointed invitation to leave.  These include those who don't have the skills or experience to find employment outside the DC swamp. They will dig in at least long enough to reach retirement age.

DOGE will be forced to fire thousands of government workers to trim the workforce. Many will file lawsuits challenging DOGE's authority to make the government more efficient. They'll also avail themselves of the elaborate civil service regulations that protect their constitutional right to due process.

In short, it will be months or even years before the federal workforce shrinks. Meanwhile, the primary beneficiaries of the DOGE initiative will be lawyers--lots and lots of lawyers.

In the near future, we are likely to see the passive-aggressive nature of the federal civil service rear its ugly head as the apparatchiks of the DC swamp begin a work slowdown. We can't fulfill our duties, the bureaucrats will moan, because the workforce has been slashed by a "Nazi nepo baby."

Indeed, we are already seeing worksite sabotage in the Social Security Administration. Senior SSA administrators say it will be more than a year before they implement the directives of the Social Security Fairness Act, which is intended to benefit retirees who have been unfairly penalized. 

Why? They're understaffed.

Take number. A federal bureaucrat will assist you sometime in the next century.