The Gospel Truth

Democratic Pretenders

October 18, 2012
5 Comments

The one really poignant moment in the recent debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Republican Paul Ryan was when each gave his understanding of their Catholic church’s teachings on abortion.

Biden’s was of course nothing deeper than the old bait and switch of pro-choice–that became the Mario Cuomo Notre Dame Doctrine that gave our lexicon the phrase—personally opposed but…

The perfect dodge

The vacuity of that statement has fallen by the wayside as Biden’s Democratic Party has virtually abandoned any pretense they had to support both sides in this argument.

Most Democrats have never met an abortion that wasn’t suitable or useful for their political futures.

This should not surprise anybody because the very first “pro-choicer, was a Democrat.

I am talking about Stephen Douglas, the Little Giant of the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858.

He also ran for the presidency in the pivotal 1860 election.

But the issue was not abortion but slavery.

He was indifferent to the morality of enslaving another human being.

Of course the linchpin of the slave movement was the belief, seconded by the Dred Scott decision in 1858 that black people were not human–they were property and could legally be owned and sold and even destroyed.

Precursor of the inhuman fetus

He called this property right–popular sovereignty and laid a historical foundation for the pro-choice movement.

The people of any community were free to vote on having slaves or not having slavery.

Democrats today has dispensed with any pretense of allowing people to vote on it.

There is only one acceptable choice and it’s a thumbs down for the baby.

They, not only support abortion rights but actively promote it through their auxiliary organization, Planned Parenthood, which as has as much to do about true parenthood as the Nazi Party once did.

Abortion has been a thorn in the side of American society since the Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973.

Comparable to Scott’s Taney

Since then abortion has become the most verboten of all subjects for polite conversation.

It has divided political parties, households, churches, and has even lead to arguments in Catholic men’s Bible study groups.

Its wicked cords of recent history have knotted America’s moral structure in a conundrum that is subtlety more complex than that, which tore the nation apart in the 19th century.

Like its ante-bellum counterparts, the house of abortion abolitionists is torn between those who wish to rip abortion from the public and legal landscape by its root and branches and those incrementalists who believe a piecemeal policy is the only realistic way to go.

Because of the failure of its political leaders to make any real progress in the last 40 years, Roe is still deeply embedded in the historical landscape.

This is true because too many practical politicians, who lack the courage of their pro-life sentiments, have allowed for certain “exceptions” to abortion.

Unfortunately Ryan’s distillation of his Church’s teachings, erroneously allowed for the usual exceptions–rape, incest and the life of the mother.

A portrait shot of Paul Ryan, looking straight ahead. He has short brown hair, and is wearing a dark navy blazer with a red and blue striped tie over a light blue collared shirt. In the background is the American flag.

Wrong on the exceptions

The only reason anyone should be against abortion is that it takes an innocent human life, albeit it in its nascent stages.

To admit any exceptions undermines the thrust of Thy Shall Not Kill, which literally is a commandment against murder…a specific kind of killing.

I know what Ryan really meant to say–I can’t believe that he or any real Catholic would ever be in favor of these exceptions.

Otherwise he would wade out into an ocean of reality where the ends justify the means.

This is much more Machiavelli than it is Jesus Christ, who despised the violation of any type of human innocence.

But the political realities at this juncture do make it a virtual impossibility to ever secure a majority would oppose it.

While these exceptions amount to no more than 19,500 out of 1.3 million unborn babies annually, these innocent victims are deserving of public protection, without consideration for the relative circumstances of their conception.

Politicians with exceptions fail to understand that to allow the slaughter of these innocents undermines the rationale for their opposition to all other abortions.

The sad fact is emotional appeals have high standing in this debate.

Few people can envision “forcing” a young woman to bear her father’s child or that of a total stranger.

It would take the heroic act of a real saint to bring these children to term.

Yet sometimes we are called to perform acts of moral heroism and saintly courage.

Mothers and fathers and sometimes, even total strangers will risk their lives to rush into a burning building to save the life of a child.

Police officers, firemen and women do it every day.

We cannot allow ourselves to be intimidated by a pro-abortion media that wants the abortion privilege to reign in American culture.

Of all the exceptions it is the life of the mother that poses the most difficulty for the Church and for pro-life people.

The secular media has unfairly painted the Church in misogynistic hues for the last 50 years.

Church leaders have had to walk on eggshells to avoid lending any credence to these vicious attacks.

I recently re-read The Cardinal, a 1950 book by Henry Morton Robinson

It included a graphic scene where the aspiring young Monsignor Stephen Fermoyle was asked to permit a craniotomy, that is, the crushing of a baby’s head upon delivery, to save the life of his unmarried sister who had been in labor for three days.

Under great emotional duress, he told the doctors to save both of them.

Of course only the baby survived.

I believe that the foul taste of seeing this depicted in the subsequent movie 20 years later might have helped fuel the underground swell for Roe.

Monsignor Fermoyle’s decision was very difficult but often the morally correct decision is not the easy decision.

The other side knows this is our Achilles heel.

Onion Magazine recently printed a satirical article about a new anti-abortion pill that killed the mother without harming her fetus.

The Church’s opposition to abortion is based on the principle of the sanctity of all human life.

A person cannot will the death of one as a means of saving the other.

I recognized years ago that this is a tough sell for a growing secular culture.

Taking my inspiration from The Cardinal, I wrote my second play that was produced in 2010, entitled A Perfect Choice.

A young father rushed home from Vietnam to confront his wife’s difficult delivery.

Like the doctors in the Cardinal, they suggested they crush the baby’s skull to save his wife’s life.

Not because of his Church’s teachings but more humanly for his fear of his wife, who was the devout Catholic, he told them to save both because she would never forgive him for sacrificing their child…even for her life.

Well they both die.

His surviving child, age five, doesn’t understand why her mommy had to die.

She blames him for taking her for denying her a mother.

The whole play takes place in a single act some 30 years later on the eve of the dawning of 2000.

The moral principle of double effect applies in cases where the death of the child is only the secondary result of, for example, radiation treatment for the mother’s cancer.

The mother does not have to sacrifice her life for her child but many have, such as St. Gianna.

None of the “exceptions” are easy choices but they all demand exceptional courage and the solid application of Catholic principles on the sanctity of human life.

Being a Catholic is never easy.

Abortion separates the believers from the pretenders.


Postcards from Heaven Part II

August 31, 2010
4 Comments

As I was saying, I don’t understand how anyone can live without a center of being.

The late Father Viktor Frankel, a Jew who converted to Catholicism after surviving the death camps, later wrote a classic, entitled Man’s Search for Meaning.

I read it in college and never have forgotten that he wrote of man’s existential vacuum.

His main point was that we all have an emptiness that has to be filled with something.

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen used to say that the human heart is anatomically not like its renditions on St. Valentine’s Day or it those little heart candies that I can’t eat any more.

No, there is actually a small missing piece that seems to be preventing it from being a perfect heart shape.

Sheen says that this missing piece is what drives us to search for the meaning in our lives.

God withheld that small piece so that we would find another peace in Him.  His love and grace would show us the way but we still had to seek Him.

People look in all the wrong places to fill up the emptiness they feel inside.

Since nature abhors a vacuum, many people fill their emptiness with science, sex, food, drugs, alcohol, work or even esoteric religions.

We just saw the movie, Eat, Pray and Love, based on a book of the same name. The author Liz Gilbert filled her emptiness with tons of pasta, Hindu meditation and a love affair.

Despite their protests, atheists also have to fill theirs with something, which means they do have a god.  

Unfortunately it is probably their own egos.

That becomes a primordial itch that is impossible to scratch.

With regard to my natural arguments of finding God, atheists might offer the Muskox as an example of God’s mistake  or the imperfections of nature.

While I admit that this hardy beast, which can only be found in the tundra regions of the Arctic, Greenland, Alaska and northern Canada, looks like he had been assembled by a committee, I found that he a fascinating natural wonder.

The Muskox has an undercoat that it sheds periodically that is used in beautiful sweater that belie its lack of nature beauty

A Heavenly undercoat

As for human beings, I do not know how anyone can look at the face of a child and not see God.

I often look into a little  child’s keen, fresh eyes that are trying to see and absorb everything around them and I hear a prayer telling me that this is the purity and innocence that we will all return to someday.

The face of God

This is God’s way of telling us that the ways of the world, the notorious City of Man has as its major goal and that is the destruction of the innocence in those eyes before me.

Notice how many crimes are directed against small children.

Notice how Planned Parenthood and others try to seduce our children into premature sexual behaviors that will not only rob them of their innocence but turn them into hard, angry teenagers, dressed in gothic black that almost looks as if they have traveled over to the dark side.

1d24179922a8cbc5eda730d899b35805.jpg cyber goth image sexyricky1988

On the darker side

I have had very little personal experience with atheism.

When I had a regular radio program on WGNU, one of my most memorable callers was a man who sometimes used the handle of Gunboy Jim.

Jim was very bright, more of a library-educated philosopher who proudly proclaimed his atheism.

Ardently pro-abortion, he would come up with the most creative arguments that justified in his mind a woman’s right to choose to kill her unborn child.

One time in the 1980s in an off-air phone conversation he said that abortion was a noble act.

So great was my visceral reaction that I could not restrain my contempt for him and his ideas.

I think part of my visceral reaction stems for my great love and respect for women.

They are to me the most beautiful part of God’s creation.  Beautiful women have inspired artists and writers for 1000s of years.

Of Helen of Troy, Edgar Allan Poe said she was so beautiful that her face launched a thousand ships.

Zooey Deschanel

Thank Heaven for...

Despite my rage, Jim continued to call and challenge me.  He made me a much better talk show host.  I eventually put away my anger and tried to understand him and his atheism.

I realized that he was my neighbor and he needed something more than my righteous indignation.

One time in an e-mail he casually mentioned how he had been doing the dishes and the housework for his mother who had been seriously ill.  I told him in a near apologetic tone that what he was doing was the work of sainthood.

I was taken back when he thanked me for seeing some good in him. I told Jim I would pray for him. He continued to call and write me.

Still of Amy Adams in Charlie Wilson's War

A 1000 years of inspiration

 

Jim was a seeker, who wanted to know and understand the reality of life but had been looking in all the wrong places.  His vacuum was still empty and his restlessness showed it.

I keep thinking that if he could see some of these postcards from Heaven, or better still the real thing, he would open his heart to God’s beauty and ultimate truth.

I haven’t heard from him in a long time.

I have a gut feeling he already knows that there really is a God who loves him.

Whatever the case I continue to pray that he has found that inner peace or what Bishop Fulton J. Sheen called peace of soul.

Like Jim all the militant atheists in this country also need our prayers.


Stick It To ‘Em

June 1, 2010
2 Comments

I was thinking about bumper stickers today.  I don’t remember when I saw the first one in my life.  It was probably during the 1964 election when I drove around in my first car in Worcester, Massachusetts.

I know I had a Goldwater sticker on my new car, a 1965 Mustang.

I had to replace that sticker three or four times because Democrats kept ripping them off.  That’s probably why LBJ carried the state by 80-20% if my memory serves me.

I love driving around and seeing all the people who keep political bumper stickers on two, four and even 10 years after an election.

With the case of Gore or Kerry, I just shake my head and wonder why some people would advertise their ignorance years after the balloting.

I haven’t had a political sticker on since Reagan.  None of the last candidates have appealed to me at all.  I guess after RWR all else has been prologue.

And as for McCain, he was only my 4th choice in 2008–after Romney, Huck and none-of-the-above.

Many were too hard to remove when I traded the car in and politics has become far nastier today.

Some stickers are funny.  I particularly like the one where it says: My child can beat the $%#&% out of your honor student. This kind of puts that issue in perspective, doesn’t it?

I met a fellow from North Carolina on a trip to France one time and he told us about a sticker they had in his state that was as prescient and pithy as 150 years of verbal and written discourse on the issue of slavery.

We Should Have Picked Our Own Damn Cotton! I think he about covered it all in that.

I’ll bet everyone has seen the sticker COEXIST, spelled out with symbols from all the major religions in the world.

It’s a nice idea but a little unrealistic, since most of the major world religions contradict the others on many of the answers to the vital questions of human existence, such as Why was I born?, Is there a God? and Is there sin and evil in the world?

People who accept the premise of COEXIST reduce all religion to a meaningless bundle of platitudes and New Age good feelings that have no substance and cannot answer any of the serious questions in life.

My old friend from WGNU radio, Charlie Geer had his own version that read: Pray for Whirled Peas!

I used to have a number of pro-life stickers on but I started getting the latent fear that the other guys would try to drive me off the road or damage my car in some remote parking lot.

I am seriously thinking of actually putting ED MARTIN for Congress sticker on!

Some of their stickers have been beyond the pale of civility and fair play.

Well I guess that is to be expected from people who advocate the butchering of human beings in the womb.  What does someone else’s life really mean to them?

It is all about their own small lives.  The consequences of their actions have no part in any moral equation in their twisted minds.

Some of their stickers reflect that misanthropic attitude that is contrary to Christian principles.

I think that explain their auxiliary movement to remove God and his commandments from the public square.

I think the Constitution has been re-interpreted to restore a separate but equal kind of discrimination toward religion instead of race.

Check out my favorite all-time pro-abortion stickers.

Against Abortion–Don’t Have One!

I just love that one.  Substitute any other word and seem how really nasty and inhumane it is.

Again Slavery–Don’t Own one!

How about?   Against Child Abuse–Don’t have any Kids!

Against Rape–Don’t Date!

I think you get my point.  Then I love the religious sticker that compels the reading public to:

Keep Your Rosaries off My Ovaries! Personally I have trouble even visualizing just how that could ever happen.  If taken literally I bet it would be terribly painful.

The there’s the combination slogan that is filled with, alas tragic irony: I’m Pro-Woman, Pro-family, Pro-Life and Pro-Choice!

Pro-life?  I seriously doubt the veracity of that statement.

I’ll be it’s a very small family–maybe two adults, a few pets and maybe a child.

Who needs a child for the new kind of family the left has invented?

How about this one: I’m Pro-Choice and I Vote! Wow that’s a good one.  I am quaking in my boots.

Of course in Chicago, she probably could vote several times and then I would have reason to be afraid.

Pro-life slogans are much more friendly and human.  It’s a Baby, not a Choice! Would any human being with a brain, not understand that?

I saw one recently that said she was Pro-Woman, Pro-Child and Pro-life. Now that’s an inclusive statement that doesn’t leave the ultimate victim out of the equation.

Right now I do have a bumper sticker that partially visible from my rear window (a window sticker that’s not stuck?) that says:

May God Touch the Hearts of Those Who Would Kill the Inconvenient!

It is the best prayer I can find to stick it back to them and it is certainly better than Whirled Peas!

This Picture Says a 1000 Words!

While this is not a bumper sticker, I think its meaning is clear as rain water.   (Taken during by the author during a Pro-life Protest outside the Planned Parenthood Center at Boyle and Forest Parkway in St. Louis.)


Social Justice and the Repeal of the 7th Commandment

March 18, 2010
3 Comments

PART II

Our current president is playing by FDR’s rulebook.  He goes from pillar to post to demonize the insurance companies, bankers, Wall Street—anyone who has the money that he lusts after as a means to further aggrandize his power.

In all honesty, not all wealth is legitimate.  Just look at many of our political leaders–the very one who promote the confiscation of the wealth of prominent and successful Americans–they are the same ones who have grown fat off the American landscape.

This raises the question: is all this hate speech and demagoguery against the very people who drive the American economy and whose success represents the largesse on which millions of Americans feed a good thing?

Does it not create in the lower classes, the poor of this country–many of whom look as if they have not missed a meal, many of whom have cell phones and seem to have enough money for entertainment–a sense of entitlement that they think the private property of the wealthy somehow belongs to them?

Isn’t that what a socialist agenda breeds?

Does their poverty thanks to government’s prompting and encouragement create feelings of hate, envy and sloth? Are not these still capital sins in the Catholic Church?

What does all this government pandering do to their ability to see the face of God?  Or is that now unimportant?

Could one not make the argument that pushing for a preferential option for the poor, as well as calling health care, food, water, transportation, employment a right–does much more harm than good for the downtrodden?

What happens to their incentive to better themselves…to rise from their meager circumstances into something better?

Is that what social justice really means?  Is this what the deacon meant?  Do the poor deserve jobs because they are poor?  Do they deserve food because they don’t have any?  Do they deserve health care because they can’t afford it?

I think our government has deliberately confused rights with our needs.  Sure millions of people need lots of things.  Does that mean government has to provide these things to them with someone’s else’s money?

Government is also confusing rights with responsibility.  People, even the poor, have a responsibility to provide for themselves.  They need to stay in school—we still have free schools.

Government has made forced charity a right that gives little benefit to the recipient and absolutely no benefit to the giver.

If you stay in school, you would have the marketable skills where someone would want to pay good money to employ you.

The poor need to work, even at menial jobs as young people, so they can get a start.  They need to confine their sexual activity to the marriage bed.  And then they need to stay married.

Government needs to stop its punitive taxation which drives millions of Americans jobs to India, the Far East and anywhere taxation is more favorable.  Government literally bites the hands that feeds us.

The poor need to monitor their sexual habits better.  They need practice chastity or celibacy to avoid pre-marital pregnancy, which forces girls to drop out of school or young couples to rush into an early wedding.

Yet don’t fall for the canard that abortion will prevent this.  No it will not alleviate poverty as some writers contend.

It will only lead to promiscuity and more pregnancies and maybe even serious health consequences that will further deepen  the confines of poverty.

Promiscuity equals pregnancy!  That’s how Planned Parenthood stays in business by repeat victims.

And maybe the most important proposal is to stay away from your government.  The United States government loves poor people so much that they want everyone to become poor.

I remember hearing Alan Keyes during one of his religious/political addresses bemoan what government has done to his people.

If only more people had listened to him, he might have beaten Barack Obama during the 2004 Senatorial campaign that landed us in much of this mess.

Keyes made the point that the black family had been better off during slavery.

He said that the black family had been better off during the Great Depression?   (I doubt that the black family will do well in our next Depression if the president has his way.)

What happened?

Lyndon Johnson declared his infamous War of Poverty, which I submit was more a war on poor people.

The late comedian Rodney Dangerfield told a joke that captured the sense of Johnson’s WOPP.   Saying that he ran into a beggar on the street…so I threw a hand grenade at him!

Johnson basically destroyed the black family as an identifiable social unit.

Welfare checks replaced the man of the family because to collect the woman could not be living her husband.

That was 1965 and not too long after the black illegitimacy rate climbed to around 25%.  Now I think it is about 75%. That’s what I guess the progressives would call progress.

The white community has not been far behind, now at over 25%, as our school engineers have done everything they can to destroy the traditional family.

And what does illegitimacy have to do with poverty?  It’s just one of its causes–the more illegitimacy, the more poor people we will have.

Americans used to hate the dole, the old word for welfare, because it slapped at their dignity and their pride. It came with a stigma, saying that a man had failed to support his wife and children. No responsible husband and father wanted to accept something for nothing.

Now it is a badge of honor, a right of entitlement.

What happened?  FDR prolonged the Depression by his wasteful economic policies so that the acceptance of government assistance was the only way to survive.

Liberal historians perpetuated his myth for generations until people finally realized that he had done nothing for 10 years but tread the same stagnant water.

Thank goodness for Pearl Harbor or it would still be going on!

Now the dole is institutionalized to the tune that even our largest companies, apparently too big to fail, get in line so that government can bail them out and save their bonuses.

I advise everyone to read Peter Schweizer’s new book, Architects of Ruin: How Big Government Liberals Wrecked the Global Economy–and How They Will Do It Again if No One Stops Them

So maybe I am not too far off base when I say that social justice as it is practiced today by some of our religions and most importantly our federal government is not justice at all.  It is as 19th century economist, Frederic Bastiat called organized plunder.

As such it is a grievous violation of the 7th Commandment of the Catholic Church, which says Thou Shall Not Steal.  If you or I took something from someone else we would justly go to jail.  But when government does it, it is someone else’s right to our largesse.

To confiscate the earnings, investments and wealth of successful Americans and give it to a class of entitled people whose government-induced lack of incentive has made them perpetual wards of the state is a crime against the universal freedom that our Constitution guarantees, as well as a dehumanization of the very people government and the churches pretend to serve.

Look for my Sunday letter in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Catholic annulments.


A Political Football Part II

February 3, 2010
4 Comments

I hope CBS lives up to its promise and does not go wobbly on the Tebows because of the vicious attacks from Planned Parenthood extremists.  I do not see the harm of letting Tim’s mother Pam share her personal experience and demonstrates the courage it took to choose life and sacrifice over choice and expediency.

The Pro-abortion crowd is having conniptions over one thankful athlete for his mother’s positive choice.  Let’s face it all choices are not equal.

Those who choose abortion over life are making a choice for their better interests while Tim’s mother was willing to sacrifice her health, maybe even her life for her unborn child.

Why can’t they advertise this kind of courage at the Super Bowl?  What kind of people could be opposed to Pam Tebow’s heroism?

It is the left who have turned morality into a political football.  It is they who have politicized the family, sex and the womb.  It is they who try to censor the positive reflections of an outstanding son and love for his mother.

But then again true motherhood is the enemy of “choice.”

I think true pro-choice people, who value the choice no matter what is chosen should applaud the Tebows, especially since many say they are uncomfortable with the abortion choice.

The morality of choice–any choice is not the existential act itself but the means chosen to make one’s choice.

They should want this ad to appear…but the reality of it her choice demonstrates what they are really about-the elimination of a living, human being.

And I’m not agreeing with Monday’s editorial in the New York Times–some choices should NEVER be exercised…and this is one of them.

Tim Tebow’s birth is in their analysis is a terrible defeat.  They condemn his mother for having the temerity of choosing life over what they are selling.

As my old friend, Joe Sobran recently wrote about this issue, having one’s own unborn child destroyed is now among the sacred rights of women. Deny it if you dare!

It has turned us inward…yet we get all emotionally about children being buried alive in Haiti yet we casually accept abortion as a constitutional right.  Somethings does not compute in the American psyche.

No wonder so many people need pills to sleep and the couch to ask for validation.

Maybe you might think that this kind of ad doesn’t belong on during a game that has become almost a religious rite of its own.

You may be right…but if the pro-abortion crowd had not said anything, I think most Americans will applaud a woman who would not allow her child to die because she had a medical problem.

They would have had the same response had Mrs. Tebow rushed into a burning building to save her son.

If her positive choice makes them feel bad about themselves–all I can say that was their choice.

That is the dark side of choice–the remorse the guilt that Planned Parenthood denies…until they can cash their checks.

The Coach

Then there is Rick Majerus, the St. Louis University basketball coach.  The Jesuit-educated, Majerus has been a long-time success on the court…and I applaud him for that success.

However in the last two years he has offered his “expert” opinion on abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

His inane commentary on these vital issues makes me wonder how he has won any game on the court–maybe he just had good players.

He says he is for a woman’s choice but does not understand what that choice really means— maybe he sould meet Tim’s mom…or more importantly–Tim!

He says that embryonic stem cell research means hope…No it doesn’t!  Not a single “cure” has been attributed to embryonic stem cell research while adult stem cell research, which does not sacrifice a “human being”, has been successful in combating dozens and dozens of diseases.

All the ESCR has is its hope— sounding more like a recycled Obama campaign ad…filled with the sound and fury but really signified nothing.

Every time the coach says something on these subjects, he makes a fool of himself.  I think his comments are a poor reflection on his Jesuit education and the school that now pays him–not to preach his morality but basketball.

Maybe we could start a rumor that he learned to think in a publ;ic school.

After telling us how highly he valued freedom because of the sacrifices of his uncles who risked their lives in WW II and the civil rights activities of Martin Luther King, he takes a non sequitur turn–I guess that’s a left turn— and implies that this gives him and every red-blooded woman on earth the freedom  to do whatever they want. Go figure!

I guess that means they can drive drunk, rob a grocery store or jump off a bridge if they so chose.

I have twice as much Jesuit education as the coach and I can tell you they don’t teach such faulty reasoning in Logic class.  Maybe he was sick that semester or traveling with the basketball team.

The Linebacker

Then there is the case of Scott Fujita, a linebacker for the Saints.  He has been speaking his mind, about issues, apparently he hasn’t thought a lot about.

It seems that the NFL rejected an another ad for ManCrunch, a gay dating service.  He has no problem with gays or their ad.

Fujita appreciates the focus on the family that the Tebows’ ad provides.  But he had a problem with their means of doing so.  The ad?

As an adopted son after his single teen mother gave him up because she did not have the means to support him, he is very thankful that she had the couraage and support system to carry out the pregnancy.

What he means he’s glad that she didn’t kill him.

But as a pro-choice man he would not expect that of everybody.

I really don’t understand how someone can be so detached from a discussion of his near-death experience.

He must have had the same Logic class that the coach did.  Is that really the kind of choice society should let its members make?

So while I applaud the efforts of the quarterback and deplore the illogical musings of the coach and the linebacker, I really wish we can just get back to the games without all the politics being interjected into the box score.

As Yogi said why can’t they just let us watch the game!


About author

After graduating from Holy Cross, Bill Borst earned an MA in Asian History from St. John's University and a Ph.D in American History from St. Louis University. (1972) A former New Yorker, he taught for many years in the St. Louis area, while also hosting a weekly radio show on WGNU from 1984-2006. He currently is a regular substitute for conservative Phyllis Schlafly on KSIV radio. (1320) He is the author of two books on social history, "Liberalism: Fatal Consequences," and "The Scorpion and the Frog: A Natural Conspiracy." He just retired as the Features editor of the Mindszenty Foundation Monthly Report. In his 11 years from 2003-2013 he wrote nearly 130 essays on Catholic culture and world affairs. Many in St. Louis also know him as the "Baseball Professor," because of a course that he offered at Maryville College from 1973-74. It was arguably the first fully-accredited baseball history course in the Midwest.The author of several short books on the old St. Louis Browns, he started the St. Louis Browns Historical Society in 1984. In 2009 his first two plays were produced on the local stage. "The Last Memory of an Ol' Brownie Fan," ran six performances at the Sound Stage in Crestwood and "A Perfect Choice" ran for two performances at the Rigali Center Theater in Shrewsberry. His third play, "A Moment of Grace," ran six performances at DeSmet High School in January of 2011with First Run Theater in January of 2011. He is currently working on a 4th play, "A Family Way," which is a comedy about a happy dysfunctional family. He can reached at bbprof@sbcglobal.net

Search

Navigation

Categories:

Links:

Archives:

Feeds