Birthday Facts

Born on this day…

Mary II, queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1662)

Willie Nelson, musician (1933)

Isiah Thomas, former professional basketball player (1961)

Franz Lehár, composer (1870)

Don Schollander, swimmer (1946)


On this day in history…

1789: George Washington is inaugurated as the first president of the United States in New York City.

1803: The United States more than doubles its size with the Louisiana Purchase, a vast territory bought from France for $15 million.

1812: The Territory of Orleans enters the Union as the 18th state, the state of Louisiana.

1939: Franklin D. Roosevelt is the first U.S. president to appear on television when NBC begins regular broadcasting with live coverage of the opening of the New York World's Fair.

1945: Refusing to surrender after Germany is defeated by Allied forces at the end of World War II, German dictator Adolf Hitler commits suicide in his Berlin bunker.

1975: The Vietnam War ends when Duong Van Minh, president of South Vietnam, surrenders unconditionally to North Vietnamese communist forces.


In 1982, the year I was born…

Ronald Reagan is president of the US

The space shuttle Columbia completes its first operational flight

Actor John Belushi is found dead of a drug overdose in a West Hollywood hotel

Automobile manufacturer John Delorean is arrested and charged with possession of 59 pounds of cocaine

The first artificial heart is implanted in American Barney Clark

The Cable News Network, or CNN, is launched

750,000 people rally against nuclear weapons in New York City's Central Park

Time Magazine's Man of the Year was for the first time given to a non-human, a computer

The first computer virus, written by Rich Skrenta, escapes into the wild

Kirsten Dunst and Elisha Cuthbert are born

St. Louis Cardinals win the World Series

San Francisco 49ers win Superbowl XVI

New York Islanders win the Stanley Cup

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is the top grossing film

Ozzy Osbourne bites the head off of a live bat thrown at him during a performance, later hospitalized with rabies

"I Love Rock 'N Roll" by Joan Jett & The Blackhearts spends the most time at the top of the US charts

Cheers, Family Ties, Silver Spoons, and Fame premiere

I am not a Separatist

I thought I would respond to a comment my friend made on my blog and was all geared up to be writing about the merits of late-night sit-down eateries, such as IHOP, but my dog just made me chase her all over the neighborhood for forty minutes, so I’m not in the mood. Instead, I will be writing in response to another one of his comments on my blog…

No, I am not a separatist. Though occasionally I do entertain ideas of separatism when it comes to my beloved Texas regaining its status as an independent nation, it mostly occurs on or around March 2 each year (Texas Independence Day). But, alas, that is not true separatism because I am not fully invested in it and honestly I look at it more as patriotism for my home state’s glory. I think I ascribed the correct title to myself when I said I am a right-wing extremist, because secession from the Union just for the sheer fact that I want to live in the nation of Texas is pretty extreme (though some may see it as liberal rather than conservative, depends on your POV). I do know however that I am not a separatist.

Separatism refers to the advocacy of a state of cultural, ethnic, tribal, religious, racial or gender separation from the larger group, often with demands for greater political autonomy and even for full political secession and the formation of a new state. The reasons for separatism are far more extreme and sometimes more important than having the nation of Texas. While some critics may equate separatism and religious segregation, racial segregation or sexual segregation, separatists argue that separation by choice is not the same as government enforced segregation and serves useful purposes. This nullifies my desire for Texas’ Independence because it would take an act of government to make that happen and could not be done solely by the people of Texas. Let’s look at some of the reasons or motivations for separatism.

Groups may have one or more motivations for separation, including: emotional resentment of rival communities, protection from ethnic cleansing and genocide, justified resistance by victims of oppression, including denigration of their language, culture or religion; propaganda by those who hope to gain politically from intergroup conflict and hatred; the economic and political dominance of one group that does not share power and privilege in an egalitarian fashion; economic motivations of seeking to end economic exploitation by more powerful group or, conversely, to escape economic redistribution from a richer to a poorer group; preservation of threatened religious, language or other cultural tradition; destabilization from one separatist movement giving rise to others; geopolitical power vacuum from breakup of larger states or empires; continuing fragmentation as more and more states break up. We’ll use my extreme right-wingism to give examples in this case. For instance, I being right-wing may garner resentment from some of my neighbors, but I am by no means oppressed or denigrated for it. I do hope to gain politically by being a right-wing extremist, but by no means do I want intergroup conflict to increase in the government (they barely get anything done now as it is). Yes, I want Republicans to run the country, but not at the expense of the shared system of checks and balances inherent in a two-party government, i.e. I don’t want absolute power. There hasn’t been a political separatist movement in the US since the Green Party, and we all know they are kind of a joke, no offense. And finally, there is no power vacuum due to the break-up of large states in the United States because the Union has forced every state to put a “no secession” amendment in their constitutions. So, as you can see, me being party to a little right-wing rhetoric from time to time doesn’t necessary make me a separatist.

I’m proud of my friend for being so bold in his comments on my blog. He’s one of the few who still reads on a regular basis that I know of. At least, he is one of the few who is moved by my words so much as to comment on them. He’s one of my best friend’s, though; I am afforded his support whenever I need it, which is awesome. And I support him, like being his best man for instance. The point I am trying to make is that after taking up my pen again, I expected more response from my audience. But, I suppose they are so few and far between that getting a comment from everyone of them every time would just make me realize how few of them there are out there.

Anyway, looking ahead, I will be writing about late night dining stops that top my all time list, so stay glued to those monitors, folks.

It's Rodeo Time...All the Time

If you were nice enough to read my previous blog, then you know that I went to the rodeo the other day, Friday, with my relatives who were in town. It seems that every time I go to the rodeo, I am reminded of how much I enjoy the atmosphere and entertainment of the spectacle. Let us start with a little history… the beginnings of rodeo can be traced back to the ranches of the early 1700’s, when the Spanish ruled the West. The Spanish cattlemen, known as vaqueros, would influence the American cowboy with their clothing, language, traditions and equipment which would in turn influence the modern sport of rodeo. Duties on these early ranches included roping, horse breaking, riding, herding, branding, and much more. Americans from the East came into contact with Spanish, Mexican, Californio, and Texican cowboys and began to copy and adapt their styles and traditions of working the ranches. Ranchers from the Southwest would organize long cattle drives, to bring cattle to the stockyards in towns like Kansas City, where trains would carry the cattle east. This was the golden age of the cowhand. At the end of the long trails, these new American "Cowboys" would often hold informal competitions among themselves and the various different outfits to see which group had the best riders, ropers and all-around best drovers. It would be from these competitions that modern rodeo would eventually be born. In the modern era, rodeo has continued to grow from its roots as a working ranch competition to a huge national sport. With the continued success, rodeo has seen growth in the number of associations at regional and state levels. Rodeo has also established itself at the high school and college level. There is no doubt that rodeo will continue through the 21st century.

Rodeo is one of the original extreme sports. Today’s professional rodeo holds a distinct position in the world of modern sports having come directly from a working-lifestyle. Early rodeo began as the everyday chores of working ranches on the great plains of the American West. Modern rodeos take place in a fenced, dirt surfaced area known as an arena. Arenas can be either indoor or outdoor. Remarkably there are no standard sizes for arenas, but all of them contain bucking chutes, and roping chutes (usually at opposite ends of the arena). Rodeo is also unique in that it is a sport made up of several different events, each with their own style of competition, rules, and rewards. While there are many events that are specific to different regions of the U.S. and world, seven are recognized as standard events in most professional rodeo. The seven main events of a rodeo are (in the standard order of competition): bareback riding, steer wrestling, team roping, saddle bronc, tie-down roping, barrel racing, and bull riding. These seven events can be broken down into two categories, the roughstock or judged events (bareback, saddle bronc, and bull riding) and the timed events (steer wrestling, barrel racing, tie-down and team roping).

The roughstock events are the wild, adrenaline filled events of rodeo. The dangerous nature of these events makes them extremely exciting to watch. Competitors compete in rodeo performances against the other cowboys or cowgirls entered in each specific event. Horses and bulls are normally bucked-out only once per day and each time that a competitor rides is called a go-round. These are the wild, adrenaline filled events of rodeo. The dangerous nature of these events makes them extremely exciting to watch. Competitors compete in rodeo performances against the other cowboys or cowgirls entered in each specific event. Horses and bulls are normally bucked-out only once per day and each time that a competitor rides is called a go-round. Scoring for the roughstock events is the same for all three of the events, although different criteria exist for judging the animals in each event. All cowboys competing in the roughstock events must use only one hand to ride and touching yourself or the animal with the free hand results in a disqualification and a no score. To receive a score, a cowboy must make a qualified 8 second ride. The 8 second length of a qualified ride was devised purely for the safety and well-being of the animals involved. After 8 seconds the horse or bulls bucking ability decreases because of fatigue, adrenaline loss, etc. Once the buzzer sounds and there are no disqualification, the ride receives a score given by 2 to 4 official judges, depending on the rodeo. Scores are given to both the competitor and the animal. Each judge scores 1-25 points for the cowboy and 1-25 points for the animal, with a maximum score being 100 points or a perfect ride (in the case of 4 judges they score the same but divide by 2).

The timed events, as the name implies, use stopwatches to track the times for each event, and the lowest time wins. All the timed events, except barrel racing use a barrier, which is strung across the roping chutes. This makes the event more challenging as the barrier prevents the competitor from getting too much of a head start on the livestock. Breaking the barrier results in a time penalty in each event.

The atmosphere of a rodeo can depend greatly on where it is taking place or at what level. PRCA events are usually quite electric and have a widely diverse crowd because they take place in larger arenas in more urban areas. While regional events tend to have crowds composed of what you would expect the “typical” rodeo fan to be, often because they take place in rural areas at outdoor arenas. The Mesquite Rodeo, which is held at Resistol Arena, attracts a wide cross section of people and rodeos in and of themselves tends to bring curious spectators no matter where you are. As a man, I enjoy the rodeo because I enjoy the simple things in life…girls who wear boots and cowboy hats. The new trend I’ve noticed time and time again is a woman wearing boots and either short shorts or a short skirt, which is sexy the majority of the time, but if you’ve ever been to Mesquite, you know that there are an abundance of people there who have no business in shorts. Aside from the eye candy, you get to enjoy one of the sweetest smells in the world, manure. It takes being around it more than a time or two to appreciate it, but to me evokes visions of hard work, discipline, and cattle. Rodeo is one of the few sporting events where you can get a brisket sandwich with meat that probably came from one of the competitors (or a relative of theirs). It’s laid back and, more often than not, you end up in pleasant conversation with the person next to you about your childhood memories of rodeo to the point that you forget to watch the competition. There’s no replays, no yelling at judges or umpires, and you clap for everyone who comes out of the chutes regardless if they had a good ride or not. And, let us not forget that seeing a barrel rider rein her horse around the last turn, flexing her legs in the stirrups, and riding full speed into the tunnel with her hair flowing in the wind is extremely hot.

So, let’s all go to the rodeo…COWBOY UP!

Catholic Answer Series: Reception of Holy Communion

This week in the Catholic Answer Series we will be talking about the reception of Holy Communion. Holy Communion in the Catholic Church is one of the most amazing and spiritually uplifting experiences…and if you are of regular attendance to Mass, then you get to do it every week! By Communion is meant the actual reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Ascetic writers speak of a purely sacramental reception; that is, when the Eucharist is received by a person capable indeed of the fruits but wanting in some disposition so that the effects are not produced; of a spiritual reception, that is, by a desire accompanied with sentiments of charity; and of a sacramental and spiritual reception, that is, by those who are in a state of grace and have the necessary dispositions. For real reception of the Blessed Eucharist it is required that the sacred species be received into the stomach. For this alone is the eating referred to by our Lord (John 6:58). But, I’m not going to get into a full spiritual discussion on the merits and history of Holy Communion in the Church, but rather how we receive the Eucharist during Mass. There are two common ways of reception of the Eucharist; one is on the tongue whereby it is taken directly into the body and the other is onto the hand where the receiver then takes the Eucharist out of the hand and places it into their mouth. Most “traditionalists” as they are referred to, believe that taking Communion on the tongue is the first and only way. I am not this extreme, though I do take Communion on the tongue. But the practice of taking Communion in the hand has been around since 1973 when in the instruction Immensae Caritatis, the Church granted permission because many episcopal conferences had asked for it. Currently, the practice in the United States is that one receives either on the tongue or on the hand at the discretion of the communicant. The General Instruction on the Roman Missal states: If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ). The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes it entirely. Because of widespread attempts to prevent the lay faithful from receiving Communion on the tongue, Pope John Paul II in 1980 reaffirmed that it is the communicant’s choice whether to receive in the hand or on the tongue (DC, no. 11).

We need to receive Holy Communion with the utmost reverence because, in consuming Our Eucharistic Lord, we are joining ourselves to the most important event in human history: Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, through which we were redeemed from sin and can receive the grace to enjoy eternal salvation in heaven. To respond to our Lord’s invitation to receive Him in the Eucharist, “we must prepare ourselves for so great and holy a moment” (Catechism, no. 1385; cf. 1 Cor. 11:27-29). Further, the manner in which we receive Communion “ought to convey the respect, solemnity, and joy of this moment when Christ becomes our Guest” (Catechism, no. 1387). The Church has provided certain norms to help us humbly and worthily receive Our Eucharistic Lord. For example, in its 1980 document Inaestimabile Donum (ID), the Vatican Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship has decreed that the lay faithful are not to self-communicate: “Communion is a gift of the Lord, given to the faithful through the minister appointed for this purpose. It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice; still less that they should hand them from one to another” (ID, no. 9). However, in 1980 Pope John Paul II decreed that this norm does not preclude the lay faithful from receiving Communion in the hand, noting that, unfortunately, “the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized” (Dominicae Cenae (DC), no. 11, 1980). The General Instruction reiterates the ban against self-communion. It also provides the posture for the reception of Holy Communion and the gesture of reverence to be given: The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm. When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister (no. 160).

A person may receive Communion twice in the same day, but “only during the celebration of the Eucharist in which the person participates” (Code of Canon Law, canons 917 and 921.2). Those in danger of death may receive it outside of Mass (cf. canon 918). A person should abstain from food or drink, with the exception of water and medicine, for at least one hour before receiving Holy Communion, although the elderly and the sick—and those who take care of them—are exempted (canon 919.3; cf. Catechism, no. 1387).

Finally, canons 915 and 916 deal with those Catholics who should not be admitted to Communion, or who should personally refrain from receiving: Those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion (canon 915); A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or to receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity of confessing; in this case the person is to be mindful of the obligations to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible (canon 916).

Dallas is a jungle but Dallas gives a beautiful light...

I have relatives coming in town this week. Whenever I have relatives or friends coming into town, I am reminded of why I like Dallas so much. I am reminded of why I like Texas so much, too, but that is a topic for another time. Plus, to expound on the merits of Texas would just take forever and I am trying to keep this one brief and to the point. Dallas…

Ok, I just spent twenty minutes updating the third party wireless assistant I use because it doesn’t communicate with the wireless network on campus that well and it locked up the wireless on my computer. I finally get the damn thing to install correctly and start up, then it tells me that I can’t enter my license key because I am not connect directly to a router that is directly connected to the internet. I’m guessing on campus a hub is used to split the signal to various routers throughout the building I’m in, so I’m stick with a trial version I can’t really use. Ugh, what a pain in the rear. I completely lost my train of thought because I had to restart my computer. Where was I? Oh, I was going to use a quote…

Dallas, as Jimmie Dale Gilmore puts it, “is a jewel, oh yeah, Dallas is a beautiful sight.” My friend Jon put it simply when we were driving into Dallas from a road trip to Waco, and said that he just feels excited to see the downtown skyline coming into focus from the distance. It is the third largest city in Texas and the ninth largest in the United States. Dallas is the core of the largest inland metropolitan area in the United States that lacks any navigable link to the sea. The city's prominence despite this comes from its historical importance as a center for the oil and cotton industries, its position along numerous railroad lines, a strong industrial and financial sector, and its status as a major inland port (due largely to the presence of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, one of the largest and busiest in the world). The city was founded in 1841 and formally incorporated in 1856. With a population of over 1.3 million, the city is the main economic center of the 12-county Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington metropolitan area, which the residents refer to as the Metroplex.

I could go on with a history lesson about Dallas, but that just wouldn’t get my point across. I’m talking about why I like living in Dallas in the present, not why I’m proud of Dallas, a pride that comes from its prominence as a focal point of both Texas and American history. Here and now, Dallas has everything you need within its 385 square mile area, and if you want more, you can travel throughout the Metroplex’s 9286 square mile area and find it. Dallas is flat, with some small areas of rolling hills and a river, the Trinity, wandering beneath it. It’s hot during the summer, one of the hottest areas in the United States during those months. It’s mild in the winter, wet in the spring, and cool in the fall; though the temperature and climate changes don’t necessitate all four seasons. If you live here you know it’s either hot (summer) or cool (winter). Dallas has a signature skyline, with several buildings over 700 feet tall and all sorts of architectural eras and styling. It is punctuated, literally, but Reunion Tower, which is one of the most recognizable parts of the skyline. Moving from the skyscrapers of downtown you go in any direction and find yourself in a unique neighborhood, offering cultural, retail, dining, and nightlife diversity to fit any taste. I can’t go into all of them, but let’s just say there is no lack of places to go or people to see.

The culture of Dallas is unreal. Though politically the Metroplex is the third most liberal of Texas metropolitan areas after Austin (Hippies) and El Paso (need I explain), the city itself can be seen as moderate. I don’t want to go into the scandalousness of Dallas politics any more than that, other than to say that since I live in the north Dallas area I vote with the majority of my neighbors for Republicans. Let’s just move on to the food. Dallas has been on the forefront of barbeque, authentic Mexican, and Tex-Mex cuisine for years. Dallas features the third nationally ranked steakhouse, Bob’s Steak and Chop House, the best hotel restaurant in the US according to a Zagat survey, Fearing’s (the signature restaurant of chef Dean Fearing, a personal hero), and is the starting place for famous chain restaurants Chili’s and Romano’s Macaroni Grill. Let us not forget the best thing to come from the Dallas culinary scene…the FROZEN MARGARITA…invented right here in Dallas. After you’ve eaten, you can take in a symphony or an art exposition in the Arts District. Go to the Meyerson Symphony Center to experience one of the most acoustically sound places I’ve been to and performed in or go to the Dallas Museum of Art to see their intriguing collection of Egyptian and Nubian art. High art not your scene, find yourself a concert at one of several music venues in the downtown area. Or you can hit up one of the several small independent art galleries nestled among the downtown shopping, featuring up and coming local artist with unique flare. What if art is not your thing at all? Dallas is home to several major league franchises spanning the majority of professional sports. This includes the Dallas Mavericks (making their NBA finals playoff run right now), the Dallas Stars (enjoying their NHL off season, I’m sure) and the Dallas Desperados (bagging groceries at Kroger since Arena football may never be coming back). Like the soccer scene, then check out an FC Dallas (perennial MLS contender) game. Fan of semi-pro hockey (who isn’t), then you can see the Texas Tornado (three-time champions of the NAHL) play at the Déjà Blue Arena in Frisco. What about football? Need I really mention America’s Team, the Dallas Cowboys, who will be moving into their new (super) stadium in Arlington next season? Speaking of Arlington, what about a little baseball with the Texas Rangers, or their double A farm team, the Frisco Roughriders. If you’re on the other side of Interstate 35, the Fort Worth Cats can fill your need for the stick and ball sport. Other teams in the Dallas area include the Dallas Harlequins of the USA Rugby Super League, as well as the Dallas Diamonds, the two-time national champions of the Women's Professional Football League, and the Dallas Revolution, an Independent Women's Football League team.

I’m getting long winded, as I knew I would, so I am going to cut it off there. Needless to say, if you have a need for recreation, trendy local events, religious facilities, medical attention, or higher education, you can find a variety of those in Dallas as well. I guess that is kind of the point I’m trying to get to…variety. Dallas is so diverse and large that you don’t have to go the same place or do the same thing if you don’t want to. There is always something new you can try, something strange you haven’t done, or some group of people you haven’t experienced. Sure, I don’t take advantage of all the great opportunities I have living in Dallas unless I have relatives coming to town, but knowing that I have them and, not to be smug, they don’t, is nice. Big Tuck makes my point clearly in his song “Welcome to Dallas” when he says, “Never been to Dallas, then you ain't never been to Texas.”

Catholic Answer Series: What to do with your hands?

As I was standing in church this morning for the saying of the Our Father, I felt the same uneasiness I have been feeling for years now. It is the uneasiness of being one of the few people who still folds their hands during this prayer while the rest of the congregation has their hands raised in praise or is holding hands with the person next to them. I have always folded my hands during this prayer, except for the few occasions while working with the youth when I would hold hands in a prayer circle as a sign of unity with them. Today I felt especially out of place due to the fact that I was crowded in with people on either side of me, both of them holding their arms up in praise during one of the most solemn and important prayers of the Mass. It sparked my interest to find more information about what the “right” or “wrong” thing to do during that prayer, seeing as I was taking a firm stand against the “praise and worship” hands that everyone else seems to be sporting these days. I am not against standing in this way for the Lord’s Prayer, necessarily, but come on, we’re not Protestants.

Apparently this is a common liturgical question since I am not the only one with an opinion on the subject. Actually, there is no norm as to what posture the laity should adopt during the Lord’s Prayer at Mass. The “General Instruction of the Roman Missal” (the official instruction manual for the Mass, which I carry with me to Mass every Sunday) is silent on this particular issue. As such, besides the commonly accepted praying gesture of folding hands (which should be literally interpreted as the right way), there may be some legitimate room for variety…but only insofar as the practice does not contradict local regulations or disrupt the prayerfulness of the Mass.

The posture of outstretched arms is called the “orans” position, and was a common sign of praise and adoration in the early church. During the development of the Roman Catholic liturgy, this posture became closely associated with the intercessory role of the priest on behalf of the people. The recent appearance of uplifted hands among the congregation probably originated in charismatic communities, but has since gained wider use. If it is done, individuals should be careful not to obscure the unique role of the ordained presider. It may be helpful to consider that even in concelebrated Masses; only the principal celebrant (not all the priests) maintains the “orans” posture while “Deliver us, Lord, from every evil…” is prayed.

The practice of holding hands is also very widespread. It is a devotional practice that can be very beautiful, and many families do so as part of their domestic piety during prayer. It might make sense if couples, families, or close-knit groups wish to hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer at Mass; but those who do this must guard against three things. First, this posture should not be mandated or broadly encouraged for the entire congregation. Holding hands can be harmless if conducted with dignity and if nobody is pressured into it. Those who hold hands must recognize and respect that many are uncomfortable with such an intimate posture, which often requires a strong sense of personal familiarity. Second, this practice should never detract from filial adoration of God, which is a focal point of the Our Father and of the entire Mass. The end of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is devoted to the Lord’s Prayer, and No. 2781 says this: “When we pray to the Father, we are in communion with him and with his Son, Jesus Christ. Then we know and recognize him with an ever new sense of wonder. Therefore, the liturgical recitation of the Our Father must not be self-centered, or otherwise distract from what should be a humble disposition before the Father’s transcendence. It is not primarily about us, but about God. Third, it would be misguided to hold hands during the Our Father if it is meant to promote a sense of unity or community that is allegedly lacking in the liturgy. Not only can this easily become superficial or devolve into a worldly understanding of solidarity, but the principle source of unity should always be the liturgy itself…especially the Eucharist and the reception of Holy Communion. We are preparing to enter into real communion with God while asking him to “keep us free from sin,” so that we may more perfectly live our adoption as his sons and daughters in the bond that is the body of Christ. Our goal is elevation into the community of saints.

So, although many practices are not explicitly forbidden, any extra actions or postures during the Lord’s Prayer must ultimately be evaluated according to whether they keep intact the integrity and reverence that are so fundamental to the Mass. In other words, there is no definite “right” or “wrong” way to participate in the communal recitation of the Our Father, except to say that it should be done with God in your heart.

I'm a Right-Wing Extremist

It seems that I have made the Department of Homeland Security’s watch list. Department of Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano has turned her attention away from acts of Islamic jihad on American soil (which she now refers to as "man-caused disasters"). Instead, her department is sounding the alarm over an unquantified "resurgence" in "right-wing extremism activity." On April 7, DHS sent a nine-page warning memo to law enforcement offices across the country titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." Yes, me being part of an active conservative group that opposes abortion, favors strict immigration enforcement, lobbies to protect Second Amendment rights, protests big government, advocates federalism or represents veterans who believe in any of the above qualifies me as being a “right-wing extremist.” The report of April 7, includes a sweeping definition of the threat: "Right-wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." You cannot ignore the context or the timing of this DHS report. It's no small coincidence that Napolitano's agency disseminated the assessment just a week before the nationwide April 15 Tax Day Tea Party protests. The grassroots events organized by fiscal conservatives, independents, Libertarians and, yes, even some Blue Dog Democrats were fueled by the "current economic and political climate" of bipartisan profligate spending and endless taxpayer-funded bailouts. The growing success of the loose-knit movement has invited scorn, ridicule and fear-mongering from Obama's supporters. Liberal bloggers have likened the Tea Party movement to neo-Nazis, militias and even Weather Underground terrorists. The Obama DHS report is an overarching indictment of conservatives. "Right-wing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures," the assessment warns. When asked, DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban could not explain who was responsible for this "extremist chatter," she could not and would not name names. The only “extreme” I see here is the use of fear-based and buzz catching words in this report to disguise what the true issue at hand is. If you can redefine dissenting opinion as "hate," you can brand your political opponents as "extremists" and you can marginalize electoral threats. “Antigovernment”…“Pro-enforcement”…“Disgruntled"? Feeling taxed enough already and "recruiting" and "radicalizing" your friends and neighbors through "chatter on the Internet"? We are all right-wing extremists now. Welcome to the club.

I had no idea how important this week's nationwide anti-tax tea parties were until hearing liberals denounce them with such ferocity. Probably upset that they hadn’t come up with a clever idea like that to protest something they battered former President Bush over. Media coverage has been mixed on the subject, with right-leaning news agencies and bloggers praising them and supporting the idea (ahem) while their left-leaning counterparts accuse the protesters of being “crazy people” and childishly joke that these are “tea bagging” parties (referring to a dubious homosexual sexual practice). But, they both seem to be missing the point behind these tea parties and protests. The point of the tea parties is to note the fact that the Democrats' modus operandi is to lead voters to believe they are no more likely to raise taxes than Republicans, get elected and immediately raise taxes. Apparently, the people who actually pay taxes consider this a bad idea.

The problem with Democratic tax policy is that they almost always raise taxes on those who are most productive in society. All Democrats for the last 30 years have tried to stimulate the economy by giving "tax cuts" to people who don't pay taxes. Evidently, offering to expand welfare payments isn't a big vote-getter. Yes, I’m getting back on the topic of the Obama stimulus plan. I’m a Republican and for all of Bush’s shortcomings, I considered him a fine president compared to some alternatives. And even Bush had a stimulus plan where they mailed checks out to everyone. Of course, that didn’t stimulate anything, and we’ve sunk deeper into the hole we’re in now. Now we’re faced with President Obama’s stimulus package, which is the mother of all pork bills with earmarks for anyone and everyone who showed up for session that day. And all that government spending on the Democrats' constituents will be paid for by raising taxes on the productive. This forces and even coerces the productive to will work less, adopt tax shelters, barter instead of sell, turn to an underground economy…and the government will get less money. California tried this Obama style soak-the-productive-in-tax "stimulus" plan years ago and was hailed as the perfect exemplar of Democratic governance. In just a few years, Democrats had turned California into a state, or as it's now known, a "job-free zone", with a $41 billion deficit, a credit rating that was slashed to junk-bond status and a middle class now located in Arizona. Democrats governed California the way Democrats always govern. They bought the votes of government workers with taxpayer-funded jobs, salaries and benefits and then turned around and accused the productive class of "greed" for wanting not to have their taxes raised through the roof. Now, the only way out for California is to tax anything and everything, including Botox and steroids. California was, in fact, a laboratory of Democratic policies. The rabbit died, so now Obama is trying it on a national level.

The perfect bar bet with a liberal would be to wager that massive government deficits in the '80s were not caused by Reagan's tax cuts. If you casually mentioned that you thought Reagan's tax cuts brought in more revenue to the government…which they did…you could get odds in Hollywood and Manhattan.

(Information care-of Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter)