In case you haven't read it already, Envoy has been doing mucho gusto blogging on what the definition of a "Catholic Traditionalist" should be. I pretty much fashion myself as a traditionalist (as defined by Peter Vere) to the extent that I accept the legitimacy of the oft controversial Novus Ordo Mass, but am quite critical of how so many bishops allow parishes to take license with how it is performed (e.g., congregants holding hands during the "Our Father" prayer, receiving communion in the hand, singing hymns to folksy guitar music, etc.) Anyway, the discussion is fascinating, and quite informative.

Looks to me like U.S. Senator Patty Murray is itchin' to be Osama bin Laden's campaign manager. What are the odds that most of the media are going to overlook this story or rationalize it away? Trent Lott has gotta be wishing he was a Democrat right now.

Update: The above article now includes a response from Sen. Murray. She basically asserts that the publication of her comments is sensationalist and, thus, unnecessarily divisive. In other words, liberal unpatriotic -- that's right, UNPATRIOTIC --Democrats should be able to publicly utter as much stupidity as they want without examination or critique.

So let me get this straight Governor Davis. It's much more important to give children material objects than a right to life. Sounds perfectly idiotic to me.

Uh, excuse me Slick, but didn't you confer a Presidential Medal of Freedom Award to a known segregationist by the name of J.William Fulbright?

Even after assimmilation and a couple of generations, most American Catholic Hispanics adhere to the Church's teachings on abortion and homosexuality.

Regarding religion, 70 percent of the Hispanics interviewed identified themselves as Catholics. Of these, 79 percent said abortion is unacceptable compared to 53 percent for white Catholics. Homosexual intercourse was judged unacceptable by 71 percent of the Hispanic Catholics and 50 percent of the non-Hispanic white Catholics.

Can a pro-life Catholic be a federal judge? Of course, unless the question is being posed to Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, or Jack Chick.

I was reading some of the comments people have made on Amy Welborn's blog (link on the side of this page) in regard to a story on how Ford is planning to run an ad campaign that targets people who only like having same sex sexual intercourse and believe that the only purpose for sexual intercourse is self gratification. What amazes me about many of the comments that are made is the presupposition that homosexuality is equivalent to race and ethnicity. This is hardly the case from either a biological or legal standpoint. Insofar as the latter is concerned, which in large part is based upon the former, if people with homosexual affictions ought to be accorded the same status as blacks, asians, caucasions, jews, whatever; we may as well accord similar legal status to necrophiliacs, pedophiles, polygamists, and people who just "love" their dogs and gerbils!

I've been hearing reports on the news that Senator Lott has changed his position on racial issues like affirmative action (i.e., racial quotas). If this is true, then it's obvious to me that the man has no principles and should not be leading the Republican Party in the Senate. On a related note, anyone else find it oxymoronic that Lott was on an all black television station to deny he supports racial segregation?

You know, I'm baffled. If Trent Lott is so evil because he **allegedly** supports segregation, then why do so many American blacks and their patron white saints on the Left get away with demanding and supporting things like exclusively black schools, black studies programs, black dorms, black clubs, and black television stations?